Committee on Petitions 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
PETI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
Gains. Abstention adopted. Second part, raise the hands in favor. Against. Abstention adopted.
Third part, raise the hands in favor, against, abstentions adopted. Fourth part, raise the hands in favor, against, okay. Abstention adopted. And now, final vote. Roll call vote.
Speaker 2
Perfect. Okay. Was adopted. Thank you so much. So now let's go to item 15, vote on pilot projects and preparatory action webs.
No, nothing. Preparatory actions proposals. So, let's go. The first vote is on the proposal number one submitted by the S and D group entitled Network of European Cities United for Democratic Memory, corresponding to vote list number one. So let's go to vote.
This is a roll call vote, all of them. Okay. Perfect. Everybody vote. Okay.
Wow. Tied. So it's rejected because it's tied 50 against 50, means rejected. Okay? Let's go to the second vote.
Vote, the second vote is proposal, submit by Patriots for Europe group and Tata entitled advanced digital technologies for early detection of structural risk in high speed rail infrastructure. Roll call vote. So let's go to vote. Okay. Finish.
Adopt it. Perfect. The third vote, it is the third vote. It's the third proposal submitted by the Renu Group entitled preparedness action for network disaster and organization resilience adapt, adaptation, Pandora. So, roll call vote.
Close the vote.
Speaker 2
Adopt it. Perfect. Let's go to the fourth vote. So it's a proposal number four submitted by the Renew group, entitled European Union natural landscape governance pilot corresponding to the Baltic list number two. Let's open.
Okay.
And these two.
Speaker 2
Adapted. Perfect. Let's go to the next vote. Proposal five submitted by the running group entitled European rural coastal transition pilot. Let's go to vote roll call.
Speaker 2
Close. Close. Reject. Now we are going to the last one, proposal number six submitted by the renewed group entitled the Waterways Vision, corresponding to the voting six or roll call vote. Let's vote.
Speaker 2
Let's go to the next vote. Wait a minute. Okay. Let's go here. Yeah.
Now the Canary Islands. Yes. This is complicated. So, okay. Let's just start, Jesus.
Okay. Draft mission report following the fact-finding visit to the Canary Islands from 15 to 17 September 2025, aiming to investigate petition number 1268/2020 on the need for joint action by the European Union on migration. Okay. Let's go. Recommendation one, it's raise your hands.
Amendment one. Recommendation one. Amendment one. Sorry. Raise the hands in favor, against, abstention, reject.
Okay. Amendment two, raise the hands in favor, against. Abstations, let's check. We have to check. Okay.
Speaker 6
Let's close the vote in favor. Adopt it. Perfect. Amendment. Amendment three, raise the hands in favor, against.
Speaker 2
Abstention, reject, I think. But let's at the beginning, let me check. Let's check. I think it's clear, but I prefer to check now, at the beginning, to understand. Okay.
Reject. Perfect. Now we are going to recommend two amendment fourth. Raise the hands in favor, against, abstention. Reject.
It was amendment 4. It was recommendation two, amendment four. Now we're going to recommendation two, amendment five. Okay? Raise your hands.
Part one.
Speaker 2
It's part of what we have to repeat. We are now going to vote, miss mister Girauda. Recommendation two? Yeah. Yeah.
I mentioned.
We can go back to You can go.
Speaker 2
Back to, I mean, if four. If everybody, the coordinators are agreed to go back to the recommendation to amendment four, as Mister Hirata is asking. The coordinators are agree. Okay. Let's go to vote again.
Okay. Recommendation two, amendment four. Roll call, well, I'm going to do it first because it's not a roll call vote. So, in favor? Against?
Speaker 2
Para part one, raise the hands in favor, against, abstentions. Check. Let's check. Okay. Reject.
Part two, wearing the same recommendation, but now I know it's not adopted. It's true. False, because it's not adopted.
It's.
Part three as well.
Amendment.
Speaker 2
6. And part, fourth as well. So now we are going recommendation two, amendment six. Raise the hands in favor, against, abstention. I would say reject. I would say reject, but let's check.
Speaker 2
Recommendation two a, number seven amendment. Okay? Part one. Raise your hands. In favor?
Speaker 2
Adopted. Not so now, part two. Raise your hands. In favor? Against, abstention, reject.
Speaker 6
Recommendation three, amendment eight. Raise their hands in favor, against, abstention, reject. Recommendation three, amendment nine. Raise the hands in favor. Against.
Abstention adopted. Recommendation three, amendment 10. In favor, against, okay. Abstention, reject. Recommendation three, amendment, recommendation fourth?
Speaker 2
No. This one. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
This one. Recommendation three, amendment 11. Who is in favor? Who is it?
Amendment nine was.
You have to go to.
This falls? Yeah.
Yeah. If amendment nine, sorry.
Speaker 2
Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. So now we are going to recommendation four, amendment 12. In favor?
Speaker 6
Against? Abstention ? Reject. Recommendation four, amendment 13. In favor?
Against? Abstention? Let's check. Let's check. Recommendation four, thirteenth amendment.
Speaker 6
Reject. Yeah. Recommendation four, amendment 14, in favor. Against. Abstention, reject.
Recommendation four a, amendment 15, in favor. Against? Abstention, reject. Recommendation four a, amendment 16, in favor? Against?
Abstention adopted. Mhmm. Check. Let's check. Let's check.
I have to check. I'm sorry. Okay. Yeah. Adopted.
Yeah. Okay. Recommendation five, amendment 17, in favor, against, abstention, reject. Recommendation five, amendment 18 in favor, against. Abstention, reject.
It's adopted.
Check. Check.
It's adopted.
I think it's.
Speaker 6
Yeah. Perfect. Recommendation five, amendment 19, are you in favor? Against. Abstention, reject.
Speaker 2
Recommendation five, a 20, part one, in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. Part two in favor? Against.
Speaker 6
Abstention, I would say, reject. Reject. Yeah. Okay. Let's go to recommendation five a, amendment 21.
In favor? Against? Abstention? Adopted. Recommendation five b, amendment 22, in favor?
Against. Abstention ? Adopted. Recommendation six, in favor?
It's 23, part one.
Speaker 6
Abstention adopted. Part two, in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. Recommendation six, amendment twenty-fourth in favor?
Against. Abstention, I have to check. Recommendation six.
Okay. We check.
Speaker 6
They fall, both of them. Yeah. CCC. It's correct. Recommendation seven, amendment 26 in favor, against?
Abstention adopted. Recommendation seven, amendment 27.
No. That falls.
