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 sittingsThis is a show of hands, and then
The final vote is roll call.
Nobody but this is the show. Okay.
Two hands.
It's set.
When they ask.
Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay.
Yes.
They.
Veronika Vrecionová
How long do you think that we have waited? We are just now waiting not for our colleague, but for the technicians. We have some problems with screens. Sorry. Okay.
Sorry. We were waiting because of some technical problems, but I think that now we can start. And the our first issue is strengthening of the position of farmers in the food supply chain, and now we will start vote. No. No.
It's just a single vote. Okay. And we voted by, well, it's a roll call vote. I opened the vote. Yes.
Close. I close the vote, and it was adopted. You can see the result on your screens. No. Okay.
In this case, could you put it back? You don't know. I don't know the result now.
Can you repeat it?
Veronika Vrecionová
Yes. I want okay. You won't repeat it? Okay. In this case, I have, please repeat the vote.
I open the vote. I close the vote, and it was adopted, and in favor is 39 and against 4 and one abstention. One abstention. Okay. To the let's vote issue five, the Horizon Europe.
And let's start with compromise one. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Compromise two, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromise three, who is in favor?
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? Against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Compromise six, in favor? Against? Abstain? It was adopted.
Compromise seven, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromise eight is in favor.
Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted. Compromise 9. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromise 10 in favor? Against?
Abstain? It was adopted. Compromise 11 is in favor. Against, abstain, it was adopted. Compromise 12 in favor.
Against, abstain was adopted. Compromise 13 in favor. Against, abstain, adopted. Compromise 14 in favor. Against, abstain, adopted.
Compromise 15 in favor, against, abstain, adopted. Compromise 16 in favor, against, abstain, adopted. Compromise 17 in favor, against, abstain. It was adopted. Amendment 202, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Amendment 203 in favor. Against. Abstain. Adopted.
Amendment 255 in favor. Against. Abstain adopted. Amendment 263 in favor, against, abstain, adopted. Two, four pardon.
264 in favor, against, abstain. It was adopted. Amendment 265, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Amendment 23, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? Please, let's check.
I open the vote.
Close.
Veronika Vrecionová
I closed the vote, and the result is in favor, 32 against, 10 and abstain, two. So it was adopted. Amendment 330, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. 38, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Amendment 43. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was rejected.
Identical amendments four and four five. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was, please check.
I open the vote. I close the vote, and the result is in favor, one against, 11 abstain, two. So it was adopted. Amendment 46, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 47, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Amendment 49, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Amendment 51, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted. Amendment two, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 53, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 54, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Amendment five, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Amendment 58, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 60, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstained? It was rejected. Amendment 62, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was adopted. 64, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains?
It was adopted. Amendment 70, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was rejected.
71. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
104. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was rejected.
Amendment 116. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Amendment 117. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Amendment 118. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
One 9. Who is in favor? Against. Abstain. It was adopted.
120. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
122. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
124. Who is in favor? Who is against? 121. One, okay.
112. I'm sorry.
Veronika Vrecionová
23. Amendment 1 2 3. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Amendment 124. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. And now, roll call vote. Final vote. I open the vote. I close the vote, and I tell you the result: in favor, 44; up against, no, zero; and abstain, one.
So it was adopted. Congratulations. Thank you. And the last vote today is, again, a single vote. It's the conclusion of a broad package of agreements to consolidate, deepen, and expand the bilateral relation with the Swiss Confederation.
And I open the vote.
You can close.
Veronika Vrecionová
I close the vote. And in favor, four; against, zero; and one abstain. So it was adopted. Thank you, colleagues. And we can start with our next program, and it's 0.7.
As part of the comprehensive 2834 package, the commission has proposed a regulation to establish a single framework for monitoring expenditure and performance across all EU programs, including direct payments under the CAP. This proposal is indeed a path towards simplification. However, some of the impact of CAP funding, such as competitiveness, economic efficiency, and food security, are excluded from the proposed performance framework, which does not adequately address the particularities of agriculture and the CAP. I would like now to invite our reporter, Maria Neuchel, to present her draft opinion on this proposal. But, before I give the floor to Maria Neuchel, I want to inform you that the deadline for amendment to this proposal is set at 15 April at 3PM.
So Maria Neucher, please, you have the floor for five minutes now.
Maria Noichl
This is a future regulation which will establish expenditure tracking and performance measurement under the next MFF. It's important to say that this is not just a technical matter. This is of strategic importance, a strategic instrument on how we track and trace the MFF. The aim is to have a harmonized system so that we can track all the different systems and programs. Of course, here, we're talking about the CAP.
So there will be more focus on performance. There will be a better linking of political priorities. There will be less red tape. There will be more transparency, and there will be expenditure tracking and performance measurement. That's the idea.
That's what we've got from the commission. I support a lot of the general approach. As I was saying, to a large extent, I support the general approach of the commission, but there are four points where I have the view that things can be improved. The first is the impact indicators. So, performance measurement should not become an end in itself.
We need to focus on long-term effects rather than short-term output. That's really important in farming. And I have major concerns that, at the end of the day, the long-term effects will be lost sight of. And also critical elsewhere. If you look at the commission, it wants to remove the current impact indicators from the CAP.
The aim is to make everything more flexible and easier, but are we actually going to be able to track the impact of what we're doing? And we, of course, want to ensure that we can track environmental and social trends. Since the last CAP reform, these indicators that have been available under the CAP have made it possible to track what's going on, and it would be a real shame to get rid of them. I think we should bring this qualitative data back into the fold. I mean, the member states are going to gather that data anyway, aren't they?
Now the second important point is accountability and transparency. What happens if the member states don't meet their milestones and targets? What happens? What happens if the member states fail to achieve that? We don't know what happens next.
That means there is a major risk, a lack of accountability when it comes to the spending of the EU budget. That's why I reintroduce the possibility of action plans for the member states if there is a need for remedial action. For instance, the issue of land ownership. Land ownership concentration prevents new entrants and new farmers from getting access to land. So there, for example, we need more transparency.
And there's something we're all aware of. A lot of the money under the EAP goes to landowners, and a lot of this money goes to people who don't even work the land. They simply own the land. So we need to have more transparency on land ownership, and we need to have all of this gathered under a single gateway. Third point, the spending target for climate, environment, and biodiversity.
By 2026, there is already a target of 40%. I think we could be more ambitious. As a result, we should raise this target to at least 50%. If we look at article four, we should remove the exception for security and defense expenditure there. And then a final point, RIO markers, which we're probably all aware of.
You either get, you can get one, you can get 40, or 100%. So this is a climate reporting device which doesn't suffice. This is a proposal from elsewhere, and the proposal is that we move from a three-step to a five-step approach. The aim is to ensure greater transparency, and we would have to amend annex 1 of the regulation. Now the commission's proposal is a good basis to begin with, but we need to work on it.
We want transparency. We want honesty. We want to track performance better, and we want to see where improvements are needed. So as I say, we've got a good basis. We need to improve it.
I want to thank everyone who's worked with me and who has helped me on the opinion. As the chair said, you have to submit amendments by April 15, and then we will vote in committee on July 14. Thank you very much.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much. And now you have two minutes each, and I would ask for Gerber Dofmann, EPP.
Herbert Dorfmann
Thank you, chair. Thank you to the reporter. As she said, this isn't a purely technical matter. Here, we're talking about the framework within which the member states can move and establish their national plans. We in the EPP are in favor of an increase in minimum spending for environmental spending.
We don't support that. Excuse me. We think that the 35% commission target is enough. I think there's a problem with the calendar. We're supposed to decide on measures and expenditure before we know what the next CAP will actually look like.
On the subject of the priorities, if you read the draft performance regulation, there's a lot, it's only about environmental goals, but agriculture is also about social issues and competitiveness issues. It's important that we ensure competitiveness on the issue of doing no significant harm. D and SH, I would say that in this current proposal, all farms have to comply with farm stewardship. And then if you are organic and you don't comply with farm stewardship, you comply with something more stringent. So why would we need a second layer with do no significant harm?
I think that is double overlap. And then this move from three to five MEO markers. Okay. But wouldn't it make things more complicated than they already are? That's why I think if we move from 3 to 5, well, we have to think long and hard about that.
And I think we should have a special quality indicator for the mountain areas. I think there should be 10% ring marked for rural areas under the plans. But what exactly is a rural area? The commission doesn't yet have a definition for rural areas, so we'll have to look at that.
Tomáš Kubín
Thank you, Madam Chair, who speaks in Czech language. Thank.
You to the rapporteur for her report. I appreciate her effort to strengthen transparency and better connect the expenditure with the outputs and performance of the next multi-annual financial framework. But I disagree on many points. So let me give you 4 examples. For example, the impact indicators.
Of course, I welcome the effort to measure real outcomes, but this must not create an additional administrative burden. The commission originally limited those indicators precisely to simplify the system. So why reintroduce them? Another point, and this is on Amendment 33, introducing information monitoring on soil or landowners. Of course, this is an important issue, land grabs.
But to collect data on owners and those who rent land would be a lot of administrative burden for member states, and also interference with personal data protection. Also, the ownership relations often change, so this would be very complicated. Let's look for a different solution. Also, as for the RIO marker system, which has been mentioned, if we depart from that, this could harm consistency across the EU. Introducing new scales would mean parallel methodologies, increased costs, and also comparability between programs and program periods would be more difficult, and there will be more scope for subjective assessment, which is the most important point, and also for administrative errors when classifying into different categories.
One more point, briefly. This has also been mentioned. Increasing the climate objectives to 50%, I believe this would jeopardize the competitiveness of our agriculture. If I were to capture this in a few phrases or words, the report contains a proper diagnosis, but the medicine it offers is not adequate. I believe we should place more trust in national systems.
Please.
Daniel Buda
Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the ECR Group, I would like to present our position on the opinion prepared by the author, and I have to be radical here. We oppose directly the direction proposed by the European Commission, and we are completely against what our colleague has proposed here. I think it's worth a madhouse here because the only objective here for farming should be protection of climate. This is what we read here.
If we go down this road, then of course we will protect the climate totally if we reduce farming to zero in Europe. So, you know, it is crazy talk. It's like the Turbo Green Deal proposed by the European Commission and our colleague, it has been even turned up a notch. So I think we have to change the author because I don't know who you represent here, because we sit here representing farmers, and we should be reducing the burden imposed on the farmers. And you want to burden the farmers even more with additional environmental conditions.
If we want to have agriculture in Europe, the first condition we have to impose would be more competition, production, more expert. And what you talk about here is only climate protection. Before we had 35%, now you propose 50%. We are completely against this. We will propose amendments, and I suggest we change the author of the opinion because this direction is just crazy talk.
Christine Singer
Dear colleagues, let me start by thanking the rapporteur for the draft opinion on the performance framework for the new MFF. Now there are some points that I can agree with, strengthening the role of the European Parliament, more control with the co-legislators, and reducing the delegating powers. I think those are central issues. At the same time, there are areas where we need to discuss further. From an agricultural policy point of view, it's decisive that this is really feasible, that it has to line up with the gap in the cap itself.
So you we have to have food security clearly anchored in the text. This is a central priority for Europe. Secondly, we need a balanced reflection of the climate objectives. And considering the significant, I can't agree with the significant increase for the next MFF. I think we should keep the current level.
And I don't think a single policy area should have a disproportional impact on the objections to be obtained from the agricultural policy. So I think this has to be thought of in broader terms. And thirdly, cap payments should not be connected to additional requirements, for example, the do nots, no significant harm criteria. I don't think that being economically efficient should have a significant impact on the environmental standards. And I think you're ending up, if this is carried out as proposed, you're ending up with a doubling of red tape.
