Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
AGRI European Parliament
Follow its sittings
Speaker 3
That reduction in imports is consistent with information available concerning a smaller harvest. The European Commission is investigating the inconsistencies in import data declared by some member states through the customs surveillance system, and is in regular contact with the relevant customs authorities to resolve the issue. Also to be noted that DG Taksut has opened some infringements in '25 with respect to various member states that are not sharing a complete dataset with the commission, contrarily to what is required in accordance with the union customs code and its related secondary legislation. To be noted that these procedures are related to the overall reporting of data by those member states and not specifically to the Western Sahara issue. We can assure you that we are doing everything we can to resolve this technical issue, which is actually a reporting issue, so as to ensure that fully transparent data is made publicly available in our surveillance system and on the AGRI information portal. As I said, this issue is not impacting the official statistics of Eurostat.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you, sir. And now I would like to give the floor to madam Brigitte Missone again for 4 minutes, please, madam.
Speaker 5
Thank you, chair. Good morning, honorable members of parliament. I will just dig a bit more into the agricultural parts, but a lot has been said already, so I'll try to be brief. So, as you know, under the 2012 EU-Morocco agreement on reciprocal liberalization measures on agricultural products, processed agricultural products, and fish and fishery products, both Morocco and the EU benefit from preferential market access. As regards agri food trade, the agreement has been beneficial for EU exports to Morocco.
Speaker 4
Since 2022, the EU has enjoyed a modest trade surplus in agricultural products, mostly due to wheat exports. Both Moroccan fruits and vegetables are imported into the EU under preferential treatment. Only a limited number of products, mostly tomatoes, garlic, cucumbers, courgettes, clementines and strawberries benefit from preferential tariff quotas. Beyond quotas, tariffs apply either at reduced level, which is the case for tomatoes with a 60% reduction, or at ordinary tariffs applying to all third countries. The commission is, of course, regularly monitoring the market situation.
Turning now to specifically the Western Sahara. The 2018 agreement, now replaced by the new 2025 agreement, extended tariff preferences to products originating in Western Sahara, including agricultural products. The new agreement, and this is important, covers the same scope. All goods originating in Western Sahara that are under the control of the American customs authorities benefit from tariff preferences applied under the EU-Morocco association agreement. The 2025 agreement does not contain any new trade concession, neither for products originating in Western Sahara nor for those originating in Morocco.
The important novelty concerns the indication of the origin on fruit and vegetables, to meet the conditions set by the court in its ruling of 10/04/2024. The court ruling referred to the need for clear identification of products originating in Western Sahara, which should be distinct from those of Moroccan origin. The new agreement contains the necessary elements to identify the origin of Western Sahara products in the proof of origin and for fruit and vegetables marketed in the EU on the labels. The names of the regions of Western Sahara to be used by operators are, as you know, Dakhla Oued Dahab and Laayoune Sakia El Hamra. The agreement provides for a clear distinction between agricultural products originating in Morocco that will continue to bear Morocco as a country of origin, and agricultural products originating in Western Sahara that will bear the name of the region within Western Sahara where they originate from.
This is a considerable improvement in terms of information to consumers that will receive verifiable information. This aspect of.
Veronika Vrecionová
I'm sorry. I have to interrupt you. Please slow down a little bit because the interpreters ask. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Sorry. And my apologies to the interpreters. This aspect of the agreement required adopting new rules for the specific case of fruit and vegetables originating in Western Sahara regions. For this purpose, the commission adopted a delegated regulation on October 16 with after your scrutiny and that of the council, was published on the twenty-second December 2025 and entered into force the day after with retroactive application from October 4. The new agreement also allows the possibility for the EU to authorize Moroccan authorities to issue conformity checks and certificates for fruits and vegetables originating in Western Sahara, attesting that the product complies with EU marketing standards, including rules on the indication of the origin on the label.
Following a formal request from Morocco, the commission is currently examining the possibility of authorizing Moroccan authorities to issue those conformity certificates. Let me conclude by saying that trade relations are an important part of the strategic partnership with Morocco to which the EU attaches high value. Many thanks.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you, madam. And let's start with the coordinators now. You have two minutes each. And first, EPP, Carmen Crespo Díaz. You have two minutes.
Thank.
Speaker 6
Thank you very much, and thank you so much to the commission for that information. Although, you know, in this committee, when it comes to this agreement, you know, it's been very opaque from the get-go, and there's not been much transparency, but still, the first speaker from the commission said something very clearly, namely that you're going to be exchanging fish for tomatoes. And, of course, that has an important impact. You know, we need to have an agreement that is beneficial for our fishers and, of course, also for our farmers. We need both.
Speaker 7
And therefore, you know, I think the data speaks for themselves. 18% you talked about in terms of tomatoes, and you talked about a domino effect with regard to other farm produce, and that's quite astonishing. I mean, in Spain, for instance, tomatoes dropped 25%. And in addition to that, we've seen an increase for Morocco by 42% vis-à-vis the EU. We're talking about a 42% increase if you look at the figures in one year only.
Speaker 9
So yes, clearly, there is more pressure being brought to bear. And logically, that does have a domino effect on other farm produce. As for European farmers, what about them? They've got checks. Are we checking what's coming in?
Speaker 6
Are we looking at the customs tariffs, the 80,000 tonnes or whatever that's coming in? We have the data on that, but in particular, we also need to be very clear about the labeling and the identification. We need the regions, not the countries. Now the Treaty of the European Union talks about the identification of countries. That has to be in the label, and it's not so much in the regions.
Speaker 7
And again, I'm bearing in mind the CJEU ruling. So there's also the question of funding by the European Union when it comes to investments, investments into this area, into this zone, which means that we don't really have much to, you know, in terms of helping out the South of Europe. What about supporting our farmers? Surely, we need to support our farmers in order to rebalance things, for instance, in terms of water. The region needs our support.
So I'm afraid it's not very transparent. It's not very balanced. And therefore, as things stand, we would not be in agreement with this text. You know, in terms of our market, in terms of farm produce, in terms of controls and checks, there are real difficulties for our own farmers, difficulties that are generated by this agreement. So I think that we need to look towards the future, and we need to work this afternoon with the commissioner on this point.
Speaker 6
We really need to dig deep into this, and we need to have an agreement that's better than this for the sake of our farmers. Thank you.
Speaker 10
This free trade agreement represents an emblematic case in terms of how we should assess the European Union's trade policy, not just in terms of volumes traded, but also in terms of the social impact, as well as the regional environmental impact when it comes to our international relations. The shift in Morocco towards trade liberalization began with the association agreement with the EU in the year 2000. And there have been some macroeconomic results of this. The amount of trade in the country's GDP has increased in some sectors. However, if we look in greater depth, we can see a different picture.