Speaker 6
This falls. Sorry. Let's go to recommendation eight, twenty-eight in favor? Against. Okay.
Speaker 2
Abstention, reject. So go to the amendment 31. Recommendation eight a, amendment 31. I'm in favor? Against?
The 27, we have to abstention. 9. Adopted. Let's go to recommendation eight a. Wait a minute.
Speaker 18
The secretariat tells me something. Tell me. I made a mistake. The 20, sorry.
As far as I understand.
Speaker 2
28 was rejected. So this means that we have to go to vote on recommendation eight. Amendment 29 has to pass. So now we are going to vote on this. Everybody is looking at the list.
Speaker 6
Recommendation eight, amendment 29. Part one, in favor? Against? Abstention, reject. No.
So go to 30. Now let's go to.
29 part 2.
Speaker 2
Now let's go to 30, recommendation eight, amendment 30, in favor. And against.
Speaker 21
We voted on the 29. The first part fell. That meant we didn't vote for the second part. So now it's 30. Can you follow where I'm at?
Speaker 2
Got it. We vote 29 first part. False. It was rejected. So then false, the second part of the 29, and then now we have to go to vote on recommendation eight, amendment 30.
Speaker 6
Abstention, reject. Recommend 31. Recommendation eight a, amendment 31, in favor? Against. Abstention ?
Adopted. Recommendation a 32, first part. In favor? Against. Abstention ?
Let's check.
Sorry.
Speaker 6
Finish the vote. Adopted. Second part in favor. Against. Abstention, reject.
Recommendation nine, amendment 33. In favor? Against? Abstention, reject. So if false, let's go to the third. Yes.
34. 34.
Speaker 6
Okay. Recommendation nine, 34 in favor. Against abstention, reject. Recommendation 935, part one, in favor? Against.
Abstention adopted. Part two in favor? Against. I have to check. Abstention.
So I have to check. Let's check. Part two. Part two. We are in part two.
Okay. Oh, yeah. It was clear. Reject. Recommendation 10, amendment 36, in favor?
Against? Substantial? Reject. We are going to 37. Recommendation 10, 37 in favor.
Against. Abstention adopted. Recommendation ten, thirty-eight in favor. Against. Abstention, reject.
Recommendation 10a, amendment 39 in favor? Against. Abstention. Wow. I have to check.
Reject.
We go to 41 because it falls.
Now we are going no. It was this one.
Yeah. We
go to 41.
Speaker 6
So now we are going to 41, because this was fall. So recommendation 10b, amendment 41 in favor, against. Abstention adopted. 42, are they in favor? Against.
Check. Okay. Reject. Rejected. Recommendation 10 d 43 in favor?
Against. Abstention, reject. 44 in favor, against, abstention, rejected. Let's go to recommendation 10 f, 45, first part in favor, against, abstention, adopted. Second part, in favor?
Against. Abstention, reject. Let's go to 46. 47. 47 because false.
Speaker 2
It's false because, yeah. False. Yeah. False. So let's go to recommendation 10 47.
Speaker 6
First part in favor? Against. Extension adopted. Second part in favor? Against, abstention, reject.
Third part in favor, against, abstention, reject. 48 part in favor, in favor, against, against, against, against. Yeah. Yeah. In favor.
Speaker 2
No. Because, you know, for the, I had to count. I'm going to repeat. 48. We're in 48.
Speaker 6
First part. In favor. No. Against. Okay.
Abstention adopted. Second part, in favor? Against. Abstention, reject. Recommendation 10 g 49, first part, in favor?
Against. Ab adopted. Second part in favor? Against. Abstention ?
Reject. Third part in favor? Against. Abstention. Reject.
Recommendation t and 10 key, 50. First part in favor? Against. Abstention adopted. Second part in favor?
Against, abstention, reject. First part, recommendation, 101, 51 amendments in favor. First part, in favor, against, abstention, adopted. Second part, in favor, arrange, abstention, check. Check.
Speaker 6
Yeah. This was clear. Okay. Now 52, recommendation 10 m. 52 in favor?
Against. Extension adopted. Now recommendation 10 m. 53 in favor? Against.
Extension adopted. 54 in favor? Against. Extension adopted. Roll call vote, the final vote.
Let's open. Okay. Adopt it. Perfect. Let's.
Go. President.
Speaker 32
I'd like the floor as a full member of the mission. I would like a different assessment from the report on the basis of Article Para three of the relevant European regulation. Because the recommendations which have been adopted now are significantly changing the situation and have been polluted by the contribution of the far right on the question of migration. And this is totally unacceptable for me. I will therefore be sending in a different position to the chair today. Thank you.
Speaker 6
Well, you're quite right. We can have a minority opinion on that. Thank you for that. You've given your minority opinion. Thank you.
Item.
Speaker 2
Language. Dear members, the next item on the agenda is the vote on the draft mission report following the fact-finding visit to Mayadera, Portugal, 27 October. Okay? This is easy. It's easy.
That's the loss. Yeah.
Speaker 30
Ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, well, we are now at point 18 on our agenda. We will deal with item 18 of our agenda. We have to take into consideration the situation of forest fires in the European Union. And we've had submissions from Madeira in 2005 about the actual mechanism for protection against forest fires in Madeira. And the petitions committee does believe that it's very important to assess this and assess the European instruments to support prevention, readiness, and restoration of the situation.
Speaker 33
We're in a very happy position this morning to welcome Mr. Milionis, a member of the European Court of Auditors, here in the European Parliament. I'd like to thank him for his availability in coming here today to address us on EU funding to tackle forest fires, more preventive measures, but insufficient evidence of results and their long-term sustainability. And he will be available to answer our questions. Mr.
Speaker 31
And parliament, ladies and gentlemen. It's a great honor for me to present to the committee on petitions our latest report on forest fires. I also had the pleasure to present it last summer to the envy committee and to the regi committee. The next slide. Yes.
Thank you. Why did we do this audit? Last year, more than 1 million hectares of forest burnt in the European Union. This is two and a half times more than the previous ten years' average. The most affected countries are Spain, Portugal, and Romania, but fires have also spread to countries like Germany and Slovakia, which have exceeded their previous records for burned area.
The increased number of fires threatens human lives. There are also wide economic and environmental impacts, and climate change is making things worse. In recent years, citizens and local communities have repeatedly raised concerns about whether existing policies and funding are sufficient to prevent increasingly severe forest fires, protect people and ecosystems, and ensure better coordination between authorities. Next slide, please. We investigated the area through the lens of the EU land funding made available.