So I think the existing rules in the CAP are sufficient. And then you have to have a better reflection of agriculture in Annex I, especially when you're talking about forestry and agricultural interventions. The current form of the coefficients, I don't think they're necessarily, give us an information we need. And so I think we need some changes for that. I'm going to make the necessary amendments, and I look forward to future cooperation on this matter.
Cristina Guarda
Thank you. Greens, Christine, and Guarda. Thank you. Thank you very much. I will speak in Italian.
Thank.
Cristina Guarda
Thank you very much indeed, Temeria, for this draft opinion. It's a very sound, ambitious basis which addresses some of the structural limits in this proposal, of which there are many. Now it talks about the impact assessment because as far as we're concerned, I wonder what is the point of a regulation that talks about performance if it's the only thing it doesn't actually measure. These indicators exist. The data exists, and getting rid of it makes no sense because for reasons of comparing various program cycles.
I fully agree also on the objective of climate and environmental spending. 35% is absolutely inadequate. We need at least 50. And I think we need to establish a specific objective on biodiversity with correlated coefficients on spending, not because we're like birds and butterflies, but because in the absence of biodiversity, there is no agriculture, there's no food production. On the coefficients, we have already pointed out how the nonalignment with the RIIO indicators and the various different processes in the additional initial proposal, particularly also in agriculture. So we need greater granularity to move closer to reality, as proposed in the draft and as we've been supporting politically for a long time now.
One final comment about how the agri committee has the duty to trigger a debate on how we can render upper operational the right to be in mountainous areas, remote areas, with indicators that are coherent on the provision of essential services and equal opportunities for young people, for women. And we're linked with the entire question of generational renewal as well on the question of land ownership, which is touched upon, but we could do even more. I look forward to working with you on this. Thank you.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Yeah. Apologies. A rash can't be here. When the European Court of Auditors say something that we agree with in this committee, we carry them on a chair into the room, and we say, thank god she exists. Isn't she wonderful?
And when they agreed with us on the proposal for the common agricultural policy and the NRPP or the NRPF, we were delighted. Well, their opinion on this tracking mechanism is that, well, in a nutshell, it's a total and utter joke. They noted that when ran alongside sectoral funding programs, it doesn't provide a clear direct link between funding and actual results. When it comes to traceability and accountability, cut to the chase, they said it was a joke. And they said when it came to data reliability, likewise, it was a bit of a joke.
So obviously, we've got to improve it unless, of course, this time the European Court of Auditors isn't right all of a sudden because we just don't disagree with them anymore. And to me, the European Court of Auditors always comes in here and they tell us the truth. They tell us they like the speedometer. They tell us how fast we're going. We might not like it, but that is the truth.
So a lot of what MEP Neutrol is proposing makes a lot of sense. And to me, we had a lot of greenwashing in the last cap. And when you look at ANC payments, ANC payments were put down as environmental payments. They weren't environmental payments, they were payments to help people on land where there were constraints. And if we want to guarantee money for agriculture, we've got to remember that there are audiences outside this committee who will look at us and say, well look, you're trying to con us into saying something is what it isn't, and ultimately we will lose more support and we will lose more money which we have continuously done over every five year cycle or every seven year cycle.
So we need to be honest. But to me, I think a lot of this is driven by the fact that there's very little money available, and if there's very little money available, the commission's attitude is, well, we might not be honest about how much money is available, but you're what? We won't ask anyone to do, Anton, because we can't, because we're not putting any money in people's pockets. So I support what you're doing, in a sense, Maria, but I think ultimately the problem here is we've no money to pay people to do all this stuff. That's where the ultimate problem is.
What we do, we're spending it on guns instead.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you. And, KGTI, first, you have one minute each, and mister panel is the first.
Chair,
Gilles Pennelle
The aim here is laudable, that is pursued under this regulation. How should I put it? It comes across obstacles. There's a lack of output indicators. The Court of Auditors highlighted this.
How can you prove that European funds are affecting structural change if you don't have the right tools to measure it? In particular, let me stress this point. There's a lack of indicators linked to growth and competitiveness. That ought to be our priority in farming, improving growth, and improving competitiveness. Environmental and equality indicators are present, but there's nothing to truly check whether there is growth and a boost to competitiveness.
But those two things are essential, but sorely lacking. And I see there's far too much focus on degrowth in this text, which needs to be improved.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Chair, I thank the reporter. I agree with her when it comes to the parliament's role and transparency, but we cannot allow more bureaucracy as we look at the paying out of funds. And as Mister Dorfman said, we cannot increase the environmental ambition because that could hinder food security and competitiveness. We do need to have climate ambition, but we mustn't improve it or increase it. And we need to look at investment.
Investment in cooperatives and agricultural SMEs is not really being taken into account. That's what's lacking, and it needs to be reflected in the CAP, in the MFF, and in this wording. You.
Jessika van Leeuwen
Thank you very much, Chair. Colleagues, Article 39 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU states the objective of the CFP. It is to increase productivity, to ensure fair living standards for farmers, to stabilize markets, to ensure the food supply, and to guarantee fair prices for customers. It does not mention anywhere that the COP is intended.
Jessika van Leeuwen
Sorry. It does not mention anywhere that the COP is intended to improve biodiversity and the climate. Yet, we are spending approximately 40% of the COP's budget on climate targets. The European Court of Auditors reported already in their Special Report 20 from November 2023 that from the money spent on climate in COP, it is not possible to measure its real effect on climate. So instead of increasing the money we waste without clear effects, let's reduce the climate target to the bare agreed minimum, and let's make sure we have the correct performance indicators to actually measure whether it has an effect at all.
Let's use the cap money for what it was intended to do in the treaty: food production. Thank you very much.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, chair. I want to speak plainly about this proposal. In my view, it amounts to what are really the terms and conditions of the new cap payment for 2028 to 2034. And when we walk, we talk about terms and conditions, we must remember who is expected to live under them. Farmers right across Europe, farmers in Ireland, the people who produce the food that keeps our citizens fed every single day.
Now these farmers listened carefully when Commissioner Hansen spoke about the new CAP. Many understood him to say that the future policy would reduce bureaucracy, would restore fairness, and put food production back at the center of CAP. This is what farmers were told to expect. But there is another point that must be absolutely clear. Irish and European farmers cannot tolerate additional environmental requirements unless they are properly paid for as an extra measure.
If new actions are needed, they must be funded as additional commitments, not slipped in as new conditions that farmers must meet just to receive the basic payments. So I say farmers cannot carry unfunded obligations. They cannot continue producing food for Europe while absorbing extra costs that are not recognized or compensated.
Eric Sargiacomo
Thank you. Thank.
Thank you very much indeed, madam chair, and thank you to Mary Neufel for this report. The Court of Audits just told us a few weeks ago how difficult it was going to be to monitor the amounts committed under the European budget, particularly on this aspect, and therefore assess the effectiveness. It's not enough to have a roadmap. You need a pilot. You need pedals to change direction when necessary.
With the renationalization of the main European funds being proposed by the commission, the command levers are going to be watered down even more. With the last COP, we saw that we shouldn't underestimate the power of the commission when the plans are validated. And that's why I support Maria's proposal, so that we can correct the direction when objectives are not being achieved and making states do that. So yes, we have to look at how much has been used of the budget and use the beneficiaries, but we also have to look at the impact indicators under the current CAP. And I think we have to be logical, therefore, in what we do from 2023 to 2034.
Thank you.
Please.
about.
Daniel Buda
Policy performance. And, well, why do we have these policies? You're going to say, well, it's to support farmers. That's not the case, though. This policy, I believe, has been adopted in order to feed the consumers.
Farmers are a means to ensure that consumers across the whole of Europe have access to food. So, how can we measure all of that? How can you or the court of auditors measure the satisfaction of someone who's gone to sleep after dinner? Is it possible to reflect that in figures? I don't think it is.
Secondly, we're expecting a convert here between the Greens and another party, another group in the parliament on the environmental objectives. But the problem is to what extent can we ask the farmers to do something for the environment without giving them the necessary financial resources? That's the problem. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the main objective of this policy is food security. Thank you, Madame.
Céline Imart
Well, this text put to us by the commission falls over the same struggling blocks as the past one, standardized provisions as if agriculture had no seasons, no routes, and no heads of business. So, we've got this new requirement, DNSH, do no significant harm, this vague concept, nor are we targeting the aid, which is transplanted into the fields. Representative of the commission, do you really believe that agricultural payments can bow before this abstraction? Do you really think that farmers have awaited this new acronym to understand that you shouldn't destroy your own lands? I'm not going to say anything about the new rules for implementing gender equality issues or other things shown as performance indicators.
Well, we've been talking about simplification for two years, but we're going to end up with the same thing again, so that we have XL5s and we'll lose everything. And we lose our common sense as well. That's why I'm going to be tabling many amendments in order to remove the agricultural indicators from the performance regulation. And under CAP, establish a framework which is tailored to agriculture, which requires made-to-measure and confidence in those people who actually work in the field? Thank you.
Thank.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Thank you very much. My colleagues from the ECR have said something very important, but let me add a few words. The rapporteur said that we're talking about impact indicators, and that's what we should be using. That sounds like a good idea. Yes.
Of course, we always want to achieve an effect, so you want to have a performance indicator. But I have a great question I'd like to raise because there are many factors that interplay here. So that's why it's difficult to draw a direct connection between our measures here and the precise effect it has out in the field. So, these indicators, you have to be very careful with them. Secondly, there's going to make an amendment on the support programs.
My if you wanted to make financial corrections or if you want to impose penalties or withdraw payments, etc., that should be in a different regulation. Perhaps the commission can say something. But if you use this regulation for example, to impose fines, Well, I really think that should be in a different regulation, but that's really a question for the commission. Thank you.
Thank.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
You, chair. I'll speak in Portuguese. This.
It is a very important report. It's about ensuring transparency and accountability of those who receive EU funds. And, of course, we're talking about agri funds here. And yet there are some new elements here. Okay, we must never forget food security and agricultural yield.
We must never forget those important points whenever we have something new. What we have to ensure is that when the CAP is implemented, whenever there is agricultural activity, it shouldn't be overburdened by new objectives. So I'm going to be submitting a lot of amendments to this report because I want to have a modern farming sector, while at the same time ensuring accountability of farmers. But I don't want to forget the underlying principles of the CAP.
Veronika Vrecionová
So we are in the end of this issue, and let's move. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I let's go back to Maria Neuchel, and you have, again, four minutes now for your reply.
Thank.
Maria Noichl
thank you very much. I think everyone has noticed that this is not a simple discussion. But what this discussion does not contain is, are you in favor or against agriculture? I think you have to be very careful that we always end up in this corner and saying, is this person in favor or against agriculture? Rather, you have to look at the position of the taxpayer. You have to look at the promises we've made to them.
And as members of parliament, we are obligated to do this. We have to say to these taxpayers that this money is being spent on farmers, and it's bringing benefits. Bringing benefits is something that we have to look at how do we invest this money so that it produces a result and which measures produce more results. So I, of course, I'm very much the friend of farmers. But who is on the wrong side?
Someone who wants to do something for farmers is going to be transparent with the figures and make it very clear to demonstrate where European funds bring the greatest benefit. So the point is to support farmers. So European agricultural policy should have the goal of feeding people, but we also have multifunctional agriculture. It's more than just feeding stomachs. It's more than just revenue.
Agriculture, by its very nature, because it's actual soil in the hands of the farmers, is an obligation to make a contribution to biodiversity, to climate protection. And so it's multifunctional. That's the multifunctional aspect of agriculture. That's the basis in Europe. For us, it's not just filling stomachs.
