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
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
AGRI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsM. Petrovic
We organized our assessment around six key points: EU added value, simplification of procedures, performance framework, the alignment of spending objectives with EU-wide policy priorities, transparency, accountability and traceability of funds, and finally, the publication date of the AMPR. What did we find?
On the EU added value, we saw that the proposal does not legally define it, so there is a lack of definition. This means that there is a risk that the EU added value is interpreted differently across interventions. Simplification of procedures. The proposal outlines a unified set of rules with indicators and EU coefficients linked to a single set of intervention fields, as listed in our Annex 1. This has the potential to contribute to reducing the administrative burden, mainly at the Commission level.
However, the burden at national, regional, and beneficiary level may remain unchanged or even increase. This will ultimately depend on the procedures that Member States will put in place to collect and monitor performance information. We identified several risks concerning the simplification of procedures. The content of implementation reports, which should replace mid-term evaluations, is not specified. Therefore, there is a risk of having non-standard and inconsistent reporting.
The proposal does not set out in detailed manner the content of the future annual performance reporting by the Commission. We see a risk that non-all relevant information currently available under the special reports will be covered under the new single performance report. The single gateway portal aims to reduce complexity and increase traceability as it will merge over 30 portals and dashboards in one. However, we underline that its creation will be complex and will require substantial efforts in terms of funding and resources.
Moving on to the performance framework. The proposed framework does not provide a clear link between funding and results. Performance in terms of results will not be a condition for payment because payments are based on the achievement of milestones and targets, which are defined by output indicators. In our opinion, a performance framework should go beyond specific payment conditions such as milestones and targets and include all the necessary elements to assess effectiveness, efficiency, and economy.
The proposal does not include provisions to collect information on public expenditure for interventions supported by the EU budget, although it is important for assessing efficiency and economy. We have pointed this repeatedly in our reports on the Recovery and Resilience Facility. The proposal creates conditions to improve process for performance reporting and integration on EU horizontal policy priorities. However, we have found that intervention fields are broadly defined and sometimes overlapping.
In certain cases, the output indicators reflect procedural steps rather than clearly defined outputs, for example, adoption of legislation, approval of strategies, establishment of administrative structures, and so on. Finally, the methodologies for setting targets and milestones and baselines and estimated values for result indicators are not established by this proposal nor by the Commission's proposal for the specific programs. Around 25% of proposed intervention fields do not have result indicators, and we identified weaknesses in a number of indicators.
For example, for 7% of the output indicators, we believe that the indicators defined as output indicators are closer to input indicators according to the definition in the Better Regulation Guidelines. The proposal risks measuring progress in implementation rather than whether EU objectives have been achieved. There are also no impact indicators defined, and this will complicate subsequent evaluations.
Moreover, discontinuation of core performance indicators can complicate the aggregation of performance information because different indicators can be used to record performance for the same type of activity. The proposal defines centrally the EU coefficients for all intervention fields to be applied when calculating the expenditure contributions to horizontal environment and social priorities. We see a risk of overstatement since the program's contributions to horizontal policy priorities are based on estimates and not on actual spending. In our view, some proposed EU coefficients are not correct. In some cases, the proposed EU coefficient values to track climate and environmental expenditures are overstated as observed in previous audits.
As an example, the intervention field energy infrastructure of cross-border relevance in line with the TEN-E regulation contributes to climate change and mitigations for 100% according to the Commission.
However, according to the ECA estimation, it contributes only 40%. This is because we assessed the contribution of electricity transport projects to climate change to be moderate instead of high.
Continuing to the traceability, accountability and traceability of spending, the proposal does not contain a sufficiently clear control and accountability framework for the reliability of reported performance information. It does not specify how the reliability and the quality of the performance data in the single gateway will be ensured. For example, in the past, we have identified time-related issues in the Commission's performance reporting when the details behind the numbers reported were available only of the reporting date itself, after which the data changed because of the new entries.
My last point concerns the publication date of the annual management and performance report. We previously reported that the publication date of the AMPR by 30th of June the following year restricts our coverage in our annual reporting. Maintaining the 30th June deadline will significantly constrain the ECA's ability to provide a comprehensive assessment of the AMPR in the time for the discharge. Thank you very much for your attention and back to you, Chair.
Okay.
Thank you very much. And now I would like to give the floor to our coordinators. You have two minutes each and let's start with Herbert Dorfmann, EPP please, Herbert.
Herbert Dorfmann
Yeah, thank you, Chair. Ja, herzlichen Dank für die Präsentation. Ich teile weitgehend die Auffassung und die Kritik, die der Rechnungshof hier auch anbringt. Allerdings möchte ich noch mal auf die Punkte 03 und 04 zurückkommen, die Sie angesprochen haben.
Ich glaube, wenn man eine Politik bewerten will oder wenn man Kriterien, Indikatoren finden will, wie man eine Politik bewerten will, dann muss man zuerst einmal definieren, was man eigentlich mit einer Politik will. Was sind also die Ziele einer Politik? Und wenn ich mir jetzt anschaue, dass es hier ausschließlich um Nachhaltigkeit im Umweltbereich geht, also Beitrag zum Klimawandel, soziale Wirkung, Gender Contribution, dann frage ich mich, sind das die drei einzigen drei Ziele, die wir zum Beispiel mit der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik, aber wenn man es weiter fassen will, auch mit der Gemeinsamen Regionalpolitik entwickeln oder erreichen wollen. Also ich denke, dass die Indikatoren von Grund auf falsch sind, dass wir uns zuerst überlegen müssten, was wollen wir eigentlich mit der Politik erreichen.
Und dann kommen wir vielleicht auch drauf, dass wir neben diesen berechtigten Anliegen vielleicht auch über Ernährungssicherheit bewerten müssten, dass wir vielleicht bewerten müssten, ob die Landwirtschaftspolitik zum Einkommen der Landwirte beiträgt, ob sie dazu beiträgt, mehr Jungbauern zu bekommen. Alles das, was Sie uns hier immer schön sagen. Aber diese ganzen Dinge stehen in der Performance Regulation nicht drinnen. Die werden nicht bewertet. Und ich denke, das ist das grundlegende Problem, das in diesem Vorschlag drinnen ist.
Und ganz ehrlich gesagt, mir kommt dieser Vorschlag für die Performance Regulation ein bisschen vor, als wäre er aus alten Zeiten. Und mit alten Zeiten meine ich die letzte Amtszeit.
Also das entspricht nicht dem, was wir uns hier in Sachen Wettbewerbsfähigkeit zum Beispiel tagtäglich sagen. Ich habe auch große Zweifel und auch da teile ich die Auffassung des Rechnungshofs, dass das Ganze zur Vereinfachung beitragen soll. Ich habe mich mit dem Ganzen befasst, weil ich Schattenberichterstatter der Kollegin Neuchl bin im Bericht, den wir hier, der Opinion, die wir hier machen. Zur Vereinfachung wird das nicht beitragen. Und es ist schon sehr gutgläubig, wenn wir glauben, dass uns die Mitgliedstaaten diese Daten dann alle richtig liefern werden und wir eigentlich keine Chance haben, den Mitgliedstaaten dahinzugehen und zu schauen, ob die Daten, die aus den Mitgliedstaaten kommen, auch stimmen.