Speaker 12
Next to large exporting groups, fully integrated into global value chains, the main part of the Moroccan agricultural sector is made up of small scale farming, and they represent most of the labor force in rural areas. And they haven't really benefited in the same way as others from trade liberalization. This imbalance is not just about Morocco. It's also about our side as well because our trading agreements have to be assessed in terms of their economic advantages, but also in terms of their ability to promote a balanced development and fair conditions for competition. How does the commission then intend to more effectively monitor the impact on the parts of the European agricultural system, which are most exposed to the results of this agreement, but also in terms of what's going on in agriculture in Morocco?
Speaker 11
There are serious imbalances there as well. It's important that we have agreements which are not just focused on opening up markets, but also focused on sustainable development, which will help people on both sides and also protect productive systems in the European Union and its member states. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. Thank you very much. And, patriots, madam Boris Pabon, here you have the floor.
Speaker 19
Thank you very much, madam chair. So first of all, I would note that what's happening more and more is that we have to really drag the commission in order to get information on this agreement with Morocco. The commission and council seem to be deciding on the provisional application of these trade agreements between the EU and other partners, and they don't even inform the Parliament. Here, we're talking about Morocco, but look at what happened with Mercosur. You know, at the end of the day, an agreement here, an agreement there, more or less.
Speaker 14
Either way, this parliament is being usurped, if you like. You know, we have our own powers when it comes to fiscal matters, when it comes to trade agreements, all of that you're riding roughshod over and you're trying to circumvent us. We're talking about, you know, six months now, I think, I think now since the request for provisional application of this agreement with Morocco by the commission. Six months have gone by. And basically, during that time, there was no democratic input.
And we've also seen the influx of agricultural produce, and the European Parliament didn't have a word to say about it. You're talking about, you know, really big volumes, thousands of kilograms of agricultural produce. We don't know the exact amount, because nobody's telling us. So basically, a blackout in terms of democracy, I'm afraid, during that whole period. And also, information blackout.
In addition to that, it's impossible for us to know exactly the volume of tomatoes arriving on our markets. Also, when it comes to Almeria, for instance, in Spain, tomato production has gone down by 30%, more than 30%, but imports from Morocco have continued to increase consistently. So we're talking about an association agreement with Morocco. You know, I would turn to the commission and say, be careful. You're negotiating an agreement with Morocco in record time in order to basically, I think, disregard a ruling by the CJEU.
Speaker 13
Look at the text of the ruling. You know, we listen to the commission representative. It's supposed to say Western Sahara. It's not supposed to mention a region within the Sahara area. It's supposed to say Western Sahara.
Speaker 21
That is what the CJE ruling says, quite clearly. So, you know, we need to be careful about labeling. We need to make sure that this agreement really falls in line with our legal framework and our legal requirements. So, also, we need to look towards counsel. We need to make sure that the European Parliament has an opportunity to speak to the content of this agreement.
Speaker 13
So information, statistics, etc. We need all of this information. Now let me put four questions very quickly, and I will conclude after that. I want to make sure that responsibilities are not avoided, so to speak, or circumvented. First of all, it's a question of timing.
Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you. So Isir is not there. In this case, I ask Ozica Tainer, please.
Speaker 16
Okay. Thank you, chair. The situation with EU Morocco association agreement remains very complex and controversial. As we all know, there have been significant legal and political challenges on the regional dispute over the self-governing territory of Western Sahara. The objection from last autumn proves that it is difficult to find a solution to these territory disputes, which would be in favor of all people involved, producers, consumers, governments, and people of Western Sahara region.
Speaker 18
What I wanted to inquire about the state of play of this agreement is how we will solve this dispute, find a solution that suits all the people and few them, make sure these kinds of disputes won't raise up again in the future. Another important aspect to highlight when it comes to agreements is that regardless of the situation we are in right now, we need to make sure that the standards are equal to all. We cannot accept double standards that could undermine our local production in Europe. This is something we need to keep in mind when it comes to association agreement and the trade agreements overall, how we ensure the level playing field for European farmers. Thank you.
Thomas Waitz
Thank you, chair. Many things have been said, and it's a rare moment of relative unity here in the agri committee beyond the political forces. I mean, I have some very concrete questions for the commission. Did you read the court verdict from 2019 of the European Court of Justice? Are you intending to take it any how serious?
Can you please explain to us how you were fulfilling the conditions that Sarai people are generally involved in the negotiation process? Has that happened? And can you tell us how Sarawi people will profit economically from this trade agreement? And, have you actually, are you ready to accept that naming regions is not fulfilling either EU legislation nor the court verdict? And with what, I don't know, legal backing are you actually daring to come forward with once again a trade agreement that is against international law and that is against a court verdict of the European Court of Justice?
We have been telling, and I've been here sitting in this committee. We've been telling you in the first round that this trade agreement is not fulfilling international law standards, and you were ignoring it. And then the court ruling was proving it again. And, again, you seem to ignore it. I mean, look.
If we treat our rule of law internally, the European Union like that, look. I'm very engaged in enlargement. How can I tell Balkan countries to follow the rule of law if we ignore court verdicts of the court of justice and if we ignore international law? Really, seriously. I mean, this is undermining our credibility, and this is undermining our legal, you know, the legal certainty that also businesses expect from us.
I'm, I don't know what else to say. I mean, I have this debate now since how many years. I don't know, but I don't think we can move forward like this. Please give some concrete answers to my concrete questions.
Lynn Boylan
Thank you, chair. And I think it's important to note that, you know, when you hear such consensus in the committee, which I'm sure doesn't happen very often in the agricultural committee, it's also worth noting that only 188 MEPs voted in favor of this proposal when it came to plenary, and that's because people aren't believing what the commission is trying to sell us, that this actually complies with the court ruling. And I am going to be very specific in setting out how it doesn't comply because the court ruling clearly said that the territory of Western Sahara must be regarded as a customs territory for the purposes of article 60 of the union customs code and consequently of regulation number 1308 2013 and implementing regulation number 543 2011. Accordingly, the indication of the country of origin, which must appear on the goods at issue in the main proceedings, may designate only Western Sahara as such, because those goods are harvested in that territory. That is pretty unequivocal, I think, how the commission can deny that how equivocal it is.
Paragraph 88 of the ruling also is unequivocal. It says any other indication would be deceptive for the purposes of the case law referred to in paragraph 73 of the present judgment, as it could mislead consumers as to the true origin of the goods at issue in the main proceedings, in as much as it would be likely to suggest that those goods originate from a place other than the territory in which they were harvested. So I don't think the court could be any clearer, and it is very frustrating, that we have yet to get any proper answers from the commission in relation to this because not only is it not upholding international law and damaging the credibility of the institutions, but it is also deliberately misleading customers because no consumer could be expected to know what these regions stand for, where these products have come from. So I'd like to ask the commission colleagues to outline the legal advice that was tendered to them before adopting this delegated act. There are now two new court cases that have been launched again, calling into question the credibility of the institutions.