At least €3,500,000,000 have been set aside to tackle forest fires for the period 2127. The main sources are the cohesion policy funds and the recovery and resilience facility. As you, look at the slide, dealing with forest fires is mostly the responsibility of each member state. There is no explicit EU policy in this area. The European Union, through the Commission, provides funding to support these national efforts.
This shared responsibility across the European Union, national, regional, and local levels makes proper governance and coordination particularly important, but also challenging. So we looked at how the commission and member states used EU money to tackle forest fires. Specifically, we examined how national authorities designed the measures and selected which projects to finance. We also examined how the results of the projects are monitored. To understand better the management of the funds, we visited Portugal, Spain, Greece, and Poland.
In this project, we did not cover the response function of the European civil protection mechanism. It's a subject of another ongoing audit for which we plan to publish a report this summer. Next slide, please. What did we find? Overall, we found that more money is being spent on the prevention of fires, and this is a positive finding.
However, we also point to weaknesses in the procedure to select projects. This may result in the EU money not going where it could make the biggest difference. Finally, little is known about the results of these funded projects. And once the project ends, it's not always clear whether the activities will be continued. Overall, our findings resonate strongly with the issues raised by citizens.
They shift towards prevention, but also concern about targeting results on the grounds and whether actions are sustained over time. Let me now tell you a bit more about these findings. Next slide, please. We found that more EU money is being made available, and this helped to fund preventive measures. Experts have long been calling for a shift to more spending on prevention.
As you can see on the slide, the recovery and resilience fund was mostly spent on prevention in Greece, Spain, and Portugal. At the same time, our audit does not suggest that prevention alone is sufficient, especially in increasingly extreme fire seasons. Prevention and preparedness need to be aligned and sustained alongside adequate operational capacity at national level. At the European level, the commission does not have a complete overview of how much EU money in total goes to tackling forest fires due to fragmented reporting across funding instruments. This can make strategic coordination more difficult.
Next slide, please. Our second main conclusion highlights shortcomings in project selection. For instance, in some regions, outdated forest fire risk maps were used as a selection criteria. Additionally, we observed that certain regions prioritized geographical coverage over the quality of projects. We also noted a low response to post-fire restoration projects.
As a result, despite some improvements supporting Natura 2000 forests, EU support might not always go to the areas where the needs are the highest, and monitoring is insufficient. Next slide, please. What did we find? There is too little knowledge about the results of EU-funded projects. It's mainly because there are no suitable indicators to show whether the change is taking place.
This directly echoes citizens' concerns about whether EU-funded measures have actually reduced fire risk, burnt areas, or damage on the ground. And we believe that there are ways to measure results. For example, we came across a useful EU database called EFIS, which could be used to assess the effectiveness of these projects. We asked the commission's joint research center, a body that runs this database, to test one of the selected projects. We can see the results on the screen.
The red line shows where the EU-funded firebreak was created and how it prevented the fire from spreading. Yet neither the commission nor the member states used the EFIS data for the purpose of checking the effectiveness of the selected projects. This represents a missed opportunity for learning and evidence-based decision making. The next slide, please. We finally point to risks, which, the sustainability of the EU funded projects.
Many preventive actions require regular maintenance, yet we found limited evidence of long-term financing or planning once projects end, particularly for MFF funding actions. This raises concerns about whether today's investments will deliver lasting protection for forests, biodiversity, and communities. The recovery and the resilience facility was a major additional source of funding, providing close to €1,500,000,000 for forest fires. It is, however, a temporary instrument that expires this year. We verified whether there was a plan to maintain the results after the projects end.
It is important for some projects like the firebreaks or vegetation thinning to require ongoing work. Vegetation grows back quickly, so every two, three, or four years, the work should be repeated. We found that, for example, for the ROF projects, the member states did not have a plan for how to maintain the impact of preventive works funded. But we found some good practices too. Under the European Regional Development Fund, the commission requested information about the capacity to maintain the purchased vehicles.
There was also a positive example under the recovery and resilience facility. In Portugal, for example, we the contract for buying 55 vehicles required that the seller provides spare parts for a period of ten years. Next slide, please. Sorry. And now I shall briefly explain the essence of our recommendations.
First, we task the European Commission with promoting good practices for project selection, namely to help national authorities target projects with the greatest potential. Good practice may cover the issue of updating risk maps or suggesting tangible solutions to ensure the long-term sustainability of the projects. The second recommendation urges the European Commission to assess the results of the EU-funded projects and disseminate this information to member states. While operational forest fire management remains primarily a national and regional responsibility, the European Union can play an important role by strengthening coordination, learning, and accountability across funding instruments. The next slide, please.
In conclusion, our audit shows that lessons from past fires are not always sufficiently embedded in funding decisions and monitoring systems. Strengthening, learning and follow-up will be essential, as fire risks continue to increase. I
would
Speaker 31
Like to thank you for your attention, and we are at your disposal to answer any question you have.
Speaker 30
Thank you very much, Mr. Melonis, for that presentation. Let me now give the floor to the European Commission for ten minutes, DG environment.
Speaker 34
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the floor. I would like to start by thanking the honorable members of the petty committee for inviting the commission to present its views on this important topic. I would also like to thank Mr. Miliannis for presenting the special report and its outcomes.
Speaker 35
And I would like to thank the European Court of Auditors for the good cooperation that we had in the preparation of this report. As the report outlines, member states have at their disposal various EU funding programmes to finance projects addressing wildfires. In this programming period, this includes, for example, EUR 2,300,000,000 allocated under the Cohesion Policy Funds, 2,200,000,000 under the Recovery and Resilience Facility and over EUR 1,000,000,000 under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. The commission welcomes the ECA's assessment that the actions funded by each of these instruments were consistent with its respective policy and that the commission assisted member states and member state authorities in better coordinating their programming. The commission furthermore welcomes the conclusion that the EU funding has seen a shift towards prevention, which is widely considered a necessary step to reduce the likelihood and intensity of future fires.
Speaker 34
Nevertheless, it remains the priority of the commission to ensure appropriate funding and support for preparedness and response and recovery. With regard to future action, the commission accepted both of the recommendations by the European Court of Auditors, namely first on promoting good practices for project selection, and secondly, for improving our overview of the effectiveness of EU funding and promoting the dissemination of effective demonstration projects. We are currently working on the implementation of these recommendations. As an example of their implementation, with regard to the cohesion policy funding, the commission will disseminate good practices for project selection, namely on risk mapping, long-term sustainability, and well-balanced risk criteria as recommended in the ECA report. This will be done through the relevant networks, such as the European network of environmental authorities and managing authorities, and the cohesion for transitions community of practice.