Also das kann ich eigentlich nur mit Gutgläubigkeit bezeichnen, alles andere wäre ein Abgrund.
Thank you, Herbert. Dario Nardella, please, Dario.
Dario Nardella
Thank you, Chair, I will speak in Italian. Voglio ringraziare il relatore della Corte dei Conti per questa presentazione. La mia valutazione è che mentre discutiamo della transizione verde verso un nuovo modello di bilancio, dobbiamo assicurarci che la trasparenza scientifica sia al centro delle politiche ambientali. La Corte dei Conti nel suo parere solleva una serie di criticità in merito al sistema a tre livelli di valori per i coefficienti europei proposto dalla Commissione.
La Corte afferma testualmente che i valori proposti per tracciare la spesa per il clima e l'ambiente sono ancora una volta dichiarati in eccesso. Nel parere viene citato un esempio lampante. Le infrastrutture energetiche transfrontaliere vengono computate dalla Commissione come verdi al 100%, mentre per la Corte il loro contributo reale si ferma appena al 40%. Com'è possibile che vi sia un divario di ben il 60% tra la valutazione della Commissione e quella della Corte?
Inoltre, questi calcoli continuano a basarsi su stime previsionali e non sulle spese effettivamente sostenute. Rischiamo quindi di trovarci di fronte ad un sistema cieco che premia le burocrazie basate sui piani nazionali, ma che non verifica l'impatto reale delle misure sui territori. La sostenibilità deve essere concreta e misurabile. Se un euro del bilancio viene etichettato come verde, deve produrre benefici reali, verificabili per la biodiversità, per la transizione ecologica, per la resilienza climatica e per i nostri agricoltori.
Possibile quindi io pongo questa domanda: come possiamo garantire ai cittadini europei, ai consumatori, agli agricoltori, agli operatori che il bilancio sia effettivamente trasparente se non introduciamo nel regolamento metodologie rigorose e correzioni basate sui costi reali anziché accontentarci di semplici stime sulla carta e nei documenti? Grazie.
Gilles Pennelle
Thank you, Pietro Jelmini. Gilles, please.
Oui merci Madame la Présidente. Nous partageons une grande partie des critiques sur cet avis de la Cour des comptes européenne parce qu'on s'aperçoit concrètement que sur cette proposition de règlement, on ne sort pas des trois gros défauts de ce que nous faisons ici. Premièrement, l'absence d'étude d'impact. Deuxièmement, la simplification qui ne vient toujours pas. Et troisièmement, j'y reviendrai, le primat de l'idéologie.
Alors nous avions déjà débattu de cela en commission AGRI et les députés des Patriotes avaient souligné ce que dénonce aujourd'hui encore la Cour des comptes européenne, c'est-à-dire l'absence d'indicateurs d'impact, c'est-à-dire les effets produits grâce aux actions.
La Cour souligne également à juste titre les faiblesses des indicateurs de résultat, la réalisation des actions. Et bien sûr, ça a été répété qu'environ 25 % des actions ne sont pas couvertes par des indicateurs de résultat. Comment donc démontrer que les fonds européens produisent des changements structurels durables sans prévoir les outils nécessaires pour les mesurer ? Deuxième point, la Cour reconnaît que peut-être qu'il est possible que ce projet de règlement conduise à une certaine simplification, mais elle se fera surtout, elle sera surtout entre la Commission et les États membres, tandis que la charge administrative au niveau national, régional et des bénéficiaires restera inchangée et pourra même augmenter.
Et troisièmement, bien évidemment, le problème des objectifs transversaux, climat, biodiversité, égalité des genres, sont toujours très présents et là nous retrouvons le primat de l'idéologie, on n'arrive pas à en sortir. C'est d'ailleurs ce que souligne la Cour des comptes qui estime que les objectifs climatiques et environnementaux sont, ouvrez les guillemets, surestimés. Ces objectifs devraient plutôt être orientés vers la compétitivité, mais ce mot fait peur, ce mot on n'en veut pas, et la croissance de l'économie européenne, c'est encore probablement un gros mot pour certains.
Ces dimensions sont totalement absentes de ce texte.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Dank u wel voorzitter en dank aan de vertegenwoordiger van de Rekenkamer voor het uitstekende advies, de opinie, zeer nuttig voor voor ons ook bij de behandeling van het wetsvoorstel van de Commissie. Kijk, we willen natuurlijk allemaal een effectief beleid en we willen dat er duidelijke doelen worden gehaald met het gemeenschappelijk landbouwbeleid.
Maar de grote vraag is wel of we met deze aanpak dit daadwerkelijk gaan bereiken. De Rekenkamer wijst op één van de risico's, namelijk het risico dat we straks een beleid gaan vormgeven waarbij we vooral een aantal indicatoren gaan afvinken. En als we dan maar voldoen aan die indicatoren is het goed. Maar daarmee is natuurlijk nog geen enkele garantie, daarmee hebben we nog geen enkele garantie dat daarmee de echte doelen die we echt willen bereiken, dat we die ook daadwerkelijk realiseren. Dus het komt er wel heel goed op aan, komt er wel op aan hoe die indicatoren straks geformuleerd gaan worden.
De Rekenkamer waarschuwt ook voor extra bureaucratie en met name op het niveau van de lidstaten en de begunstigden. De grote vraag daarbij is natuurlijk hoe kunnen we dat toch enigszins voorkomen?
Kijk, een hele logische route zou zijn om in ieder geval het aantal indicatoren fors te beperken. Wat is het advies van de Rekenkamer in dit verband? Hoe kunnen we die extra democratie, die extra bureaucratie moet ik zeggen, die extra bureaucratie voorkomen? Ik ben het overigens eens met collega Dorfmann als het gaat over de set aan indicatoren, die is wel zeer eenzijdig en er is veel te weinig aandacht bijvoorbeeld voor versterking van de concurrentiekracht en de inkomenspositie om maar eens wat te noemen.
Een vraag die ik ook heb bij dit hele kader is: is het voor de landbouw altijd wel goed mogelijk om met outputindicatoren te werken? Ik zeg dat omdat we zeker in de sfeer van de landbouw te maken hebben met allerlei externe factoren die ook invloed hebben op de uitkomsten, allerlei weersinvloeden bijvoorbeeld. En ook de factor tijd speelt natuurlijk een heel duidelijke rol. Ik denk bijvoorbeeld aan inspanningen die erop zijn gericht om de bodemkwaliteit te verbeteren. Ja, dat kun je bijvoorbeeld doen door groengewassen in te zaaien, maar voordat dat daadwerkelijk zich vertaalt in een verhoging van het organisch stofgehalte in de bodem bijvoorbeeld, ben je soms jaren verder.
Dus dat is heel moeilijk te meten.
Is het dan in sommige gevallen toch niet beter om te sturen op maatregelen in plaats van te sturen op output die heel moeilijk vast te stellen is? Hoe kijkt de Rekenkamer daar tegenaan? Dank.
Elsi Katainen
Thank you, Elsi Katainen, please.
Kiitoksia puheenjohtaja. Kiitän myös tilintarkastustuomioistuimen edustajaa hyvästä esittelystä. Kuten on nähty, niin komission ehdotus on saanut todella kokonaisvaltaisesti paljon kritiikkiä sekä parlamentissa ja myöskin kaikkien sidosryhmien keskuudessa.