Rather, agriculture is something that fills stomachs and protects bees. And so we can't just say, well, I'm not hungry anymore, so that's fine. So we don't care about the bees or the water in the future. So this is why I want to pick up another point. Perhaps there are things that aren't covered enough, and I'm happy to cover those points.
However, let me say this very clearly. If you want to make this division and say, if you if you're somehow more of a friend of agriculture, if you're not looking carefully at the spending, well, I don't think that is the right division to make. I think that's false. And I think we have to look at the scientific aspects, the economic aspects, and the social aspects. And I think, let me mention one more point.
If you don't follow the money carefully, sufficiently, and then in seven years, there's gonna be less money in the budget for it, because the citizens have the obligation. We have the obligation, and the citizens have the right that we follow the money very carefully and see what happens to it. So, of course, I know it's technically difficult, but still, I hope that we can find a compromise, a good way to find a path to work together. Thank you very much.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. Thank you. And now we would like to ask Elizabeth Werner if DG agrees. You also have four minutes.
Elisabeth Werner
Thank you very much, and good afternoon. To go back perhaps to the original intention of the commission here, it was to propose a performance framework that works for the budget as a whole. So a single framework for all types of expenditure, where we want to establish a link between the activities financed, the contributions to the horizontal priorities, and then the expected outputs and results. But at the same time, there is some simplification coming from that single set. We have also fewer results indicators, and we wanted to take into account the specificities for agriculture to make sure that this performance regulation also works here.
So this homogenized approach, in particular, if you regard some of the specific climate and environment targets, puts a lot of emphasis on the planning phase. While looking at this RioMarcus and the RioMarcus, I would like to remind our OECD markets. They were established by the commission already previously to quantify budget expenditure, and we want to use them again to compare also between the programming periods. We have 43% for climate and environment as a legally binding target. We will use this to steer the expenditure. And I also want to say that our assessment is that the coefficients attached here for the cap on the agricultural policy is something we believe we will be able to meet.
Now, when it comes to the monitoring specifically for agriculture, we will use a whole range of indicators. Some of them are output indicators, some of them are results indicators, and some of them are actually also looking at the impact. First, I would need to say some of the indicators are very similar to what we are using in the current system. Where feasible and proportionate, these result indicators measure some of the outcomes. We have added, for example, on soil health here.
Unfortunately, we don't think it's possible to do that for biodiversity, simply because it is difficult to measure. Where we have output indicators, it's these outputs that directly trigger the payments, and that's important for the farmers. For example, where you have area and animal based interventions in the cap, member states will be reimbursed when actual payments to the farmers are made, and this is the output indicators. That, however, doesn't mean we cannot measure impact. And the impact usually takes a bit longer to materialize.
That's why you cannot measure it easily annually. We will use evaluations. We will use other statistical data that we have available, for example, from Eurostat and from the Farm Sustainability Network. We will use these impact measurements also to ensure food security and competitiveness are and remain overarching objectives of the CAP interventions. And, of course, we want to continue monitoring them as well.
Just as an example of what we are already monitoring in this respect, the CAP makes a significant contribution to food security by increasing the levels of productivity. For example, we have seen an increase of 10% between 2010 and 2024. So this is how we measure, for example, food security and competitiveness. I also want to say a word quickly on accountability. Many elements of the CABP mechanism of the performance review remain in place.
And in particular, there will be annual review meetings with the member states, we will look at the performance failures where they don't meet the targets, and we will discuss with them solutions and what can be done about this. We will use the indicator progress, and the member states will have to follow up on the issues raised in these meetings. But on the accountability, I think it's also good to mention that we continue to collect the data about the actual payments to beneficiaries as part of the transparency requirements, which we, of course, have. And there will, in future, be a single gateway where this information that today is quite dispersed also on national member states will be available. And not only who receives money, but also what are the funding opportunities, and this should actually help to improve and increase public accountability.
I wanted to have a word as well on land ownership. Land ownership is a topic, an important one for agriculture and for generational renewal. This is why we are using one of your pilot projects to put in place the land observatory that will look in the information that is available on land markets and on feasibility of collecting it. We do not think that this is a suitable indicator of the performance. And finally, on the do no significant harm principle that was mentioned several times by members here.
Most activities supported under the CAP are automatically compliant by default because they fall under the farm stewardship. So.
Elisabeth Werner
are not adding a second layer of compliance because they will automatically be considered complying and therefore contributing to environmental objectives. For other activities, we will be looking, and that's, in particular, some kind of investment activities or rural targets that were mentioned here as well. For this, we're developing guidance. This guidance should be available at the latest on 01/01/2027, so that there is clarity when the programming actually starts. Naturally, if you, the co-legislators, make modifications that would impact the guidance, we would take that into consideration.
And I think I would finish here by saying we also look very much forward to help in this process and to work with the rapporteur, which is missus Neuchel, and all of you on this proposal. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much, reporter. Also, commission. And just now, let's move to issue number eight. On February 23, we attached a presentation of the key of the studied evaluation of the EU agri-food promotion policy inside lessons learned, which was prepared by the exposed evaluation unit of the European Parliament Research Service in collaboration with a consortium of external experts from AGRACEIS Consulting and ARETE. This study forms the basis of the implementation report of UAGRI Food Promotion Policy, which emphasizes the authenticity of EU Food and Agri Method and aims to open new markets, particularly in non-EU countries.
Through this implementation report, parliament will suggest possible changes to the current policy, which is based on regulation number 11422014. This supports initiative highlighting the quality, safety, sustainability, and production method of EU agri food products. And before I give the floor to our reporter, mister Salvatore De Mayo, I would like to inform you that the deadline for amendments to this is set on April 15 at 1PM. So now I give the floor to reporter Salvatore or the Mayo, and you have the floor for four minutes, please.
Thank.
Salvatore De Meo
You, mentor. Well, before I run through the main aspects of this report, I'd like to thank the Secretariat for the support they've extended, and also the EPRS for the study included some very useful information to evaluate the critical aspects of the promotion policy. Now this provides us an approach on the efficiency and effectiveness of the policy from 2015 to 2025, where 681 programs were funded. In terms of efficiency, the promotion policy proved to be a useful instrument to strengthen competitiveness and the visibility of our agri-food products on the single market and beyond the EU. The study shows in particular an improvement in recognition of agri-food products, greater diversified access to markets, and a strengthening of our competitive position.
In terms of efficiency, this study shows that for most of those people being targeted by a promotion policy, the benefits exceed the costs, but there are some administrative critical points. Now I highlight there the complexity of the processes and the administrative burden, particularly for SMEs, paying particular attention to rural areas and mountainous areas where production costs have a serious effect on investment capacity. A further problem I highlight in the report is the lack of flexibility when implementing promotion policies. So we need to guarantee for beneficiaries that they could adapt or tailor the programs financed if there are objective needs, for example, geopolitical tensions, if we're talking about promoting in third countries, or adverse climatic conditions which can affect programs. And in that respect as well, the smallest organizations are most penalized, whereas the study shows that for the multiprograms, they seem more flexible from a management point of view, and they have transnational synergies.
A further point I would like to focus on is the relevance of European value added, understood as the ability to work on a supranational scale, giving credibility to our products in third countries. I think that quality indicators, sustainable indicators, are a great strategy to strengthen the GDP of our producers on foreign markets. Also, the label Enjoy It from Europe is recognized on international markets. But I would like to point out that in certain contexts, referring to national origin could also prove effective in terms of a generic European indication. So those two marks, European and national, should be able to coexist on promotional material for European products.
And we need to better coordinate between the commission and the promotional channels. We need to promote the well-being and also ensure that there is better optimization, reinvesting resources which haven't been used in other sectors. An example of this would be the fact that the study shows about resources for producing organic foods in third countries, but we haven't used everything up. And so I would ask to think whether it's useful to revisit the limits to support after two consecutive or contemporary programs on the same product or system. And the regulation from 70 continues to raise critical points.
So I think that we should assess the continuation of the policy on the basis of the results that's achieved rather than on specific aspects. So these are in general terms the lines on which I think we can define an ambitious balanced promotion policy, which aims at growth, always bearing in mind that promotion policies are based on Regulation 1144, which aims at ensuring competitiveness and access to markets for European agricultural products.
Veronika Vrecionová
Salvatore and now Shadows, you have two minutes each. And the first, please.
Thank.
Dario Nardella
You, manager. Well, I would like in particular to thank Rath Potter, our colleague, Mayo, for his work on this important report on promotion policy for the EU. It's a balanced text which takes a constructive approach, which I would support. It contains specific recommendations intended to improve this sector. One first point, which I think is crucial to this, is that of simplifying the access conditions for these programs.
So many times when we've been talking with farmers and producers, they've talked about the difficulty of knowing about the programs and having access to them. And that's a priority which can no longer be delayed. Our procedures are too complex. They penalize, in particular, SMEs, which don't have the necessary professionals or the instruments to understand the details of the procedures. But yet they're still the very heart of our productive fabric.
Simplifying means also broadening the range of beneficiaries and participation. It's also important to introduce rapid instruments for the adaptation of the funds because international markets change very quickly, as we know and as we see. The geopolitical context, particularly in third countries, is increasingly unpredictable. And we're seeing that now more than ever before, which means that we need to have flexible instruments. It's not a luxury.
It's a guarantee of resilience for our productive systems as well. I really appreciate the focus on monitoring the allocation of resources between the simple and multiple programs. We need to strike a fair balance between transnational cooperation and support for SMEs. And I'm happy to see that the report carefully addresses this issue. I feel that the rapporteur has been able to translate ambitious aims into clear objectives.
We have to support the competitiveness and sustainability of our European products. And that's something that the commission needs to work on. That said, there are certain aspects, Madam Chair, on which the S and D group will be making some targeted amendments. First and foremost, the question of simplification. Yes.
We share the aim, but we want to take this even further. We think it's important to introduce specific support measures for smaller organizations. Prefunding conditions, which are more accessible and structured, are important because it's not enough to simplify procedures if the barriers remain. And to conclude, we have to strengthen the importance of geographical indicators, which are a strategic promotional instrument. Finally, we propose greater harmonization between national bodies and the organization through the exchange of good practices.
So we have to assess competitiveness, accessibility, quality. Thank you.
Thank.
Raffaele Stancanelli
You, Madam Chair. I'll respect my time. Don't worry. I would like to thank the rapporteur because I support the work he's done in terms of the political message that comes out of this report, because it's imagining a promotional policy as an instrument for internationalization and competitiveness. And that's what our European products need on the markets. And then also because it focuses in particular on SMEs and on rural and marginalized areas.
In other words, those that most need the marketing that comes from Europe. Now, according to the Rapporteur, these programs should be more accessible. Yes. I can agree with what our colleague Nadella was saying on that. They have to be more flexible and more market-oriented because if we have an accessible, flexible policy, we can support our producers.
The main points in the report are there to strengthen multi programs, simplify administrative procedures. That's important, as has been stressed here on every occasion when we've been discussing this. We have to look at target markets and improve indicators and evaluation systems. The rapporteur has focused on those issues, and that's why we support the approach he's taken. One sensitive political issue in this is that the promotion policy should not be subordinate to other EU policies.
It has to be autonomous because it's a crucial policy to get into other markets. The rapporteur raises two aspects, which I think are important for the farmers as well. Those are the new eligibility criteria, which need to be respected in the marketing, and also restrictions for certain product categories. There shouldn't be any restrictions, even ideologically. Obviously, there are certain associations which certain ideologies would like to see, for which some would like to see certain products excluded. I will keep it at that.