Considering these recommendations and the concerns raised in the petitions on wildfires that we have received, and recognizing that more needs to be done to effectively tackle the issue of wildfires, which are becoming more frequent and more intense in Europe, the commission has worked in cooperation with the member states and the relevant stakeholders on a communication on integrated wildfire risk management, which is due to be published tomorrow. I cannot delve into the details of this document as it has not been published yet, but I can say that the communication will outline a more holistic and more impactful approach to wildfire risk management, and it will identify specific additional measures to support member states, regions, and other stakeholders. The communication will promote policy coherence and address fragmentation by addressing all stages of the risk management cycle. This means that prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery will all be duly addressed. Specifically, this communication will outline how the EU will support land-based prevention measures and fire-resilient landscapes through sustainable land management.
It will focus, for example, among other things, on actions to promote the coherence between wildfire prevention measures and the nature protection and restoration objectives. The commission notes the concerns raised in the petition 1626/25 in this respect. To support national and regional authorities in this endeavor, the commission will publish guidance on Natura 2000 and climate change, which will promote ecosystem-based fuel reduction measures such as grazing or prescribed burning that are compatible with the site's conservation objectives. The communication will furthermore outline how preparedness can be improved through better data, better risk assessments, and uptake of research results. In this respect, the commission will continue to work on improving its satellite data and risk assessment modeling, which is provided, as Mr.
Milione has pointed out, by the European Forest Fire Information System. And we are going to do this by listening also to what member states' experts need. So we will tailor these to the needs of the national authorities. Next, the report or the communication, excuse me, will outline how population awareness and preparedness can be strengthened and further support for response can be organized. We note the calls for strengthening the EU civil protection mechanism and for reinforcements of the aerial firefighting capacities, and we will respond with appropriate actions.
For example, the Rescue U firefighting fleet will be expanded with the procurement of 12 additional firefighting planes and 5 helicopters. The communication will also outline how post fire recovery will be supported so that the European communities can build back better after catastrophic wildfires. Finally, the communication will propose actions for integrated governance, improve knowledge exchange, and streamline more effective funding. I'd like to conclude by saying that the commission is looking forward to getting the opportunity to present the communication in the European Parliament. Thank you very much.
Speaker 30
Thank you very much. And now I will give the floor to the members of the committee.
In agreement with the protocol. So two minutes. I'll start with the EPP, Ms. Chris Podias.
Speaker 38
Thank you very much. Good morning to everybody. First of all, of course, it's a pleasure to have you here to Galissi's presentation on what is an extremely important topic. It's perfectly possible that there is a case of commercial fraud on Vietnamese tuna.
That.
Speaker 43
I'm very sorry. I'm not the rapporteur for that particular topic. I am, however, for the following one. So, my apologies. I thought I was to take the floor on that.
Things.
Speaker 42
That do happen. Don't worry. Now we're talking about the report of the ECA. And then I have the Patriots.
Speaker 39
Thank you very much for this report, and we will be paying close attention to all the developments. Thank you very much for all your work.
Maria Zacharia
Mrs. Zakaria, you have the floor. Thank you very much, Chairman. Now, the ECA report is apocalyptic. It says something very simple, but something very serious.
That is, the European Union and the member states are investing a lot of money in the prevention of fires, but we don't actually have really good practical results of that. There's no sustainability. And the ECA also says that the European Commission doesn't have a full picture of how the money is being spent. And this is actually the very important question for Greece, because we've got a program. And it's not just a question of the effectiveness of it, is in doubt, but also the question of transparency and the impact that it is having.
So we've had a situation in Greece where they are actually damaging the environment in protected areas. And we also have problems as regards resources being used for the programs themselves. So it's not just a question of waste of money. It's a question of whether, in the name of prevention, we're having funding which is going to supposedly protected areas. So we have to look also, therefore, at the infringement of European law here in terms of impact assessment.
Proper working model is not being followed, and we have to have the proper scientific data in order to see whether the projects are being effective. We want to know how this money for prevention is being properly spent, and whether there is legality, whether there is transparency. That's my question. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 30
No other colleagues are asking for the floor. So, Mr. Milones, you have the floor for your replies to the questions and your summary. Well, I can speak Greek. I'd like to speak to my Greek colleague in Greek.
Speaker 31
We had already drawn up a report. I think it was 2 years ago. We had actually taken cognizance of the letter which you referred to. And when we carried out the audit, the performance audit as it's called, well, we actually carried out a report on the legality. So it was slightly separated.
It's a separate question. And it includes sampling transactions. So that's what we did. We carried out a sort of legality study. But now, we're looking at the actual management of the funds, and whether or not they are effective.
Whether they actually respond to what is required. So there's been a big change, if you like, a big change in direction. If we look at page 28, I think it's page 28, says the speaker. Of the report, you see that there is a comment and an indication, a specific indication. So we've seen this transfer of a large sum of money dedicated to prevention.
And we observed that this is a section, a part of the RRF, the recovery fund. And we thought that this was actually a positive development, that this fund is dedicated to prevention. But turning now to whether or not this has been effective, this transfer, the effectiveness, well, it's a bit too early for us to have assessed it. As I said, we did a report two years ago about the effectiveness of the measure. But if we look at the results on the environment, well, we didn't actually cover that in our report.
So if there are issues and you mentioned these about the legality of it all, well, these, of course, are issues which are really under the remit of the member states. The ECA is not able to do anything on that. I hope I've been clear, says the speaker.
Thank.
thank you very much.
Speaker 30
Well, I would like everybody for the debate, and we can move on now to the next item on our agenda, which is Petition 2,500 25 of Horacio Gonzalez Aleman, Spanish nationality, on the union's alleged failure to enforce rules of origin requirements in its tuna fillet imports from Vietnam. We have the petitioner here. So you have five minutes, dear petitioner.
Speaker 44
Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you to the committee for having allowed us to present this petition through the good officers of Carmen Crespo. Our petition is on the imports of tuna from Vietnam and the unfair competition, which has resulted because of a lack of action on the part of the commission as we see it. I have some slides here for you.
Speaker 46
Thank you very much. Just to put things in context, the European Union is a highly attractive market with a strong competitive structure, and it is importing a lot of items which are not produced here. Tuna fillets are an increasing quantity of imports for European companies, and they are extremely protected in terms of the current and future market. Next slide. This shows that the EU has a free trade agreement with Vietnam, which is a big tuna producing country, which serves leading markets like the European market, but other developed markets too, such as the US.