Siirtyminen yhteen rahastoon on valtava muutos, joka väistämättä asettaa eri alat vastakkain kansallisella tasolla ja asettaa myös jäsenmaita keskinäiseen eriarvoiseen asemaan. Tätä kaikkea me halutaan halutaan välttää ilman muuta. Tässä esityksessä on sellaisia elementtejä, jotka on omiaan heikentämään maatalousalaa ja yhteistä Euroopan maatalouspolitiikkaa. Lisäksi vaatimus siirtyä sääntöperusteisesta tulosperusteisempaan politiikkaan on nyt toteutumassa. Kritiikki tosin siitä huolimatta edelleenkin on vahvaa.
Huojentavaa on kuitenkin nähdä, että hylkäämisen sijaan ollaan pikemminkin siirtymässä kohti toimivampia ehdotuksia. Lainsäädännön tuloksellisuuden vaatimus on vahvassa linkissä kansallisten ja alueellisten kumppanuussuunnitelmien asetukseen. Kuinka näette, että jos korvamerkintöjä lisätään erilaisiin rahastoihin, kuten parlamentin NRPP-pohjaraportissa tehdään, niin pitäisikö lainsäädäntöön tuoda uusia indikaattoreita, joilla tuloksellisuutta voidaan luotettavasti mitata, kuitenkaan tekemättä liikaa uutta byrokratiaa? Lisäksi on olemassa yksittäisiä toimia, jotka kerryttävät useampaa tavoitetta, kuten esimerkiksi Leader tekee. Leader esimerkiksi edistää ilmastotoimia, samalla se kerryttää myös sosiaalista pääomaa ja elinvoimaa alueille.
Ne ei kuitenkaan kerrytä komission esityksen mukaan sosiaalista tavoitetta, vaikka usein vaikkapa Leader-hankkeet voivat vahvistaa hyvinvointia, työpaikkoja vaikka ei aina syntyisikään. Mielelläni kuulisin teidän arvioita tästä. Kiitoksia.
Okay. Thank you, Elsi, and Greens, Cristina Guardà, please, Cristina.
Cristina Guarda
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will speak in my mother tongue. Io vi ringrazio davvero, ringrazio ECA, il parere della Corte, insomma, che conferma ciò che abbiamo già espresso più volte come gruppo e ringrazio anche i colleghi per l'importante condivisione. Su clima e biodiversità vorrei condividervi il mio, il nostro pensiero. Il nuovo target del 35% ingloba la biodiversità, ma alla fin fine ne cancella completamente l'obiettivo specifico.
La soluzione non è eliminare la parola biodiversità dal testo, è semmai il contrario: introdurre un target specifico con coefficienti dedicati.
Sui coefficienti clima e ambiente, tra l'altro, la Corte ci dà di nuovo ragione. Il rischio di sovrastima è documentato e questo ovviamente è un problema anche per gli interventi della politica agricola comune. Riguardo al do not significant harm. Gli stati hanno bisogno di linee guida il prima possibile per poter programmare e quindi la scadenza non è negoziabile. Siamo onesti.
Non possiamo accettare che i settori che pesano così tanto sul bilancio, come l'agricoltura, siano esentati da questo principio, come chiedono alcuni gruppi. Sull'uguaglianza di genere, la disgregazione per genere degli indicatori deve applicarsi a tutti i campi di intervento pertinenti, soprattutto per la politica agricola comune, che sappiamo essere storicamente cieca di fronte al genere.
Chiudo sugli indicatori di risultato. Come giustificare che la proposta sopprima gli indicatori di risultato già esistenti per la PAC? Non possiamo limitarci a misurare la spesa senza qualificarla. E ho una domanda, che è anche tema di discussione nel momento in cui in questo momento ci sono i technical meeting. Sul do not significant harm, ha valutato ECA concretamente il rischio per la programmazione degli Stati membri in caso di ritardo delle linee guida oltre a gennaio 2027?
Secondo voi quanto tempo prima ne hanno effettivamente bisogno? Vi ringrazio.
Thank you very much. Luke Flanagan.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Thanks very much to the European Court of Auditors. And it's all I can say is without the European Court of Auditors an awful lot of this information wouldn't get out there. As the last speaker said, this confirms an awful lot of what people were saying and people were thinking. When you see a report like this and you hear the amount of negatives that the Court of Auditors come out with. And I've said it before and I'll say it again, they don't have a political axe to grind, not unless there's something we don't know about and they definitely don't.
They're basing it on the facts.
And their facts are that, well, I think the biggest thing that stands out is lessons learned from the RRF not addressed. And we're talking about lessons learned from a fund that was 730 billion.
I've spoken to people in the Court of Auditors about it. I've spoken to a lot of people about this and as far as they're concerned, we are heading down the same road again with no real accountability for people's money. It will add to skepticism within the European Union. And without doubt, I think we will achieve simplification with this. But simplification at what cost?
And we've often joked in my office that the ideal simplification seems to be: give me the money and go away and don't ask any questions.
And we're slowly but surely heading there. And that simplification isn't going to deliver on a common cause, which is this, which is what we're meant to do. It's called the European Union for a reason, not to create a situation where we all run in different directions and no one knows where the money is spent and there's no credibility for how the money is spent. And for me, that's really, really worried. Like to hear things like no provision for the collection of information, no impact indicators defined, and then this overstatement on what it's going to do for the environment.
We had something similar with areas of natural constraint in the CAP regulation the last time, claiming more of it was for the environment than actually was, because it actually, strictly speaking, wasn't for the environment. But there's one thing for sure: we won't solve our problems by lying to ourselves. We won't solve our problems by closing our eyes. And that's what, well, look, you can say people are being political by saying this. It's in black and white.
It's there in what the European Court of Auditors have said. I hope we can improve it. That's our role.
Thank you, Luke. And now, members, catch the eye, Mr. Mullally, colleague Mullally from Renew, you have one minute, please.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you Chair, and thank you to the Court of Auditors for their presentation, although when one listens to it closely, there are words and phrases which are already causing concern in this committee this afternoon. It will be complex, they tell us. There are no clear links between funding and results in some areas, and they've highlighted the weakness in impact indicators. Colleagues, this regulation will have a direct impact on farmers, particularly because a substantial part of the EU budget is devoted to the Common Agricultural Policy. Farmers are already subject to extensive rules, inspections and targets under the CAP payments, including on animal welfare, environmental standards and indeed land management.
They're already doing their part and they've already they're already carrying out a significant administrative burden. So I ask, can we assure EU and Irish farmers that this proposal will not lead to more inspections, more audits or indeed more red tape? We all support transparency and public accountability in how our EU funds are spent, but this must not translate into additional administrative work for farmers or indeed for member states responsible for administering these programs.
So the key mission here must be to must be to remain on simplification. That goal cannot be secondary. It must remain our priority. Thank you.
Christine Singer
Thank you very much and Madame Schneider please. Singer pardon Singer sorry sorry. Excuse.
Ja, vielen Dank Frau Vorsitzende. Vielen Dank auch an den Europäischen Rechnungshof für diese sehr interessante Stellungnahme. Ich finde, sie bestätigt einige Sorgen, die wir auch im Agrarausschuss schon diskutiert haben. Besonders beim Thema Do No Significant Harm sehe ich weiterhin große Unklarheiten. Der Rechnungshof weist selbst darauf hin, dass bis heute nicht klar ist, nach welchen konkreten Kriterien die Einhaltung künftig bewertet werden soll und auf welcher Ebene diese Prüfungen stattfinden werden.