But Patriots, in general, are in favor of this line, but we'd like to provide some input in order to improve this, and ensure that we can all work together. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Take care of that. We have quite a long list of speakers, so please take care. You have two minutes. ECR colleagues, Turza.
Şerban Dimitrie Sturdza
Thank you, chair. I am replacing Mister Tresio, and I'll speak in Romanian.
Madam chair, colleagues, first and foremost, I'd like to congratulate the rapporteur for everything they've done towards drawing up this report. Promotion policy for European agricultural policies and products is an ambitious policy, supporting what's consumed by consumers, reflecting the tradition of Europe and its quality. But we have to accept that this policy doesn't give a balanced outcome. Access is very unbalanced. Certain member states often use this type of promotion instrument, whilst others, those particularly in Eastern Europe, do it to a much lesser degree.
At the same time, the impact of financial efforts is difficult to assess. Despite the resources made available. There are not enough performance indicators to give us an idea of the impact. So there are certain solutions I would like to propose to enhance the impact, for example, on the question of geographical balance. That could show us to what extent countries are involved, particularly the underrepresented ones, and then grant greater support to the producers from these member states, for example, by helping them to coordinate when projects are presented and then also simplify access to funding through technical assistance.
We need to pay more attention to traditional products, even those which don't have a geographical indication, but which have cultural value. That's the case of many Romanian agricultural policies. As a shadow, I'm replacing Mr. Tezzin, I should remind you, I'd like to work with the report to identify very specific measures. European diversity should be seen as a real resource, and we should make the most of it as such.
Veronika Vrecionová
So you take care for two minutes. And now, I would like to ask Renew's colleague, Muloli. So, two minutes, please.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, chair. I want to commend the rapporteur for his work on this file. We live in challenging times. Our farmers and our food producers face huge issues with regard to costs and new markets. So never before have the funds been used for the EU agri food promotion policy been more important.
We need the budget of 205000000 for 2026 to address these issues. And while I acknowledge the policy is doing well, there is still room for improvement. I want to see us achieve greater success, especially through a better distribution of support for SMEs, which too often do not have the same access to these programs as larger organizations. And we must focus on informing consumers near and far that EU food is better for us. And we must put our country of origin on our products.
We stand over the quality, the safety, the traceability, and the sustainability of what we produce. So why shouldn't we promote this message with confidence? And be very clear, we're not here to promote products from places like Brazil or elsewhere within the EU budget. I'll be meeting board BA in Ireland later this week to underline that fact. In general, chair, we need, we must also not allow any EU agri-food products to be excluded from access to promotional funding.
On the basis of what I describe as unscientific assumptions, the consumption of certain foods represents a health issue. We can't put up with this. This would be unfair to producers, contrary to the purpose of this policy, and damaging to the confidence in our agri-food sector. And I will be bringing forward amendments to deal with these issues in the coming days. But before I go, I finish, I want to say one thing.
As I speak this afternoon, farmers and food producers and contractors are blockading the city center of the capital city of Dublin, and protesting at ports and major arteries in 14 major Irish towns because of the fuel crisis. Last week, the farmers and food producers in Austria did this protest. The day after tomorrow, they're in Helsinki. Chair, we have to pay urgent attention to this situation. We need to urge our member states to take urgent measures, and we must face our responsibility in this house in terms of coming forward with new initiatives, whether it be a new resilience plan to support these industries or indeed reprogramming CAP payments.
These are the food producers who are bringing the products we can promote, chair. If we don't support them, there will be nothing to promote. And I object to people referring to these protesters as dissidents. As one idiot said on the radio this morning, these are ordinary decent people, food producers we need for food security.
Thank you.
Tilly Metz
Thank you. Good afternoon, dear chair, dear mister De Mayo and dear Cheddar, Robert Perthier, dear colleagues, the EU promotion policy has not been reviewed since 2014 despite the commission's promises under the Farm to Fork strategy. So I believe that this report, which should really aim at contributing to a promotion policy that is healthier, more sustainable and contributing also to long term food security. So thank you, Mr. DeMeo, for your first draft, which serves as a good basis.
But there are quite a few things that I would like to add to this report. First of.
Tilly Metz
References to the Green Deal, the EU Farm to Fork strategy, and also the strategic dialogue on the future of agriculture and food recommendations for a shift to more plant-based diets, better animal welfare standards, and a fairer, more sustainable agriculture policy must be considered under the EU Foods Promotion Policy. I am also considering inserting a reminder of the special EuroBiomega 505 on making our food fit for the future. 79% of respondents said that they consider that marketing and advertising food that does not contribute to a healthy, sustainable diet should be restricted. So why do we not listen to a majority of the citizens and create a policy that meets their expectations? So instead of putting a large share of the promotion budget into animal products, promotion programs for plant based food and protein alternatives, including legumes, pulses and plant based meat and dairy substitutes, must be adequately funded to provide consumers with healthier, animal welfare friendly and lower emission choices.
The EU promotion policy can contribute to strengthening the autonomy and the resilience of European crop protein production by encouraging consumers to choose domestically produced products. So why not use this opportunity? Also referring to the European Cancer Plan, to the Farm to Farm strategy and the Green Deal objectives, I think the fund should go in the right direction. In this regard, I call the commission to gradually phase out the use of AU funds for the promotion of red and processed meat. And no, I do not tell people what to eat nor what not to eat, but I oppose the idea that food that has been proven to be cancer exeniated by the WHO should be actively promoted, neither inside the EU nor outside the EU.
So let me finish, dear colleagues, the next food promotion policy clearly needs a strong reference that the EU must contribute to advancing healthier diets among consumers, and to promoting farming methods with less harmful impacts on nature and on climate. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. Thank you. Anya Kasim hasn't come, okay. Luke Flanagan, the left.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Sorry. Anya has a camp here. I listened to the rapporteur and listened to all the speakers, and well done on all the work that you put into this draft report. And I think it is very important to promote our food. And, ultimately, what we're trying to do is get people to buy European food.
And in order to do that, and no matter what product you're trying to sell, you'd like to have unique selling points. And I would say the unique selling point in Europe is that, I mean, in many cases, our food systems are more sustainable than what the alternative would be, more environmentally friendly, and, of course, it could be better, but that we do have a unique product here and it's very important to spend money on that. But at the same time, we have a situation whereby we are signing up to deals where we are told, and in effect the world is told, don't worry about what we're importing because it is of the same quality. And sure, if it's of the same quality, how can you argue it's the same quality and then tell people we should buy European food because, well, somehow it's unique and better quality. You can't really have the two things at once.
So for me, I'll.
Luke Ming Flanagan
It again, it's important to promote European food, but the best way to promote farmers and to promote European food is for us to eat it ourselves and not for people to end up with Brazilian beef on their plate because I have never had anyone come up to me in Ireland and say, where can I get some Brazilian beef? But unfortunately, we have politicians that seem to want to force-feed it to them while at the same time saying, we don't want this to ever happen. So for me, the best promotion is to be honest that our food is actually the best, and not contradict it then by bringing in crap that is nowhere near as good.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. Thank you. And now, let's start with members. You have one minute each, and really I will be a little bit more straight because the list is quite long. Colleague panel first.
Gilles Pennelle
Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, our colleague has done some excellent work that's moving in the right direction. He takes account in particular of SMEs, the leading victims of the increase in production prices, punitive ecology, and unfair competition from third countries. I'd also like to welcome the support he's given to the production of wine and meat, two important products provided by our farmers and crucial to our way of life and identity, which are constantly attacked by those in favor of food transition and hygiene dictatorships. I would have liked this report to go a little bit further on the negative effects of the Green Deal, which penalize local production and national production, and means that we are required to compensate for the degradation of our competitiveness through huge efforts on promoting our production.
Obviously, I will be tabling certain amendments on this important text.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Thank you, chair. Thank you, rapporteur Salvatore. This is very important work. It's a success for all products, including those that bear a quality label. But I have a suggestion.
This isn't an additional piece of expenditure. It's a tool. We need to turn this into a truly useful tool. We need to protect products which are suffering at the moment. Look at Cambodia rice, but there was publicity for this rice.
What about cereal producers as well, who are suffering with their prices? What about the livestock sector where there's been a 20% drop in their herd sizes, and where they've had problems with trade? This isn't just an additional cost. It is a tool, but we must use this tool to help those who are suffering. And I think we should start with rice.
Chair.
Alexander Bernhuber
Agri-food promotion policy is all good and well. However, we need to look at the ins and outs, including the distribution of the money between the countries. If we're talking about enjoying it from Europe, some countries get a lot more funds than others. In the future, we might think about having a fixed amount of funding for each member state. Some countries last year got no money at all.
This isn't the first time we've said this, but the criteria to take part are quite complicated. It's quite an arduous process. Often, you have to pay a service provider to fill in your application. That means that the service providers are doing a good business, doing the applications. In the future, it should be possible for the producers and the producer organizations to submit their own applications.
One final point. It's also important that we look at the origin of the products. Just because a product is processed somewhere, you have to ensure that it isn't based on raw material from elsewhere. Chair, I'd like to thank Mr. Demer for this report, which showcases the promotion policy and its important role.
Céline Imart
It helps to highlight the role of farmers, and it helps to improve the social fabric, particularly in less privileged areas. You know, these rural areas shouldn't just become, you know, chocolate-box places without any farmers. We ask the commission to make the framework a bit more flexible. It's too and we need to make it possible to underline the national origin of a product. So then farmers can stand out from the crowd based on a criterion that is not just price.
Then we should also promote wine and meat, even though people are just focused on health. Some would like these two products to disappear, but these are two high-quality sectors, two excellent sectors, which keep our social fabric alive, and that's thanks to their know-how.
Cristina Guarda
Thank you, Simon. And madam Guarda? Thank you, chair. I will speak Italian.
Again. Well, there are various points we agree within this draft. So thank you to the rep, Walter, for his work, particularly on the simplification for producers. I have certain reservations, though, about the credibility of this program. The U.
S. Rapporteur are talking about standing up against demonization of certain products, but I'd just like to point out that no one here is trying to demonize anything. It's about having clear criteria. Promoting European products is a perfectly legitimate thing. But using public money to finance campaigns, doing greenwashing, and providing incorrect information is not acceptable.
And then there's something on the organic side, which I think should be looked into in greater detail. The budget available is underused. And so the proposal is to shift it elsewhere. But I think the right answer, the right question to ask is why are organic operators not involved? And they will say, well, the program is not made for them because co-funding is off.
We need smaller instruments in the sector. So let's try and provide more accessible programs. Thank you.
Jessika van Leeuwen
Thank you very much, chair, and thank you to the rapporteur for highlighting the proposed improvements in the EU agri-food promotion to us. However, it does feel a bit weird to be discussing this, to be honest. We just listened to a proposal to increase the money we spend on climate and biodiversity instead of real food production. So we're talking about a EU promotion strategy for EU produced food, but soon there will be no more EU food to promote. So I do believe in the importance of this policy if we simultaneously protect food production in the European Union and not import our food requirements from Mercosur in Ukraine.
I support the rapporteur's proposal to reduce administrative burden and make a better match between budget allocation and market demand, and also support EU origin labeling. However, I would also like to argue for reserving a part of this policy budget to keep EU-produced food more affordable than imported food for our citizens. Thank you very much.
Mireia Borrás Pabón
Thank you, madam Buras.
Chair, ladies and gentlemen, I thank the rapporteur for his work. I want to focus on the hypocrisy in this report. You talk about promoting something, but you're destroying it. It's good to promote European products, but at the same time, you're attacking the producers. There have been more than 680 promotion campaigns with EU tax money.
