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 sittingsOlivér Várhelyi
These are Benomil, Carbendazim, and Tiofanat Methyl. This sends a clear signal. What is not allowed to be used in Europe for health and environmental reasons should not be allowed in through imports. To achieve this goal, we are also investing in capacity building, for which the task force will also play a central role. Over 600 national officials will receive dedicated training on official controls, and we will support member states in their implementation efforts.
Let me now move to animal welfare. Work on modernizing our animal welfare legislation is progressing well. The public consultation closed in December with over 190,000 contributions. We have also carried out targeted surveys and stakeholder interviews. This work is helping us find a balanced approach that maintains high welfare standards while remaining proportionate and feasible for farmers, with appropriate transition periods.
I want to ensure a level playing field and competitiveness for farmers at EU and international level. On the European citizens initiative, Fur Free Europe, we have consulted widely and engaged with stakeholders from civil society to fur farmers. The next steps will be presented in the coming weeks through a Commission communication. Regarding the protection of animals during transport, the council is working on technical level, and I look forward to seeing your work as well, moving ahead on this proposal. Finally, on animal welfare, I wish to thank you for your support for the proposal on the welfare of dogs and cats, something we have managed to agree on last year.
As you move towards formal adoption, the commission is already getting ready to actually implement these new rules. Closely related to animal welfare is, of course, animal health.
Over the last three years, the EU has faced several outbreaks of serious animal diseases that are not normally present in the EU. The commission has worked closely on this, of course, with the member states.
We have been providing technical, scientific, and financial support at every stage of the disease management process, preparedness, control, and eradication. Under the EU animal health law, control measures include regionalization, movement restrictions, reinforced biosecurity, and surveillance. These measures are science-based, proportionate, and designed to protect both animal health and the integrity of the single market. Emergency vaccination can be an effective additional tool, together with, but not replacing, mandatory control measures. The commission keeps several million vaccine doses for these major diseases, which the member states can use for emergency vaccination programs free.
And I'm proud to say that our control measures work. Spain successfully eradicated sheep pox and goat pox in 2022-2023 through strict implementation of EU law. Emergency vaccination has also been decisive in eradicating foot-and-mouth disease and lumpy skin disease in some other member states. Preventive vaccination is also possible now against highly pathogenic avian influenza. And as epidemic seasons repeat themselves more and more often, and more and more member states look into the application of this type of vaccination for their specific needs.
All member states need to be ready to deploy the full range of control measures when required, including vaccination to eradicate these diseases. The commission will continue to offer technical and financial support to the member states and to farmers. But quick, decisive action at the national level is indispensable. These were also highlighted during my visit last week to Cyprus, that is hit by several foot and mouth disease outbreaks now. Respecting restrictions by everybody is a key element for success in these combats.
The EU animal health law represents a fundamental shift in how we legislate on animal health. With this law, we can keep the single market working effectively, support sustainable farming systems, and, at the same time, safeguard animal health and public health. We are currently evaluating this law. As part of this, we have broadly consulted with stakeholders from OLEU member states and beyond. We look forward to presenting the preliminary results to this house in the form of a report to be shared with you in the coming months.
Moving on now to plant legislation. I want to welcome, first of all, the agreement on the new genomic techniques. It maintains our core objectives, a proportionate science-based framework that boosts innovation in plant breeding while ensuring safety, transparency, and alignment with our sustainability goals. It also includes a balanced approach to patents. This agreement will keep our agriculture sector competitive and ready for the future.
I'm also glad that we recently reached an agreement on forest reproductive materials. Inter-institutional negotiations are taking place on plant reproductive materials. I'm confident that we can reach a balanced agreement in the next few months, also on this one. To conclude, one of my priorities remains reducing unnecessary burden and ensuring that rules we have in place are properly implemented and enforced. Our annual simplification report showcases these efforts and is, of course, available to you all.
So, dear chair, honorable members, I am convinced that together, we can keep our standards high while making our legislation work effectively for European farmers, so that we find solutions that work in practice and not only on paper. Thank you very much.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much, Oliver. And just now, I want to open the discussion, and let's start with the coordinators. You have two minutes each. First, TPP Herbert Dorf. Oh, you have Herbert to change her.
Yeah.
Let's see, let's see with comment.
Herbert Dorfmann
Welcome, commissioner. I happen to be the rapporteur for the food and feed omnibus. And in connection with that, I would like to put a couple of questions to you, if I may. I agree with your approach concerning this omnibus. I support your approach, and I actually think that this is fundamentally important when it comes to the authorization of innovative substances.
We need to shorten the times, definitely. You know, we want to make sure that we catch up with the rest of the world. I mean, a lot of these are actually being manufactured outside of Europe. That's where they were invented. That's where they're innovating.
So we need to recognize that. And basically, they're not turning to Europe anymore because the time frames are so long. So we need to speed this up definitely, a course of action that we should encourage. Now one point you mentioned or touched upon was the question of existing authorization. It seems to me that in your proposal, there is maybe a bit of an issue here.
You're saying that the current proceedings underway would be completed. We're talking about approximately 450 active ingredients or substances that are authorized, and we're talking about 200 that are in reauthorization procedures. That would take years, actually, 200 years that you would need to process still. So that will take years, I'm afraid. That's a long time, and we need to think carefully about the 200.
How will we handle these? We want to make sure that we do actually have a better situation going forward in terms of our area. Also,
Herbert Dorfmann
When it comes to EFSA, are all these procedures as they should be? Things are becoming more and more difficult, like finding national agencies that will do risk assessments for EFSA. It's becoming more difficult because they simply can't pay for it anymore. It's become so expensive, and also because there's no payment between industry and EFSA. And this is not the same as the EMA, where you actually have to pay if you want to achieve or obtain the authorization.
So that, too, is, I think, an issue that we need to address: the financing of all this. And then final point, you talked about import checks, import controls. I completely agree that we need to shore that up. But I think basically it's half the picture that we've depicted so far, the official controls, and that's all well and good. But what about private checks, private controls?
They're also going on in the background. A lot of companies that are processing these ingredients, that are supplying them, marketing them, you know, they don't want to run the risk of having some kind of a problem with their supermarkets or with their jam or whatever it is that they're manufacturing. They want to avoid these problems, so they're going for private checks. And I think we need to be much more vigilant on these private checks, make sure that we have an overall good system. I think that would be much better in terms of going forward rather than having two separate worlds.
Thank you.
Gheorghe Cârciu
Thank you very much, madam chair, commissioner, dear colleague. A first question that I would like to put to you, if I may, goes as follows. How will the European Commission guarantee that these open-ended authorizations for plant protection products, whether it's biocides, whether it's additives, how are you going to make sure that these will not imperil the precautionary principle? And then for my second question, I wanted to also ask you whether the commission could perhaps clarify things. You know, the changes that you're talking about here, how are they going to cut the burden?
Veronika Vrecionová
Or is it okay now? Not yet. Just a second, please. Okay, Thomas. It's okay.
You can go on, please.
Gheorghe Cârciu
Thank you very much. Sorry. I'll resume. So my question was, how could the European Commission perhaps clarify things and tell us these changes that you've suggested here? How are they going to cut down on the administrative burden for farmers, for national authorities?
How are you going to reduce that burden whilst at the same time maintaining the high EU standards that we have when it comes to the quality of food, safety of our food, animal health, and protection of the environment? Up until now, what we've seen is that simplification is a very complex exercise, in fact, and it does actually vary from one country to the next, I'm afraid. And then a third question, a major challenge that has to do with implementation this time: enforcement, the need to make sure that we have consistency across the member states. Again, I'd like to ask you, what measures do you have in mind in order to guarantee sound scientific evaluation of risks and also post authorization processes? How can we make sure that is solid across the whole of the European Union, across the board?
And also, how do we avoid unfair competition in this particular area? What specific proposals would the commission have to make on that?
Thank.
Raffaele Stancanelli
Thank you very much. It's very nice to see you back here, Commissioner Farhay. I listened with interest to what you had to say in your introduction, and I'd like to raise two points. Food security and the use of pesticides would be the second one. We very much appreciate what's being done to try to simplify procedures, controls, and checks.
We obviously do need to do that, but we certainly do not need to reduce food security checks. And this is something which is, I think, quite critical. So we need to increase our vigilance there, whilst at the same time streamlining and reducing bureaucracy elsewhere. You talked about strength and controls in certain areas. Maybe you could expand on that.
We do, I think, need to have better checks and controls and surveillance in general out with the European Union, so that we make sure that products which are coming into the European Union meet the same high standards we exact of our producers. This, I think, is absolutely fundamental. And I think that there is still some action required for us to meet that standard. The commission needs to take some action in the context of trade agreements. So could you please tell us what your plans are there?
Then my second question, which is on pesticides. As I said, of course, we trust SS evaluations, but others have said before me that sometimes they're short of funds or staff, and they sometimes can't be quick enough in turning around references that are sent to them on various matters, various substances, which are critical to farmers and producers. So what can we do to help EFSA speed up their work? I personally feel that it's very important that we have appropriate systems. We need to have standards and controls in place.
We need to have a prompt response from EFSA, and we need to have prompt effective controls on all the products that are coming into the EU to make sure that they meet the high standards that we exact of domestic intra-EU producers. So these are the points I'd like you to expand on, please. Thank you.
Thank you.
Carlo Fidanza
Very much, chairman. I am very happy to see you here this afternoon, commissioner. In the context of the food and feed regulation to which you alluded, we are very pleased to hear that you've taken the initiative. It's arguably the first time reciprocity is really going to see the light of day, and it's something that we have been arguing the case for a long time in the context of Mercosur and some of the other free trade agreements, which the European Union is in the process of negotiating and signing. We do need to guarantee that simplification objectives don't compromise food safety standards and food safety requirements.
This is absolutely of the essence for farmers and for consumers. So we therefore do need to devote a lot of attention to the question of checks and controls, and I will come back to that. In the context of food and feed, I'd like to ask you how you intend to ensure that simplification isn't going to be a leveling downwards, or in terms of food security, and isn't going to distort competition, and isn't going to have an adverse impact on our domestic producers. What sort of checks will there be on imports? I think sometimes they've been far too low, far too sporadic, far too piecemeal, and far too ineffective.
So what are you going to do? Are you going to impose minimum thresholds for the quantity subject to checks and controls at the borders? Or what do you intend to do? What do you think about these staffing and resources? Do you think we have enough people working on this?
And do you think that we can do more through using AI or other technology to speed up, fine tune, and improve our checks and controls in the whole food production line? Then, of course, you talked about various epidemics and zoonoses. Obviously, we need to be able to be agile in producing vaccines to deal with outbreaks. We in Italy, for example, have had issues with a number of different diseases. Other countries have had different diseases, which have been epidemics for them.
The overall lesson we need to learn from this is that things can sometimes be regionalized. It's important to contain an outbreak as immediately as is humanly possible to try to limit how far it spreads within one country or one area. So produce must not move from an affected area, and there needs to be a European-level piece of legislation to make sure that the bilateral agreements, which actually exist in many cases between countries, are respected and implemented.
Elsi Katainen
Thank you, chair, and thank you, commissioner, for being here today with us. The situation of the animal diseases and the prevention tools and action are worrying, as we have heard by the previous speakers. Fight against those need to be continued. And in addition, as part of your portfolio, is included food safety and more details of the import controls. We saw in January that the new task force has been established with a focus on food and feed, safety, pesticide residues, and coordinated EU monitoring actions on specific imported products.
As the Mercosur trade agreement has been taking the question on possible double standards on the table, I'd like to ask how commission will ensure that accurate safeguard measures will be effectively put in place and truly bulletproof, to protect our farmers and single market? And second point, I'd like to raise the question on the coming animal welfare legislation, fitness check mentioned in the working program. It is important that the animal welfare legislation is evaluated, as not all the actions have been placed correctly in place till today. It is unfair that at the same time, a single market. What actions will the commission do regarding the animal welfare legislation, and how will the commission ensure that front runners will not be punished in their actions already made?
For example, we can't set such simple, reduction target for all on use of antibiotics if some member states has reduced it already in the past. Thank you.
K. Thank you. Thomas Weitzgreens.
Thomas Waitz
Thank you, chair, and Jonas Podkivanok, commissioner of IA. Thanks for coming. First of all, it's good news that we get the ban on importation of products that have residues of pesticides that we have banned in the European Union. That's good news. I have two sets of questions here.
First of all, related to the common agriculture policy. And, you know, we are changing here, and this is decided by the minority, not minorities, majorities, that we change towards a system with less conditionality and more incentives. Well, sounds good at the first place, but what worries me is, how can we ensure that farmers that invest into stronger animal welfare standards are really having access to incentives. Will they stay in the first pillar 100% financed by the European Union? Will they go into the national and regional plans?
How can we ensure that farmers have really access to funds if they invest in higher animal welfare standards, which is the incentive? Can you maybe enlighten us whether you're in contact with commissioner Hanssen and what your plans are there to ensure this? And the second question, and this is one very dear to my heart also, your European citizen initiative on banning fur farming. I mean, this sector is already so small in the European Union. It's less than 2,000 farmers.