Und gleichzeitig sollen die Leitlinien erst später dieses Jahr vorgelegt werden. Deshalb meine Frage an die Kommission und auch an den Rechnungshof: Wie sollen wir im Parlament heute seriös verhandeln und wie sollen die Mitgliedstaaten seriös planen, wenn die praktische Anwendung von Do No Significant Harm noch nicht ausreichend definiert ist? Und wie verhindern wir, dass daraus zusätzliche Bürokratie und Rechtsunsicherheit gerade für kleinere und mittlere Betriebe entsteht? Ich setze mich dafür ein, dass die GAP-Zahlungen grundsätzlich als Do No Significant Harm konform anerkannt werden, um Doppelprüfungen, zusätzliche Bürokratie und Rechtsunsicherheit für die landwirtschaftlichen Betriebe zu vermeiden. Und ein zweiter Punkt, den ich ausdrücklich begrüße, betrifft die Sichtbarkeit von Frauen.
Der Rechnungshof kritisiert zu Recht, dass Geschlechterdifferenzierung bei den Daten eben nicht konsequent angewendet werden und gerade in der Landwirtschaft sehen wir oft nicht ausreichend, welche Leistungen Frauen erbringen, welche Maßnahmen sie tatsächlich erreichen.
Und deshalb halte ich es für wichtig, wo es sinnvoll ist, Indikatoren künftig stärker nach Geschlecht aufzuschlüsseln. Dankeschön.
Jessika van Leeuwen
Okay, thank you very much. And Madam Van Dalen.
Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you to the European Court of Auditors for this very concise opinion.
And as many of my colleagues already pointed out, it clearly shows that this proposal is just a bureaucratic exercise to check the boxes of the green ideology. But this is a very serious matter, colleagues. We're talking public expenditure here. The European Court of Auditors shows that there's no link with spending and achieved results. And 25% of the budget spent doesn't even have a performance indicator.
So we just spend without checking if it has any effect at all. The simplification procedure results in more bureaucracy on the national level. How is that simplification? It's only undermining the internal EU market.
So what we need to do, colleagues, is to take the CAP and bring it back to Article 39. And we use the criteria set in Article 39 to see if the money is well spent. The CAP is here to produce our food, not to fulfill a green ideology. So my question to the European Court of Auditors is, was there anything positive that you find in this proposal? Thank you.
Arno Bausemer
Thank you very much. And colleague Bausmer, ESN, please.
Ja, Frau Vorsitzende, vielen Dank an den Rechnungshof für diesen vorliegenden Bericht, vernünftig und auch sachlich nüchtern. Ich frage mich immer, wenn ich das höre, weil immer über Bürokratie gesprochen wird, über Wettbewerbsfähigkeit.
Man hört immer über Omnibusse oder von Omnibussen, die hier gestartet werden, und man fragt sich, wer sitzt da eigentlich am Steuer? Und sitzt die Kommission dafür vielleicht entweder auf dem Bremspedal oder vielleicht noch schlimmer, ist man eher als Geisterfahrer unterwegs? Solange man hier Bürokratie nicht ernsthaft abbaut, sondern bloß darüber spricht, tut man den Landwirten keinen Gefallen, sondern behindert sie eigentlich mehr. Und es wurde eben auch schon mehrfach gesagt, Wettbewerb ist das Entscheidende. Die Landwirte brauchen aber trotzdem einen Grundsatz, eine Mindestbeihilfe, um auch wirtschaften zu können.
Und jede Gleichstellungspolitik und so weiter hat ja irgendwo auch einen gewissen Sinn, aber es kann nicht der Fokus der Landwirtschaft sein.
Und wenn wir irgendwann keine Landwirte mehr haben, die ihre Arbeit machen können, dann wird es auch diese Ziele gar nicht mehr geben können. Deswegen ein Umdenken ist nötig und da ist der Bericht ein Fingerzeig in die richtige Richtung. Danke schön.
Okay. Thank you very much. And now before we go back to Mr. Petrovic, I would like to welcome here two visitors from Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association who were invited by our colleague Mr. Mullally. So welcome here. Yes, welcome.
And now I would like to again give the floor to Mr. Petrovic and you have just now five minutes for your reaction.
Thank you.
M. Petrovic
Yeah, thank you, Chair. Thank you for all the members who have discu- tated. Thank you for all the questions. Since I'm given only five minutes, I will try to summarize my my concluding thoughts so that I tackle all of your questions at least in general. And I apologize in advance for for not giving individual answers to all of those who have discu- tated.
So so I sense that there is a general agreement between the the what you have discussed and about our opinion.
The first thing that needs to be mentioned are the definitions. As several of you have discussed the lack of definitions, because without clear definitions there could be no fair game. Somebody also mentioned that in advance it needs to be defined what policies are trying to achieve, which brings us to the key question that we have discussed it already, that everybody has mentioned, and these are the indicators. As said, the indicators are more or less on the level of the outputs and sometimes even inputs.
And of course, everybody of us would love to see, especially so we can measure the performance, the indicators on the level of the results, if not even on the level of the inputs. This has been discussed from Mr. Dorfmann, Mr. Nardella, Mr. Pinelle, Ruissen, Ms. Gardiazabal, Mr. Flanagan, and Ms. von Loeven. You have mentioned also the question of the red tape and of do no significant harm. So one needs to emphasize that regulation must ensure the reporting indicators are mandatory wherever relevant and comparable across Member States and management models.
Without such comparability, the discharge authority will be unable to assess relative effectiveness or identify underperforming programs. In our opinion on performance regarding accountability, we have highlighted that main risks which we see in the missing controls and accountability framework for performance data in order to ensure its quality and reliability, because ensuring the reliability and quality of performance data is the greatest challenge for performance management.
We have previously identified that in some instances performance data submitted by Member States was not fully reliable. We have also found gaps in the traceability of data underlying performance indicators that was reported by the Commission. We have regularly identified that lack of reliability performance data has hampered the usefulness of evaluation. In paragraph 31 of the opinion on performance framework, we say that the proposal does not define data governance issues such as interoperability of IT system, record keeping, minimum verification requirements and responsibility for the data. Without clear definitions, as I already said, rules, guidances and harmonized checks as well as consequences for delay, incomparable or inaccurate data submission, practice may vary across Member States, third countries, international organizations and other stakeholders.
So we highlighted operational uncertainty. It is unclear what criteria at what level do not significant harm compliance will be assessed. As we stressed, that timely guidance is critical. That's why proposal states that the guidance is to be provided by the January 1st, 2027.
We suggest including the deadline in the article, not just in the in the circles. To the proposed outline of the unified set of rules with indicators and the EU coefficients linked to the single set of intervention fields. This has the potential to contribute to the reducing of the administrative burden mainly at the Commission level. As I said, however, there is potential for the higher burden at the national level. Definitely something that needs to be tackled.
And there was also a question if there was anything positive in in in in the report. The question came from Ms. Löwen. Of course, we reported also on the positive side of the proposal, but I would still use this opportunity, if I can take just one more minute, I'm sorry, Chair, for being too long. There are still some potentials for improvement. Clearly link funding to results, that was not followed, something that we have suggested already on our RRF opinion.