So I think that the commission must recognize.
Lynn Boylan
Sorry. So I think I'm trying to get into the time, but I think the commission must recognize the legal situation. So we would like to see their legal advice that is telling them that what they're trying to do is in compliance with the court ruling.
Mhmm.
Speaker 23
Will speak Czech. I think we have to focus on the general aspect of the matter. It is the repetitive issue in agreements with countries that are mostly agricultural, and there is a chance to export industrial products. Some of these countries are agricultural powers, superpowers. So who benefits and who is the victim of such agreements?
Speaker 24
It is certainly not beneficial for farmers and agriculture. There should be standard instruments for regulation, customs duties, or amounts or quantities that can be imported, quality controls. But this is not happening, of course. So the winners are retail chains. Of course, for them, it's profitable to import at low prices all year along at the same quality, and it is good for some industrial producers.
Speaker 25
And what is the problem, in general? The commission expresses their satisfaction over an agreement that was done, but the commission pretends that it is not responsible for the situation. The commission that is officials, administrators who should compare the real reality against the desirable outcome, but that has not happened because of the desirable outcome that was included in the judgment. This arrangement will always disadvantage weaker producers. So we are dogs that are barking, but the caravan continues on, goes on because officials are not responsible.
Veronika Vrecionová
Now I would like to give the floor to the interstanding reporter for two minutes. It's again, Madam Lynn Boland. So I don't know if you want to take the floor again.
Lynn Boylan
Thank you. I will take the floor. I'll take the opportunity because I have lots of questions, and I'll speak slowly. And I thank the Agri Committee for the invitation to participate as the standing rapporteur for the Maghreb region. I do note that the Confederacy on Paysan have expressed concern that imports of tomatoes from Morocco and Western Sahara have disappeared from the official statistics of the European Commission.
And we know, as other colleagues have said, that European tomato farmers have been facing unfair competition and the lack of available data since the very dubious labeling regime was adopted is highly concerning. So my question for the commission is, can they outline when information regarding imports will be published again? And secondly, I want to ask about progress on the referral of this agreement to the parliament for our consent. So while the Inter Committee will be the lead committee, it will, of course, be of interest to Agri colleagues to be able to scrutinize the amendments proposed to the agreement. The amended agreement has been in provisional application since October, and yet we still have not had a referral six months later.
So this is completely unacceptable. Can the commission explain what the delay is, and what they are doing to ensure that we can do our jobs that we were elected for, to scrutinize this agreement? And I'll also just finish, I suppose, on a political point. The amended agreement comes from a court ruling where the court clearly found that the agreement the commission negotiated was unlawful. The commission then proposed an amended agreement mere days before the court's stay was due to expire, and the European Parliament was not kept informed throughout this process.
And now we have the commission essentially telling us to trust them, it will be fine. And so I would respectfully suggest that the commission's poor record on this issue doesn't inspire confidence, and I thank the AGRI colleagues for this exchange today and for facilitating this discussion on a very important topic, which I'm sure we will return to.
Veronika Vrecionová
K. Thank you. Madam Ahmed, now it's KGZ. I and their colleagues, you have one minute each. So first, colleague, Matto.
Gabriel Mato
Thank you very much, madam. Nobody doubts that trading relations between the European Union and Monaco are important. But what's also important are the effects that this might have on the EU farming sector. The commission was saying that this is not a farming agreement. No.
It isn't, but it has an amazing, significant impact on the sector. In recent years, our fruit and veg farmers have expressed their concerns on many occasions to do with difficult competition situations, to do with environmental and plant health rules. And then if you add the need for controls, checks on imports for Morocco, and so on, things become difficult. The tomato production, and this is something that's well known in the Canary Islands, it's clear that this agreement is going to increase the pressure on the sector. And then there's an additional concern to do with traceability, labeling, and the availability of transparent data on imports.
Speaker 30
So I'd like to ask the commission what specific measures it intends to take in order to make sure that there is as much reciprocity as possible and that there are fair competition conditions for our farmers. Well, thank you very much. We know the adverse effects of importing tomatoes and fruit and vegetables from Morocco on our farming sector. What I would say, as others have said, is there are two main concerns with this agreement. First of all, there was no consultation with producers when it was put through.
Gilles Pennelle
And then in recital 13, it said that once the agreement is signed, the EU will finance the desalination in the area concerned. So we are financing increases in exports of tomatoes and fruit and vegetables towards the European Union, which will undermine sectors in our countries. A few months ago, the European Union gave about €15,000,000 to South Africa again, to support the agricultural sector. So what we're seeing is the European Union financing the disappearance of our own sectors, which were of a very high quality. Thank you very much.
Maria Grapini
I have to say that after what we've heard from the European Commission, I'm somewhat confused. On the one hand, we are being told that we don't have the exact figures concerning imports. That means we don't know what's coming into the internal market. I don't understand how this could be. DG Taxud is telling us that the commission is monitoring imports in order to make sure that all of the certificates of origin are present.
But then from DG Agri, we're hearing that the commission has authorized Morocco to establish that that's a certificate itself. So what kind of monitoring is actually taking place? Are we supposed to trust these certificates? It just seems to me that there is no guarantee that these products respect the conditions set out in our trade agreements. I'm not sure we can predict the market by closing it, but we need to remember the importance of reciprocity in these agreements in order to make sure that everybody is working on the same lines.
Jérémy Decerle
Thank you very much, madam. I would echo the comments made by a number of the members here today to do with this agreement. Now we'd particularly like to come back to the effect that this will have on our tomato producers in the European Union. Since I've been a member of the parliament, producers of tomatoes have been raising the alarm about this. What they're saying is that the standards they have to respect are not the same as those which Moroccan producers have to respect, that it should not be the, they should be the same.
And the commission tells us that the volumes imported into the European Union are relatively small, and won't really have an adverse effect on the sector. But over the five years that we've been talking about this, the volumes of imports have been going up, and the effect on our tomato-producing sector is quite clear. We're producing fewer tomatoes. We have fewer producers as well, and we're being flooded with Moroccan tomatoes produced in conditions which are more favorable to the Moroccan producers. So the commission needs to do something.
Daniel Buda
We need to be able to compare exports and imports properly. We need to have the tools in order to make sure we can have proper reciprocity. Thank you. I would ask the commission to reply to two questions. First of all, the legislative aspects.