It's just three countries remaining that still have fur farming. I personally, and this is personal opinion. I think we should be beyond, you know, culturally as a society to, you know, hold animals in cages and kill them just for their skin. You know? I think, you know, we can produce every kind of cloth today, you know, with different methods.
I think we should really be beyond that. So you didn't go into details. What are your plans that you're putting forward? Will you put forward a plan to ban fur farming? Or what I also heard and read is that you might come up with certain animal welfare standards.
I mean, Esa was very clear on that. Having fur animals like minks or foxes in cages is never, you know, due to the animal welfare standards that these animals would need. So what's your plans on this? Maybe enlighten us a bit more on this. I mean, 1,500,000 citizens have signed this European citizen initiative, and I think we owe them concrete decisions on that.
Thank you very much.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Thank you, commissioner, for coming here today. I have five questions for you. How does the commission justify its stated objective of strengthening food sovereignty and food security in an increasingly unstable geopolitical environment? And on the other hand, a trade strategy that exposes European farmers to structurally unfair competition from third countries that do not respect equivalent environmental, and this one for you, sanitary, and social standards? It seems like a total contradiction.
Also, what is the commission going to do to end the moral trade in pesticides that are banned in the EU because we know they are harmful to human health and the environment, but still manufactured in the EU and exported to third countries? You touched on that, but a more thorough answer will be needed. How does the commission assess the health risks linked to agricultural products from third countries, particularly regarding pesticide residues and other chemical substances in food, in a context where the acceleration of free trade agreements is increasing import volumes, and it's going to obviously put pressure on resources. Also, what effective controls are carried out to ensure compliance with maximum residue limits on imported products, and what is the commission's legal responsibility to ensure the protection of public health in this area? And there are many reputable studies carried out to just demonstrate that pesticide residues of banned substances are being imported to EU's foodstuffs, and you met you spoke about this.
How do you concretely apply the precautionary principle to take into account the cumulative and long-term effects of chemical residues to which European consumers are exposed, particularly in the context of growing and increasingly difficult to control volume of imported food products? And finally, how much money do you actually think EFSA would really need to do its job properly, to be totally independent? Because, you know, we make choices on what we spend on budgets, and I think there will be support among the European citizens to spend money on an area that guaranteed they wouldn't end up dead because of what they're eating.
Ivan David,
Ivan David
Three hours ago, we had a debate with representatives from Ukraine. And they told us that within two years, they will be able to meet European standards regarding pesticides. Do you think it's realistic? How will they prove it? Is it enough to say that their controls are very stringent?
Next question will be revised decisions that were taken within the precautionary measures, because I think there are several issues with the argumentation. How can we prove their safety? And then how about the African swine fever that keeps cropping and coming up in certain countries? It seems that they cannot come to terms with certain safety measures that are needed also to make sure that they stop spreading this disease. Then in certain countries, we have bovine tuberculosis, and other countries managed to suppress it ten years ago.
Then Canada, we import lentils with pesticides that were sprayed on lentils even 3 days before the harvest. Is that okay? Is that something that we will condone? Colleague Weitz mentioned fur farms, and he said that these animals are killed only for their fur. But, three weeks ago, Politico reported that livestock will be also reduced in its breeding because we should eat less red meat.
So we have animals that we keep only for the red meat. What's the difference?
Veronika Vrecionová
And let's start with KGD. Oh, sorry, the commission. Just a minute. Ten minutes. Okay.
Sorry. Thank.
Thank you very much for ten minutes.
Might
Olivér Várhelyi
Not be enough, but please bear with me if I go a bit longer. So to Mister Dorfman, first, I fully agree with you. We need faster procedures. What we see is that currently, it takes roughly ten years to get one product authorized. And with this, I think we are unique in the world, and this is what we want to change.
And to change that, first of all, we have tried to simplify, streamline the procedures without compromising and without touching the assessment criteria. If you look at the assessment criteria, remained the same for pesticides, that we have not touched because, of course, we do not want to lower the level of protection for our consumers and for the environment. But we have tried to make economies within the administration. Our calculation is that with this, we can save roughly €1,000,000,000 a year in terms of costs for the administrations and also for the producers and farmers. Yes.
We have a major bottleneck now in the system. The system is clogged. We have 200, you have also quoted 200 outstanding applications for market authorizations. And this, we want to overcome through the simplification exercise, but also by helping EFSA to concentrate more on its core activities. So with the new management in place in EFSA, I think we have very high hopes that now they are also going to devote additional staff to this work.
We are looking I'm not sure I can tell you this publicly, but I do it anyway. Basically, we're looking at recruiting roughly 100 people just to address the bottleneck that we have. So we will not only streamline the procedures, but we add additional staff to deal with the, you with the problem. I fully agree with you that it is more and more difficult to get expertise for EFSA. We see the decrease in the expertise also in the member states' authorities, and EFSA is heavily relying on them.
I have addressed this issue several times with the ministers. I was also have written to all ministers to devote more staff to the authorization and the supervision of pesticide authorizations. On your question, on import, checks, private checks, first of all, our proposal is building on a new approach, meaning that we want as commission to be able to trigger at any point when there is any suspicion of a problem with either a consignment or with a pesticide, so that the commission can immediately act and intervene also in individual cases. So this is a whole new approach. This is why we are devoting even more controls, at the border controls, but also this is why we are deploying more visits to third countries.
The overall responsibility for the controls will stay with the member states. We're not touching that. But I think that private checks could be a source of information both for the national authorities, but also for the Commission. As I can talk only on behalf of the commission, what I can tell you is that we consider these private checks to be complementary. And if they find evidence, we are more than happy to, we're open to work on that basis.
So, from here, I want to encourage everybody who has such capacities to share the information with us, and then we will take action as necessary on that basis as well. To mister Cartu, how are we going to make sure that the unlimited in time authorizations of active substances will not compromise the precautionary principle? What we are doing is based on the precautionary principle. We're not touching any of the assessment criteria. What we are doing is that we are creating the possibility of authorizing the active substances of the products on an unlimited basis, but only for those that are low-risk category products, mainly biocontrol pesticides and some steel chemical pesticides that are representing a low level of risk for the environment.
On top of this, we are also making sure that products as such containing the active substance will continue to be authorized for a maximum period of 15 years, meaning that they are subject to renewal even if the active substance is authorized on an unlimited basis. So we will always have a continuous review of the impact of the pesticides. But what was very important is to make sure that if we authorize a pesticide, which is of low risk category, that we don't unnecessarily clog up the system like we do today by also requiring the active substance to be renewed basically every five years. Then, how will we reduce the burden and maintain the high standards? I think that the answer is very straightforward.
What we try to do is, first of all, preserve all the assessment criteria, and we want to push the system to promote biocontrol pesticides. Biocontrol pesticides mean lower burden on the environment and, of course, lower burden on human health. And if they are successful and they are able to be used by the farmers as replacements, with this, I think we will actually increase, even further, our standards. What measures for post-authorization scientific assessments? If you look at the proposal, what you see is that the commission stands ready to do ad hoc interventions in any case when there is any risk cropping up during the use of any of the pesticides.
And as I told you, we will have a review procedure for the products themselves on a regular basis after 15 years. So in that, I think we have sufficient safeguards to continue with the post-authorization scientific assessments. To Mister San Canelli, and food security checks. First of all, I'm very proud to announce it to you. You may have seen it last week that we have created a new, AI-based tool, the trace map, which is an AI platform, which is putting together information from the traces.
So, basically, the animal health database that we are running and the rapid alert system for food and feed. And also, we're working with the customs authorities. So this way, we can start to see the bigger picture when it comes to fraudulent activities related to food and food safety. And this, I have very high hopes about this AI platform because this is the first deliverable under the work of the task force. And this should help our work also on the ground in terms of risk assessment and also providing proper priorities for the member states what products to check, what consignments to search in a much faster way than we have today.
I fully agree with you. We need more controls outside the European Union. This is why we are already this year increasing the number of audits by 50%. We're sending, I have already announced, one extra audit to Brazil to check on the beef sector where we have found irregularities, something that we want to check that they have been addressed by the Brazilian authorities. So we are really speeding up our work, we are putting a lot of effort into consolidating our controls outside the European Union.
How much money does EFSA need? I mean, it's an academic question. What I think, EFSA needs now is to focus on its core activity to overcome the bottlenecks. We're helping EFSA to recruit this additional staff. For that, they have funding.
EFSA is well funded. They have their own revenues. And so far, to be honest with you, I think we can do with the means that we have, and we can make EFSA even more effective. To Carlo Fidenza, food safety has to be protected. I think it goes without saying, and it follows from what I just responded to Mr. Stan Canelli.
I think that it is very clear from what we are communicating that the rules are rules. So if you want to enter the European Union, you want to enter the market of the European Union, you have to comply with all the rules that are applicable to that market. And this is why we are increasing the level of controls outside the European Union, at the entry points in the European Union. And this is why also we are looking into additional tools like artificial intelligence-based tools, to speed up the work between the member states and make them faster to react. We have had already some cases where this worked.
And I have very high expectations from this year also in terms of the prioritization. You may have seen that I started visiting the ports, the main entry ports, the seaports of the European Union. My first visit was to Antwerp, and I plan to visit the other five big entry points. And there, it is very clear that the most important issue is the proper risk assessment. So we have to have a much higher level of coordination when it comes to risk assessment in the port.
Regionalization of diseases, this is the only tool we have, and we have to apply it very strictly. So there can be no compromise on movement restrictions. I fully agree with you. But we have to be tough with our third country partners not to punish the whole of the single market when proper regionalization measures are applied, so that they should not ban our products from their markets when we are applying properly the regionalization principle. They should continue to receive the products that fall outside those measures.
To missus Katainen, on the task force and how will this ensure the full enforcement. I think, more or less, you have received my response already. The idea is to link up the member state authorities who are responsible for border checks, much closer, in real time coordination. So, basically, if we know that there is a consignment arriving from one entity, then we should be able to check quickly whether there are other ports, because, unfortunately, it proves to be a scheme that they are sending also consignments to other points of entry, maybe to avoid the checks. So now we are consolidating these checks, and this is why we invest heavily in the training of the staff.
And this is why we are also recruiting 10 additional staff, like a traveling team, to go to the most difficult points in case we find animals. On animal welfare, what to expect this year? As I have explained in the introduction, we are working on the evaluation now. We have been sitting down with all the stakeholders. We have, I think, more or less now a proper assessment of what is achievable.
And, I can reassure you that this year, we will come with the first sectorial legislation because we think that we should go sector by sector when it comes to ending the cage age because the different sectors have completely different realities, and this is why we will go one by one. Not punishing the frontrunners, I fully agree with you. Of course, high animal welfare standards already applied by the member states are very important, as it is also important to keep the integrity of the single market. To mister Weitz, the CAP question, what I can tell you is that I'm pushing very hard, and this is still out there, in a debate. We have still not finished the work on the proposals.
This is one of the key points where I hope to get some support, some tangible support from mister Hanssen so that we can fit this into the next MFF into the CAP. I would characterize these measures as rather under the current m f f as pillar two measures, and this is where we are, this is where we are looking. But, of course, if we are to propose animal welfare rules that will require investments, we will want to help the farmers to be able to cope with the investment needs. This is part and parcel of our thinking. Then the fur farming.
I see that today, there was a major leak again in the newspapers, which are not very helpful, to be honest with you. It's absolutely impossible to conduct a serious internal work if documents are leaked even before I have seen them. So it's very hard to tell you at this point whether what you have seen in the press is the one I have approved. So what I can tell you is that this is a work in progress. By the end of the month, we should be able to come with a communication.
This is our plan. And once we have concluded the internal procedures, which means that we're still, you know, way ahead of the internal discussions even begun, you will see what we are proposing. So at this point, I don't think I can tell you what the proposal will be. To Mister Flanagan, I hope that I have already answered most of your questions. I would pick a couple out of the five you raised.
First of all, the health risks from third countries and fast approvals of new free trade agreements. I think it is very clear from what we are doing is that there are no compromises on market entry conditions for products coming from third countries. If you look at Mercosur, if you look at the other free trade agreements, it's clear that all the rules will have to be fully complied with, and there are no compromises on that. And on top of it, you see that we are increasing the level of control, to make sure that we are enforcing effectively these rules. So, I'm very much mindful of the challenge of having more and more free trade agreements, but we are not giving discounts on any of the rules that we have, and we are going to enforce them to the full.
The same applies for the maximum residue levels, and we are going to, of course, continue to work on that. We have already proposed three substances, and we will move forward with the study, after which I think we would start the reform of the system to reflect properly that if something is banned in the EU, it should not reenter the market as a maximum residue level. And finally, to mister David, whether Ukraine is going to be able to implement all the rules that are applicable in the SPS system of the EU in three years, it remains to be seen. This is something that we will have to check. Currently, they do not comply.
This, we know. And in the negotiations, think, but I'm not running these negotiations. I think that they have even asked for transitional periods, but this is something that we will have to look into. It's too early to tell at this point, I think. And banning red meat, I don't think it is a real debate to have.
Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. Thank you, commissioner. It was really a little longer, but I absolutely understand it. I really appreciate that you are trying to answer all questions. But now we have KZ Iced Kurig.
If you want, commissioner have a chance to answer you. Be really as short as possible. I will be very strict. So first, Carmen Crespo Díaz. Carmen.
What you have one minute, and I will be really very strict. Thank.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
You, chair. First, congratulations, commissioner, for the work that you've done on these additional controls. I think we now need the member states who are competent in this area to do their part in border controls and that we coordinate all of this. So that's really effective. Second, the phytosanitary system in the environmental omnibus, this has to be included.
At the moment, in Spain, it's not authorized. 50% of the harvest is impacted by this. Then, animal transport. Of course, we care about animal welfare, but livestock breeders can only do what’s possible. The mayor has come to see us today.
It's 30 degrees there almost throughout the year, so it's very difficult for the livestock breeders. We need a solution. Thank you. Thank.
Csaba Dömötör
You, chair. Let me speak in Hungarian. The
The European Union is gradually opening up its markets to producers from third countries. And in fact, the European Commission decided to provisionally implement the provisions of the Mercosur trade agreement. Many times, we've also talked about the fact that producers in third countries don't have to abide by the same strict rules that we have: environmental protection, animal welfare, food safety. And even if they did have to abide by them, it would be really difficult to check whether they do so. Farm Europe has analyzed the situation and has really hit the nail on the head when it comes to risks.
It talks about Ukraine, for instance. Currently, they're using 68 different active substances for plant protection products, which would be banned in the EU. So we're talking about an existential threat for our farmers, but also a food safety threat. So I'd like to ask you, commissioner, what does the commissioner do at the moment, and what do you intend to do to check these imports coming from outside? Could we hear a little bit more about that?
You know, what's the mandate that you have for these checks, and do you intend to ban further active substances?
Sakis Arnaoutoglou
Mister commissioner, we've just heard from you this success story about Spain. I'm very pleased with our Spanish colleagues. But in Greece, we have a very difficult situation. The slaughter of many animals, more than 500,000 animals, in fact, and our livestock breeders are desperate. The Greek government has not managed to control the situation.
We have an outbreak of African swine fever in Lesbos, and the effects of the war in Ukraine are impacting our livestock sector. Do you have an idea to help with funding and through prevention measures? Finally, do you envisage any measures to limit trade relations? Thank you, chair. Thank you, commissioner.
Cristina Maestre
First, I'd like to think with the issue of unfair competition and need to increase audits. I think the budget is very important to make sure that these audits can be carried out. I'd like to know what you think about the possible harmonization of controls between member states to avoid differences. Sometimes we have member states that take it very seriously, that carry out their controls very seriously, but then products are coming in through other member states, which may be prohibited. Then I would also like to know if you see any difficulties related to achieving zero residues?
And should we have a complete ban on these prohibited products? And do we need to modify the law in order to achieve this? Finally, lumpy skin disease. The sector is calling for changes in regulation so that when it's more adapted to reality, livestock breeders have to sacrifice huge numbers of their animals currently. Thank you.
Gilles Pennelle
Thank you, Commissioner. Welcome. I think we're pleased that this new Omnibus will contribute to the competitiveness of our agricultural sector, given that we have these photosensory products that won't have to be reviewed again and again. We have advances here that are going in the right direction for our farmers and for health. We've got merit clauses that will limit the impact of the imports on our agriculture.
But we do need strengthening of controls. And my question, my concern is about these controls. We have to avoid products coming into the market that don't respect our standards, and we have to ensure, therefore, that Ukraine doesn't come into the EU. Can you ensure that rules on animal transport, these new rules will not enter into force.
Maria Grapini
Thank you very much. I have some questions for you. You say that there is a stock of vaccines available for countries that might need to draw on that. Romania has had great problems with obtaining vaccines for certain diseases, with no access to them at all. So how are we supposed to tackle outbreaks if we have no recourse to vaccines?
Secondly, do you have some kind of system in mind to harmonize the rules on pesticides? Because we do need to have a uniform system across the EU. And then finally, this morning, we were talking about trade agreements. Morocco is a case in point, and we would like to hear a bit more from you about conformity certificates. If they're issued by the exporting country, how can we rely on them?
Thank you.
Stefan Köhler
I just come right to the point. I have two questions for you. From July 2027, farmers will need extra biocide certification to be able to use anticoagulant rodenticides on their farms. If a farmer already has a recognized professional qualification in agriculture and food industry plus plant protection expertise, they should be exempt from this application. Do you have a solution for this issue?
And the second question, the documentation for use of plant production products under commission implementing regulation number 564 from 2023 is very comprehensive and leading to a big bureaucracy burden in Germany. What are you planning to reduce these burdens? How about excluding the agriculture sector from these documents of obligations? Thank you very much.
Thank you, Stephan.
Colleague, Heuslink.
Thank.
Martin Häusling
you. I'd like to ask about PFAS. They're still everywhere in our market, and the regulations would have removed them ages ago because they're toxic to the soil as well as internally to people. Antibiotics in animal treatment have gone up by at least 6 percent in recent years. Could you comment on how you intend to tackle that?
And then you said that we should be satisfied with a balanced compromise on patents in the new genomics legislation. On what are you basing that? Because we don't actually want patents to operate at all in the sector. And then could you tell me why so many small SME seed companies are actually not happy about the provisions. Thank you.
Duncan Valfort.
Anja Hazekamp
Thank you, chairman. Commissioner, I would like to know what has become of the ban on fur imports into Europe and on fur production in Europe. Yesterday, we saw in the media that the commission is not intending to ban the fur industry, and that you have actually sabotaged any attempts to make that reality. That surely cannot be the case. Do you not believe in animal welfare?
Are you not really going to introduce proper animal welfare standards? EFSA has, for a long time, had evidence that serious welfare problems are caused by rearing animals in cages, and there would be serious perfectly viable alternative methods. There's scientific evidence to that effect. There are huge threats to public health and to the environment of breeding animals in cages, apart from the fact that it's a horrendous existence, and they mostly die a horrendous death. It is high time that you actually took upon your shoulders the responsibility that you should, and ban this terrible industry.
Otherwise, you are not worthy of the title of commissioner for animal welfare. Thank you.
Colleague.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, Chair Commissioner. In a matter of weeks, the first consignments of beef from Mercosur countries are due to enter the European Union with new, lower tariffs under the provisional trade arrangements announced by the president of the commission. I'd just like to ask you four specific questions. Can you confirm whether the six audits planned for 2026, two of which were due to be in Brazil, have commenced, and whether any preliminary findings are available to you in the commission? Is the commission aware of proposals from the Brazilian authorities to now certify only male animals for export to the EU because of concerns regarding the monitoring and the control of growth hormone use in female cattle production in Brazil?
And finally, cases have now been proven by food safety authorities in Holland and Ireland that confirm that 5,000 kilos of hormone-contaminated Brazilian beef entered the food chain of The Netherlands and Ireland since last September and were consumed by consumers, eaten before any food recall. So I could ask you, what follow-up action has the Commission taken? Has the source of the contamination actually been identified? Have the consumers who ate the meat been notified? And what measures have been implemented to prevent recurrence in the future, to ensure the protection of EU consumers?
Okay. They're important questions, commissioner.
Sebastian Everding
Thank you. You are the commissioner for animal welfare, and the parliament is always having to remind you of it. So once again, could I just do that? Over 1,500,000 people have signed a petition that by the end of this month, it will take effect. So could you perhaps comment on what you plan to do with it?
You haven't said a great deal about it. We have very little indication that you're going to take any action on banning the import or the production of fur. Several colleagues have already mentioned that there's a scientific evidence base for this, and that it is an industry which is rightly declining and ought to be declining. But could you please tell us when you're going to take your office as seriously as you should, and actually ban this industry? And could you please give us a scientific economic arguments which would justify any position to the alternative?
Jessika van Leeuwen
Thank you very much, chair. Commissioner, thank you for being with us today. I have two topics for you. First is very quick. Regarding NDH cage, how do you plan to reward member states that are already compliant?
Because we talked about punishing, not punishing them, but I want to know how you're gonna reward them. And then I have a question regarding the level playing field, which most of my colleagues here have rightfully questioned already. But I have a question about a scandalous situation about the import of Chinese poultry, that actually has been rising in recent years to approximately 60,000 tons a year, and more than half of that is actually being received in my home country, the Netherlands. The commission's audit from November revealed that in China, there's no regard for animal welfare whatsoever, a disgrace, and a blow in the face for the European poultry producers. Insufficient stunning or no stunning at all in slaughterhouses.
Can you imagine the suffering? Self-certification by operators. There's no rejection of fecally contaminated carcasses, and there's no traceability to see which farms these animals are coming from and if they're EU certified. So I have two questions for you, but the most important one is why has the commission not taken action under article 53 of regulation 178 2002, such as temporarily suspending imports? I'll leave it there.
Thank you.
Daniel Buda
Thank you, commissioner, for your prompt response to our letter about the export of animals affected by the war in the Middle East and concerning the difficult situation of livestock breeders in Romania, and that the transport of live animals is blocked at the moment. And this could become a major disaster. I understand that you are focused on this file. I'd like to come back to this hot potato regarding animal welfare during, sorry, concerning animal welfare during transport. Do you have an assessment of the implementation of the current legislation by member states?
I was a member of the investigation into transport of live animals last year. One of the major problems that we observed was linked to the implementation of the current legislation. Have you carried out an investigation into this situation? I think that that's the major problem, this implementation. There's no point in having legislation if it's not put into practice.
Benoit Cassart
Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. I think it's worth really insisting on this point, because it's not the first time I've asked this question. Given the current state of the different diseases that we're seeing in our flocks, particularly here in Belgium, I'd like to know that in the framework of the evaluation of the animal health law and its possible revision, is the commission ready to support a wider use of the Diva vaccine? And have you studied the possibility of a new statute to do with vaccination, to improve the internal market, and to ensure that we can exchange animals between the member states? We need to have better checks at the borders.
Those are my two questions.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Thank you very much. I would like just to ask you something about plant protection products. When I talk to farmers, one of their frustrations is that there is a lack of harmonization about what is actually authorized in various countries. In The Netherlands, certain items can be used, but they can't be in Belgium and vice versa. Therefore, I think, really, it's the Wild West out there.
It's not a level playing field. So far from it. We've got effective products that have been approved by EFSA, but certain substances have to be separately authorized, and there's far too much disparity across the countries. And the farmers just don't understand that, and I can't explain it to them. How do you see your role in this area?
How do you, as commissioner, envisage producing a genuine level playing field in the area of plant protection products? Thank you.
Krzysztof Hetman
Thank you for your presence here today, commissioner. I have a con one specific question. Could you tell us, given the situation in the EU, an active substance was withdrawn, which was completely banned for European farmers, but can products be imported from a third country into the EU with a minimal residual quantity of this active substance on it? Would this product, should it then be put into circulation in this internal market?
Maria Walsh
Very much, commissioner, and thank you, Chair. We've spoken on this before, but over the past five years, a number of herds confirmed positive for bovine TB across the EU has risen by 42 percent in areas officially under eradication programs. In my eyes, this is not progress towards elimination. It's regression, and it's our farmers who are bearing the cost. The highest prevalence in Europe is in Northern Ireland at 9 percent.
And while outside the EU, it shares a border with ourselves in Ireland and have access to the single market, where our own incidence has reached 6 percent, and the cost of eradication continues to spiral. Yet, at the very moment, the data points to escalation. EU funding is unavailable until at least 2027. A 42% increase over five years, to my eyes, is a clear and urgent signal that the EU support is needed. So my question is, what concrete support do you envision for farmers facing growing outbreaks on their farm? Thank you very much.
Thank you, chair. I'll speak in Portuguese. Thank.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you for the good news that you've brought for us today. And thank you as well for your understanding of the agricultural sector. Three questions. What does the EFSA need to be the equivalent of its American counterpart? Do we need more controls, more rigor?
We're signing lots of free trade agreements with third countries. So what does our agency need? Second question, harmonization across European countries. We know that some importers choose certain ports for their own reasons. We have to harmonize the conditions across the European ports.
We have to take into account antimicrobial resistance in animals. We need a mechanism to ensure the availability of vaccines to avoid problems. We didn't have vaccines available when we needed them.
Tilly Metz
Flor, first of all, I also need to come back to fur farming as Thomas Weitz, Anya Hasakums, and Sebastian Eberding also did. But let me just say, and it's more like, also saying that we as the European Parliament are going to play our role of scrutiny there if you speak of animal welfare standards in fur farms, which are definitely not possible. We all know that based on scientific studies that have been done there, so we will be very serious on scrutiny there. Another European citizens initiative is the NDK change signed by 1,400,000 citizens. And, only two weeks ago, I attended the public hearing at the Court of Justice in Luxembourg on NDK change linked to a court case on the commission's inaction.
You spoke about it already. I was listening to you. And in the light of this, could you be more precise regarding the timing? So when exactly can we expect a proposal? And you said it's going to be step by step, but are all the animals covered in it?