Ensure performance-oriented beyond milestones and targets. Avoid zero-cost measures considering alternatives. Ensure payment conditions are unambiguous and include compliance with rules. Define Commission and Member State supervision, control and liability. Require full traceability of funding, enable recovery and funding if achievements and lacks are rule-based and on and on and on.
So, not to further ado, there is a positive side, but there is still some room for improvement. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. And now I would like to ask David Vidanes from DG BUDG. You have now three minutes.
David Vidanes
Good afternoon, dear chair, honorable members. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Commission's position, and thanks also to the Court of Auditors for its opinion on the performance regulation, which is a key element of the 28-34 MFF proposal. The Court's opinion acknowledges also that the proposed performance regulation creates conditions and potential to improve performance reporting and the integration of EU horizontal policy objectives in the EU budget and to reduce administrative burden.
These are indeed the core objectives of the proposal. The regulation consolidates in a single legal document provisions on the performance framework, on the support to horizontal policy objectives that were previously scattered across multiple regulations. This fragmentation has led to inconsistencies such as the current different approaches for the application of the DNSH principle and limitations on providing an aggregate view on the results of the EU budget. The performance regulation represents a step forward and addresses these issues by enabling a harmonized framework across programs. This will bring greater consistency and simplification.
Veronika Vrecionová
Can I ask you please, the interpreter has problem, they don't hear you, maybe if you can speak slower and a little louder please.
David Vidanes
Yes, apologies for this, I'll try to do it. So, the regulation, as I was mentioning, consolidates in a single document provisions on the performance framework and the support to horizontal policy objectives that was previously, that were previously scattered across multiple regulations, creating inconsistencies and preventing aggregation of results at EU budget level.
In that sense, the performance regulation represents a step forward and addresses these issues. And examples of simplification, for example, include the harmonized approach towards the do no significant harm principle and the harmonization and simplification or streamlining of performance indicators. The proposal also creates a single entry point for all the performance of the EU budget, including the consolidation of all funding opportunities. Regarding coefficients, which were mentioned here, the approach used by the Commission is aligned with the OECD Rio markers, which uses a three-tier coefficient, 0, 40, and 100, and is also aligned with the current MFF, and this will help achieving comparability.
Regarding the type of indicators, the regulation focuses on outputs and results as they are the most useful to monitor annually the effects of the EU budget, as impacts take usually longer to materialize and its relation with the EU budget support is often more complex to establish. Nonetheless, the impacts will remain important and their compatibility with the performance regulation will mainly be done and assessed through the evaluations. Regarding the controls, the proposal is a horizontal regulation covering all programs and all management modes, and it should be read in conjunction with the sectoral regulations, such as the NRPP regulation. The specific controls and accountability framework depends on each program and its specific implementation rules, example whether the Commission or Member States will be implementing the budget, such as in the shared management and the NRPPs.
As such, the performance regulation does not define additional control requirements in addition to those from the financial regulation and the sectoral regulations. Finally, the performance regulation also allows the Commission to provide additional information on the performance indicators, additional methodological information.
So finally, the Commission stands ready to provide assistance and clarification throughout the negotiation process. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you, sir. And I think that we are in the end, but we will continue our discussion on the draft performance regulation about which our committee should adopt its opinion on the 14th of July. We will examine the amendments tabled on this proposal and the work of our rapporteur Maria Noichl and shadow rapporteurs on the matter. Maria Noichl cannot be with us today, but she is replaced by our vice-chair Eric Serjacomo. Eric, the floor is yours now for five minutes.
Eric Sargiacomo
Merci Madame la Présidente. Comme vous l'avez dit, Maria Noichl ne peut pas être présente et elle m'a demandé de communiquer le texte qu'elle a préparé. Chers collègues, je tiens tout d'abord à remercier tous les shadow rapporteurs ainsi que les groupes politiques pour le travail intensif accompli sur ce dossier. Avec plus de 700 amendements déposés, l'intérêt suscité par cette proposition et par les questions du suivi des dépenses et de la mesure des performances dans le futur cadre financier pluriannuel est manifeste. Bon nombre des amendements déposés vont très loin et abordent des questions fondamentales concernant la future conception du budget de l'Union européenne et le suivi des dépenses qui y est lié.
À ce jour, nous avons déjà tenu deux réunions techniques sur ce dossier. La prochaine réunion technique aura lieu ce mercredi. La première réunion des rapporteurs fictifs est prévue en juin à Strasbourg et le vote en commission est prévu pour juillet. Je tiens toutefois à souligner une nouvelle fois ici que je suis fondamentalement critique à l'égard du calendrier retenu pour ce dossier. À mon sens, la discussion sur le suivi des dépenses et la mesure des performances devrait en réalité avoir lieu à la fin du processus législatif relatif au nouveau cadre financier pluriannuel ainsi qu'aux différentes politiques sectorielles.
Et ce n'est qu'une fois que les objectifs politiques et la conception concrète des programmes seront fixés qu'il sera possible de décider de manière pertinente comment mesurer leur mise en œuvre et leur impact. Cette position est, je pense, partagée par une large majorité de cette commission. Nous devons néanmoins nous plier à ce calendrier et poursuivre nos travaux sur cette base.
Au vu de la conduite des travaux sur ce rapport, je tiens à souligner tout particulièrement certains points. Tout d'abord, notre rapport constitue un avis destiné à la commission compétente au fond, à savoir la commission des budgets et du contrôle budgétaire. C'est pourquoi je pense que nous devrions nous concentrer sur les aspects pour lesquels la commission de l'agriculture peut apporter une réelle valeur ajoutée. Notre priorité doit clairement être portée sur les questions de politique agricole. Dans ce contexte, je ne pense pas qu'il soit judicieux de remettre en cause les principes fondamentaux du droit budgétaire de l'Union européenne.
Cela vaut en particulier pour le principe d'unotignificant harm.
Bien entendu, nous pouvons et devons discuter de la manière dont ce principe doit être concrètement appliqué et développé à l'avenir dans le cadre de la politique agricole commune. Je m'opposerais toutefois à la suppression générale de ce principe du règlement. Le débat devrait être devrait se concentrer sur la mise en œuvre pratique et non sur l'abolition d'un principe budgétaire fondamental de l'Union européenne. S'agissant des indicateurs d'impact, je considère que ceux qui existent doivent être maintenus, notamment ceux relatifs aux revenus, au développement économique et aux performances environnementales. Ils constituent le seul moyen de déterminer objectivement si la politique agricole commune a atteint réellement ses objectifs.
La Cour des comptes européenne a de nouveau souligné aujourd'hui lors de notre discussion que sans indicateurs d'impact pertinents, on ne pourra à l'avenir mesurer que les progrès réalisés dans la mise en œuvre des mesures et donc si les objectifs politiques de l'Union européenne ont effectivement été atteints. À cela j'ajoute le fait que la collecte de données dans ce domaine fonctionne déjà. Aujourd'hui elle fournit des résultats fiables. C'est précisément dans ce contexte d'une future politique agricole commune davantage axée sur la subsidiarité qu'il me semble contradictoire de renoncer à cette base de données.