Speaker 44
Specific to the context of the EU, there are zero tariff rate quotas for Vietnamese tuna, whilst other producing countries from the same zone such as Korea, the Philippines, or Taiwan have up to 18% tariff rate quotas. So Vietnam has zero tariff, and therefore is in a preferential position. But since 2024, we've seen that there's been an abnormal increase of tuna imports into the EU originating from Vietnam. My next slide shows that as we investigated in greater detail, we found that in 2022, Vietnam was exporting the equivalent of 19,941 tons of tuna loins to the EU, whilst the total production in that country as a whole was 20,088 tons. So this was completely impossible.
Speaker 45
There is therefore a clearly well-founded suspicion of irregularities going on in this market. Is it possible that only 147 tons of tuna are consumed locally, domestically? What is happening with the other 24,000 tons that were exported to the US according to the US's own statistics? There is a clear conundrum here. Therefore, February 19, '20, '25, we filled in a complaint form, which we've forwarded to DG Trade.
Since then, we've asked DG Trade for information and action on at least five separate occasions, but still with no success. We wanted them to investigate what's happening under the auspices of this zero tariff. We have continued only to get vaguely formal responses notwithstanding the five separate petitions, a meeting that we had in December, a parliamentary question, and an Olaf investigation, which was opened in July 2025, but still there is no response. We've not had a reply of any sort, nor any sort of details, nothing but procrastination and excuses. The next slide, here.
We don't need to see that one, particularly. I can just summarize the situation, which is that we've waited for over a year for a formal response without any success. Imports continued to rise. And indeed, in order to avoid reciprocal tariffs, some 46% duty, many consignments have actually been rerouted. Therefore, the situation of illegal circumvention of duties and unfair competition is really extremely serious.
It's important that this question is addressed. We are competing, of course, with imports from quite a lot of different countries. We have very high standards in the European Union for everything that concerns ESG, labour costs, and so forth. Therefore, we obviously sell our products at higher prices. So the prices there can be undercutting us.
Our prices can be only €2 a kilo. So you can see from what I've said that there's a lot of cheaper imports around, and many are coming from countries with which we can't trade at all, like Micronesia. They have high quantities of tuna fishing, but we are not able to import from that area for quality reasons. We're not asking for aid. We're not asking for subsidies.
We're just asking for a level playing field for things to be done properly, for the commission to conduct itself properly, to comply with the free trade agreement that exists between the EU and Vietnam, and to comply with all the frontier transition arrangements to ensure that there is no fraud, and to ensure that the tariffs which should be levied, which are own resources of the European Union, are actually levied, where they should be levied, and when they should be levied so that there's equality of arms on the market. So, essentially, we're talking about some 7 companies exporting to some 5 companies here in Europe. Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 30
The petitioner. And now I give the floor to the commission for 10 minutes. DG TAGs. Thank you.
Speaker 47
Good morning. Thank you, chair, and thank you for giving the chance to the commission to present its analysis on the case at stake. And thank you also to the petitioner for having informed the commission about that potential and lawful commercial practices as regards imports of tuna from Vietnam into the EU under the EU Vietnam FTA. First, let me also clarify that the rules of origin, which we are discussing now under the EU-Vietnam FTA, are similar to the ones we have in all other EU FTAs and also similar to the ones which were applicable for Vietnam under the GSP before the FTA started to be applied. For frozen tuna fillets to be considered as originating and to benefit from the tariff preference, they need to be either caught in the Vietnamese territorial waters or beyond the territorial waters by Vietnamese vessels.
Speaker 48
In the agreement, the vessels of Vietnam are defined as fulfilling three conditions, selling under the flag of Vietnam or the EU, being registered in Vietnam or the EU, and being owned at least 50% by EU nationals or Vietnamese nationals or entities. There are mechanisms in the EU Vietnam FTA to verify compliance with those criteria, and we know the EU member states customs authorities are using those mechanisms to verify if those conditions are fulfilled. Now, concretely, we looked at the Eurostat figures concerning imports of tuna. And what we see is actually not an upward trend until 2024. The average of imports is 6,200 tonnes.
If we take out the two years, 2020 and 2023, where we know there is a decrease because of COVID, because of the energy crisis. If we take those two years into account, we go from 6200 to 6400. So that's the average we have. And we don't see an upward trend until 2024. We see indeed an increase in 2025, which you did not mention, but probably you saw it also.
Speaker 47
So in 2025, there is an increase, and we will keep an eye on that. The reports from Vietnam as regards the catch of tuna in 2025 is not yet published, so we cannot really confirm. But until 2024, it is, and I will come to that in a moment. I would like also to mention that the preferential utilization rate, so the level up to which the preference is used at importing the EU, is also quite low for Vietnamese tuna. It is below 50% most of the time.
Speaker 48
And in 2022, it was 45%. So on the 6,700 tonnes of tuna imported in '22, only 45% of that was imported under preference of the FTA, which is then exactly 3,000 tonnes. So there are 3,000 tons of frozen tuna fillets imported under preference in 2022. If we take the conversion rate of 3.41, which is used in the petition to estimate also the raw tuna necessary to produce those frozen tuna fillets, we end up with 9,000 tonnes of tuna in 2022. We then looked at the reports from Vietnam, which are published by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, which report for every year the fishing operations of Vietnam.
Speaker 47
And there, we see the quantities of tuna caught by Vietnam in the EEZ. And that's where the figures we have differ quite a lot from the ones exposed in the petition in 2022. The quantities of tuna caught in Vietnamese EEZ is 152,000, so much higher than the figures we showed before. So that's maybe something that we can discuss together to clarify. If we now compare the 9,000 tonnes I spoke of before to those 152,000 tons, it represents 6%.
So from what is caught in Vietnam, is that by Vietnamese vessels, only 6% is exported to the EU as frozen tuna fillets. As I said, we see an increase in the imports in 2025, but the reports from Vietnam are not yet available. We will, of course, follow that and see if there is a correspondence also in quantities of tuna caught by Vietnam in 2025. So based on this, we don't really see an abnormality in the figures, in the imports under preferential trade from Vietnam for this specific product. The quantities of import and exports are matching.
We, of course, will continue to make full use of all available tools. We have to detect misuse of the EUFTA and incorrect application of the rules in order to safeguard the integrity of the EU FTA, EU financial interest, and the protection of EU companies and consumers. Thank you.
Speaker 30
Thank you very much to the commission. I now give the floor to the members, EPP, Ms. Crespo.