And then also asking on the revision of the regulation on slaughtering and on labeling on animal welfare, which is also expected for years. Thank you.
Céline Imart
Thank you, chair. Thank you, commissioner. The creation of the working group in charge of ensuring that imports respect our rules can't just be a symbolic gesture to calm fears about the EU-Mercosur agreement and the EU-Australia agreement that's coming. It has to identify supplementary measures to strengthen controls and support farmers who are hit by this unfair competition that doesn't meet our production standards. My question is the following.
What human and financial measures have you obtained in the budget to improve the efficacy of our controls, with the human resources that that requires? My second question is about the DNC. I don't have lumpy skin disease. I asked a question earlier about our strategy for vaccine stocks and the possibility of changing the categories, loosening them. And I'd like to come back to the point mentioned by my colleague about the vaccines and the statue of animals after vaccination.
Maria Noichl
Thank you. Two questions. Strategic dialogue with farmers and animal welfare protection. The commission should actually have a universal system of designation, which applies right across the EU to all products. There has to be a much better harmonized system for designating products from an animal welfare point of view.
Then the second question is about a level playing field for animal welfare. Current experience shows us that there's a huge variation in expectations and standards across the EU. There's a great deal of uncertainty as to how we can stem the increasing disparities. So what do you intend to do to tackle this? How do you intend to ensure that minimum standards can be properly implemented and enforced?
Stefano Bonaccini
Thank you. Thank you. This week, thousands of communes in Italy are demanding that there be a proper labeling for food products across the EU so that all citizens can have access to proper information. And yet the commission is still not actually agreeing to this request, which would give consumers so much more confidence in the products they buy and consume. Are we actually doing what we should here in the European Union?
We have said that there should be compulsory labeling on all products, and recently, the member states rejected that in the context of the Ocean Pact discussions. I would like to ask you what you plan to do to ensure that the interests of the consumers are taken into account, so that they can know exactly where their products came from. And so that we're not just talking about transparency and traceability, but properly ensuring that it is a reality and properly guaranteeing that our food is of excellent standards. Thank you.
Mireia Borrás Pabón
Thank you, chair. Thank you, commissioner, for your work and your commitment to the primary sector. As you know, animal diseases have become one of the greatest threats to our livestock breeders. We've got these various diseases, including lumpy skin disease, and they create leading to major losses, which is really threatening our whole rural sector. We all agree that we need to preserve our animal health systems.
But Brussels is kind of trapped in this rigid, bureaucratic, inefficient model. But the sector is calling for more focus on prevention and vaccination, and not so much on eradication. Is the commission considering reserving animal regulations to change our approach more to prevention and vaccination? And you mentioned as well, will there be a legislative proposal for 2027 on this issue? If so, could you give us more information about the scope of it?
Finally, with respect to your photosanitary products, we banned some key products. And beyond the audits that we're going to have, will there be a reform of the market to contend with unfair competition? Competition.
Cristina Guarda
Thank you very much, Chair, Commissioner. I will speak in Italian. In Italian,
Thank you. In recent years, we've had a number of epidemics in Italy, and mass slaughter has been the only way to deal with them. There are horrible videos of carcass after carcass left abandoned both inside and out of the farms where the animals or birds were being bred. What are the standards that the commission is currently applying to ensure that funds for compensation are paid out properly and not paid out to people who are violating the EU standards, and thereby threatening public health? It's really very important that we address this.
I have seen leaks in the media about fur free Europe not ever seeing the light of day. Now, look. There are 1 and a half million signatures to this petition for a fur free Europe, which want a Europe completely free of fur production. You can't just ignore this. This is an ethical matter.
It's a matter of using public funds for moral and ethical purposes, and not simply for a failing economic end. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Our speakers, but I would like to also have one question, and I speak Czech.
First of all, commissioner, I would like to thank you very much for your constructive approach. And I have two questions myself. In the EU or in a number of member states, certainly in The Czech Republic, we are beginning to feel urgently a lack of veterinarians, specialized in farm animals. Most veterinarians want to care for home pets rather than agriculture farming. Within European law, do you see some space for a better focus in veterinary medicine and the respective schools on farm animals in early stages of the study program or curriculum or even separate programs in agricultural universities?
And as for the end of the cage age, do you see scope for a step-by-step approach? And what specifically could the first step be in, for example, hands for production? And now the floor goes to you.
Olivér Várhelyi
This time, I think I got double the number of questions in the first round, so it might take long. Anyhow, let's start with the president. I think, no courtesy is due. The lack of vets, yes, we know about this problem. But to be honest with you, this is the responsibility of the member states.
And we see this problem not only with the vets, but also with human doctors. So it's an overall problem that, in this sector, we have less and less interest from the young generation. And here, I think we will have to design a program to encourage the young and to show them the beauty also, because this is not only a profession. This is much more if you are a vet. Ending the KGH, again, I can confirm to you, we are going to come at the end of the year with proposals.
And, yes, I can confirm to you that we want to go sector by sector, and we are going to propose, I hope, measures that are also going to be practicable and implementable for the farmers, so that we will have them also on board. To Mrs. Crespo Diaz, yes, I agree with you. It would be tremendously important, I think, for the entire agriculture sector to get this omnibus through quick, because we all see the clog up in the authorization system. We also see that the farmers are, in some regions at least, struggling to cope with the new born diseases, and they are lacking the pesticides they need. So I think we should work tirelessly to get this still this year adopted.
Then.
Olivér Várhelyi
Moving on to the question of products coming from outside the European Union into the European Union. I just wanted to point out to you that our strategy isn't just about looking at the entry points to the EU, the border checks, or, to put it, you know, plainly, ports, harbors. When you're talking about Ukraine, you're also talking about land crossings, so land borders. We're not just talking about SBS checks at those points, and controls being carried out only at those border crossings. That's not all of it.
We also want to strengthen our control mechanism as a whole. We're sending, for instance, our own SPS experts to third countries. We're sending them over there because we want them to look in situ, look at the situation, and find out whether or not EU standards and provisions are actually being complied with in these third countries. And by the way, it's not just a question of producers or farmers. Basically, it's any product, any article coming into the EU, the same applies.
We will check that as well. I will answer the other points, but since you put this question to me, I wanted to talk about what it is we do specifically in practice.
Then.
Olivér Várhelyi
As for the other point, are we going to ban further substances when it comes to plant protection products? For the time being, I can't really give you an answer. But what I would tell you at this juncture is that we are working on this issue. And when it comes to plant protection products, sorry, we don't want to ban them as long as we don't have a substitute, some kind of alternative, an alternative that has to be just as effective, just as available, just as accessible, and it doesn't represent an extra burden for our farmers. That's when we'll be ready.
So if we take a decision, should we or should we not phase out a particular plant protection product, should we remove it from the market in that exercise, we also need to check the situation for the farmers. We want to make sure that farmers are not deprived of other alternatives.
To mister Arno Tuglou, yes. I'm familiar with the situation in Greece. I follow it very closely. You have seen I received the minister several times, where we are in constant contact with them. Yes.
It's been going on for two years, this crisis. And I do hope that we will get, on top of it, this year. The numbers are going down now. I do hope that not much more animals will be lost. And we are also going to have the fund to fund the efforts of the farmers.
We're going to accompany them all the way. So from the primary efforts related to the biosecurity, meaning, culling, disinfection, the destruction of the carcasses, to compensating them for the revenue loss and the economic loss. And at the end of it, once the area is going to be disease-free and virus-free, then we will help also with the repopulation, and we will help to finance the repopulation of these areas. Then to Missus Maestra. Just a second.
I cannot read my handwriting. Yes. We will have to, of course, make sure that the rules that we have on animal health are also enforced within the European Union. I fully agree with you. So we're not losing sight of that either.
This is why every time we see an outbreak, we're very quick. We send immediately the EU vet team. This is what we have been doing in Spain, in France, in Greece, now in Cyprus, also Poland when the avian flu hit them, to assess together, the situation and to make sure that everybody follows the same rules because these rules are protecting all of us. They are protecting the consumers. They are protecting all the other member states from disinfection for infection.
So we have to make sure that these rules are followed, and this is why we are always very quick to react. Now the revision of the whole system of the maximum residue levels is something that we already foresee in the Omnibus proposal. You see that we will conduct a study, which I hope will confirm the direction of travel we have already started to engage on, which is that we should have no possibility of sending products back to the European Union market containing residue levels of substances that are banned in the European Union. It will take a review, but first, we deal with the study. Now the lumpy skin disease, and I think I would take this in one grouping because many of you have asked about whether we can start with a different strategy.
For me, this is one question. And whether we can change from the biosecurity measures that we are applying now, which are based on movement restrictions, which are based on regionalizations, and which are based on the destruction of the animals who are infected with the category a diseases. For such a major overhaul, we will need, first of all, a scientific opinion, a solid scientific opinion, that can confirm that vaccination can prevent these diseases. If these diseases hit us, then we can still continue to run the single market properly, and that we're not losing our trade positions either. So this is a complex exercise.
But we see more and more that with the number of outbreaks of diseases and the economic toll they are having on our farmers and the impact on the animals, we will have to properly reflect on this. But this is a broader discussion. This is not something that the commission will just, you know, decide on its own, but this is something where we also have to have an international discussion in the war. So when we go there this year for the annual general assembly, this is going to be a topic that we will want to raise for reflection. Because if we are moving, it would be good to move together with the rest of the world, and the rest of the world is equally affected with these diseases.
So for the outbreaks that we are experiencing now, there can be no different rules, because we are sticking to the rules. But if we want to design rules for the future, this is how it is possible. Personally, to be honest with you, I think that we will need now a very thorough reflection on this because I don't quite see how we can, otherwise, make sure that Europe will continue to be self-sufficient on food. I don't know how the farmers otherwise would be able to put the food on the table that we all need. So, this is going to be a major discussion, I think, and I hope to start it already this year.
Now, to mister Panel, on the controls, I hope I have provided enough answer through the answer I provided to mister Demeter. On the transport proposal, I take note of your remark. To Missus, Grapani. Grapani, if you have problems with access to the vaccine, feel free to reach out. We have a large vaccine bank.
So far, we have not seen any disease for which we couldn't supply vaccines. So once you tell me which is exactly the virus we're talking about, I'm sure we can deploy very quickly. Otherwise, we are in constant contact with the Romanian authorities. I know about the outbreaks. I know about the difficulties.
And I will also answer to Mr. Buddha. Just to confirm what I sent you over email just before coming here is that, yes, of course, we are mindful of the double problem Romania is facing because of the problems in The Middle East and because of the diseases. And we will we're trying to find a solution, a practicable one, so that the farmers are the least affected. Otherwise, of course, all the measures of compensation will flow, and they will be receiving everything we can provide, as compensation under EU law. Yes.
To mister Koehler, we have received a letter on this, on the rodentity cities, and we are now looking into it. So I will come back to you with a letter. I don't want to give you just an off-the-cuff reaction. On the exclusion from the documentation obligation, this is something I think we have discussed several times already. We have postponed by one year already for the digital documentation.
And in the Omnibus proposal, we have exempted the biocontrol pesticides from this obligation. To mister Heisling, on the NGTs and patents, the co legislators have agreed on the rules to follow on this. So I don't think there's anything I can add. The I what I can tell you is that there isn't any change in terms of substantive patent law brought about by the NGT, but we are going to help and accompany the breeders and the farmers, clarifying what are the limits of the farmers' privilege and the breeders' rights. And we will issue guidance to help them, which, of course, could also mean that we are ready to intervene if there are unfair practices emerging.
To Missus Hasakamp, I don't know why I deserve such a passionate view, including blaming and shaming, for something that we have only started working on. So I suggest that, you know, for the good cooperation, maybe personal remarks could be avoided. The, as I told you, we are in the beginning of the interservice consultation. It means service-level work. The political level work hasn't even started, and this is going to be a collegial decision.
It's not me deciding alone. It is the commission as a college who will decide. So I cannot preempt what the proposal is going to look like. This is why, at this point, I cannot tell you how and when and under what conditions, the proposal will come. Then, to Mister Molony on Brazilian beef.
We are aware of the case, and we are not only aware of it, but we have acted upon it. Yes. I can confirm that there was an entry of 5,000 kilograms of beef that have contained a hormone. Unfortunately, not only contained hormone, but it seems that they have not only been male, bovine meat, but also female that have been clearly excluded from the possibility for exports to the European Union. We have immediately alerted the member states.
This is exactly the case on which I think that there must have been some coordination in trying to avoid the controls because the consignments have arrived to several entry points. So it was strategically organized. Let's put it this way. And we have immediately taken contact with the Brazilian authorities. I myself requested immediately the Brazilian minister to suspend the certification of the organization certifying these entities, these farms.
And we have also lifted the certification of the entities, the farms, basically, from which these consignments were coming. So they are no longer able to export beef products to the European Union market. We have checked basically, last week, we had a technical visit in Brazil, and we have double checked that all the affected farms and the certification entity are suspended effectively. So we are in constant contact with the president authorities in terms of compliance, and this is exactly why we have one additional audit designed for Brazil for this year. The audit has not started because we just had the technical team over, but we will, of course, work with them to start it as soon as possible.