Par ailleurs, je tiens tout particulièrement à souligner la question de l'accès à la terre. Dans de nombreuses régions d'Europe, nous observons une concentration croissante des terres agricoles entre les mains d'un petit nombre de propriétaires. Dans le même temps, nous savons qu'une partie des fonds agricoles européens revient via la hausse des loyers fonciers à des propriétaires fonciers qui n'exploitent pas eux-mêmes ces terres. C'est pourquoi je considère qu'il est judicieux de réclamer une meilleure base de données et davantage de transparence sur les structures de propriété et de détention des terres agricoles. Ce n'est qu'en étant en mesure de déterminer qui détient les terres agricoles au-delà des frontières, qui les exploite, qui bénéficie en fin de compte des fonds publics, que nous serons en mesure d'évaluer de manière exhaustive la pertinence et l'efficacité de la politique agricole européenne.
Notre préoccupation commune devrait être de pouvoir déterminer en quoi la PAC aide économiquement les agriculteurs et les agricultrices, en quoi elle contribue à la protection de l'environnement et du climat, et si elle atteint ses objectifs sociaux. Enfin, il existe une série d'autres amendements qui, à mon avis, constitueront une base importante pour les négociations de compromis à venir. Il s'agit notamment d'améliorer encore la collecte et l'évaluation des données relatives aux revenus agricoles, à la viabilité économique des exploitations agricoles, à la relève générationnelle, ainsi qu'à la place des agriculteurs au sein de la chaîne de valeur.
Je me réjouis par avance des discussions et de l'élaboration conjointe de compromis viables pour l'avis de notre commission.
Thank you Eric, and now I would like to ask our shadow rapporteurs, first Herbert Dorfmann. Herbert, you have two minutes.
Herbert Dorfmann
Thank you Chair, und herzlichen Dank dem Kollegen De Castro und vor allem der Kollegin Neichl, die die Berichterstatterin für unsere Opinion ist. Ich teile das, was die Kollegin Neichl gerade auch unterstrichen hat. Der Zeitrahmen ist für diese Opinion ist und für dieses gesamte Performance Regulation ist eigentlich vollkommen falsch.
Es ist eigentlich absurd, dass wir zuerst die Performance beschließen, bevor wir überhaupt beschließen, über was, was performen soll. Das heißt, eigentlich wäre es logisch, zuerst zu überlegen, was ist die Politik, die wir wollen, und dann zu schauen, wie bewerten wir diese Politik eigentlich und nicht umgekehrt. Aber ich glaube inhaltlich, und ich habe das ja vorher schon gesagt, das Hauptproblem, das ich mit dieser mit diesem Verordnungsvorschlag habe, ist, dass ich den Eindruck habe, er ist vollkommen aus der Zeit gefallen. Landwirtschaftspolitik ist eben nicht nur Umweltpolitik und Sozialpolitik. Landwirtschaftspolitik ist auch Wirtschaftspolitik.
Und wenn man die Performance der Politik messen will, dann muss man alle Dimensionen bemessen und nicht nur die Umweltpolitik und die Sozialpolitik.
Und genau das passiert hier eben nicht. Das heißt, wir brauchen auch Indikatoren über den Beitrag der Landwirtschaft unserer Landwirtschaftspolitik zur Ernährungssicherung zum Beispiel, zum Einkommen der Landwirte. Und ich habe Abänderungsanträge in diese in diese Richtung auch gemacht.
Do not significant harm. Erstens frage ich mich und es ist ja ein bisschen auch ein bisschen eigenartig, wenn man dann in den Vorschlag der Kommission für die Gemeinsame Agrarpolitik hineinschaut, dann steht drinnen, dass dort wo Farm Stewardship angewandt wird, do not significant harm auf jeden Fall gilt und in der Performance Regulation steht das nicht drin. Das heißt, es weiß offensichtlich die eine Hand hier auch nicht, was die andere tut in der Kommission. Aber ich denke halt, wenn wir dann in Investitionen schauen, zum Beispiel jetzt sage ich halt eine neue Beregnungsanlage oder ein neuer Stall.
Und dann sagen wir, ja, das ist jetzt aber ein significant harm und deswegen können wir das nicht bauen, weil wir damit einem Haushaltskriterium der Europäischen Kommission nicht entsprechen, dann blockieren wir uns selbst. Und deswegen, ich glaube, dieses do no significant harm hat in der Umwelt- in der Landwirtschaftspolitik nichts zu suchen. Ich- ich teile dann und damit schließe ich auch die Einschätzung der Kollegin Neuchl, was die Empfänger angeht. Auch ich glaube, das ist eine zentrale Frage der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik, wer bekommt überhaupt Geld. Aber ich glaube, dass diese Frage im Rahmen unserer Regelung zur Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik zu- zu entscheiden ist und nicht hier in der Performance Regulation.
Tomáš Kubín
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll speak in Czech. Ten návrh, který jsme dostali, to znamená ten návrh, který vypracovala paní zpravodajka, bych nazval Komise plus. To jde nad rámec ještě toho, co i Komise nám předložila a dost zásadním způsobem. Je to takový pokus o transformaci společné zemědělské politiky na čistě environmentální dotační nástroj.
Stanovisko sice verbálně podporuje zjednodušení, ale v praxi navrhuje výrazné zpřísnění podmínek a zavedení nových, skoro bych řekl donucovacích mechanismů. Já tady nebudu zmiňovat výhrady k jednotlivým bodům. Máme jich spoustu. Pětistupňové koeficienty u Area Markerů, zvýšení výdajového klimatického cíle, zrušení výjimky pro obranu bezpečnosti nechápu vůbec, znovuzavedení ukazatelů dopadu a ten registr vlastníků půdy v jednotné bráně, to vůbec už, to je už dohled nad vlastnickou strukturou, zásah do soukromí par excellence.
Bylo podáno, jak už tady bylo řečeno, několik set, 700 tuším, těch pozměňovacích návrhů, ale já bych se chtěl soustředit na jeden zásadní požadavek. Já si myslím, nebo my si myslíme, že společná zemědělská politika do tohoto nařízení vůbec nepatří a měla by být z jeho působnosti vyňata.
Společná zemědělská politika má vlastní cíle, vlastní funkční systém monitorování. Tohle nařízení na ni klade další vrstvu ukazatelů, koeficientů, podmínek, takovou duplicitu, kterou nikdo nepotřebuje. A to všechno pod hlavičkou zjednodušení. Bohužel ten návrh paní zpravodajky tu duplicitu, která je obsažená už v tom komisním návrhu, ještě prohlubuje. Vyjmutí SZP navrhuje nezávisle na sobě, paralelně a v různých variantách hned několik frakcí a mnoho poslanců našeho výboru.
Já si myslím, že tu většinu v tom výboru bychom měli najít a využít ji a zkusit to, o čem jsem mluvil.
A pokud to přesto neprojde, tak se musíme soustředit aspoň na to nejzásadnější, co tam prostě se objevilo. To znamená zachovat třístupňový koeficient u Riomarku, žádný pěti. Ponechat rozhodování o cílech členským státům v radě. Posunutí nereálných lhůt pro reporting, jak jsme navrhli my, a tak dále a tak dále. Tady nejde vůbec o pokus něco bourat.
Prostě naší absolutní prioritou musí být potravinová bezpečnost a podpora a zejména rodinných farem, nikoliv další regulace.