If we respect the sentence, hand it down as Mister Weiss was saying. I think the important thing here is that we don't have proper data on the quantities coming in. So how are we going to verify what's going on in the market if we don't have that data? And then the certificates, which accompany the product. So these are issued by the exporting regions.
But I'd like to know who carries out the checks on the spot, the European Commission. Does the commission have mechanisms to check that the production conditions are respected on the spot, or do they just base themselves on the certificates issued? And in terms of the quantities, if we don't have the proper data, we can't tell what's going on in the Well, I admit that what we are faced with is the umpteen systematic attempt to distort the commission, the court of justice's ruling, and also the parliament's position. I mean, Mike had mentioned Mercosur, for example. The commission seems to be able to do whatever it wants, but the ruling handed down is unequivocal.
Cristina Guarda
Western Sahara is a different area, and the products have to be labeled as such. The amendment, which was adopted provisionally, excluding the parliament's role, allows for regional denominations, which will deceive consumers. This is going to be problematic because it will lead to unfair competition with EU farmers. The essentially, what we're seeing is something which will undermine the European Union's credibility when it comes to international law. So I'm wondering what kind of EU values we are putting forward when even when we have a ruling which says that we are breaking international law, we're not doing anything about it.
We're essentially continuing our own colonization of the Southern Hemisphere. We need to stop doing this.
Veronika Vrecionová
And now I would like to ask again, mister Matias Pechka, and you have four minutes for your answers and remarks.
Speaker 3
Thank you, chair. There were a lot of questions. Let me start maybe with a question which came up several times on the missing data. The official trade data of the EU is provided by Eurostat, and this data is what can be considered the official state of trade interactions with partner countries. The custom surveillance system and data I was also referring to represents a real time data source that can be
Veronika Vrecionová
I'm sorry. I have interrupted you because we don't have French interpretation, please, if I can ask.
Continue, Français.
if Can
You hear now? Yes.
Speaker 3
Okay. So, referring to the custom surveillance data, this is real-time data which is provided for monitoring purposes by the member states. So first of all, to the question, there is no monitoring. There is nothing really in terms of controls and verification. Well, this data obviously is an important source, enabling us to monitor, but obviously, we need to check its completeness.
And that is, as we see here, a potential issue. We have identified some discrepancies between the official data source, Eurostat, and the data of the Commission surveillance system. And, well, these inconsistencies, first of all, were identified in the data sent by certain member states, and there is currently a discussion taking place with the concerned member states in order to provide clarification. We are also providing support and assistance to these member states regarding data quality concerns. Member states may need some time for catching up and sending data not previously shared with the commission, notably if some updates of their customs digital system are needed.
I have mentioned beforehand in my introduction the actual trade figures. The colleague from AGRI may have further information on this. And you see that, especially if you compare last year with the year before, there is actually a reduction in quantity, even if there is a slight increase in value. Now with regard to the procedure, currently still pending at the level of the customs union group in the council. So this is, as I said, not in the remit of the commission, and you will have to hear from the council.
And I take it that the council is currently also busy with a number of other things, maybe not least the work on the customs reform. But, it's not for me to comment here. As regards the commission role, we are well aware of our obligation to inform the parliament as early as possible when we intend to propose legislation for provisional application and to inform the parliament of the reasons, therefore. And during the first months of the year '25, there were several options that the commission was analyzing. So we were still internally looking into the best way on how to renegotiate with the Moroccan.
And among these options, we were also looking at an agreement option or instead to grant autonomous trade measures. The technical implication of these different options was discussed until summer, and then a political steer came only in mid July, and the file evolved very quickly. It should be noted that this was indeed an accelerated process, which led to a successful negotiation and finalization, first of all, of the internal analysis of the implications of the ruling. And, obviously, all this word work was not done only by the negotiators, but it was done in concrete cooperation also with the legal services and their full involvement in the file with regard to the interpretation of the rulings. Each decision adopted by the commission and the council from mid July to October 2 was immediately transmitted to the European Parliament for the information of the members.
And as I said, the process was admittedly accelerated. However, the parliament was reminded on September 23 of the need for an accelerated timetable and for provisional application to be in place before the 4 October 25. All legal and procedural requirements were fulfilled by that timeline in accordance with the interinstitutional agreement between the Commission, the Parliament, and the Council. I can also tell you that in the last four months, this is now the third time that I'm present in any meeting here in the parliament providing answers, listening to the input from the members, and, obviously, making sure that this is duly reflected in our internal considerations. We are currently, as we speak, having a team on the place looking into the reality on the ground.
Colleagues from AGRI and from my service, accompanied also by others, are there in order to make sure that we will be able to continue our reporting. We have established in the past a tradition of very concrete reporting, and our aim is to continue this reporting in order to be able to show that there are concrete benefits resulting from this agreement in line with the court ruling. Thank you.
Thomas Waitz
Chair. The commission has been reading out a prepared statement that has not answered a single question on the ICJ court ruling and the fulfilling, and this question has been asked in different ways by every single member of this room. Can we please change the format to, you know, ping pong? Because, you know, this is just ridiculously disrespectful to this committee. I'm sorry.
Speaker 5
Many thanks, chair. And, indeed, I was coming to that point. You certainly remember I was also with you in November, and we discussed this delegated regulation on the origin of fruit and vegetables coming from the Western Sahara. The situation is the same as at that moment. So we have the court ruling.
And as I told you at that time, we, of course, fully respect court rulings, and we implement them. What is the difference between what you find in the words of the court ruling and what you find in the delegated regulation on origin labeling for fruit and vegetables? It's the fact that we mentioned the two regions, and not the word Western Sahara. Why do we do that? Because this delegated regulation had to be modified because, normally, it provides for country of origin labeling, which means that until the amendment, products from those two regions of Western Sahara were identified as Morocco.
We changed that, so it's no longer identified as Morocco, and that was the heart of the court ruling. So now it is identified with the names of the two regions. So that's the pragmatic and legal way we have found to implement the court ruling and also to have Morocco onboard to recognize also in their legislation because they had to change their legislation as well that this is a territory with particular status. So we have fulfilled our obligations there. As my colleague from DG Taxi had mentioned, we have right now, while we are talking, colleagues on the ground checking the situation, checking how the Moroccan authorities are able to check the conformity of fruit and vegetables produced in Western Sahara with EU marketing standards.