Speaker 38
Thank you very much indeed, and thank you to the commission as well, particularly for the petitioner coming here. I think that these figures are telling. And apart from showing that there is a certain amount of fluctuation, they do show that there is a serious issue here of potential commercial fraud. They also narrate that this is a serious problem for the companies and operators in our country who are involved in the sector, to say nothing of the consumer. So it is quite clear here that whether the figures fluctuate, we need to have some kind of on-the-spot auditing.
And the need is to have a proper investigation as to what is happening with Vietnamese tuna fillets in order to ascertain what the situation actually is and what the figures actually are and whether the reality as presented to us reflects the reality on the ground. There are established commercial practices which the European Union uses, but, of course, we have provisions in place to protect our market and our consumers in particular. That is why we have all these provisions in force. So this is a very important topic, and I think it's important that the commission recognizes and supports the European fishers and the business sector, the fishery sector, and does the requisite investigations in order to make sure that there is a level playing field and that there is no unfair competition. So it's vital that we look at traceability, that we look at the figures, and that we make sure that the fisheries policy, the common fisheries policy, has been properly complied with because our common fisheries policy does not countenance a situation where there is unfair competition anywhere on our internal or external market.
It is very important also that the rules of origin are complied with. And if there is fish coming from Vietnam, which is improperly labeled as Vietnamese, this is a further matter which should be investigated and audited on the spot in order to ascertain what the actual provenance of this tuna is. Traceability is of the essence. And, of course, the quantities have got to be verified and signed off. This is in order to protect those in the industry in Europe, but above all, the consumer.
Thank you.
S and D, please.
Nils Ušakovs
Thank you, chair. First of all, I would like to thank the petitioners for bringing this issue to the attention of the committee, because what is being raised here is a serious concern for European operators, particularly regarding fair competition and the proper functioning of the internal market. At the same time, I believe it's important to frame this discussion correctly. This case is not about questioning trade agreements as such, but about ensuring that they are properly implemented and enforced. In particular, the issues raised regarding rules of origin and the correct application of tariff preferences are essential elements of any trade agreement.
If there are doubts about compliance, this must be based on evidence. In that sense, it's important to note that the petitions have already engaged with the European Commission through several channels, and that an investigation process appears to be ongoing. Therefore, it's not a situation of inaction, but rather one that requires careful assessment and follow up. At the same time, we should avoid drawing premature conclusions. Trade agreements rely on clear rules, but also on proper monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.
And it's precisely through these mechanisms that the potential irregularities should be addressed. For these reasons, we consider that it's appropriate to continue monitoring the situation and to request further clarification from the European Commission. Thank you, chairman.
Thank.
Mireia Borrás Pabón
Thank you very much. I too would like to thank the petitioner and thank all those who had contributed to the discussion here. It is partly thanks to the support from VOXX that this petition actually came forward. It's very important that we identify situations where our farmers or fishers are exposed to unfair competition, and this is not always done by other parts of the political spectrum. This is not an isolated situation.
It's an example of the way that the free trade policies the European Union pursues actually are counterproductive and serve only to harm those operating in the sector. We're looking here specifically at tuna, the rules that govern imports, rules of origin, and the rest of the legal arrangements governing imports of tuna. These must all be completely and fully complied with. In 2022, 19,000 plus tons of tuna was produced, but some 6,700 tons of fillets were exported to the EU. If we apply the standards that you're suggesting, which is three fillets per tuna, then we would need incomparably more weight of tuna in order to be able to export all of this.
Therefore, the question arises as to what has happened to these 24,000 additional tons. So the question arises as to where this tuna is coming from, and why the commission is not asking itself this very question. It would all suggest very much that there is some kind of triangulation taking place in importation, exportation, and in rules of origin. And this is not uncommon in international trade. It would, if this is confirmed, it is not just an irregularity.
It's a major breach and violation of World Trade Organization rules, but also of our free trade agreement. And the people who, of course, pay the price are the importers and the people in the fishery business in the European Union. We have strict rules which govern the imports into this country and prevent or should prevent products coming into the European Union at dumping prices. Our products should be protected against this. And, therefore, we insist that there's proper verification, proper border controls.
And if there is fraud, there is immediate suspension of that particular contract. Thank you.
Thank.
Speaker 30
Thank you very much. Well, dear petitioner, you have two more minutes to make your comments, final comments. Thank you.
Thank.
Speaker 45
Thank you very much indeed, chairman, and thank you to all those who have contributed. I think the commission is not clear about some of the figures that have been given. We have yellowfin tuna. We have skipjack tuna. We have tuna which is sold as fillets and tuna which is tinned, and the figures don't all add up here that we're hearing from you in the Commission.
Speaker 44
So that needs to be investigated further. Can I also point out that for more than a year, the commissioner, the commission, has been giving vague responses to the petitioner? It almost seems as if they are there to defend the interests of business, not the petitioners, not the citizens. Whose interests are you there to protect? Who are you there to serve? There is a free trade agreement with Vietnam, and there is a committee which meets in that framework.
And it's never actually met and discussed all these issues. It should have looked at these issues of rules of origin and imports. We've asked for this, and we would insist that this be done. There's an agreement. There are instruments.
There are arrangements. There are structures. None of these are actually being deployed to ascertain the truth and to respond to these requests made by the petitioner. They must be answered. Thank you.
Speaker 30
Very much to the petitioner. As we have seen from the debate, the petition will remain open, and we wait for the written reply from the Commission. Moving on, we are at item 20, petition number 12032024, submitted by Adan Carriero, a Spanish national. On behalf of the Nulles Independent Farmers Association on the damage done by pests in the citrus farming sector. The petitioner will present his comments by remote connection.
So you have the floor, petitioner, to present your comments, your petition.
Speaker 53
Thank you very much, Chairman. Members of the European Parliament, thank you very much for accepting this petition. My name is Adam Carrielero, and I represent the Independent Farmers Association of Nules, which is a citrus-growing area in Castellon in Spain. We received a reply recently from the European Commission to our petition. With all due respect, it contains claims that do not stand up to scrutiny, and we're here to show it today.
Next slide. First falsehood. Cold treatment is working. The commission claims that third countries are complying with the protocol. This is incorrect.
South Africa has not complied since 2022, and there's an awareness of the fraud. They are cooling the container, but not the pulp. They are accepting ambient temperature, when international rules stipulate pulp temperature. The Citrus Growers Association in South Africa admitted in 2024 that there were serious shortcomings in its cold chain. And what's even worse is they recommended their members avoid Spanish ports and go to Rotterdam where the inspections are less stringent.
Next slide, please. Second falsehood. The inspections at the border are sufficient. The commission boasts of an inspection rate of 100%. Yet in practice, they barely checked 10% of imports from Turkey and Egypt, and now this has gone down by half.