Děkuji. And now I would like to ask Bert-Jan Ruissen, please.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Thank you very much, Chair.
I will speak on behalf of our shadow rapporteur, colleague Buda. Now, first of all, I would like to thank Madam Rapporteur and her team for the work done so far. We have not yet had political discussion on this file, but at technical level, we have received compromise packages on the first ten articles of this regulation. We can see that the rapporteur continues to pursue a very specific interpretation of this regulation, with a strong focus on environmental tracking, including expanded impact indicators, biodiversity-related spending targets, and the do-not-significant-harm principle.
In our view, however, this regulation should establish a balanced expenditure tracking framework. It should not become a vehicle for introducing additional layers of environmental conditionality across the EU budget, and certainly not through guidance that have not yet even been defined.
In the compromised amendments, we see a strong focus on environmental objectives, while competitiveness, economic resilience, food security, and the viability of productive sectors still receive far less attention. The ECR group advocates for a more balanced approach, including a stronger recognition of economic resilience and food security considerations, as well as greater proportionality and legal certainty.
We do recognize that several ECR concerns have been reflected in the compromised amendments. We appreciate references to proportionality, the avoidance of parallel reporting systems, food security considerations, and some efforts to limit excessive delegated powers. This shows that constructive dialogue is possible. However, for us, the real test will be Article 4 and 5 as well as Annex 1. These provisions define the overall philosophy of the framework, how climate and environmental spending is tracked, how the do not significant harm principle is applied, and which indicators and coefficients ultimately shape spending priorities.
So if we can achieve a more balanced framework that properly reflects economic resilience, competitiveness, food security, and the realities of agriculture, then acceptable compromise packages remains possible. If not, it will be difficult for the ECR group to support the final outcome.
Thank you, Christine Singer please, Christine.
Christine Singer
Ja, vielen Dank. Zunächst auch von mir vielen Dank an die Berichterstatterin Maria Noichl und ihr Team für die Arbeit am Entwurf zur Agri-Stellungnahme zum neuen Performance Framework zum nächsten EU-Haushalt. Wir haben die Verhandlungen bereits begonnen und stehen jetzt vor der Aufgabe, aus diesem breiten Bündel an Änderungsanträgen tragfähige Kompromisse zu formen. Meine Prioritäten sind dabei klar. Erstens, Ernährungssicherheit muss ausdrücklich im Verordnungstext verankert werden.
Gerade in geopolitisch unsicheren Zeiten dürfen sichere Lebensmittelversorgung und resiliente Landwirtschaft kein Nebenaspekt sein, sondern müssen als strategisches Ziel anerkannt werden.
Zweitens, wir brauchen einen ausgewogenen Zugang bei den Klimazielen. Klimaschutz bleibt wichtig, aber die Landwirtschaft darf nicht alleine Hauptlast für diese Zielerreichung tragen. Gleichzeitig müssen wir in Krisensituationen flexibel bleiben. Klimaschutz, Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und Ernährungssicherheit müssen gemeinsam gedacht werden und deshalb schlage ich auch eine Krisenklausel für außergewöhnliche Situationen vor. Drittens, die GAP darf nicht durch zusätzliche Do No Significant Harm Anforderungen überlastet werden.
Die Landwirtschaft erfüllt bereits heute umfangreiche Umwelt- und Klimastandards und wenn wir jetzt noch ein zusätzliches Prüfprinzip drüberlegen, riskieren wir Doppelregelungen, mehr Bürokratie und vor allem Unsicherheit für die Betriebe. Ein Beispiel, ein Landwirt möchte zum Beispiel eine einfache Maschinenhalle bauen, künftig könnte selbst eine solche Investition durch komplexe Do No Significant Harm Prüfungen laufen müssen, mit zusätzlichen Anträgen, längeren Wartezeiten und unklaren Vorgaben durch künftige Green, Yellow oder Red Lists der Kommission.
Und gerade kleinere Betriebe würden dadurch unverhältnismäßig belastet. Deshalb setze ich mich ein, dass die GAP insgesamt von Do-No-Significant-Harm auszunehmen bzw. bestehende GAP-Standards anzuerkennen.
Und viertens, die Leistungsbereitschaft der Landwirtschaften müssen im Annex 1 besser abgebildet werden. Die Interventionen und Indikatoren sind das eigentliche Herzstück dieser Verordnung. Und deshalb sollten wir am einfachen System mit drei Koeffizienten, nämlich 0, 40 und 100 Prozent festhalten, statt neue unnötige Komplexität einzuführen. Und gleichzeitig müssen wir die Gewichtung der Klima-, Umwelt- und Sozialkoeffizienten überarbeiten, damit die tatsächlichen Leistungen der Landwirtschaft fair berücksichtigt werden. Und zuletzt ist mir auch die Sichtbarkeit von Frauen in der Landwirtschaft wichtig.
Ich habe es schon gesagt, Frauen müssen sichtbarer werden und dafür müssen wir uns einsetzen. Und dieses sichtbar und messbar machen ist mit drin, das finde ich sehr wichtig. Ich freue mich auf die weitere Zusammenarbeit. Vielen Dank.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you, Christine, and the second Christine, Cristina Guardi.
Cristina Guarda
Thank you Madam Chair, I will continue to speak Italian. E anzitutto davvero vorrei ringraziare la relatrice per il lavoro di mediazione e nel merito sul clima e ambiente e sui coefficienti non mi ripeto, ho già espresso la posizione del nostro gruppo nel dibattito con la Corte e quindi questo per me è sufficientemente chiaro.
Però voglio soffermarmi sull'idea di alcuni colleghi per cui la PAC non debba essere vincolata a questo regolamento e al principio del do not significant harm. Io penso che non possiamo accettare esenzioni strutturali per il settore. Mi sento di dirlo che l'agricoltura non ha bisogno della performance e del do not significant harm perché esistono già la Water Framework Directive, la Habitat Directive, la Nature Restoration Law eccetera eccetera. Quindi voi mi dite che non dovrebbe essere supportata questa applicazione perché già esistono queste norme. Ma quella legislazione misura lo stato dell'ambiente, non il contributo della spesa, compresa quindi la PAC, al suo miglioramento.
Sono due cose che sono ben diverse. Poi sembra che si parli solo di clima e ambiente. E la dimensione sociale? La condizionalità sociale?
Se la performance non si applica alla PAC, continuiamo a spendere senza valutare l'impatto. E questo per me non è semplificare, è rinunciare a fare il nostro lavoro. E a proposito di fare il nostro lavoro, il performance framework non è un onere per i beneficiari. Lo è semmai per le amministrazioni a cui chiediamo semplicemente di rendicontare al meglio come vengono spesi i soldi pubblici.
Su questo concludo dicendo che abbiamo anche proposto degli indicatori specifici per rendere operativo il principio del right to stay e forzare quindi investimenti in salute, mobilità, infrastrutture nelle aree rurali e trasformare semplici dichiarazioni in misure vere, reali e misurabili. Grazie.
Arash Saeidi
Merci Madame la Présidente. Le budget européen n'est pas un simple outil comptable ou managérial, il doit être un levier central de nos ambitions politiques, sociales et écologiques. Or ce cadre de performance s'annonce particulièrement inquiétant. Je déplore profondément les manœuvres de certains groupes qui vident un peu plus ce texte de sa substance en cherchant à exclure pardon l'agriculture des obligations liées au climat et au genre ou en refusant d'intégrer de réels indicateurs d'égalité des genres pourtant essentiels et en tentant d'affaiblir l'ambition environnementale globale.