Then to Missus Van Leuven on China. Now, on China, yes, we have had an audit, and the audit has come back with several shortcomings. And we have requested a series of measures from the Chinese authorities. We have received, two weeks ago, their response in which they have confirmed that they are going to implement everything that we have requested them to do to comply with our rules. So at this stage, we didn't see the need for suspension.
What we are doing now is that we are looking at the implementation of these measures. We're going to send over our technical team, and we will double-check the compliance. Should we see that, there's a problem because we are going to have a follow-up audit for China this year. Should we see further shortcomings, of course, we're not going to be shy from taking further actions as necessary. Then to Mister Buddha, I think I have answered.
You also have the question on what is the level of implementation of the current rules of transport. This is something we are looking at, and this comes on a case-by-case basis. You may have seen the case with Turkey, with Ireland, but we are also looking into other cases. And we will make sure now that there's a level playing field, and everybody is fully enforcing the current rules while we're waiting for the new ones to be adopted. Then, to mister Kazar, I think I answered about the preventive use of vaccines.
Then to Mr. Roussin. Yeah. Missus Roussin, the difference between no. Mister Roussin. The difference in terms of authorizations of active substances, member state by member state.
Yes. We see that there's a difference. But don't forget that the geographics and the climates are also different, and they might make it necessary to have different pesticides used. The rules for authorizing those pesticides that are no longer authorized in the European Union are very limited for member states. Although, in some cases, as an emergency use, they can do so.
So this is something that we are always looking into very carefully because these are exemptions. And, of course, these exemptions always have to be applied narrowly. Then to Mister Hetman, M. Currently, we have a proposal for three substances that are related to citrus fruits, for which we want to put the maximum residue level at zero. Once this is through the hematology procedure and the WTO notification, it will mean that, after adaptation period, products containing these active substances as residue can no longer enter the European Union because these are products that are banned in the EU, so we are not going to let them back into the EU market.
To Mrs. Walsh on bovine tuberculosis, we are aware. Have discussed it several times. But, to be honest with you, in terms of funding, our options are very, very limited. But let me check what we can still do, and I would and I will come back to you on this one, specifically. To mister Donaccimento, whether the EFSA could be turned into the FDA, well, I'm not sure I will be terribly successful with the member states because as you know, controls and market authorizations of products still lie with the member states.
And they are very much insisting on this also because of the geographic specificities when it comes to pesticides. Antimicrobial resistance, I think that we're going to have a major step arriving this year from September, when we will start to enforce the rules related to the ban on reentry of animal products containing antibiotics that are banned in the EU or which are restricted for human use in the EU. We are preparing the control system to be able to check this. And this is also one of my top priorities to deliver on from day number one. Then to Missus Metz and the KHH, as I have said, we want to come with the first proposal at the end of the year as we have discussed and as we have agreed.
So we're sticking to what we discussed. Then to Missus Imar, what financing did I obtain? I have not obtained any financing. I tried to make what I have. We're going to finance the as commission, the training program of 650 national experts from the member states, and we have obtained financing for this year for the recruitment of 10 national experts for the controls.
I hope I answered your question related to the reclassification of category I a diseases. To Missus Neuschel, universal system for designation of animal welfare conditions. Well, one of the topics that we are now reflecting on when designing the proposals for the end of the year is, of course, if we are to impose obligations in relation to animal welfare for our own producers. It would be very important that products entering the market from outside of the European Union will have to comply with the exact same, high standards of animal welfare. But this is a debate, that we're still running, so maybe it's too early to tell how could it look like.
To Missus Bonaccini, Mister Bonaccini. Sorry. Ah, yeah. There you are. The labeling of origin, if I understood correctly, that was your request.
For food products, this is something that is in the division for agriculture, and this is something that we're going to deliver on as agreed with Commissioner Hanssen. To Missus Boras, I hope I answered your question related to the lumpy skin disease and its reclassification. And preventive vaccination would be good, but it takes more than just amending our legislation. And then finally, to missus Guarda, I think it is clear that, we're not going to compensate those who are not complying with the rules. It's very important that everybody, the farmers, will have to be fully enforcing the biosecurity rules, especially in major outbreaks.
And, of course, we can only help those who are complying with the rules. I do hope that with this, I answered all the questions. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. Thank you, commissioner. I know it was longer than it was supposed to be, but I think it was a very important and very useful discussion. And if I may, allow me also to wish you a very happy birthday in advance, because I know that in the weekend, you will have your birthday, and I wish you plenty of energy for your work and see you again in our committee. Thank you very much.
Thank you. And we are a little late, so we will start immediately with voting time. Please, check that you have your cards in the voting machine. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. So.
Good morning.
Veronika Vrecionová
That's hi. And you will show me just now. My first foot. Yes. So, Theresa will check it.
It's okay, I think. So let's start with this. So, hi. Hi. So it will be it's by show of hands.
Veronika Vrecionová
Yes. And it is just by a show of hands. Yes? Okay. Oh, yeah.
Sorry. So, colleague, please take a seat. Let's start because, really, we are late. So the first point of what we will vote on is how to secure a sustainable future for the EU livestock sector. And I hope that is okay. Okay.
Thank you. Okay. And if you are ready, let's start. So first, it will be compromise. One who is in favor, who is against, who abstain, it was adopted.
Compromise two, who is in favor, who is against, who abstains, it was adopted. Compromise three. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Compromise four. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Compromise five. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Amendment 263. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Compromise six, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Compromise seven, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromise eight, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromise, compromise nine, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstains? It was adopted. Compromise 10, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains?
It was adopted. Compromise 11, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted.
Compromise 12, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromise 13.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted. Compromise 14.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromise 15.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromise 16, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstained, it was adopted. Compromise 17, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains?
It was adopted. Amendment 389, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was rejected.
Amendment 388, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 391, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstained? It was rejected. Compromise 18, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromise nine, who is in favor?
Veronika Vrecionová
Nine oh no. Sorry. Compromise 19, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains?
It was adopted. Compromise 20, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Compromise 21, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 456, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstained? Let's check, please. I open the vote.
You can close.
I close the vote.
Veronika Vrecionová
Rejected. It was rejected. Compromise 22, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Compromise 23, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Compromise 24, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted. Amendment 486, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstained? It was rejected. Compromise 25, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 511, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was rejected. Amendment 512, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was rejected.
Compromise 26, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 527, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstained? It was rejected. Amendment 528, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstains? It was rejected. Compromise 27, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Compromise 28, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Amendment 545, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was rejected. Amendment 546, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstained? It was rejected. Amendment 542, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was rejected. Amendment 543, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was rejected. Compromise 29, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Compromise 30, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromise 31, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted. Compromise 72, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 591, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Compromise 33. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Compromise 34. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Compromise 35. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Compromise 36. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains?
It was adopted. Compromise 37. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains?
It was adopted. Compromise 38. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Compromise 39. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Compromise 40. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Compromise 41. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Compromise 42. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Amendment 672. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
Let's check, please. I open the vote.
I close the vote.
Veronika Vrecionová
It was adopted. It was adopted. Amendment 674, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains?
So please, again, check it, but you have to show your hand better. I open the vote.
I close the vote.
Veronika Vrecionová
It was adopted. Thank you. Compromise 43, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains?
It was adopted. Compromise 44, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Compromise 45. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? Please, let's check again.
I didn't see it. Alright. And 45. I opened the vote. You can close.
I closed the vote.
Veronika Vrecionová
adopted. Compromise 46, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted.
Compromise 47, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted. Compromise 48.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromise.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromise b.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromise C, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromise d, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained, it was adopted. Amendment 50. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained, it was rejected?
Amendment 51, 51, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was rejected. Amendment 52, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstains? Please, let's check. I open the vote.
You can close.
I closed the vote.
Veronika Vrecionová
It was adopted. Was adopted. Amendment 53, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
I have to check. I opened the vote.
You can close. I closed the vote.
Veronika Vrecionová
It was rejected. It was rejected. Amendment 60, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Compromise, e, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Compromise. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Amendment 70. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was rejected.
Compromise. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted.
Compromise. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted.
Compromise a I. Sorry. Compromise I. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromise j. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromise. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstains? It was adopted. Compromise: who is in favor, who is against, who abstains, it was adopted. Compromise me who is in favor, who is against, who abstain, it was adopted. Compromise n, who is in favor, who is against, who abstains, it was adopted.
Compromise o, who is in favor, who is against, who abstain, it was adopted. Compromise p, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromise q, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromise, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromises, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Compromise t, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Compromise, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 195.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromise v.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 203.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? Let's check, please. I open the vote.
Close the vote.
Veronika Vrecionová
It was adopted. It was adopted. Compromise, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Amendment 205. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Amendment, citation one, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was rejected.
Situation, amendment two, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was rejected. Amendment three, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstains? It was rejected. Amendment four, six, and nine are identical. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstained? It was rejected. Amendment five, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstains? Let check, please. I open the vote.
Can I close? I close the vote.
It's adopted. It's adopted. Amendment seven, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained, it was rejected?
Amendment eight, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain, it's rejected? Amendment 10, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstains? It was rejected. Amendment 11, who is in favor? Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? Let's check, please. I open the vote. 11. Yes.
It was adopted.
Veronika Vrecionová
It was adopted. Amendment 12, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Amendment 13, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was rejected. And now, roll call vote.
Final vote. I open the vote. I close the vote. Adopted. It was adopted.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Oh, it was longer than I expected. And now the second vote, it's proposals for pilot projects and preparatory actions. And it's.
It's.
Veronika Vrecionová
A bit of a voting list this year. I'm sure, okay. I don't need it. Oh, I don't see it. So it will be here.
You just say one, two, three until
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. And it will be only by show of hand? Or it's only show hands and the final, okay. And I don't know if you have the list. I hope you have the list.
I will read only the number of the title, please. And, number one, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? So let's check.
I open the vote.
I closed the vote.
It was adopted.
Veronika Vrecionová
It was adopted. Number two, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Number three, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? Let's check. Number three, I open the vote.
You can close. I
Closed the vote.
Veronika Vrecionová
It was adopted. It was adopted. Number four, who is in favor? Who is against? Who is up who abstain?
It was adopted. Number five, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted.
Number six. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Number seven. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Number 8. 8. Number 8. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was adopted. Number 9. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was adopted. Number 10. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was adopted. Number 11. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstains? It was adopted. Number 12. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was adopted. Number 13, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. And now final vote, it will be again a roll call vote. I open the vote.
You can close.
I close the vote.
Veronika Vrecionová
And it was adopted. Thank you very much, and let's immediately start, thank you, with our next point.
Veronika Vrecionová
And let's start with number 10, exchange of views with commission on the EU dairy market. The current market situation in the EU dairy sector is showing signs of a crisis. Some member states have already raised this issue at the council meeting, asking the commission for an immediate response to this current crisis. So today, we have invited madam Brigitte Miss, Missone for an exchange of view with the DG agree on this topic. So, madam, you have now 4 minutes.
Please, the floor is yours.
Speaker 80
Thank you, chair. Good afternoon, honorable members of parliament. I realize that I'm not as popular as your previous speaker, which I understand, of course. So for those who are staying.
Veronika Vrecionová
I in the would like to ask you, colleague, please if you want to discuss, go out of the room because we don't hear. Thank you. Please. I'm sorry, madam.
Speaker 80
Thank you, chair. I was basically saying the same as you, so thanks for your help to bring order into the chamber. So it's, in fact, for me, a particular pleasure exchanging views with you on the dairy market situation. Undoubtedly, we will all agree that market sentiment, as we call it, has weakened over the last month. We have indeed witnessed a sharp price correction for certain dairy products, particularly butter and skim milk powder.
This comes after a period of very high prices. With a two, three-month time lag compared to dairy product prices, downward pressure is impacting farm gate milk prices, I. E, the prices paid to farmers. What happened? Since August, milk deliveries have increased noticeably.
That's what you see with the blue bars on the chart. They have increased noticeably in the main milk-producing member states, including the largest two, Germany and France, which for the two of them account for half of the increase. This reflects a combination of factors, including feed availability, favorable weather conditions, and improved margins for producers. In parallel, prices for dairy products, which had remained at historically high levels during 2025, started a downward correction from mid August, September onwards. You have surely heard consumers complaining about the price of butter.
The fact was that the price of butter reached record levels at that time. In December 2024, they peaked at nearly EUR 7,900 per tonne. So this is the record forever. In January 2026, the price of butter was 48% lower than the record high. After one point years of continuous increase from September 2023 to December 2024, Farmgate milk prices, so those prices paid to farmers, stabilized around $0.53, $0.52 per kilo for nine months in 2025.
So when you look at the graph, this is the red line on the graph. With such a high price level, farmers responded by increasing production. Quite logical. I'm failing. Ah, yes.
Now it's there. The 2025 historical high raw milk prices, together with increased inputs, higher production, resulted in the highest value ever recorded of milk production in the EU. So the bars that you see there are multiplication of farm gate milk prices multiplied by production deliveries. By now, EU average farm gate milk prices have fallen by $0.9 per kilo over the last five months. They are currently at a similar level as in October, 2023.