And this is happening with countries that are number one when it comes to our ASF system alerts for residues of pesticides banned in the EU. Cutting the inspections is not a technical decision, it's a political decision. Next slide, please. Third falsehood, the pests are under control. Citrus yellow vein clearing virus CYVCV could destroy 40% of the lemon production.
It was detected in Italy in 2024 and in Spain in February. But it is still not included as a quarantine pest in the European legislation. The contingency plans from the commission always come after the event when the pest has already penetrated the EU market. And what is crucial is that we saw it from entering, and we've seen that this is not working. Next slide, please.
Biological control is the solution. Well, biological control is a useful tool, but it's not a magic wand. Non native pests are not prepared to be combated by our ecosystems. So, indigenous predators are not effective. For example, the Asian citrus red mite, if the predators eat it, their reproduction is cupped up by 60%.
And we've seen the same thing with the mealybug as well. What's more, red tape, which is often ideologically driven, stops imported predators from being authorized. They are predators from the place of origin of the pests, even though this is scientifically proven. Next slide. All of this has a cost, however, and we are paying it.
In our area, we're seeing losses up to 97% in sweet orange trees and 94% in mandarin trees. In Bourrianna, up to 100%. We've gone from four or five annual treatments to eight or 10. The extra costs per hectare are $19.80 euros a year. For an average farm of five hectares, we're talking about €10,000 to €12,000 more each year.
And this is money that we are paying to combat pests that should not even be here. Clawberophos is banned because of the impact on health, but we are allowing fruit into the EU that was grown with those products. And the European consumer is buying food with residue of pesticides that this house says is dangerous. Next slide, please. And then we have double standards.
The United States requires cold treatment and is closing its market if it detects a single larva. China, Japan, Australia all do the same, and we comply. But when South Africa doesn't comply, when Turkiye exceeds all limits, the EU tolerates this and turns a blind eye. The Netherlands is putting the interests of the Port of Rotterdam above the health of Europeans. Next slide, please.
For this reason, ladies and gentlemen, we are presenting six key requests. One, European fund of phytosanitary compensation. If the inspections are not carried out to the border, compensation should be paid, should not fall on the farmer. Secondly, rigorous cold treatment with verification of pulp temperature, not ambient temperature, include for all varieties of citrus fruits. Three, a real increase in border checks, especially for repeat offenders, and automatic closure for repeat offenders.
Fourth, urgent inclusion of the CYVCV as a priority quarantine pass five, a European authority of phytosanitary inspection with standardized criteria in all ports. This cannot be at the discretion of member states. Six, realistic investigation and speedy authorization for specific predators from the countries of origin of pests, without ideologically driven red tape. Now Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, the commission has responded to us saying that this is a perfect system which does not exist. We are here to show the reality.
The rural areas have been destroyed. Families have lost everything, and young people won't be farmers. Now you can speak, vote, and decide. But before doing so, remember that behind your votes are many families that could go under. Thank you very much for your attention.
Speaker 30
Thank you very much to the petitioner.
I now give the floor to the commission for 10 minutes. DG Health and Food Security.
Speaker 54
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Sylvain Giraud, Head of Unit Plant Health in DG Food Safety at the European Commission. We'll be very happy to be able to provide some answers. I would like to thank Mr.
Karri Jarrot for the petition. We would like to address the concerns that he has expressed, as well as the suggestion made. Due to the limited time that we have and the complexity of some of the issues, we can also provide more details through other channels if he wishes. As regards the coal treatment and how it works, in the current EU measures, coal treatment is imposed for oranges in relation with the pest called false coddling moths. The two options that are given for cold treatment in the EU legislation. I.
E, the cooling of the pulp or the cooling of the container, both of these options arrive at the same level of protection as part of a risk management system. This is in line with international standards on a systems approach. I want to stress that according to the data we have, we believe we are well informed. There is no systematic fraud. Oranges from South Africa are checked 100% for compliance with EU rules. Member states, if they have any doubt or suspicion of a potential fraud, can request the records of the cold treatment from the exporters.
Since 2022, there have been only two consignments that have been rejected because they were not in compliance, two consignments of oranges from South Africa. And we believe the recordings are not misleading on this issue. For other citrus than oranges, also for the moment, we don't believe this would be justified. If there was to be an increase in the detection of noncompliance and of rejection of containers, then, of course, the commission would propose reinforcing the import control measures. As regards the import control measures themselves and the points made by the petitioner on this, first, let me refer to the general context on the issue of import controls, which the Commission has decided to highlight as a very important element in the vision for agriculture, the document that was issued by the Commission last year on February 25. And the follow-up commitments that were made, in particular, by Commissioner Vareli in discussions in the Council of Ministers, but also presented last week in the Committee for Agriculture of the European Parliament on the development of a task force on import control to look at how to make our import controls more efficient, and also announcing some new measures in relation to increasing our controls and our audits.
This is the overall context. But the petitioner is pointing out two types of import controls. The first one is in relation to the presence of pesticides through maximum residue limits that are set for pesticides in oranges. The purpose of this is, of course, human health for products that are consumed as food. The frequency of these controls is based on a risk assessment.
And those frequencies are reassessed every six months, according to the legislation. And those frequencies are based on the recorded level of compliance. For oranges that come from Egypt and Turkey, temporary increased frequencies of controls and emergency measures are in place, respectively. For Turkey, we request extra guarantees through certification and laboratory analyses. The second type of import controls the petitioner is referring to are the plant health import controls.
So those are for plant health purposes, to protect plants and crops from pests. Citrus fruits in that context are checked at the frequency of 100% as a general rule. Reduced frequencies apply, but only when imported citrus fruits have consistently complied with the requirements. And as, for example, this is the case for Egypt, where the frequency rate of control is 50% or for Turkey, where it is at 5%. All these frequencies of controls are regularly reviewed based on an agreed methodology, and they are discussed. They are presented, changes are presented by the commission to the member states, and the member states are also invited to suggest their proposals in that context, and they are discussed and voted by the member state.
On the level of harmonization of import controls in different member states, the commission regularly conducts audits in the member states and also in subcountries to check how the EU measures are actually implemented and how import controls are actually complied with. The audits that we have carried out so far in member states have not led us to identify any significant divergence on import controls in plant health across the member states. So the controls are not more lenient in one country than in another. With the current legislation, the EU operates an open system. This is our model.