And it's only if that audit mission is successful that they will be authorized to issue those conformity certificates. So we have taken that very seriously, and we have taken all the steps that were necessary to make sure that we have a waterproof situation now. When it comes to EU farmers and the situation in the EU in the food and vegetable sector, let me point at the very important support that we have under the common agricultural policy via what we call sectoral programs where we have put and made available to EU farmers, EU producers of fruit and vegetables, the possibility to join forces and to market their products collectively so that they have a better weight in the supply chain and can achieve a better value for their products. With regard to mirror clauses, yes, we are working on that, and we are trying to find ways that are, of course, compatible with our international obligations to increase the possibility, the areas where we can require that what we import matches the high levels of standards in the EU. Many thanks.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. Thank you very much. So we are at the end of this point. I am, but I'm sure that we will continue because I am not sure that all my colleagues are satisfied with the answers from commissions. So let's negotiate it in the future.
Thank you very much. And now let's move, I'm sorry, here to point number five. POSE is an EU program intended to support agriculture in the outermost regions of France, Spain, and Portugal. POSAY also aims at guaranteeing the supply of essential agriculture products to these regions. This financial allocation over €650,000,000 per year, Pose is indeed a significant support for the agri sector in the outermost regions.
However, the court of auditors has assessed its actual impact and concluded that its implementation could be improved so that it better achieves its objectives. I therefore would like to well very welcome again madam Ivanova from the court. Madam Ivanova, I look forward to your presentation, followed by a discussion of this matter, and you have just now 10 minutes for your presentation. So the floor is yours, madam.
Speaker 36
Thank you very much. Good morning, dear madam chair. Thank you for the introduction. It is my pleasure to be here again, to present this time on behalf of my former colleague, Klaus Heineer Laney, this report because he was the reporting member, but his term ended last month. So I am presenting it on his behalf.
Speaker 35
And as you rightly pointed out, madam chair, Posey is a quite important program for our outermost regions where we aimed to provide an assessment in this audit of what can be improved in the way POSE is implemented so that its objectives can be met. And the socioeconomic impact for the EU outermost regions can be increased. We recognize three main objectives of POSE: to maintain the competitiveness of traditional sectors, to support livestock and crop diversification, and to guarantee the supply of essential agricultural products. Currently, the program provides maximum EU financing of €153,000,000 per year, with more than 60% of support directed to traditional sectors such as bananas, milk, and sugar, and 21% for livestock and crop diversification, while supply measures amount to 16% of the budget. Our overall conclusion is that POSE helps sustain agricultural activity in these regions.
However, results across sectors are mixed, and the program has not fully addressed all the specific needs and constraints of the outermost regions for long-term development. Here are some more details on the support for traditional sectors for which 412,000,000 of the budget is allocated, approximately around 63%. Our observations show that Posey support has helped maintain competitiveness in several important agricultural sectors. For example, for the banana sector in the French outermost territories of Guadeloupe and Martinique, Jose support compensates for higher production costs, which include labor costs and stricter environmental standards compared with third countries. Similarly, the milk sector in the Azores' production and exports have remained relatively stable over the past decade, keeping it viable on average.
However, these results are not consistent across all sectors. In the sugar sector, in the French outermost regions of La Réunion and Guadeloupe, production has declined despite stable support following the abolition of sugar quotas in 2017. In the traditional tomato sector in the Canary Islands, both production and exports have fallen significantly. This is partly due to increasing competition from other countries, and those examples illustrate an important point. Support often helps maintain activity, but it does not necessarily ensure long-term competitiveness.
As I said earlier, another objective of Posay is to promote livestock and crop diversification in order to reduce the dependence of these regions on a limited number of traditional sectors. For this purpose, around 1 fifth or 134 million of the budget is allocated to diversification measures. These measures have helped maintain some activities, but overall, progress has been modest. For instance, while more than half of the funding for crop diversification in the Azores supports crops to feed livestock, it also indirectly supports the traditional milk and meat sector. We also noted limited development of the fruit and vegetable sectors.
Another issue is the low penetration of producer organizations in these sectors. Sectors. They have the potential to help, obviously, coordinate production, improve market access, and stabilize prices. And our observations show that they are well structured in the banana sector, but still relatively limited in many diversification sectors. And overall, remains an important objective, but one that has not yet been fully achieved.
Our audit also identified several structural challenges affecting the effectiveness of the program. First, funding is heavily concentrated in traditional sectors and often towards a few big producers. And this limits the resources available, obviously, for diversification. Second, some support mechanisms may encourage maintaining existing production patterns rather than promote efficiency improvements or diversification. Third, the producers often have a weak position in the value chain.
Even when the bananas are sold at higher prices on the market, a large part of the margin is captured by intermediaries in the supply chain rather than by the farmers themselves. We also found differences between member states in the way they monitor whether support for imports of essential products actually benefits the final users. Now looking ahead, agriculture in the outermost regions faces several long-term challenges. From an environmental perspective, large areas are dedicated to permanent crops with limited crop rotation. This can create risks for soil health and long-term sustainability.
At the same time, these regions are increasingly exposed to climate-related risks, including more frequent extreme weather events such as droughts and storms. Current program places limited emphasis on climate adaptation, however. Just like Continental Europe, outermost regions are faced with demographic challenges, another big issue. In many regions, a large proportion of farmers are approaching retirement age, raising concerns about generational renewal. Finally, some sectors remain highly dependent on public support, which raises questions about their long-term economic sustainability.
We make three recommendations to the commission to improve the effectiveness of the program. First, a reassessment of the traditional sector's activities in order to maximize the impact and added value of the post support. This could strengthen the position of producers in the value chain and better promote and differentiate products from the outermost regions. Second, the commission and member states should strengthen crop and livestock diversification, including by improving producer organization and aligning support more closely with sustainable farming practices and climate adaptation. And last but not least, the commission should improve the member states' assessment of passing on the benefits of import support to end users by sharing best practices, in view of ensuring equal treatment across regions.
Overall, these recommendations aim to ensure that Pauce support is better targeted and more effective in supporting the long-term resilience of agriculture in the outermost regions. I would like to stop here, madam chair, and I'm looking forward to your comments and questions.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you. Thank you very much, Liliana. Thank you for your presentation. And now I would like to start with our coordinators. You have two minutes each.
First, EVP, Paulo da Machimoto Gabriel. Paulo.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you, chair. I would like to welcome the presentation of this assessment from the European Court of Auditors, and I'll start by the court's own fundamental observation. The post a program is a European Union finance instrument, and in my saying, we should maintain it as it is. As the court itself acknowledged in its previous evaluation, considering that in the last twelve years, POSE has remained basically the same, specific measures were effective and extremely important for agriculture. Any proper evaluation of the, I would say, take into account external factors that significantly affect the agricultural sectors of the outermost regions, in particular, the impact of EU trade agreements with third countries and also the impact of the ban of certain molecules.