At the same time, you're suffocating producers with the green deal with more bureaucracy, more costs, and more restrictions. The fact is you're wasting your money. And if that weren't enough, some of you are criminalizing key sectors such as meat and wine with your stigma, and with the alarming labels that you put on wine. So you're talking about promoting our products, yet the reality is that our products are increasingly less competitive due to your ideological regulation caused by the Green Deal. You're talking about opening markets up to third countries.
That's what the PP and the S and D are do. Those parts of the world don't comply with our requirements, and that punishes our producers. More than 40% of farms have had to shut up shop over the last 20 years. We, in Fox and in the Patriots, are saying stop destroying. Otherwise, there will be nothing left to promote in the future.
Barry Cowen
Thanks, chair. In this mandate, because of geopolitical realities, the likes of The US looking inwards and China being more assertive, not to mention input cost pressures has been alluded to, rising as a result of war. We've been, the EU has been striving to conclude trade deals in a more timely fashion. We've seen that with the UK. We've seen it with the US, with Mercosur.
We might agree with it, but hard-won concessions and safeguards nonetheless. And in India and Australia, to mention a few. And these trade deals are essential for our sector in offering new and huge markets for our food and drink products. And I welcome the commission's increase in funding in that regard from a low some years ago of 140,000,000 to $2,005,000,000 now. In Ireland, we've seen a 5% increase in our exports year on year, 24% increase in our beef alone.
So that proves the potential that is there to take advantage of these new markets, and a well resourced and well funded promotional policy can only enhance the producers' remit to ensure that their quality matches environmental ambition, but also matches consumer sentiment and wins support, wins favor, and wins revenue for our respective member states and profits, of course, for those that do so, they being the farmers who produce that food.
Eric Sargiacomo
Chair, this is an opportunity for me to thank the rapporteur for his excellent work. Promotion measures are very important. We should strengthen them. In 2025, over €100,000,000 was earmarked, but this is modest. If we look at all of our exports, which stand at €240,000,000,000, and not many of that is pulses, though, we should welcome the fact that there will still be promotion policy in the next CAP, and it will be a European-wide policy, not in the national strategic plans.
But we need to raise the profile of various sectors. I think we should focus on promoting high-quality European products, particularly those which bear a quality label. Promotion should be seen as an investment. Look at what it brings back in financial terms. There are some sectors, such as wine and spirit drinks, that are affected by reprisal tariffs.
I'm thinking about cognac. 97% of that is exported. We need to help a product like that.
Esther Herranz García
Thank you very much, chair. Let me congratulate Mister Demeo for the good work that's been done. I will, however, put forward some small amendments, but the aim is to boost PDOs and PGIs. I think promotion policy is very important for some sectors, sectors which are crying out for this, like wine. In the last wine package, we saw that there was a lot of talk about promoting wine.
We welcome this report, and we hope to further improve it with some amendments. Thank.
You, chair. I'll speak in Portuguese. First.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Of all, let me congratulate Mister Damir for his excellent.
work. I
Agree that we need greater flexibility when it comes to the promotion policy. We need to particularly support PDOs and PGIs. They are very important quality labels so that we can showcase our products. Now, promotion is a strategic instrument as we seek to tap new markets. But opening up new markets means that we have to truly be present in those markets, and there, we need promotion policy.
And let's sideline or get rid of any ideological debates when it comes to promotion. We must promote what was truly produced in the EU. It's not about raising awareness or instrumentalizing a promotion policy. Of course, we should focus on PDOs and PGIs, though. But this is a program that has been successful internally and externally, and we must continue to underline the great European products we produce.
So I will be putting forward some targeted amendments where I underline the importance of SMEs. I will also call for specific support for the outermost regions. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Reporter Salvatore De Mayo, you have four minutes for your replies.
Thank.
Salvatore De Meo
You, madam chair. Well, I listened very carefully to the shadows and the other colleagues. Thank you to them for the support they intend to give in improving this text. Let me stress that it's been thought of in a pragmatic, balanced way without going into some details which could render this a more divisive text. I think we all agree on the fact that from the analysis of this decades-long program, it becomes clear that procedures need to be further simplified, particularly to provide guarantees for organizations and SMEs.
We need greater flexibility. And therefore, programs already funded should be revised in terms of extraordinary situations. And we all agree, and I am open to receiving amendments to ensure that the specific agro-food characteristics of the EU can be further supported by a promotion policy. I'm happy to hear that people want to assess the question of national origin not being excluded and substituted by European origin, but rather it could be used to strengthen our hand. On some reservations now, which were expressed by the Greens.
In the report, explicit reference is made to the fact that this promotion policy is intended to support the aims of public health. That doesn't mean, however, that we want to specify in ideological ways that certain products should be ruled out, where I think that most political groups would support us in trying to ensure that this instrument remains true to its main function, which is to make our agri-food products more competitive, particularly in third countries, where we really can flag our quality and the protected origin of so many excellent agri-food products. I'd also like to point out that in this program, there are already limits on the promotion of alcohol distillates, which are allowed only if they come from areas of geographical indication. There are also limits for meat where it is processed. So the line I intend to follow, taking on board some of these suggestions, will be to maintain a text which remains as pragmatic as possible, avoids divisions, and expresses support for farmers who we should be able to really build on these products to further enhance our competitiveness.
On the comment made now about the organic sector, I said that looking at the former programs, some of the resources were not used. And I mentioned the organic sector not because I want those resources to be reduced, but maybe simplification would allow our producers to invest in organic, in the organic side. But if there's a sector that doesn't fully use up all of its resources, I think it's fair that they should be reallocated in order to guarantee the reinforcement of other programs. So we can have bilateral meetings, if you like, so that we can discuss and take onboard any of the amendments which can enhance this text. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Agree, colleague Diego, Congofano. So you also have four minutes, please.
Diego Canga Fano
Thank you, madam chair. It's a pleasure to be here in the committee. I also want to thank EPRS for their report, and I want to start by thanking reporter Salvator de Mayo for their report, which gives support to the EU promotion policy. Let me say a few words. In Spanish.
Let me thank Ms. Errantz, who was the rapporteur in the past, in 2014. And we have had this Appropriate Motion policy since 2014, so a lot of stability.
Useful for this regulation. It allows organizations to learn and develop their strategies, which are multi-annual strategies. I am pleased to see that the report of honorable Rinimayo emphasizes the importance of a strong and well-funded promotion policy, and I want to thank explicitly several members of this committee because we have more money than ever, and this is thanks to several of you in this committee. We are competing with the Americans. The Americans, they are strengthening their budgets, so it makes sense that our budget is also strengthened.
Supramonso policy is a key tool for strengthening the competitiveness of the European agriculture. We are preparing the annual work program for 2027, and the debates we're having here and the stakeholders are helping us to save this program. Let me go into the report of Mayo. On funding, so as I said before, well funded policy is important because we are increasing challenges, and we have volatile geopolitical developments. So this year, we have €5,000,000, the highest ever.
And again, this is important because we're having a very nice trade surplus of EUR 50,000,000,000 in 2025. And we know with the money, we are contributing to this surplus. We have to deliver for 2027 within the constraints of the current multi annual financial framework. And at the same time, we need to guarantee flexible funding for promotion after the MFF for the period 2027, 2028. As regards policy coherence, some of you said that this policy needs to be autonomous.
We agree with that. And we have to relink with some other policies, but we have to be autonomous. And we pursue competitiveness in a holistic manner. When it comes to the management of the actions, we gather continuous feedback from the member states, from the stakeholders, and we want to make it as flexible as possible. We have introduced elements of simplification.
We listen to what you say, and we are simplifying the current rules. We're also planning to introduce new performance indicators to better measure the impact of the promotion programs. We have taken several initiatives to drive more consistent implementation of simple programs by the member states. It's a point that Salvator DMA is making. We agree with him on that.
And, also, we are having with commissioner Hansen a dialogue and promotion policy to see what can we do better. Now some of you have mentioned the imbalance there and the outreach effort. I reiterate, we are at your disposal to go to your countries and explain the promotion policy. We just have a couple of weeks ago, with your colleague, Paulo Cabraldo Nasimento, for the authorities. We are happy to do it with all of you to increase geographical balance.
So the reality is that the promotion policy has been used roughly by 20 countries. And for those six or seven who are not using them, we are happy to go to those countries. We are happy to work with you and the MEPs. And, we are thinking how to improve geographical balance, but we work on demand. Let me conclude with one point.
Some of you mentioned organic farming. Indeed, there is an issue with organic farming in Orolevo De Guarda, so we don't have enough applications. We're trying to reach the organic sector, but objectively, we don't have enough applications, and then we are obliged to move the money. Then on the issue of financing produce, just let me remind you that there was an attempt a couple of years ago to exclude meat and wine, and it was widely rejected by the member states. Actually, 23 member states voted against that idea.
So I wanted to make that point. Let me conclude with one word in my home language in Spanish. I saw.
MEP said that all EU money was being wasted. We don't agree. The European Parliament wrote about the added value of promotion policy in one of the reports that it passed. So more than 100 euros is generated by each euro that is spent, and these aren't my words. This is from your report.
Veronika Vrecionová
In the end, we have here last the point of our today negotiation, issue number nine. And the European Economic and Social Committee adopted its opinion on the common agriculture policy. The op their opinion calls for stand alone adequately funded policy that balances sustainable food production with fair incomes for farmers. Emphasize public money for public goods, recommending a shift from basic surface-based payments to intensives for envy and social services, wealth strengthening crisis management, generational renewal, and supply chain fairness. The opinion reflects a need for a just transition that protects the diversity of EU farming via new challenges. Given the importance of the topic, the coordinators during our meeting decided to invite committee reporter, mister Joe Haley.
Mister Haley, welcome here. And I would like to give you now the floor for 10 minutes. So please, colleague, the floor is yours.
Joe Healy
Thank you very much, madam chair, and thank you for this opportunity to discuss our opinion here today. And I welcome that opportunity, and I welcome whatever discussion it generates. As you had outlined in your literature, we rejected the proposal. It was a big decision. And, you know, we didn't take it lightly.
It was very clear, and was unanimously or overwhelmingly rejected at plenary level. So, ladies and gentlemen, the global food system is being reshaped by power, risk, and geopolitics. We must ensure that we safeguard sufficient food supplies in the EU as the demand for food continues to grow at pace with an estimated 70% more food required than we currently produce, by 2050 to feed the growing global population. The commission needs to show that they are serious about food production, traceability, healthy food systems, and a fair income for farmers, so that the future generations of young women and men are attracted to the sector. For this, a very strong cap is a must.
Unfortunately, we saw with the commission's proposals that they felt very short of what's required. We felt that they were really thought out because, madam chairperson, with previous cap proposals, while we may not have agreed with them and very often argued against them, you could see some sort of plan or vision. With the current proposals on the table, we see no directional purpose or long-term vision or objectives. They represent a major cost, that to income support, that potentially is very damaging and will be very damaging to the EU agri sector and rural areas. They fail to meet the demands of EU agriculture as set down by the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament, the EESC, and other key stakeholders.
Those proposals will absolutely undermine EU agricultural policy, undermine food security, climate and environmental policy, farmer incomes and viability, rural areas, and the attractiveness of agriculture for future generations. The dismantling of the second pillar model of the CAP under the National and Regional Partnership Fund will also lead to fragmentation of the CAP provisions. Other negatives include the erosion of a common policy, single market, increased and costly administration, reorganization in the cap, increased bureaucracy, and it definitely won't help to improve the farmers' position in the food chain. We also, in our opinion, wanted to be constructive and work with our other EU partners and EU institutions. So we proposed a list of about 15 different recommendations that I will go through quickly.