This is what has been decided by the legislation. So we do follow a very careful stepwise approach when we detect noncompliance, and we take corrective action. And this corrective action can, if necessary, lead to import bans. This is what we did in 2020, when we banned the imports of oranges and lemons from Argentina. On the suggestion made by the petitioner that we should have an EU plant health inspection authority, well, we don't have such authority as such, but as I said before, the commission is conducting audits and working very closely with the member states to ensure that import controls are conducted with the appropriate attention.
In addition, let me say that, as the Commissioner Vareli also explained as part of the task force on import control, the Commission is looking into creating an EU expert pool on import control that will allow the exchange of national officials who are experts in import controls, and it will be an opportunity for sharing best practice and develop further convergence in the way controls are organized and strengthen their effectiveness. On the citrus yellow vein clearing virus, CYVCV, this pest is currently under assessment. It is not a quarantine pest. It is indeed present in Spain and Italy. While a decision at EU level is pending, member states can take national measures to address the situation of this pest if they believe that this is necessary.
To date, we're not aware that Spain has communicated any such measures or intends to take such measures. There are very specific criteria for a pest to be a quarantined pest, including whether it's absent from the EU territory or only very sparsely distributed, not widely distributed. These criteria need to be supported by scientific and technical evidence. From the pests that are also mentioned in the petition, only Schiartyrps aurenti is listed as a quarantine pest. The commission's proposal to reinforce the measures for this pest is discussed with the member states.
And for the moment, some of the most relevant member states are not actually supporting increased measures and the controls. On biological control, let me refer to a recent proposal that the commission has made, which is called the Simplification Package on Food and Feed, which was made by the commission on December 25 that some people refer to as the omnibus on food and feed. This is currently discussed by the council and the parliament. In this proposal, several provisions aim at facilitating access to substances, including biocontrol, for the use of active substances for all the regulated pests through the one-zone approach and the emergency authorization and the mutual recognition. So that will facilitate access, and also access to biocontrol active substances.
On the request for a European plant compensation fund for farmers, there is already in place the possibility for member states to request co-funding for the application of eradication measures in case of outbreaks of current pests. In the new MFF that is under negotiations, we hope to see the importance of plant health reflected in the appropriate budget being allocated to support these situations in the member states. There is also the possibility for the pests that are not quarantine pests for farmers to get support from farms under the common agricultural policy. As for the point made in relation to research, I would like to point out that there already was.
Did you say?
Speaker 54
Yeah. I'm finishing, mister chair. Apologies. So just to say that, indeed, I finish, and I would like to also encourage the petitioners to share their opinions and views with the national authorities in Spain, and that as they are, they're probably the right channel to also discuss or bring further discussion at your level. Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Sandra Gómez López
you. I'll introduce myself first of all. I'm Sandra Gomez. I don't think the petitioner can see me. I'm from the Socialist group.
First of all, I'd like to thank the petitioner for submitting the petition. It's a legitimate concern that we also share because behind this petition is a reality, is the increasing difficulties faced by the agricultural sector, especially the citrus growing sector in my region of Valencia. And this is being subjected to increasing pressure. We are seeing a lot of uncertainty about the future, as the petitioner highlighted. But we should also think about this issue.
Phytosanitary controls and pests are an important issue, and we should look at this from a very scientific point of view to ensure that imports fully comply with European standards. In this sense, it is reasonable what the petitioner is asking for, that is more information and more monitoring. At the same time, we need to be clear when it comes to the available tools. The policies are very complex in this area. There are European and international agreements, and we need to strike a balance between different interests.
Therefore, we need to analyze each case in detail and avoid simplification, as the petitioner was saying. We understand that, as the commission said, we need to look at the next MFF, and we need to see more investment in the budget to improve these solutions that the petitioners are asking us for. We therefore believe that the petition should remain open because, as I was saying, it's legitimate to monitor the information as requested by the petitioner and to send written information to the petition from the commission. And it should also be forwarded to Envy and Agri. Thank you.
Thank.
Mireia Borrás Pabón
Thank you, Chairman, and thank you very much to the petitioner. I'm Mire Boras from the PFE Group. With citrus farming in Spain, what's happening is not a failure of the system. It's the system itself. Spanish producers are banned from using active ingredients, and they have increasing costs because of the Green Deal.
But the European Union is allowing citrus fruits to enter from third countries, which have been grown with substances that are banned here, and based on much more lax standards. Now that is unacceptable in itself. But add to this the collapse of the border check system. The commission says that 100% of imports are being checked. That is absolutely and technically false.
We know that at key ports, not even 10% of imports are being checked. And that's the precise reason why farmers from other countries are sending their imports to other ports because the controls are less stringent. You say that you check 100%, but we've had a dozen pests entering the EU because of a lack of checks. And these have a devastating economic impact. The production costs have gone up by over 60%, from going to €340 to €700. The commission continues to sign freight trade agreements with Morocco and Mercosur and increasing their volumes entering the EU without having equivalent standards.
But what should be trade policy ends up becoming a policy of replacement, less production in Europe, and more coming in from outside. We need to have proper reciprocity with effective phytosanitary controls. There is only unfair competition that's being institutionalized, and this is what is being supported by the PSOE and the PEP, but it's destroying the rural areas in Spain, and we'd like to ask the petition to be kept open. Thank you.
Speaker 30
Thank you very much. And I'll give the floor to the petitioner for two minutes for his summary of comments. Thank.
Speaker 53
Thank you, chairman. And ladies and gentlemen, thank you for all your input. I've listened to your comments. Some were reasonable, and some not. But I will continue fighting what I've been fighting for so far.
And I've fought because we are facing so many extra costs. Farmers in Castellón and Valencia can't continue like this. We can't carry on taking such costs. And we cannot continue losing 97% of our harvest when the borders are open to pests that should not even be here in the first place. And this is happening at a time when this house is telling us to be greener, use fewer pesticides, and comply with the farm to fork strategy.
How can we do this if we have to carry out various treatments each year? How can we produce sustainable, healthy products if European consumers end up buying fruit that has been imported from outside the European Union? It's like we have one hand tied behind our back and the other has their two hands free. If you want to see young people working in farming, if you want to see food produced based on decent standards, we need to control what's coming in across the border. And when you fail, there needs to be someone to pay for that.
We're talking here about accountability and responsibility. We are doing our part. We've been doing so for many years, even though we might not like it. We're not asking for special treatment. We're asking for justice.
Thank you.
Thank.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 30
Well, this petition will remain open, and we will ask the commission to monitor the situation and give a balanced reply. Mrs. Gomez has made a request, and that's been taken on board. And it will be transferred to the environment committee. Well, colleagues, we will now have an interval.
We're back here at 2:30. We will continue in the same room.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.