In the sugarcane, this is quite an example, and even in the tomato sector in Canary. It must also be emphasized that Posse's capacity to respond adequately to this challenge has been severely constrained by financial limitations. As we know, this budget remained practically unchanged for nearly two decades despite rising production costs, inflation, and increasing regulatory requirements. We are asking the farmers to do more with less resources. Furthermore, it is crucial to recall that agriculture conditions in the outermost regions are fundamentally different.
The adafoclimatic conditions in these regions are unique and particularly challenging. When the court state is the long-term future of these sectors is threatened by environmental, climate change, and demographic challenges in the outermost regions, the logical conclusion must be that adequate and predictable financing is necessary for addressing these challenges. Additionally, in its last opinion on the CAP, the court warned Power that, please. Please.
slow down. In
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
In its last opinion on the CAP, the court warned that the integration opposing a single fund will undermine the completeness of CAP and add complexity at the level of its management because of the proliferation of implementing rules. Finally, I would like to address this recommendation from the European Court of Auditors regarding the need for having the guarantee that the support is reaching these final beneficiaries. And this is quite important to bet on better transparency in the formation of the price in the food supply chain. I would like, so I'd like also to highlight the important results of the milk producers of the Azores. Finally, in this context, we defend that the POSE program must remain strictly syncroscribed to regulation EU number 228/2013 as a distinct and with the budget ring fenced where that we voted here for €9,100,000,000 with respect of the article 349 of the treaty.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you so much. Thank you. And now, Andre Rodriguez, CSSAND. Two minutes, please.
André Franqueira Rodrigues
Thank you very much, chair. I would like to thank the court for order a clear presentation. Essentially, what we're doing looking at here is ensuring that agriculture can survive, especially in the outermost regions. But we're not looking here at sustainability, and the per se is essentially the main source of support, but with levels of financing that have remained unchanged since 2003. However, production costs have gone up a lot.
So, in real terms, the support has gone down. In many sectors, the production costs are higher than the price people get for their products. And essentially, then it's public support which makes the difference. And 70% of the support is concentrated in the traditional areas. So essentially, we are limiting diversification and the creation of additional value here.
And also the court says that the outermost regions are more exposed to extreme climate events. And the current funding setup does not take stock of this. And it does not take stock adequately of climate change adaptation. Then there were recommendations to the commission here on how we can best help out most regions, looking at proposals for agriculture and what to do with the posse. So what we need to make sure is that we make good budgetary and good political decisions here.
Reducing the support to outermost regions essentially undermines cohesion, and it undermines farmers who are ensuring our food sovereignty. So we need to look at these measures. If we cut farmers outside of Poseid, then essentially we are undermining the future of Europe. So without decent wages, you have no farmers. And without farmers, you don't have production, and you don't have cohesion either.
So does the court think that the cuts actually compromise the territorial cohesion, economic, and social objectives that we're setting ourselves? Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
I'm sorry. Okay. Thank you. And Mister Panella, Patriots, please.
Gilles Pennelle
Yes. Thank you very much, chair. Just because people are far away, they're often far from the eyes of Brussels. That's the way it seems. But there are certain characteristics of these outermost regions.
Now, of course, yes, they may be far away. Plenty of islands. But also, there's a very small size of the local markets, and there's additional production costs, of course. And then there's climate issues, which you have climate events, of course. But I'm thinking mainly about bananas.
There's also a lot of diseases that require specific treatment. France, of course, is very much affected by this file. In our overseas territories, there are big concerns. There are big concerns about POSE. Reducing POSE, which is already insufficient, would essentially be deadly for our territories and agriculture in those territories.
So therefore, of course, we want Poise not to disappear, not to be part of a bigger budget heading. That is a very strong demand, of course. I would like to say that above and beyond the postcards that we have of these outermost regions, saying that they're just the tourist hotspots. Most of the people living in these areas live from agriculture. I'm thinking about La Réunion, for instance.
In France, 50% of the inhabitants of the region or the island of La Réunion live directly or indirectly from agriculture. And they are suffering the ill effects of unfair competition, especially when it comes to banana and sugar for bananas with Costa Rica. Costa Rica essentially can carry out lots of treatments on their bananas when we can't in our regions because of the limitations placed on them by the European Union. And this is completely unfair competition. Never mind the salary gaps.
Now, of course, we need to help these territories. We need to give them a budget. And if you allow me to finish with this comment, in the restaurants of the European Parliament, we should not be serving Costa Rican bananas. We should be serving French bananas. Thank you.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the presentation. It is crucial to pay attention on how to best support agriculture in the EU or most regions. It is important to mention the specific difficulties and tricky obstacles if we want to improve the existing conditions and policy measures. However, in order to support the outermost regions, we should understand the underlying reasons behind these observations and present concrete solutions on how we could improve the situation. For instance, the report rightly acknowledges the demographic decline and the lack of young farmers to continue the agricultural work.
While recognizing the issues is important, the first step should be accompanied by a comprehensive analysis of the situation and practical proposals outlining how to reverse or mitigate this situation. With these practices in mind, we can make an actual difference to support agriculture in the EU, the most regions. The same conditions also apply to the fight against climate change and the increasing impact of extreme weather conditions. Beyond identifying these issues, we need a clear evidence-based strategy that can effectively support the people working in the agricultural sector in the outermost regions. How does ECA see concrete actions to take to support these regions better?
Thank you.
Speaker 41
Thank you very much, chair. I would very much like to thank the European Court of Auditors for the work it has done. It really does shine a very useful light on the current limitations of POSE. Your report clearly shows that in many of the Atomos regions, the program too often enables inequalities stemming from the colonial period to persist. It looks at providing support to traditional export branches, which are often owned by those that benefited from the colonial era.
Speaker 42
Banana and cane sugar, for instance, are two examples of this. What about the long-term economic viability? It does not provide them with enough support in terms of agricultural diversification. We can see climate resilience, generation renewal, access to aid for smaller holdings. It should become much more part and parcel of the structure in the future.
Speaker 41
We cannot further fragile or further imperil the future of this instrument. In the next MFF, POSE essentially will, in a sense, disappear, and it will be then put in larger national envelopes. For the autonomous regions, the political and budgetary visibility is essential. If you look at the TFE article 349 and what that says about vulnerability to climate change and also food dependency. My questions.
On the basis of your observations, do you think that the current proposals actually make things better? Or do you think that there is more of a risk of the asthma for reasons of being less protected and less visible? Secondly, what guarantees do you think are indispensable for the greater need for diversification, food sovereignty, and the allocation of aid? Should they just be left to the national authorities who may indeed enable these imbalances to persist? Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
And, again, he's not there, I think. In this case, ESN Ivan David. Proceed.