First of all, it was in relation to the budget, which is key, and our opinion proposed a strong increased standalone dedicated and properly adjusted for inflation cap budget for 2028 to 2034. Called on the commission to restore the cap budget to a level of 0.5% of the EU GDP and strongly opposed the current proposals, which reflect a cut. We saw in 1993, we were up at a high of 0.66% of the EU GDP. We highlighted the independence and the integrity of the cap must be respected, ring-fenced, and maintained in line with the Treaty of Rome. We stressed the need for the cap to complement the principle of reciprocity.
Our opinion advocated that the cap must continue to be based on EU-wide common policy, as opposed to being renationalized. It insisted that a comprehensive economic, social, and environmental impact assessment of the proposed MFF and cap reforms be conducted. The ESC also strongly supported the retention of funding for the pillar two, the pillar two model, demanded that active genuine farmers engaged in agricultural production be eligible to claim cap payments with no discrimination against age or pension status. That further degresivity of area-based payments will only reduce farm income and viability of many farmers who are currently viable. We encourage simplification and reduction of the administrative burden.
We stress the need that measures relating to the ag agricultural knowledge and innovation system, life programs leader that those would be financially protected and ring fenced. That science-based environmental practices and sustainable holistic organic and regenerative systems of agriculture would be promoted. We stress the need to prioritize generation renewal by having a budget that allows targeting and ring-fencing of finance and support towards younger farmers, and also to help increase the number of young females entering farming. To continue to support the rebalancing of power in the EU food chain and the ban on below cost selling, we strongly supported social conditionality, but also warned of the need to avoid increased bureaucracy and regulations. And we called for improved crisis management tools in relation to insurance schemes.
And we also referred to the JRC report of last October, that issued a report on future CAP financing. And I think it was very telling that they modeled it under three models. The first, which highlighted that if there was no cap in the future, there would be a significant fall in exports, imports would increase, consumer prices would rise, and 250,000 jobs would be lost. The EU greenhouse gases would fall by 12,000,000 tons, but global greenhouse gases would increase by 20,000,000 tons, with a net negative of 8,000,000 tons. The second scenario was the environment and climate approach, which would see production fall, consumer prices rise, imports increase, and exports fall along with a loss of 90,000 jobs.
This would also lead to an increase of 16,000,000 tons of CO2 globally, with a drop of 6,000,000 tons leaving a net loss of 10,000,000 tons. And the final one was under the productivity and investment scenario, and this would see production increasing, prices rise, exports increase, imports fall, and employment increases. And in relation to the greenhouse gas, this would see a slight increase in EU emissions of 2,000,000 tonnes, but a drop in global emissions of 11,000,000 tonnes, leaving a net positive of 9,000,000 tonnes. So I think, chairman or chairperson, that was a summary of what our opinion referred to, and it was overwhelmingly adopted by the EESC plenary, which is made up of employers, unions, social partners, farmers, and people representing all sectors of life. Thank you very much.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much. And now I would like to give the floor to our reporter for four minutes. And, it's Norbert Linz, vice chair. You have the floor now for four minutes.
Thank.
Norbert Lins
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you very much to the rapporteur from the EESC, Mister Haley. Colleagues, we have looked at several opinions on the proposals of the commission's re proposal for the CAP after 2027. We've heard from the Court of Auditors. And once again, we've seen another very critical position from the EESC. So let me repeat what I've said a number of times before.
The report, which we are trying to draft on behalf of the agri committee, we're not talking about cosmetic tweaks. No. We're talking about substantial changes to the commission's proposal, and this is something that we looked at, for example, at controls, all the things that could go wrong with controls in the commission's proposal. But now we're looking at the content, what the impact on agriculture, the impact on rural development, and rural areas. I think the EESC is certainly competent to give an opinion on this matter.
So let me say to the rapporteur, there are many points of your criticism which I share. Especially, I'm convinced that we should keep the two-pillar structure of the CEP. And it's not just direct payments that are important, but also keeping the second pillar, the agri-environmental measures. And you're also talking about risk management, of course, because of weather systems, problems with climate change. It's more important than ever before to build this up rather than withdraw it.
So I think it's you can't just say it's up to the member states whether they want to have a risk management system or not, or whether. So I think the rapporteur has mentioned the young farmers, promoting young farmers. This is something which the commission is saying constantly, but you need a minimum budget. You need a minimum budget. The member states have to know a minimum has to be ring-fenced and assigned to the young farmers. So we have to make adjustments.
We have to make decisions at the European level before the member states work on it. So I think this is, it's not, we're just talking about agriculture here. As I recall, we're talking about rural areas, and this is something that is in the commission's proposal, but there's no ring fence in this earmarking for these funds. So it's just simply up to the member states whether they want to operationalize measures or not, or would they just leave them on the table? So I think it's necessary that we make these adjustments first and give direction first in Brussels and Strasbourg, before we send it to the member states.
So I think this opinion from the EESC is a good text to bring our work forward. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
K. Thank you very much, Norbert. And now let's open the round of shadows. First, SND, Dario Nardella. You have two minutes, please.
Dario Nardella
Thank you, chair. Well,
Thank you to the rapporteur from the EESC for his opinion. Critical points mentioned are the same that we have ourselves raised within the committee. First and foremost, the financial amount planned under the next MFF, which is totally inadequate. Now this isn't a technical point. It's a political choice, which, particularly given the very uncertain and risky international context, can only get worse where food is not a commodity.
It's a strategic asset for European security. Add to that a structural concern, which is just as serious, and that's the breakdown of the two-pillar CAP model. We have to come back to the meaning of the second pillar, so that we can really promote rural development. So alongside those critical issues, the opinion from the ESC has certain important points that we would share and support. One in particular I'd like to flag up, and that's the increase from €3,000 to €5,000, the annual payment for SMEs.
It's common sense, and it's moving in the right direction. We also share the idea of having a dedicated budget for young people, and also strengthening social conditionality. And finally, we support the favorable opinion on the introduction of a ceiling on the direct payments established at €100,000. That was always our struggle as well, which supports small scale producers. On digression, our position is a little bit different from that of the ESC.
We understand the problems about income erosion, but we support it. So thank you to the rapporteur, Linz. We're doing some excellent work together. We have a lot of shared objectives. Thank you.
Thank.
Raffaele Stancanelli
You, madam chair. Now if we were not to think of the interests of agriculture, we could say this evening, after what we've heard from the representative of the EESC, that we were right. But actually, no. What we do here in this parliament, in this committee, not just us, but most representatives of political groups, means that, unfortunately, this analysis that's come from the committee on the proposed CAP proves us right, but it doesn't satisfy us because we have to see what we can do to protect the farmers in the EU. So there are some very critical voices out there, but we've heard that the CAP will seriously reduce the financial resources.
It may compromise the actual character of the CAP. It doesn't have clear, coherent objectives for certain sectors, and there's a substantive cut to the budget, about 20% in nominal terms. So it weakens the role of the CAP, under Article 39. Well, basically, we are here now. So we have to ensure that the European Commission also understands that it's not us, the patriots, and the other political groups who have invented this criticism of the CAP proposal.
There are interests there as well because, basically, it represents producers, farmers here and the work that goes on there. And there's been a cry of pain which has come out clearly this evening, but it was already clear, and we would like that to make the commission think, not just commissioner Hansen who apparently agrees with us, but nonetheless has to follow till the president van der Leyen's line. But farmers are right now facing a very difficult situation. I will conclude. We've seen three scenarios proposed.
I think the third one proposed by the committee will be the one that this committee should approve. In other words, the increase in production and prices to support farmers and a decrease in the environmental aspects, which shouldn't be illogical. Thank you.
Thank.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to Mister Healy for this excellent opinion. I think we should really take this to heart, this opinion, excellent recommendations included in it, and the EESC is clearly pointing out the weaknesses. This is clearly direct criticism. The EESC says it completely rejects the commission's proposal, so they are really demonstrating some strength here. And I think the parliament should do exactly the same thing.
But I don't, unfortunately, we're in a very difficult situation. It's going to be difficult to get out of it, and I'm especially thinking about the coupled CAP on national and regional partnership plans and the RPP. I think that's a bad idea. There's going to be more oppression, and it's going to be a more complex system. So I think this decision has been made.
It's difficult to get out of it, but it's not too late yet. So if the parliament really takes action, then we can end this system being proposed for the new CAP. And with the opinion from the EESC with the First Amendment, they are proposing that we should break this link. And for that reason, we should continue to work on that basis. And the rapporteur also correctly sets that this budget has to be a unitary budget, and I think this is something we need to repair.
And concerning the budget, one of the biggest problems is that the producer organizations are going to be placed in the national envelopes. And that means a significant reduction in some member states. Wouldn't it be better, and here I'm turning to the commission, to keep these budgets separate? That's what we wish to say. Thank you.
Barry Cowen
Thanks, chair. Can I begin by thanking Joe Healy for joining us today and for sharing his expert opinion with us? There's little in what he has said that I would take issue with. A budgetary cut of over 20% is simply not acceptable. And I think we can all agree on that as is the case.
The very minimum, we must retain the cap on the budget that we currently have. That being said, we are in a new budgetary reality, and we need to start looking at some suggestions in relation to solutions. The commission has already alluded to certain concessions, flexible amounts within the NRPP to the tune of 45,000,000,000, and an additional 48,000,000,000 for the rural target. And that money, at the very minimum, must be ring-fenced immediately within the cap budget. And doing so would bring us back up to our current budget level.
And in my view, it's the only feasible solution, honestly, that is available to us. Of course, in an ideal world, we would see increased contributions to the overall EU budget, with member states stepping up and doing what is right, which the Irish government, to be fair, is committed to doing. But, unfortunately, that same willingness is not shared across all member states, with many committed to the purchase of tanks rather than tractors. And we have to respect and appreciate their fears for their security, and the reasons behind those commitments. But we do need to recognize that agriculture is not a generic policy area, and it shouldn't be treated as one.
The rules and definitions, controls, and powers that govern it belong in the CAPP regulation and not scattered across some broader framework that was never designed with farming in mind. Mister Healy has made clear in his opinion that the reallocation of CAP funding under the NRPP undermines food security and weakens our single market, and we agree with that. The only solution is to return budgetary and regulatory autonomy to the CAP. And as I said, we have possible solutions and recommendations that can realize that, and we would hope to work together in order to ensure that is the case. Thank you.
Martin Häusling
Yes. I'd like to thank the rapporteur from the EESC for his report, and we agree on many points. The parliament, unfortunately, has neglected to completely reject the proposal at the very start. If we succeed during negotiations to fix many aspects of the cap. But that's important to try, but I don't know if we will succeed. And, of course, the contradiction is, yes, we need more money and more money for agriculture.
But in many member states, some governments think, well, these plants will be fine. And I think it's hypocritical for the Agricultural Committee to say we need more money. I don't know any member state that wishes to invest more money in the European Union. So I think the key element we have to rescue is what we already have, what we have currently. So we have to have uniform standards, especially in the idea of the areas of environment and climate, and not just letting everyone just sort of go their own path.
So we have to have a more, this is a policy we have, and you want to say there's going to be less bureaucracy. I think if you have 27 member states doing their own thing, you're going to end up with more bureaucracy and not less. And what really has annoyed us is the abolition of the second pillar, rural development, and we simply hand it away if the commission wish gets its way. We cannot accept that. It's a key element.