And, of course, this downward trend is causing concerns. Is there some light insight? Yes. There is. The most recent data on dairy products point to a gradual improvement in market prices.
It's too early to know whether this is a trend that will be a lasting one, but at least it is what we see now. Maybe the graph, the slide is a bit too busy. So let me highlight it. On the left-hand side, you see volatility in prices. On the right-hand side, you see increasing prices for the last weeks.
There are, hopefully, luckily, good fundamentals. EU and global demand for dairy products remain robust. EU exports were very strong in 2025. In total, the EU exported a record amount of cheese, exceeding 9,000,000,000 in value. For butter, it was the third-best year in terms of volume and a record year in terms of value.
But the exports exceeded €2,000,000,000. Of course, now we are confronted with a geopolitical situation that is not improving the prospects. The Middle East crisis has sent energy prices to the roof. I'm talking about gas and oil, of course, caused maritime trade disruptions in a region that produces a significant share of the fertilizers necessary for you farmers. That region is among the traditional customers of EU dairy products, and it is through that region that dairy exports usually transit to Asia, another of the EU dairy traditional destinations.
The commission takes, of course, all concerns very seriously, and I can assure you of our constant market monitoring. The commission stands ready to act should the situation so require. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you, Mariam. And now, it's time for coordinators. You have two minutes each. And EPP, first colleague Stefan Koller, please. You have two minutes.
Thank.
Stefan Köhler
Thank you very much for this information and the breakdowns and stats and figures. Apart from your market observation and the conclusions, what do you think you can do to stabilize milk prices and increase exports that really is going to be necessary, I think, in order to try to de-escalate a critical situation? Thank you very much, chairman. And my thanks to the commission representative for being here. We have seen a slight improvement, but the situation is still quite problematic.
Dario Nardella
And I think we can see that the likely exacerbation of a serious situation is likely as a result of the war. Many of the countries in the European Union, including certainly mine, are experiencing a critical decline in the prices of milk from a historic high not so very long ago. There's an absolute crash in prices. There's a lot of speculation. There's a lot of importation of low-cost milk from abroad, and this is a concern for us.
The Socialists and Democrats chairman have already written a letter to commissioner Hanson asking him to tell us what he intends to do about this. But since we've already got the good fortune to have the commission with us today, I would like to ask you a few things. How do you intend to improve the collection of data and the collection of your data on milk across the European Union? Because we need reliable, up to the minute data. And otherwise, it's gonna be difficult for us to comply with the UTP directive and the provisions on costs.
Then secondly, the market situation shows that production is obviously critical to both supply and demand. How do you intend to develop the common market organization in milk? Small producers, of course, are very important in our market as they are in the fruit and vegetable market, and it's particularly important that we support them in order to support our overall market and our exports. Thank you.
Thank.
Gilles Pennelle
You, chair. I don't share the same optimism. I live in a dairy producing area, and I saw the crisis in 2020, and it's very serious. We've seen that the prices have fallen, are falling again in 2026 with protection projections for the end of the year, which are extremely worrying. Clearly, there is too much milk.
We've just said this. There's too much of it. But there are also things that we should do. We must intervene on production costs. If prices are not remunerative, we have to drop the production costs.
Unfortunately, our dairy farmers have invested a lot over in recent years, and they have gotten to debt because of that. I can see this in my local area. A problem is the transmission. There are fewer and fewer young people who want to get into this sector because it's a difficult career, and these falling prices are extremely worrying. So we have to intervene.
We can't just watch these trends. You said that the aim of the commission is to observe, but it's also to intervene as some member states are calling for. We have to activate the crisis reserves from the CAP. There is a real problem with multinationals and how they're controlling the price of milk. Another source of concern we haven't mentioned yet is a Chinese study on European dairy products, and this could result in customs duties on milk dairy products.
We have to help the sector. I remember the dairy sector is an important economic sector for us. It's key for our food security and also to maintain our traditional landscapes because if we lose our dairy sector, we'll lose our grasslands, our biodiversity. We have to do everything we can to support the sector because it is indispensable to the European economy.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Thank you.
And thank you to the commission for presenting this information on the dairy market. Indeed, we've seen a very substantial fall in prices in recent months. We've seen a very tentative, fragile potential glimmer of recovery in the recent weeks, but I'm really not very sure how the trend is going to go over the months to come. So this is obviously a fragile market, and it's obviously experiencing, inter alia, the impacts of world market developments or rather the geopolitical situation. We have no direct influence on much of what is going on in the global market and in geopolitics, and this is obviously a problem for us.
I'd like to ask the commission specifically about production costs and what you envisage doing there. I'm quite worried about it myself. Looking particularly at the Dutch situation, their costs are really increasing. One of the problems is fertilizer, and we also have a situation where the commission has actually not allowed us to have any offsets in The Netherlands for some of our costs, and this has created huge problems. It has also been problematic in terms of the use of animal dung, which is not appropriately regulated, and is therefore also a big problem for the farmers.
We're going to have to look at all these issues, fertilizers, animal dung, production costs, nitrates, and see how all these different factors interact because the nitrates regulation is another cost factor pressure. So I would like to urge you, please, in the commission, to look at all these factors on the cost side. Thank you. Thank you very much, and thank you for giving us this overview of what is going on in the market. Clearly, there are tensions on the market and quite a number of member states right across the European Union.
Elsi Katainen
We can see that there are fluctuations in the markets to a greater or lesser extent. Obviously, producers need to get a fair market price. That's only right. But both in the milk sector, the dairy sector, and in the livestock sector, there are problems because inputs are becoming ever more costly. The markets are becoming ever more insecure, and the MFF is not actually yet in place, and all the rumors and uncertainties about that are only exacerbating existing concerns.
We need to have minimum standards in place, which will ensure that the farmers know how to plan. We've also got to tackle things like unfair competition and fair market practices, because this is something which is, again, problematic in the dairy sector in a number of our countries. It can also have an impact on prices. So there are many factors which play into this problematic situation, but the long and short of it is that we need from the commission a sustainable and long-term solution. So what do you envisage proposing?
Are you thinking in terms of market intervention? Are you thinking of drawing on the reserves? That in itself, of course, can pose challenges. We've seen that in the past. But I'd like to know how your thinking is evolving and what you're intending to do to try to address these issues, and ensure that we have fairer prices for producers on the market.
That really should be a go.
Yeah. Thank you very much.
Thomas Waitz
much. Milk prices, of course, have been going down since September. And the milk market, the dairy market observatory has given us a good picture of that. Production costs are 45 to 50¢ per kilo. In Denmark, the price is about 38, and it's the same in Germany, but there are also dairies where the price is only 25.
In Belgium, it's maybe 32 or 34. It's 36 in the Netherlands. Anyway, I'd like to congratulate the French government because their legislation has at least meant that 42 to 44% is the average. But you can see that that's all below, well below the production costs, and that is really the problem. We have an example from 2076 of a positive intervention, which is by voluntarily cutting supply quotas, and this was financed by the crisis reserves.
So for every kilo which wasn't produced, 14¢ was paid to the farmer, and this was a good solution for farmers, and it did contribute to the stabilization of the market and the prices. Obviously, it could only be applied to a limited percentage of production, and at that time, it was 10%. But I wonder whether you're considering replicating what was a successful market intervention, or whether you're going to keep waiting and doing nothing. I can't endorse your positive assessment. Even if the prices have gone up a few cents, the situation is one of crisis.
And that's before you look at The Gulf and the streets of Hormuz. You can see the crisis over there. You can see the crisis coming down the line. We're not short of them already. So how long are you going to stand there observing what's going on and not actually proposing something for urgent implementation?
SMEs are already going to be going to the wall, and they won't pick up again if the milk price picks up because they're already finished. And that's that for them. So lots of people will simply be closing their smaller farms forever. This is a tragedy. You need to tell a surgeon what you are going to do.
Luke Ming Flanagan
I mentioned this is because we are supposed to be placated on Mercosur when the commission tells us, oh, it's no big deal. It's only a really small percentage of an increase in the supply of beef into Europe. And we're told, oh, it's only about 1%. And then when people say, well, we're talking about high value cuts, it could be up to 6 or 7%. We're told, oh no.
No. It's only a small amount. Yet you get a rise in milk production of 2%, and you see a massive crash in the prices. Is there a lesson here? Surely, there is a lesson here that it isn't quite as simple as saying it's only a small increase in volume.
And I'm just wondering, what difference will our work on the CMO ultimately, down the line, mean for farmers when it comes to getting a decent price for their product? We've just had seen agreement at trialogues on contracts for farmers. I'm just wondering what difference it will make in this environment. I hope it will. I think there was good work done on it.
But what will the real world effects of it be on the farmers? And not just on farmers, farmers who spend this money in the local economy.
Thank you. Ivan Davidis.
Ivan David
Price fluctuations can have many reasons, whether it's the imports. I have recently read about dried milk imports from New Zealand, or even butter from New Zealand. Then we have problems with exports, export tariffs. Then we have tariffs in China or from China, also concerning electric cars. Then we have the crisis in the Middle East.
We exported a lot of cheese and dried milk. Now that's all blocked. As the prices rise, we slow down the killing off of the older cows, and then the percentages also lead to decreases. We all know these mechanisms. We could consider negotiating better conditions with China, or finding a compromise.
Otherwise, I cannot see any long-term measures that could bring a long-term stabilization of the dairy market. So I'm curious to see what proposals we will.
Veronika Vrecionová
Let's start with KGDI. And I, because we are really very late, I have to close the list of speakers. Please be as brief as possible. So you have one minute, and colleague Rodriguez first.
André Franqueira Rodrigues
Thank you, chair. I will speak in Portuguese. Thank.
you. Our farmers are experiencing a situation nothing short of a crisis, which has an impact on their income and their future. The Azores is very dependent on this sector, and prices have fallen dramatically by 30%. And as a previous colleague said, they're way below breaking even. Something must be done to tackle this situation, which is only exacerbated by outside influences, high tariffs, and restrictions on imports.
Some of our trading partners, like America and China, are also problematic. We're there, of course, in terms of transport, oil and diesel and petrol costs are bearing on the bottom line as well. But it's very important for the commission to take some rapid action and to tell us what they plan to do. Thank you.
Please.
Thank.
Daniel Buda
you. This question is very simple. Everybody's raising the same fundamental point and asking you, is the commission going to intervene to try to resolve this problem, which has been going on for years? Month after month, we raise this problem without any response. Our position is that the commission needs to intervene.
It's not overproduction. It's an increase in production costs that underlies this problem. It's because the inputs like energy and fertilizer costs have gone up so much, and the producers in the dairy sector are struggling to make ends meet. Many of them feel they have no future. So what are you going to do by way of intervention before it's too late?
Once a dairy farmer has been squeezed out of the market, they are not going to return. And it's questionable whether anybody will ever replace them. Therefore, what do you intend to do? We don't want to end up being net importers.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, chair. In the year to December, milk prices in Ireland fell by almost 36 percent per liter, below the cost of production for many farmers. Now at the same time, input costs remain extremely high, particularly energy costs, which, as we all know, have risen to alarming levels, and fertilizer costs. So these are putting additional pressure on already squeezed margins. So when global markets move, I think farmers feel it immediately.
But this is just no longer just an Irish issue. Across Europe, our farmers are facing the same reality: falling prices, rocketing energy and input costs, and growing uncertainty. So, what are we going to do about it? The problem is that our current EU response is not agile enough, Chair. When prices collapse, supports come to slowly.
So we need to act. Firstly, we need a faster, more effective crisis reserve that can be deployed immediately when markets deteriorate. And it's not rocket science. In pro in if we include proven tools like the voluntary milk reduction scheme, we can try to deal with this issue. But let's move on because we need a resilient dairy sector in Europe, and we need action.
Thank.
Eric Sargiacomo
thank you very much. Miss Musson, we need to be a bit more realistic. We need to recognize that the price fluctuations are really problematic, and we are not matching supply to the prices. And, therefore, we really do need to have stronger producer organizations that can manage the requisite changes. We're going to need to support farmers to reduce their production level as we did in 2016, and the longer we delay, the more it is going to cost.
We've really got to put together a proper safety net now, because if we don't, goodness knows what could happen. Surely, the commission should be taking a close interest in the butter market and the wider dairy market? It seems to me that there is some speculation in the market, which is very worrying. And so I would ask that the financial markets authority also be involved in this.
Thank you. Colleague.
Thank.
Martin Häusling
you. The commission says they're ready to respond, but then they did not do anything. They need to respond. They haven't. We've all agreed there's a crisis, and it's a very worrying, it's an existential crisis threatening the livelihood of so many people.
We've lost half of our producers over recent years. How long are we going to wait before the rest of them fade away? Export isn't a solution. If we're just exporting at dumping prices, what does that benefit for the farmers? If we don't have any proper instruments, what's the point in saying voluntary cuts in production?
It's going to cost you less, but it isn't in the long term. It's damaging to the farming sector and to the environment, and we have a clear option. The market may impose its own restrictions on the market, but the supermarkets are selling butter 99¢. This is light years removed from the production cost that the farmer has to pay. And therefore, we've really got to respond.