Speaker 23
I understand all the efforts of former colonial powers that still have territories, that used to be very profitable. But lately, they have become more of a difficulty that needs to be subsidized. So I can see why they would like to transfer this responsibility to other European countries. So I'm asking, how can we overcome the traditional monocultural production? We don't seem to have much success with that in other countries that had a similar situation, such as Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic.
They all have similar problems that are linked to far distances and transport costs over long distances, because the local market doesn't work as well. So I wonder, are we paying the same attention to other areas that are disadvantaged in agricultural production? In Continental Europe, in the part that belongs to the European Union.
Veronika Vrecionová
Very much. And now, KGCI, you have one minute each. And let's start with vice-chair Sergio Como. You have one minute, colleague.
Eric Sargiacomo
Thank you very much, chair. Thank you very much, Miss Ivanova, for this very important presentation. It's a good thing that the ECA is looking at agriculture in the outermost regions, given that there are recommendations about the future of poise. As you said, these areas need specific support given their characteristics, and also the issue of food security for the populations. The imbalance between the traditional sectors and the other sectors.
We certainly should not do anything that would enable these imbalances to persist, especially when it comes to sugar. And I think the specialty sugar should be protected, and the request to activate the safeguard measures is something that should be done very quickly. And then in terms of animal rearing, we need to bear in mind that the taposse is not the only possible action. We there's also other measures that can be taken to improve food security in the outermost regions and to encourage cooperation between different agricultural strands. What's been successful in La Remyon should be broadened out to other Alchemist regions.
What do you think of this idea? Thank you.
Valérie Deloge
Thank you very much, chair. The quarter versus report reminds us that the measures taken to boost agriculture in the Alchemist regions look at their competitiveness, but long-term developments remain uncertain, especially given the lack of clear budgetary visibility in the POSI programs. Especially in the COP post-2027, farmers are very worried because in the outermost regions agriculture is not just one sector of many. It is essentially a pillar of the local economy. It enables farmers to make a living, but also there's the whole chain.
There's processing, transport trade, and lots of local jobs are dependent upon it. Without strong local agriculture, then it's the whole fabric of society which is put into jeopardy. We need to ensure that the Alzheimer's patients can retain their know-how. And of course the far away means that there is a greater danger of unfair competition. So what can we do to support agriculture in the outermost regions?
One way of doing this is ensuring stable financing for Pose. We should lock in Pose funding with a clearly identified budget, which is future-looking as part of future MFFs to ensure there is a future for the local economy and agriculture in outermost regions. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Thank.
Gabriel Mato
Thank you very much, madam chair. I mean, for the Canaries, for instance, this report is particularly relevant. The post a report or program is not just about budget, it's about farmers, and it's also about the very survival of these sectors that really structure our local economies. And the report confirms what we've seen for years. Per se has been essential in terms of maintaining farming in outermost regions, but there are many sectors that would not be able to compete otherwise, particularly vis-à-vis other countries, other farmers that are not subject to the same rules as us.
For the Canaries, we're particularly interested in the banana sector, thousands of jobs, making sure that the social fabric is maintained in this part of the world as well. So we need to be very careful when we look at the conclusions of the report. I mean, I think it's important to think about the future of these sectors, of course, and we need to look at diversification. I grant you that, but let's not forget that the purpose of per se is to compensate for structural imbalances which are lasting in nature. So I think the commission itself has recognized this, and what you're looking at is competition and structural factors.
I think both of those need to be addressed. Per se is not the problem, quite the opposite. Per se has actually been a key instrument in order to, you know, preserve these farming activities and minimize the negative impact. So overall, it's positive, but we also need to make sure that it complements and doesn't supplant traditional farming sectors. We shouldn't be calling into question, you know, the role of these particular sectors.
Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. Thank you very much. And now, vice chair, Buddha, please.
Daniel Buda
Thank you very much. Very briefly, I just have some comments on what is happening in these outermost regions. A few years ago, we actually visited these regions and areas. And I would like the parliament, I'd like us to really shine a light on these areas because they are much more subject to various changes in trade flows. I listened to what Mister Amato was saying about what's happening in Tenerife, where we'd be able to see that farmers, especially tomato farmers, have essentially had to shut up shop because of unfair competition coming from the outside.
So yes, of course, farmers have great concerns about the agreement we signed with Mercosur, and are very concerned about the potential impact. So yes, we do need to realize that our trade policy can have a much bigger effect on the outermost regions than we first thought. And of course, there are certain limitations that are part and parcel of the characteristics of these regions. And there are some areas where all you can grow essentially is bananas, and other areas where tomato production is very important. You can't compare different regions.
Eight minutes for your replies.
Speaker 36
Thank you very much, madam chair, and thank you all honorable members for your very important comments and questions. Let me first start by a general conclusion that I draw from this discussion that, yes, this program is indeed quite vital and important for the survival and the livelihoods of these local communities that are in these regions. And, although you could argue the overall tone of the report is a bit more on the critical side, I would like to underline that in no way the report is questioning the very existence of. On the contrary, there are a lot of areas that need improvement, and these are the areas that we highlight, and, therefore, we have three recommendations to address them. Now I think one of the most pertinent concerns that you all share is about the future, what will happen with the program, and whether there will be sufficient funding in the next MFF. And, in this moment, I'm afraid I cannot give you that answer because just a week ago, we were discussing the opinion on the MFF, and we know there are many unknowns in these negotiations and in this discussion.
Speaker 35
But in the current proposal, Pose is covered by the fund proposal, and it maintains specific arrangements to guarantee the supply of products essential, such as the agricultural inputs, among others. But the support to outermost regions no longer has a dedicated budget, a near marked budget, as many of you rightly pointed out. And it is unclear if the program falls under the 10% rural target. If included, we consider and we say it in the opinion, you know that very well, that it could help ensure stability and predictability of the support for farmers. As it is now, it is at the discretion of the member states to identify measures to address the objectives based on the specific needs and challenges of the outermost regions.
As I mentioned during my presentation, we do note a positive development within the new proposal requiring member states to provide a fairer distribution of payments, as this helps to ensure that support is not concentrated only on specific sectors or large beneficiaries, as is the case with bananas. At the same time, we have concerns that the fund proposal no longer requires the economic advantage to be passed on to the end-user. Many of you spoke about that, which, despite the identified issues in the current practice, may lead to undue gains arising along the supply chain. Now, some of you also mentioned the possible implications of the trade agreements. First, we have to note that the commission has proposed member states to have access to about €45,000,000,000 in current prices from the flexibility amount as from 2028.