And when it's been said, we can organize this so we create more regional possibilities. No. That would lead to the failure of the agricultural policy. The parliament, the commission doesn't really have a plan. It doesn't really have a vision.
And what we can say together, yes, we can say this is really a bad proposal. We have to go to the negotiations and see if we can get more points, and at least try to rescue the existing CAP. I hope we succeed, but I see that there's going to be a lot of resistance, and we're going to need more money. And then we have to go to the member states and say, yes, we need more money for the CAP. But please, not for direct payments, but also for those measures where you provide public funds for public services.
So I just don't see that reflected on the commission's proposal.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Thanks very much to the EESC for their opinion and for Joe Healy to come here and present this. I would agree with a awful lot of what's in the report. An awful lot of the criticisms you make have been made here at the committee. They've been made by the European Court of Auditors. Without doubt, it is disappointing, to say the least, totally and utterly wrong, that the budget in real terms has been cut.
And in Irish terms, since 1991, we're looking at nearly a 70% cut in the budget. And, I would for me, my audience here wouldn't just be farmers, it would be people who have never been involved in farming, who live in rural areas, who basically get this money secondhand when the farmers spend it, and it goes around in the local economy. So for me, this massive reduction in budget is a massive reduction for all rural areas, whether that be farmers, whether that be mechanics, hairdressers, or anyone who lives in rural areas. And I would agree with what you're saying in relation to getting rid of pillar two. And, to me, that just doesn't make any sense.
One area where I would question your opinion is on one sixteen, where you warned that digressivity of area-based payments will erode farm incomes and undermine the viability of existing farms. These payments that we're talking about applying digressivity to were based on activity of a quarter of a century ago. And a quarter of a century ago, many of the people who are now trying to get into farming haven't even been born. So I'm just wondering how one sixteen supports young farmers, because you also mentioned young farmers, and I'd agree. We need young farmers because we will not have a future in farming without them.
But if we protect payments that were based on what someone was doing a quarter of a century ago when people like Donald Trump were starring in Home Alone, it's a pity he didn't bloody well stay there. We cannot make decisions on what happened 25 years ago. Can you explain to me how you support generation renewal if you try to defend payments that were decided on what we did a quarter of a century ago? Doesn't make sense to me.
Thank you. Ivan David, yes.
Ivan David
I believe that we should not turn a blind eye to the fact that agriculture is not a priority for the European Commission. What their priority is clearly getting ready for war. This is what we need to understand. Nevertheless, I'm convinced, but very adequate emphasis is being placed on competitiveness and effectiveness. And I would disagree with the previous speaker who has some reservations about limiting the digestiveness of payments.
There are some economic laws, which we simply cannot overcome by the pure will of our ideology. Economies of scale are clearly there. And of course, division of labour is much more efficient. Sometimes we tend to forget about this. So the idea that in the future, farming could continue to be based on family farms is problematic.
Just as in the EU, we do not have 4,000,000 shoemakers, but only a few companies who are able to efficiently produce shoes. It is also true that only those small shoemakers can survive who produce some kind of specialized shoes, or tailor made shoes. Similarly, farming needs to follow the same rules and take this into account. And I am sometimes surprised by what I hear from Commissioner Hansen, who, for example, mentioned that money needs to be spent on those who need it most. This is a beautiful principle, which we were very much taught about in socialist countries. This was about the future of communism where everybody should be working according to their capacities and receiving according to their needs, but this is not realistic.
And my last remark is about young farmers. I think we should speak about workers in farming, rather than young farmers. An engineer in an agricultural company is a young farmer or not. I believe he is beneficial to farming, and therefore, should be understood also as a farmer.
Veronika Vrecionová
You have colleagues, as usual, one minute each. And, madam, Carmen Crespo Díaz.
Stay on.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Thank you, Chair. This is certainly an important topic and has led to the rejection. Now there's concern about the two pillars and renationalization. But at the moment, we have to look at the €45,000,000,000 that goes to the CAP and then the €10,000,000,000 that goes to rural development. And that includes watering plants, irrigation.
And so we're also talking about water infrastructure and other issues. We, in this committee, believe that there needs to be a special mention of water, because water is an agricultural issue, not just an industrial issue. And there are some issues where we need to have a greater focus, and where we have to fight hard because these are really important subjects for farming. The commission's proposals are unacceptable for farmers who are being ignored here in Brussels, and they're just being looked at through the lens of an Excel table. And then these proposals aren't acceptable for many MEPs here.
Gilles Pennelle
Often, you ignore us. In fact, you blatantly disrespect us. These proposals are also not respectable for the Court of Auditors or for the EESC, who we've just heard from in this report. So, how should we interpret the commission? The commission is in an ivory tower, completely certain of itself, but we've said it on more than one occasion.
The commission no longer makes farming a priority, even though it has been a priority since 1962. In fact, you want to abandon farming. The Brussels technocrats must ensure that we have food, but they are bringing food in from outside, and it's low quality food.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank.
You, chair. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Joe Healy, for this important report that we share a lot of these conclusions. I particularly welcome the proposal from a strong CAP based on increased standalone and dedicated budget, properly adjusted for inflation. This is fundamental for our farmers and to guarantee certainty and fairness. I also fully support the report's clear position that CEP must remain a truly EU-wide policy.
Any move towards renationalization will risk fragmenting the internal market and weakening the Union. It's also fundamental to maintain the current structure, the two-pillar model, namely target income support and rural development measures. Also pleased with the emphasis on generational renewal. This is vital for the future of European agriculture. And let me also stress the reciprocity as a fundamental condition to ensure a level playing field for our producers in global markets.
Finally, I would like to thank you for highlighting the importance of key instruments, notably the POSE program, the life and leader that should remain protected and adequately funded. Thank you.
Chair,
Eric Sargiacomo
Let me thank Mister Healy and the EESC for this report. Well, there's nothing worse when reports fall on deaf ears, and we've heard this before. You're very clear in what you're saying. The figures speak volumes. The CAP has gone down by 47% since 2008.
But we used to spend the equivalent of 0.66% of the GDP on the CAP. Now it's 0.29%. All the other world powers are doing the opposite. And how can we talk about competitiveness against that backdrop? What about food sovereignty?
Everyone's talking about food sovereignty, and more Europeans are also affected by food poverty. I therefore think that we need to have a decent CAP of at least 0.5% of GDP, EU GDP. Let's go back to article 39 of the TFEU.
Colleague, please.
Christine Singer
As we've heard several times today, the CAP opinion really addresses a lot of points that the committee sees quite critically, and I think we need a really clear direction, and it's not included here. Instead, we see structural changes and reduction in funding, and that the EESC had the courage to make this rejection. I think this was a good and correct signal to the Commission. So it's not just this opinion. It's not standing alone.
And I think with the NRPPs, we're seeing a fundamental rejection of this idea of just having one big pot of funds. At the same time, it's important to do everything possible to keep the key elements of the CAP as far as possible, the two-pillar model, the independent ring-fenced funding. These are not minor issues. These are really the basis for planning security, for guaranteeing a well-functioning single market, and for having competitiveness. So it's decisive that we have a rapporteur who supports keeping the CAP as an independent policy, and really anchor the central elements to the extent possible.
So that's why we need clarity and a really strong commitment to the future of European agriculture.
Jérémy Decerle
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks also to the European Economic and Social Committee for having shared its opinion with us. And its surprises added to the many people and structures at European level that are against this proposal from the commission. What the Economic and Social Committee is doing that's different is putting forward certain recommendations, which I think should make us bring some serious thought to the more strategic points that we have to include in our proposals. I agree with what Mr. Riesen was saying.
I think the fact that we commit to work on a basis that no one is happy with is very risky. So I think as far as generational renewal is concerned, on risk management, on various other issues where we can stand together in the AGRI committee. I think we have to roll our sleeves up as of now, and come up with some proposals, which will shape this parliament's final position on this. So let's have the courage, like Cesar had, to actually come forward with some things which are quite strong, maybe. Thank you.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you. I will speak Dutch. The European Economic and Social Committee thinks that this proposal is inappropriate. We see five main risks, which are huge for exporters, family ones as well. Now how are we supposed to address the differences also between the position of the ECC and the Court of Auditors?
How do you explain the differences?
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, chair, and thank you to Joe Healy of the European Economic and Social Committee for the work that has been done on this. I welcome your opinion on a number of aspects of the proposed 2027 cap. And indeed, like yourself, I fully support the principle that the common agricultural policy was, is, and must remain a policy focused on food production and food security. We all want the two-pillar system back. How many times do we have to say it around this room, around this building, before somebody's gonna listen to us?
Because at the end of the day, this is the foundation of the cap, and it must remain so going forward. Couple of questions on a very detailed paper. On convergence on degressivity, while I understand the case for reducing cap payments at the higher end, we've heard it before, I would welcome clarification on the proposed minimum threshold of €5,000 alongside the maximum ceiling of €100,000. Is this approach based on production or on the amount of land owned or farmed by the farmer involved? One wonders.
At a time when the agriculture policy is under pressure, chair, and when we are trying to protect the family farm model across the European Union, I believe this must be implemented in a way that's fair and reflects different farming systems, and does not undermine viable family farms regardless of their size. And above all, the guiding principle must be that support goes first to those who need it most. Thank you.
Thank.
Céline Imart
Chair. You, well, yes, an agreement worthy of this name shouldn't be just chopped up. We have to come back to what the treaty says, producing more, guaranteeing a decent income for farmers, preserving our food sovereignty. And with the post-2027 CAP, these objectives look more like fiction than public policy. The budget undermined, the whole buildup is made difficult, and the dream of modernization promised by President van der Leyen is becoming a nightmare.
What about her creative communication announcing budget means which apparently strengthen the agricultural world, where it's actually this, these are amounts which have already been programmed for. And we've just brought forward the timetable for their expenditure. So we're playing pass the parcel with the budget. This proposal threatens European farming as a whole, and this parliament has to pull out all the stops to correct what is already a historic mistake. Thank you.
Copenhagen Leven.
Jessika van Leeuwen
Thank you very much, Chair. Well, this is not the first nor will it be the last time we discuss the future COP. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr. Healy, for his courageous deposition today. The ESG report clearly shows that the commission proposal for the future COP undermines productivity, reduces farmer income, disturbs the internal market, reduces European food security, and, very importantly, increases global greenhouse gas emissions.
But it's not too late. It's not too late, because we can still act. And therefore, I would like to highlight what my colleague Bertrand Rausser pointed out because if we take amendment one from this report and we start working with amendment one, and we can uncouple funding from the NRPF, we have a very good start to make and deliver a cup that delivers for farmers and has food security as main priority. Thank you.
Cristina Guarda
Thank you. Madam Guarda? Thank you very much. I will speak Italian.
Well, thank you very much indeed to the representative of the Economic and Social Committee for this opinion. Should welcome, and they agree this CAP proposal has no direction and political choices, and it creates specific risks linked to the single market. That doesn't only apply to agricultural policy, but all of the policies which have been thrown in together on NRPP cohesion, all of the policies for small municipalities, SMEs, and so on and so forth. And then I also support the call to protest, protect resources for awareness, a life program, leader, rural development. And it's also crucial that we should strengthen social conditionality for all companies and give priority to generational change.
But I don't understand the opposition to the redistribution of direct payments. Starting to put a ceiling on that would mean that we'd be better able to balance support towards those who need most of it, young people and women, for example. If we don't do that and we continue to support, just the fact that you have certain hectares means that there will be less money for those priorities. And we, I think, have to fight for a fair income coming from the market rather than generating injustice, which could actually undermine the positive measures which are needed, which are vital, in fact, for the future of agriculture, the future of our farmers and for food production. Thank you.