We can't just delay any longer. And the crisis we're seeing more widely is simply going to play into an ever greater crisis for the farmers.
I will continue in Italian.
Cristina Guarda
Thank you. In the area of Padua, 400 producers are working at a loss because it costs them more than $0.50 to produce a liter of milk, which they sell for $0.20. And therefore, the markets are being abandoned by the regulator, and they're being abandoned by the Italians because the authorities have invested thousands in purchasing milk quotas, which have then been abandoned. So they're abandoned at the national and European level. There's a crisis. There's widespread pessimism, and the situation is only getting worse because look at the prices of dried milk, milk powder, globally.
Look at what is happening in the oriental markets, and look at the situation the farmers find themselves in. Nobody's listening to them at all. And yet this was a crisis which was well known. It was a crisis in the making, quite some time about. And therefore, we need to recognize that these are structural problems which need a structural solution.
We need prevention, and that's why we're calling for a proper market organization. Thank you.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you, chair. I'll speak in Portuguese. Thank.
Thank you very much. The sector has, of course, for a long time, experienced a sectoral crisis, and it's very important that we have a prompt reaction from the European Commission. I'd like to congratulate the farmers because they've done a great deal to adapt very rapidly to the problems that they are experiencing and to implement the legislation that has been put in place. But in Belgium and in Portugal and many other countries with which I'm familiar, the prices have fallen. Certainly, in the source, it's below 40¢ a liter.
And so many places, given the cost of fuel and other inputs, these prices are not sustainable. If you have to pay on top of this transport cost and given what's happening on the global scene, this is a very serious problem. Therefore, I want to know what the commission's going to do to help milk and dairy producers. I wonder whether there's anything other than voluntary reduction in production levels, or whether you can think of something a bit more optimistic? Thank you.
So, colleague Christensen.
Thank you very much. I'll speak Danish.
Asger Christensen
Thank you. Well, fundamentally, I am a liberal. Therefore, fundamentally, I do defend the view that supply and demand should be balanced in the market for any product. But when we look at all the factors at play here, we look at input prices, we look at fertilizer prices, manure costs, we can see that the sums don't add up, and there's a huge amount of pressure on the market. Therefore, I'd like to ask the commission what initiatives they intend to take.
They need to ensure that fertilizer and when your costs are affordable. And I'd also like to ask what you intend to do about the European production in the global context. Thank you very much, chairman. Thank you to the commission representative. We have a big problem with the fact that farmers are not able to cover their production costs.
Céline Imart
They're therefore experiencing considerable losses, and we know why this is. It's overproduction. There are antidumping practices in France. There's unfair competition in the market, and farmers are affected adversely by all this. The targeted market reorganization should actually introduce proper written contracts so that it's clear what the rate, what the prices are.
I suggested that there should be exemptions considered. And I feel that these provisions on written contracts are simply going to be used to maintain the existing fragility in the market to no avail. It's not going to benefit the farmers. And therefore, what does the commission intend to do to introduce proper market management, such as addressing private stocking or a voluntary restraint and cuts in production? The situation is absolutely critical and requires urgent action.
Katarína Roth Neveďalová
Thank you. Thinking about what was on the screen in terms of the slides. As I was saying, yes. Thinking about what was on the screen, it was very informative. And so, firstly, I would like to ask whether it'd be possible for the commission to send us the presentation.
I would like to ask the commission to send us the presentation which was presented, because it was very hard to read on the screens, and it was really very small numbers. So I will, I have three questions. First, what are the proposals which you are ready to implement if one of them is the French legislation which is forbidding to sell the milk or to buy the milk under the production cost? The second question would be, because you said that the Saldo of the export is positive. How the new agreements which we have, especially with The United States and Mercosur, are affecting the international trade of milk and dairy products?
And the third question, because you mentioned the fertilizers, and there is, we forbid to import the fertilizers from Russia and Belarus. We are now banning the import of the Russian gas, which is also the source of fertilizing products. And now we have the problem and crisis in Iran and in The Middle East. So how is this affecting us? How much can we count on the fertilizers cut in this regard?
Thank you very much.
Thank.
Cristina Maestre
you. And thank you to the commission for the explanation. The dairy sector is very vulnerable and subject to a lot of external pressure. We've heard a lot of figures pertaining to a number of different member states. I would just like to ask the commission whether it thinks that there could be contagion in the markets across the member states because of the downward trend, the low levels, and the disparities between countries.
I'd like as Celine de Lima to hear a bit more what you're thinking about doing about the common market organization. I'm a bit surprised at some of the suggestions that have been made. The associates group was in favor of written contracts in the dairy sector, but some people have argued that there should be exceptions. Our experience with them has been that they've stopped such precipitous falls in prices, and they've given a bit more stability to the sector. Thank you.
Clara, Laboretti, please.
Camilla Laureti
Very often, we talk about crisis in the dairy sector and milk in the dairy sector more widely. And I think in most of our countries, realize that this is a situation that is so serious that it has to be addressed as a matter of urgency. It's not possible for people to survive in this market where the prices are so low, and where the input costs are so high. There's just no correlation between them. The market observatories show this, and we therefore need to take urgent action.
It's going to have an impact on the competition levels between countries, and it's going to have an impact upstream and downstream. Therefore, we need some support because when the situation is as bad as it is, we have to support a sector in crisis. Period. There's nothing by way of an alternative. We can't have farms simply closing, farmers giving up. We've got to make sure that the common market organization ensures that we don't have unfair competition, that we have support if it is necessary.
Stefano Bonaccini
And we had, for example, initiatives such as milk and fruit in the schools. Well, those are things that we could be expanding right now. Thank you. Well, after two years of more positive trends and prices which actually the producers could live off, the prices are falling consistently. And this is causing a huge difficulty because the whole dairy sector is difficult to plan any sort of investment, and expansion is simply a pipe dream.
Many operators are wondering how on earth they can possibly make ends meet, and whether they ever can at all. Therefore, we need to look at production patterns, and we need to see what sort of support we could give to, for example, producer cooperatives. It might be that if we can support and increase the number of cooperatives, it would be possible to have a better common market organization in our next policy period. We've also got to recognize that the situation does differ a bit from one country to the next, but there is a widespread crisis. What we need to do is address unfair competition, and we need to stop people selling below cost price.
Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Sonia from DG. Agree. And you have four minutes, please, for your answers and remarks.
Speaker 80
Thank you, chair. This is quite a challenge to answer all those questions in four minutes, but let me try to concentrate on the essentials then. Meat production reduction scheme, it was mentioned by a number of honorable members. Maybe just to put things in their factual context, in 2016, when we operated that scheme, we dedicated €150,000,000 to that, and we accompanied a reduction of less than 1% in EU milk production with that measure. At that time, farm-gate milk prices were around $0.30 per kilo.
Today, we are around $0.45 per kilo. So you imagine what it would cost to have today a similar scheme put in place. At that time, we did not have an agricultural reserve. Today, we have one, and it is limited to €450,000,000 per year. And with that agricultural reserve, we have to address all challenges, meaning everything that has to do with market disturbance in all agricultural sectors, everything that has to do with animal diseases and plant pests, and every other problem.
And with climate change, we are increasingly using the agricultural reserve to support farmers in countries that are affected by adverse weather events, whether we are talking about exceptional drought or exceptional frost or rainfalls or floods, etcetera. So just to bear in mind what are the tools with which we can intervene. But what we have been doing and what you have been doing, and Missus Imard has just recalled it, are more long-term measures. And they are the ones that can help, indeed farmers. In the common market organization, there are a number of measures that are specific to the dairy sector.
And thanks to the effort of missus Imard, we now have, we will have, when it's voted and in place, written contracts as a default for all agricultural products, including dairy products. Indeed, this obligatory return contract tries to introduce a sound relationship, let's say, between dairy farmers and their first purchase. We have also, of course, the CMO on the table in the MFF proposal, and believe that we will soon start also talking about it in this forum. And there, we continue also to look into the various elements that are available. You have no doubt seen that we have there a chapter destined to, let's say, food security preparedness, if you want to call it that.
And there as well, we are looking at this food security aspect that some of you have mentioned. You have also referred to fertilizers, nitrates, manure, etc. You know that we plan to put on the table an action plan for fertilizers to try to give both support to farmers confronted with higher fertilizer costs, but also to help the domestic fertilizer industry ramp up domestic production. And looking also into the circular economy, if we could call it like that, recycling of nutrients to see what can be done in that respect, and I'm sure Mr. Huyssen will keep a close eye on what we do there. What do we have with the US and Mercosur?
And can you have the PowerPoint presentation? Yes, please. You can have it. It is in the hands of the secretariat, and I'm sure that the secretariat will share it. Yes.
Exports are important in the dairy sector. They are allowed to keep a balance on the domestic market. We have a positive trade balance. And with the US, the Turnberry agreement was giving an advantage to EU dairy products. So we are, let's say, better off with that particular agreement than with having across-the-board 15% tariffs.
On Mercosur, we have new export possibilities that are opened in the form of tariff rate quotas: 10,000 tons for milk powder, 30,000 tons cheese, and 5,000 tons infant formula. But the most important is to be close to farmers to understand their concerns, to accompany them on the road. And there, you know that the commission is working on a strategy for the livestock. And, of course, dairy farmers are part of the livestock farmers. They will also benefit from this strategic pathway that we would like to put on the table before June this year.
We have a look there also at generational renewal that was mentioned by a number of you. We have a look at competitiveness, at crisis resilience, and also at territorial balance, and at the diversity of milk production systems across the Union. I'm conscious that I'm exceeding my watch time. Sorry for that, chair. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Is it? Okay. Thank you, madam. I know that it was very problematic to answer in a short time. Thank you very much.
And let's move now, colleague, to our last point of today's meeting. We turn to the consideration of amendments to the draft opinion on the proposal establishing the European Competitiveness Fund. This is an agri opinion from the ITRE committee, and it's scheduled to be voted in the committee in April. In the coming weeks, we will therefore need to proceed in a focused and efficient manner. More than 450 amendments have been tabled to the draft opinion by our reporter, Mr. Carlo Fidanza.
Carlo, you have the floor now for five minutes to explain brief introductions.
Thank.
Carlo Fidanza
Thank you very much. The competitiveness instrument is actually very important. It's supposed to support strategic investment in key sectors, and this is a big difference from many of the other instruments such as the RRF with which we were familiar and Next Generation EU because the resources won't be pre-allocated. They will be allocated through European systems. There will be a flexible combination of instruments, ensuring that the resources are actually allocated competitively through procurement processes, so that there can be accelerated procedures or direct allocations if necessary.
Currently, we're at quite an intense stage in the procedure. We have, as Chairman said, 451 amendments, which have been submitted by quite a number of members, including mine. We're over 500 amendments, which is a vast amount of work for all our shadows and staff, and a lot of them are very technical. It's going to be a complex piece of work to be done over the next few weeks, to try to distill it down into some compromises. Obviously, we do need to have greater clarity, and we need to streamline the commission's proposal. We also need to make sure that we've got clear allocation criteria, which are more flexible, and we also need to make sure that we try to distill out of all this a line which is sustainable.
We need to support the food production sector. We need to ensure that we maintain food security, and we've got to work together to ensure that this is something which is mainstream throughout the entire fund. We've got to make clear that it's vital to have easily accessible funds and support for SMEs and small producers. One of the second important points is water resilience. There've been a lot of amendments on that, which highlight how important it is that we look at water throughout the whole production chain.
When you look at infrastructure, production, digitalization, and efficient water resource use, this is very critical in some areas in particular, and it may have a value bearing on our value chains in certain areas in particular in the longer term. We need to look at the territorial dimension of the fund. This is something which a lot of members have focused on. We've got to have better geographic distribution of resources, and a focus on less developed and rural areas. Many of them are also areas which are exposed to greater geopolitical threats and uncertainties, so targeted initiatives and support will be critical in order to make sure that those in need can access funding.
Many amendments focus on the need to have more support for SMEs and for startups, also for those which are mid-cap size. Therefore, we've got to make sure that we've got much more of an overview about the whole development of the sector right from the start up to much further down the line. This means that we've got to have better integration of the food production sector, and we've got to have a more strategic approach. Logistics will have an important role to play and could actually have a big impact on the resilience of our supply chains. Technology can have a positive role to play in innovation and in developing new value chains.
At the same time, a lot of the amendments focus on the need to be very circumspect and cautious about what we do on fertilizers and feedstuffs, which ultimately feed into human food. This is something which will be discussed extensively across the groups, I'm sure, in the next little while. There are amendments also on fund governance, on monitoring and scrutiny, on geographic allocation, and on balance, to make sure that the resources are actually distributed in a more even-handed way in line with the objectives of the cohesion policy. So there is a lot to be done, as you can see, but it's very important that we do effective and good work on this so that we can make a constructive contribution to competitiveness in our sector, which is so critically important. So this is really the task that lies ahead of us here, which we will be sending to the ITRI committee in due course.