This is part of the renegotiated numbers in order to address the needs of farmers and rural communities in case of market disruptions caused by the agreement. Also, while we know that the parliament and the council have adopted safeguards for the protection of farmers in regard to Mercosur, taking into account article 349, on the outermost regions, this report mentions the strong competition that many of you spoke about also from non-EU countries, especially in the banana, sugar, and tomato sectors in terms of production costs, in particular labor costs. So it is important we underline for the commission to raise awareness of opportunities to distinguish and promote EU products on our market, and learn also from past mistakes. This is very important. Actually, I underline it not only for this report, but for all our other conclusions.
It's very important to learn from past mistakes, like the abolition of sugar quotas in 2017. It opened the EU market to greater competition from other sugar producing countries, and we should learn from the past. Some of you also mentioned as well that this led to increased supply and lower prices, significantly weakening the sugar sector in, especially France's outermost regions. In the report, we note also that producers already now often have a weak position in the value chain. Even when EU bananas are sold at higher prices on the market, a large part of the margin is captured by intermediaries in the supply chain rather than by the farmers themselves.
For example, for bananas produced in the EU outermost regions, pay €23 per kilo, out of which the producer receives €0.70 cents. So this goes to various points along the value chain. I think, like I said in my opening statement with this audit, we try to suggest how to improve the way POSE is implemented so that its objectives can be effectively met. And the positive socioeconomic impact of its financial support for the EU outermost regions can be increased. Some of you asked what could be done, what should be done.
This is exactly why we have the three recommendations that I mentioned in my opening remarks. This is where we think effort should be put. And, also, on the point that, mister Sergio Como mentioned, how this sharing of good practices can be further improved, this is one other recommendation that can be followed through to share the good practices because besides the overall negative tone, there are some good examples that we can learn from and share those to multiply them further. So, my personal opinion, which is outside of the scope of the report, is that, also the involvement of the local communities and stakeholders is quite crucial to understand really the local needs, to talk to them, to engage with them, to involve them into dialogue so that together solutions are thought. Because the ultimate goal is for this program to succeed, but it needs to be better implemented.
Speaker 36
It needs to be more effective, more efficient, and that is the argument that you could use when you negotiate for its future budget, that it has to deliver really effective and efficient results that you could justify, you know, when you spend the money before the European taxpayer. So thank you very much. And with that, I would like to conclude, Madam Chair.
Gabriel Mato
I just wanted to remind Missus Ivanova about bananas and the consequences of the fact that the common organization of the market on bananas was indeed, you know, dislodged.
Veronika Vrecionová
How did you agree, colleague Schultz? Have four minutes, please.
Speaker 47
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, honorable members. First, I would like to.
thank the.
Speaker 47
Court of Auditors, particularly Miss Ivanova, for the work and for the report, for the attention that is given to this program options specifically relating to remoteness and inguilarity. Let me spell out the full abbreviation, POSE. The report provides, we believe, a timely and valuable analysis of how to support agriculture in the outermost regions. The economy is functioning in practice, and, of course, enables us also to work on a more effective policy for the future. You have referenced, honorable members, that agriculture in these regions faces structural constraints unique within the re European Union: remoteness, insularity, difficult topography, climatic conditions was referenced several times, high dependence on a limited number of products.
And, of course, you have also referenced the particular article 349 of the treaty, that requires us to have specific policy instruments for these regions. €653,000,000 per year to support agriculture in the outermost regions.
Speaker 47
Apologies to the interpreters. We're excited about this program. The $3.03 billion per year to support these outermost regions focusing on traditional agricultural sectors, diversification, crops and livestock, and, of course, also very important, the supply of essential products to the regions. The commission broadly shares the court's assessments that the POSI program has played a crucial role in maintaining agricultural activity and supporting the competitiveness of certain sectors, notably, of course, bananas and milk. At the same time, the report rightly highlights that results vary between sectors and regions, and that structural challenges remain.
And in particular, the court underlies three areas where further work is needed at the long-term outlook for traditional sectors, progress in diversification, and the assessment of the benefits of the support for imports. And the commission accepts the recommendations addressed to it. First, we will work with member states concerned to reflect on the long-term vision for the traditional sectors supported by the POSEIS scheme. These sectors play an important economic and social role in the outermost regions, structuring territories and supporting thousands of jobs. And at the same time, it is important that farmers in these regions are able to obtain a fair return for their products and are not disadvantaged due to the geographical insulation and small market sizes.
And the word competitiveness has been mentioned several times. I think this is an important term in this context. Second, the commission agrees that further efforts are needed to encourage crop and livestock diversification. These already exist in the programs, but we recognize their impact has been modest. We will work with member states and stakeholders to explore how this can be.
Veronika Vrecionová
Serious. Please, again, interpreters can you take care of them. Thank you.
Speaker 47
I did not have a lot of drinks yesterday evening with Saint Patrick's Day, but maybe something else has been, in the cup of tea I drank this morning. So, the three recommendations, the first one, on the traditional sectors. I was now referring to the importance of diversification, where we also accept the recommendation of the court of auditors. And I want to particularly mention also the importance of links with other CAP instruments, such as, for example, the support for producer organizations to support producers in the value chain. Thirdly, and the point was also raised in the replies of missus Ivanova on the specific supply arrangements and the need to have exchange of best practices among member states to improve the assessments of how and in what way the benefit of the support is effectively passed on to end users.
Finally, let me also point out the financial and strategic framework of the POSAI program, the design and implementation of the programs that fall largely within the competitive member states and, of course, the regions. And this subsidiarity allows the programs to reflect the local realities and the specific needs of outermost regions. And I can only confirm what the representative of the court said at the end, that the involvement, of course, of local communities is key. So looking ahead, and you have referred to that in your contributions, this report feeds into the ongoing work on support for the outermost regions in the next MFF. As you know, we have proposed the integration of the support for the outermost regions into the National and Regional Partnership Fund to achieve a more integrated and strategic approach to the outermost regions.
There are other policy areas that also support the outermost regions, and we believe this integration will enable us to be more effective and also give the regions of the member states the ability to have this and develop this integrated approach in a better way. So I think it's important to underline that the proposal has a specific section on outermost regions. And so, in other words, there is a full respect of Article 349 and a full focus also on outermost regions in the commission proposal for the future MFF. And that being said, we remain fully committed to ensuring that the EU policies continue to support resilience, competitive and sustainable agriculture in the outermost regions, and ensuring a fair and balanced framework for producers operating under the union's high standards. And with that, I thank you for your attention, and apologies again to the entire session.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. Thank you very much. So we are at the end of the point. Thank you very much. And, also, I would like to thank the court of how deserved, madam Ivanova.
And, this is the last point of today's morning session, and we just now, in three minutes, four minutes, we will start with coordinators. Thank you very much. And see you in the afternoon. I don't know what time we will continue. 30.
2:30, please. We will continue with the subcommittee. I go to the toilet just for a moment.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.