Maria Noichl
Thank you very much indeed. I'd also like to thank the ESC as well for this excellent work and to come up with a couple of things now. But Linz stressed this as well. He's been fighting for this as Rabotto to get the two-pillar model once again. For me personally, it's not about the model.
It's more about what the model says. In other words, that to date means for eco schemes were there 100% financed from Europe, and farmers had ideas there to produce milk or wheat. But then they could also protect the climate, environment, internal security, this type of thing. So it means that we've changed that. And in future, that 100% funding, there's no possibility of having it anymore for ecological spheres.
And that's, I think, the biggest error in changing the two-pillar model. So I'd definitely like to support that. If we come back to the two pillar model means that once again you still have some amount of money for 100% for the environment, then I think we really have to come back to that two column model. It wasn't the original plan. But that's why I think that I'd be interested to hear from the Social Committee whether this is co-funding for the question of co-funding for the environment, whether we're seeing the same thing that we're seeing here, because we really need to make some huge improvements there.
Thank you.
Marko Vešligaj
Thank you, Chair. I will speak in Croatian. As
A representative coming from Croatia, which has a lot of agriculture, I'm referring to small family holdings, and I can only additionally stress how worried we are by the European Economic and Social Committee's opinion concerning the future of the CAP after 2027, because we cannot turn a blind eye to this problem which is present, and we still don't have a good system of distribution of support because it favors the big, whereas small family holdings are not protected sufficiently. And all too often, they are left to market pressures which they cannot endure. And if we wish to have a more just system, then we need to direct these funds to those who really work the soil, who live off of it, and in a way to protect them from the unloyal global competition. This is about the survival of small rural communities as well. We need to prevent people leaving these rural areas, because this type of proposal will cause the disappearance of our producers and the food within the EU.
Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
The end of our list of our speakers. And now I give the floor again to Joe Haley, reporter ECC. And you have the floor for 8 minutes, please, for your remarks and replies.
Joe Healy
Thank you very much, again, madam chairperson. And, indeed, thanks to all who give their opinions and their views on what we had to say earlier. And indeed, for the large level of support, I think we're pretty much all singing off the same hymn sheet here. Particularly, I think in relation to budgets, the second pillar, renationalization, generation renewal, and keeping the common agricultural policy as a common policy as opposed to a member states one or a nationalized one. I apologize if I missed.
I don't think there were too many questions. I think the key thing was the support in general and the fact that, the views of the members of the, European Economic Social Committee are very similar to the views of the people in this room. I think it's highly important that we appreciate the success of the common agricultural policy, and at the same time appreciate and realize that there's very little that creates more anxiety among people than a shortage of food. Unfortunately, for farmers, there's a very strong feeling that food production only becomes a priority for policymakers and the likes of the European Commission in times of crisis, whether that's a weather crisis or a pandemic, or such like, and, you know, the media and the news stations are full of empty shelves and people not happy. So if you want to cause angst among the people, you'll threaten their food supply.
When you look forward, as I said in my opening remarks, to 2050 and the likelihood that all surveys or estimations are that we will need 70% more. We'll need to do that despite losing 12,000,000 hectares of agricultural land per year, globally. We need to do that without, despite the huge pressures on farmers from an environmental point of view, and that particularly in the case of European farmers where we take environmental targets seriously and where we're very much regulated, unlike in places that we allow access and allow increased access to EU markets that shows scant regard for the climate. In a period from 2000 to 2020, there was an area the size of France destroyed in the Amazon Rainforest. In the five years since then, there was an area the size of The UK destroyed, but the reward for that is increased access to the European market while European farmers are constantly under the thumb in relation to environmental change. We're not against trade.
I think Europe has seen surpluses, agricultural surpluses in relation to trade, hit highs of 60,000,000,000 in recent years. Coming from a small agriculture sector in Ireland, we can't be against international trade because we export 90% of our beef and 85% of our dairy products. But what we can be opposed to is people sharing our shelf space, not having to produce to the same standard. And I think that's a very fair ask from people. I think the cap has been, if anything, a victim of its own success set up with three main aims to ensure an adequate supply of safe, healthy food.
We've very much achieved that. To have it at affordable prices, we can argue at the increase in recent years, but when you look at an EU average of over the years of anything ranging between 10-14% of the average household income being spent on food. You know, it's a relatively small percentage of household income to be spent on the most. As someone said, it's an asset. It's not just a commodity, in your views there earlier on. One of the questions was, in relation to the minimum payment, and it goes back to an earlier opinion where, in Article 28, to be replaced by the following which regarded payments for small farmers that member states may grant a payment to small farmers as determined by the member states by way of a lump sum or of amounts per hectare replacing direct payments under this section and section three of the chapter.
Member states shall design the corresponding intervention in the common agricultural policy strategic plans as optional for farmers. And there's additions onto that in relation to levels of regulations and inspections to be greatly reduced. Another question was from another Irish colleague in relation, and just bear with me. It was in relation to the degresivity and young farmers. I would say, and it's a while ago since I was a young farmer myself, unfortunately, but I think one of the greatest attractions for any young person to get into farming is to see the viability of their parents or the person whose farm you're in line to get.
And if those parents or those previous owners of the farm has an income that is so low and being constantly reduced and degressivity has done that in many cases, I’m not actually aware of too many farmers that have been allowed to give up their maybe off farm job and go farming full time as a result of benefiting from digressivity. I know an awful lot of farmers that have had to get a job off the farm because degressivity made them unviable. But the direct question was in relation to how it helps young people. Again, I repeat that if the generation before you cannot show that, the market and direct payments create a viable farm, well then you're not going to be encouraged to take it over. So I think that's greatly where it has helped, the, you know, before the degressivity.
It has helped farmers to be viable. And like when you're looking at a sector where the average income is 40% below the average of the other sectors, we need to keep the viable farmers viable, as well as helping other farmers along the way. I again, I want to sincerely thank the people who spoke for their support. We had an awful lot of discussion about this. At our first study group, we didn't get past 1.1.
So that will tell you the difficulty around the room, at the time in trying to get so it took a lot of work. It took meetings with people involved in agriculture, people not involved in agriculture, getting the views of everyone, to put this opinion together. I think, you know, even at the plenary, there was a huge debate on this. There was, people, there was people that argued against it, that money would need to go elsewhere. And despite that, there was an overwhelming over 90% majority in support of it.
I would sincerely also like to thank the commission people who came to a number of our meetings to answer questions and speak to us, through the meetings and outside of the meetings, and I know they're represented here today as well. But, again, madam chairperson, thank you for giving us this opportunity to address everyone here today and thank the people for their support. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much. It's a pleasure. And now let's go back to our vice chair, Mr. Lainz, if you will. Norbert, the floor is yours for four minutes.
Thank.
Norbert Lins
Thank you very much. I'm not going to need 4 minutes. I think the summary has already been made. And so now we've started our work, and so we want to take out the article about the NRPP and really bring the CAP back and have a real CAP. And I think it's a very political exercise that we're going to be encountering, and the many examples which really provide the fundamental arguments about the existing CAP and why we should maintain it.
I think those arguments have been made quite well. And so for that reason, we take the EESC's opinion very seriously, and parts of it, of course, are going to be included in my report. And so then we'll have the opportunity of our colleagues will be able to provide more amendments and work on that. And so we're going to conclude this point on the agenda. I think, once again, we've had confirmed that the commission's proposal truly needs improvement, and we will do so.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you, Norbert. And now I would like to ask mister Schulthuis from DG Aggrant. You have four minutes, please.
Gijs Schilthuis
Thank you, madam chair, honorable members. Mister Healy, thank you very much for the opportunity to add some perspective from the side of the Commission. Quite a challenge after this exchange of views. First, I would like to thank Mr. Healy indeed for the cooperation on the report that they did.
As you can imagine, we do not necessarily agree with all the substance. Although I should like to underline that there are quite a few elements that we consider as support also for the commission work, for commission proposals such as uncapping, strengthening generation of renewal, indexing of support, etcetera. Some of you have characterized the commission proposal as made in an ivory tower, and I would like to disagree with that. I think the proposal of the commission is part of the wider MFF proposal, which has really been made to strengthen the competitiveness, strategic autonomy, innovation of the European Union, and we consider agriculture and the common agriculture policy as a key part of that wider policy orientation. And, I think, it is important to also underline that this is based on a clear vision of the role of agriculture in the European Union to deal with the challenges at European level and at global level as mentioned today.
And indeed, a proposal that is grounded in the vision for agriculture and food, which Commissioner Hanssen proposed in February, which was based on the report of the strategic dialogue, which you recall was a gathering of the various stakeholder organizations. Please allow me to make four observations on the basis of the exchange review. I think firstly, I'd like to underline that the proposal, both the CAPP proposal and the NRP proposal, has clear policy objectives linked to fair and sufficient income, food security, rural areas, generational renewal, the sustainability of agriculture. So we really have grounded the instruments and the proposal on those objectives. Secondly, of course, you have spoken today a lot about the budget, which is key.
And then I think you all know that we have proposed a ring-fence budget of 293,700,000,000 for farmers and rural communities as a minimum amount of a wider fund, and that member states can tap into the non-ring-fenced amount also to support agriculture. And in addition, we have proposed a doubling of the safety net, with additional possibilities to address disasters. Then, we have engaged over the past months, in an exchange of views with this house, with the council. This resulted in a number of letters of our president, which included, I think, important elements for the legislative activity of this committee of this house, such as the 10% for rural investments. That's 48,700,000,000 overall to strengthen infrastructure resilience services of Europe's countryside.
And looking further, member states can also access roughly 45,000,000,000 of their flexibility amount as of as early as 2028, so at the start of the next period, provided this is used for agriculture. So those elements, together with the ring-fenced amounts, really constitute a very significant spending for agriculture in the future period. Second, third point I would like to make is on the merger of the funds, the second pillar. I think it's important to say that we start from a position where we have strategic plans for the common agricultural policy, where the first and the second pillar are really integrated. And the proposal we have made builds on that situation.
So we basically are trying to modernize the use of the second pillar and of the first pillar in synergy with the other EU funds. And let's not forget that the CAP proposal preserved the toolbox from the current first and second pillar available to farmers in rural communities, and also ensures that measures are mandatory for member states to program. In other words, that constitutes the commonness of the commonality of the policy. And building on the experience of the last couple of years, the proposal includes a number of simplified possibilities, lump-sum payments, simplified cost options, simpler rules which are to the benefit of member states and farmers. And finally, if you allow me, chair, a last point on the renationalization.
I don't think we have made a proposal to renationalize the common agriculture policy. We have common regulation, common set of objectives, which I already mentioned, common tools, which are the tools that we have today, common set of indicators to assess progress on the ground, common rules in the CAP and also in the single fund, such as the 43% spending target on the environment. And all this contributes very much to the level playing field across the European Union. And as you know, the commission is preparing CAP country recommendations to guide national and regional partnership plans. So in conclusion, madam chair, we look forward to continuing the dialogue with you and with this house on this proposal, with a view to indeed establishing a strong, common agriculture policy.
And we look forward to further discussions with you on this policy. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. Thank you very much. I think that we all can see that this discussion is very tough, and it will be very tough in the future. And but as I said, our report and thank you very much, committee report from committee because it is very important for us to have also your strong position. Thank you very much.
Thank you, colleagues, and I wish you a nice evening, and we will continue tomorrow morning. Bye.
Okay.
Speaker 92
Enter the meeting. This meeting number is not valid, or the meeting has not yet started. This webinar is being recorded.
Test. Test.
Please just apologize, though.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.