Veronika Vrecionová
The list of shadows I have here, you have two minutes each. And the first, yeah. X-ray. This is actual. Okay.
Mister Hetman, E.B.B. Yes.
Thank you, madam chair.
Krzysztof Hetman
Thank you very much. The European Competitiveness Fund is a great opportunity for us when it comes to strengthening our competitiveness. And it's also of great importance for the agri-food sector, of course, which is one of the pillars of our economy and of food security more generally. This requires a stable framework, a stable financial framework in particular. And I think that is what will provide us with the necessary guarantees going forward.
Veronika Vrecionová
We need stability. We need to be able to resist or be resilient.
Okay.
They ask to slow down.
Krzysztof Hetman
I was saying, if we want this fund to really strengthen, for instance, Polish farming, then we need to make sure that we have a proper architecture well thought through, which reflects diversity in terms of protection, production and also diversity in our member states. There are a number of amendments, which I welcome, because they speak specifically about this architecture. And what I think is the most important here is, first of all, the fact that we need a financial package, an envelope that will be earmarked for the rural sector, for the agri-food sector if we really want to help strengthen European farming. If we really genuinely want to provide that support, then the fund has to be commensurate to the importance of this sector, and that's why I welcome any amendments going in that direction. We're talking about strengthening food security.
We're also talking about making sure that agri-food businesses are in a position to invest in innovation. Innovation is absolutely necessary if they are to remain competitive in the global market. In addition to that, I believe that competitiveness should be strengthened, thanks to the use of this fund across the board, everywhere in Europe. And for that, of course, we need to take into account different levels of innovation in different regions, in different member states. I welcome, therefore, the amendments that go in that direction.
Colleagues have also highlighted the importance of water management. These colleagues have argued that we need to guarantee investment in this particular sector, and we therefore need mechanisms. We need solutions. These are necessary if we are to build a water management system that is efficient in nature. That, to me, seems very important.
I would like to thank the rapporteur, and I would like to thank the shadows. Thank you very much for this cooperation, which has been really fruitful. Thank you very much, and I, of course, count on your support going forward as well.
Thank.
Eric Sargiacomo
thank you very much. Thank you. I'm actually replacing our shadow rapporteur Maria Grapini on this point, if I may. First of all, thank you. Thank you to the rapporteur for the work done.
And all the shadows, of course, thank you. I am pretty sure that we'll find a way forward for compromise amendments that would cover then as broadly as possible most of the amendments that have been tabled to this report. Allow me to pick up on one point, which I think is essential: what we need to finance through this European Competitiveness Fund. We need to make sure that we can help our societies be resilient going forward. We've seen this, you know, today, the crisis with Iran, we've seen it also in connection with Ukraine.
We saw it in connection with COVID. Our societies today are really facing growing problems, growing difficulties that impact a number of sectors, the agri-food sector, of course. Energy markets are also subject to great upheaval right now with the war in the Middle East, but the situation would be even more critical if we didn't actually have strategic stocks when it comes to oil in Europe. Now, unfortunately, for the time being, we don't have strategic stocks when it comes to agricultural product produce, or indeed fertilizers, or indeed feed, or indeed seeds, or indeed vaccines. In fact, this is something that my colleague Benoit Kissant often mentions in these discussions.
So we need to go in that direction of travel, and we need to do so fast. We need to invest in storage capacity. The European Competitiveness Fund should be there to fund or finance these infrastructures. At the moment, we're talking about 40 to 50 years on average in terms of storage. We need to do a lot better than that.
Cooperatives have said 4,300,000,000 in terms of needs between now and 2035. Investing in strategic storage capacities should therefore be a priority for us. It's a question of economic certainty, and it's also a question of food security. It's also a way of fighting inflation, and it's also our freedom, our autonomy, that is at stake here. Let's not forget, you know, that someone who goes hungry will not move forward very well, neither will democracy, I'm afraid.
That's why we need to fill our bellies. Thank you.
Mireia Borrás Pabón
Thank you very much, madam chair, and thank you also to the rapporteur. Thank you very much for this report. Let me start by saying a few words about competitiveness in Europe. I mean, it's a bit of a, you know, mystical thing. It's not a question of lack of funds.
I think it's because we don't have a proper regulatory framework. It's dysfunctional. The standards are absurd. There's a lot of red tape. And all of this is strangling or asphyxiating our sector, I'm afraid.
You know, you're trying to regulate everything and everyone. It's ridiculous. So we're talking about competitiveness here in Europe. You know, it's almost like a bad joke, quite honestly. What about energy?
What about costs? You know, what about the standards? If you look at all of these aspects, I'm afraid it's impossible for us to actually meet the requirements. Parliament commission. And why is it then that so many holdings have to, you know, close shop because of the problems that they have encountered?
So this is why we need to remember that these holdings play such an important role in our economies. We therefore need to look at our sovereignty, our food sovereignty. That should be our priority in this debate. So we're in favor of shoring up the role of farming. We want to have specific earmarked provisions for this, and we also think that this ECF should deal with important issues such as water or indeed digitalization.
Europe should be able to produce its own food, to protect its territories, and reduce dependence on the outside world. You know, competitiveness is not just a question of sharing out funds. Competitiveness is also a matter of being able to produce properly under the right circumstances. And for that, we need to remove climate ideology, which is actually very harmful. We also need to remove red tape, which is just strangling us all, and we need to make sure that this sector is actually one that creates jobs and wealth for Europe as a whole.
Asger Christensen
Thank you very much, and I'll speak Danish again. First, we'll again tag Fidencifer, and my constituent promise. Take a
First and foremost, allow me to give thanks. I would like to thank you all for this very constructive exchange. I can see that a lot has been done already to try to move towards compromises, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the shadows as well as the assistants. I mean, I'm a farmer myself, and I'm therefore very grateful for the fact that this work has been done, work on competitiveness, the competitiveness of the European Union. We want to put places high on the agenda.
We want to protect jobs, protect production, and we want to do this for the whole of Europe. And for that to happen, we need to make sure that we stand firm also on a global stage. For Renew, we need to, I think, focus on productivity and competitiveness. Those would be our important points. We need to avoid unnecessary red tape.
We also need to strengthen innovation. We need to have new technologies introduced in the farming sector. And we furthermore need a supply chain that is robust in nature. Furthermore, we should ensure that we strike the right balance, if you like, strike the right balance in this field. We need to deal with climate change.
We need to make sure that we deal with it in such a way as not to weaken production. As for the measures adopted, they need to be helpful for farmers in their day-to-day lives. We need to invest and protect production. We don't just need to, you know, be here. We don't just need to be here to write documents about this or write papers about this or create a lot of bureaucracy. That is actually what we should be avoiding.
So all in all, I think that we're going in the right direction. I also think that we should move further in terms of simplification, competitiveness, and look at what results can be generated through such an approach. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
And Greens. Anna Stolenberg, but she's not there. You, madam Garda. Okay.
Thank you very much.
Cristina Guarda
I will take the floor for the shadow rapporteur for the queen's Anna Strelenberg, and I will continue in Italian. On.
Behalf of our rapporteur, who's Anna Strelenberg, who's unable to be here today, obviously, I would like to say how disappointed we are at the way the direction that this file is taking. The rapporteur doesn't seem to have any proper strategic priorities and isn't committed to trying to build a substantial majority. There's no mention of climate. The rapporteur is simply choosing to ignore the reality in which our farmers are living and working. They're in the very front line, having to adapt to climates across the European Union, which have already changed radically.
There's no protection for farmers. They are vulnerable. They're unprotected. More than 20,000,000.
Cristina Guarda
Losses have already been experienced by the cut by the Italians. And therefore, we've got to focus on supporting the sector with a comprehensive support structure, something which is not just production support, but is much more fundamental. We need a budget, which is properly structured to support good quality food production, and this has to be central to the budget. We need to ensure that health and agriculture are properly recognized for what they are. They can't be competing with funding for biotechnology and pharmaceuticals.
They can't just all be lumped together. If we want to have a proper food sector and proper farming sector in the European Union, we've got to have genuine solutions which are practical, realistic, and not founded on dogmatic ideology. Thank you.
Merci, madame.
Arash Saeidi
Thank you very much, madam chair. The commission's proposal regarding the ECF is worrying, I think, in terms of the future of our European budget and the next MFF. You talk about simplification, but behind that, what we see is a concentration of budgetary power more than ever before. 14 European programs would be absorbed into a single instrument, and budgetary flexibility would be almost nil. Very little room for manoeuvre here.
So the text doesn't talk about a threshold, nor does it talk about safeguards, nor does it talk about reallocation between different priorities. Now, what does that mean in practice? It means that public money could be redirected according to the political priorities of dot dot dot we don't know who. Maybe the president of the commission, but with no democratic exercise behind it. Furthermore, the fund is all about industrial competitiveness and defense.
That's its logic, if you like. And this is to the detriment of other priorities: social, agricultural, and environmental. Competitiveness cannot be an excuse for backsliding in terms of the environment as applied to the rural or agricultural field. And that's why we're asking for clear safeguards, a budgetary distribution that is better balanced between the different objectives, and full transparency as well on the reallocation of funds. And we're asking for exclusive protection for essential sectors such as agriculture and food security.
In these negotiations, we will continue to defend a very simple, straightforward principle. The public denier of the European taxpayer should be there to serve all European citizens, not just an industrial strategy. And by the way, this is something that we should discuss, I think, deeply. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you. And it was the last shadows because CSN are not there. They are not there, and I have no members on the list who want to take the floor. In this case, I would like to ask DG Grow, Tatiana Lopez Garido, for her statement for four minutes, for yes. You are there.
Okay.
Speaker 103
Thank you. So first of all, I would like to thank the agri committee, especially, of course, the rapporteur and the shadow rapporteurs for the proposed amendment. As usual, the commission has examined the amendments very carefully, and we have taken note of the interventions today. I would like to just quickly highlight some of the elements. The long term food security in the EU and the agri food sectors are firmly embedded in the ECF proposal.
Notably, you have seen in the health, biotech, agriculture, and bioeconomy window. The ECF proposal also firmly acknowledged the need to foster the competitiveness, sustainability, resilience, and fairness of agriculture, as well as of EU rural and coastal areas. Investment in water resilience can be supported via the ECF clean transition industrial decarbonization window, which includes enhancing climate and water resilience among its core priorities. Concerning access to support, the ECF will cover the full investment journey from research to manufacturing of companies across the single market, across member states and regions. The ECF will be implemented in synergy with the common agricultural policy, which remains central for boosting the agri-food sector's competitiveness and delivering on the priorities in the vision for agriculture and food.
The ECF will complement the cap by supporting at EU level, the type and scale of projects that would otherwise not be possible if member states acted alone. The ACF will focus on strategic technologies and draw on the full toolbox that is grants, loans, equity, and also procurement. Finally, the ACF regulation proposes indicative envelopes at the level of the policy windows. This will ensure, on the one hand, predictability and designing operations for the various sectors of support and tools to be used, and on the other hand, flexibility for the EU to react quickly to unforeseen events. Thank you very much.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you. And now, I give the floor again to Carlo Fidanza. So you have.
Just thank.
Carlo Fidanza
You, chairman. And thank you, indeed, colleagues, for your constructive support with the possible exception of Miss Guarda, whom I don't see anyway. I don't want to get engaged in polemics with her, in any event. But what I do want to say is, yes, we all agree that we need to target our resources carefully. They need to be focused in such a way as to be realistic, final financially, and as effective as humanly possible.
We have a window which encompasses about 20, which includes health, bioeconomy, and agriculture. And therefore, we have a lot of headings under the same umbrella, and it is going to be difficult to decide how we actually allocate these various 20,000,000 because we need to have a cross-cutting approach. There are other very important aspects to the competitiveness funds. So it's all very complex. But in any event, we need to be realistic.
We need to be ambitious, and we need to flesh out the framework which the commission and the lead committee, ITRE, have put together. I have read the base text which Mr. Ehler in ITRE has drafted. He's the rapporteur in ITRE. So that's the basic text for the committee report, and we're feeding into that with a whole dimension of what we want to say. But it's important for me to know what the overall context is, so that when I'm talking with you, I know what the positions of the other political groups are, and I know what the rapporteur is aspiring to do.
And I can see where our part slots into the overall whole in the report for the lead committee. So that's a bit of the practicalities, but really one does have to bear them in mind, because that's the context in which we're working. That's the context in which, most importantly, we will ultimately be voting in parliament. Obviously, we'll be voting in the committee on our text to go to Itray, but ultimately, we'll be voting in the plenary. I'd like to thank the commission for being as clear as it can be, I think, at this point.
And we too need to be crystal clear about the fact that we want funding for agriculture and food to be ring-fenced. It's really important that it goes where it needs to go. It's important because the SME sector and the regions absolutely need this funding. The SMEs and the rural sectors need this funding a lot more than many other areas or sectors. And, therefore, it is really critical that we focus on allocating the resources where they are most urgently needed.
This has to be a priority for us. So I'll leave you with that thought, and thank you in conclusion for your interesting and useful ideas. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Carlos, thank you. Also the commission, and see you again tomorrow morning. Have a nice evening. Thank you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.