La Cour des comptes européenne elle-même met en garde contre un dispositif fondé sur des indicateurs trop vagues et insuffisamment robustes qui fait peser un risque réel d'affaiblissement du contrôle budgétaire et de la traçabilité des fonds. Le budget de l'Union doit donc cesser d'être pensé comme un simple instrument de gestion pour devenir un véritable outil de planification.
Il est primordial de sanctuariser une part significative des dépenses européennes en faveur du climat avec un fléchage contraignant vers la transition agroécologique, la biodiversité et la réduction des pesticides chimiques. Enfin, je refuse une évaluation de la performance agricole qui invisibiliserait celles et ceux qui produisent notre alimentation. Il est indispensable d'introduire des indicateurs contraignants sur la répartition de la valeur ajoutée dans la chaîne alimentaire, la garantie d'un revenu digne et stable par exploitation ainsi que le suivi des conditions de travail des salariés agricoles et saisonniers.
Il ne peut y avoir de mesure de performance des budgets européens en agriculture sans prise en compte des travailleurs agricoles. Merci Madame la Présidente.
Okay. Thank you. And the S&D doesn't have shadow and this is the reason we can start with members, but we have only one members who want to take the floor, so it's Jessica Polfjärd. Jessica.
Jessika van Leeuwen
Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you for the rapporteur for providing us with an update of the state of play. And we can see that with 704 amendments, the opinion within this house is quite divided. We just heard from the European Court of Auditors that we are missing a link between spending and results.
So I strongly disagree with the rapporteur that we should increase our target in the general expenditure for climate measures. We are already spending 35% of which the vast majority of the public money we spend, we have no possibility to check whether it has any result at all.
Veronika Vrecionová
Jessica, could you please slow down a little bit because of interpreters?
Jessika van Leeuwen
I can. I might not make it into the minute, but we'll get there. Regarding the do no significant harm, our farmers already comply with extensive environmental legislations. So CAP should be excluded from the do no significant harm. Food security and farm viability should have priority.
We seem to forget why we have the CAP in the first place. Dear colleagues, please read Article 39 of the Functioning of the Union, what the CAP is supposed to do. The ECR, as mentioned by my colleague Bert-Jan Ruissen, has tabled various amendments to steer the proposal in a more realistic direction. And I have one additional question for the rapporteur. Has anyone asked the farmers whether they believe that gender-disaggregated territorial reporting is necessary, or if they believe this is a Brussels-inspired desktop hobby that just increases bureaucracy?
Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay, thank you. And we have another member who wants to take the floor, Mr. Mullally, please.
One minute.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, Chair. I hadn't intended to comment on this particular item, but the phrase 'the principle of the right to stay' is thrown around this building like confetti at a wedding. And I often think sometimes we really don't understand the economic and political decisions that are needed to make any sense to it. Earlier this afternoon, you welcomed John Joe Fitzgerald, a hill farmer, sheep farmer from County Kerry, who comes here looking for solutions and listens to this debate and wonders, I suppose, if we're in tune. Because he says initiatives like this and this type of move we're involved in must focus on environmental and eco-schemes that are practical, accessible, and are suited to extensive farming systems while avoiding excessive bureaucracy and administrative burdens.
And I agree with him. He asked for CAP policies that encourage generational renewal through positive incentives rather than penalties or exclusions of older farmers who continue to play a vital role in maintaining agricultural activity and supporting family systems. At the end of the day, farmers want the reduction of unnecessary bureaucracy and opposition to coupled payment systems that increase complexity, compliance burdens, and market distortion.
Okay. Thank you very much. And now, I forgot, okay. Thank you. I would like to ask Madame Lannele from DG AGRI, you have now three minutes for your statement, please.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for inviting us to share with you some thoughts and reflection after the exchange of view that you've had. So, first of all, let me highlight that I find important that most of you share the view that a robust performance framework is needed to ensure accountability of EU funding, and that goes for any EU funding and in particular for the CAP.
Speaker 36
Let me clarify on the indicators that in the performance regulation for agriculture, we propose to add a few result indicators that will measure actual outcomes, such as greenhouse gas emissions, soil health, or the targeting, retargeting of income support. By contrast, output indicators need to be simple, you've said it all, and easy to check, as they are obviously the basis that will trigger the CAP payment.
To report to the Parliament, to the European Parliament, to this house, and in our evaluations, the Commission will also rely on impact indicators. They are impact indicators and also more complex quantitative approaches to assess the contribution to EU funding to EU common objectives and long-term impact.
And there, obviously, you will find impact indicators in relation with essential objectives like food security, as you have mentioned, farmers' income, resilience, EU competitiveness, but also biodiversity and climate mitigation. We will also keep monitoring agri-food markets, disseminating timely data on prices and production and engaging with stakeholders in the framework of our market observatories.
A homogenized EU framework that will cover all EU funds will bring several advantages, such as increased consistency in terms of methodology, but also it will help to have the ability to aggregate, put together results across EU programs. It will also facilitate transparency and performance monitoring for each type of activities and by objective, and all data, including actual payment to beneficiaries by beneficiary, will be made available on a single EU website, the so-called single gateway.
Many of you have made reference to the do-not-significant-harm principle, which, as you are aware, is already embedded in the financial regulation. It is important to state here that this do-not-significant-harm principle will not create additional burden to farmers. It is there as a general principle that no EU funding should do significant harm.
So that's important to mention it. And many activities, maybe I can even say most activities supported through the CAP are deemed compliant with this DNSH principle because they are subject to the farm stewardship which is setting some rules and principle to protect environment, climate, soil, water and so on and so forth. For those other interventions, for example investment for farmers or any other kind of investment, the Commission is actively working on the development of a guidance which will make clear how this will be this principle will be defined and this we expect to be available by the end of the year.
Spending targets are simple and powerful tools to steer policy at planning level. As you point out, we need to have a good balance to be achieved between the funding of objectives, for example, climate action versus competitiveness or social objectives. And from that perspective, we've worked hard to make sure that our proposal is balanced.
Let me mention that it will be complemented by an assessment by the Commission and Member States on the actual impact. And let me also mention, sorry, or highlight that these spending targets are not totally new to us. We already apply today the three-tier coefficients for biodiversity and climate in the current CAP.
Many of you have also made a reference on land ownership. Let me say that this is of course an important issue. In the vision for agriculture and food, we have made the announcement that we are working in the context of a pilot project on the creation of a land observatory. And we've already had last week the first meeting of the expert group on land, which is a precursor to this land observatory, and I'll be happy to report back to this house on the progress of the creation of this observatory.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Okay. Thank you, Madame. And now I would like to ask again Vice-Chair Sergio Como, and you on behalf of the rapporteur, and you have three minutes for your for conclusion, please.
Eric Sargiacomo
Merci, Madame la Présidente. Merci à tous les collègues d'être intervenus sur ce projet. Évidemment, je ne vais pas prendre toutes les minutes disponibles pour répondre aux questions parce que je ne vais pas le faire à la place de Marianne Hüschel, qui est rapporteure sur ce texte.
J'ai pris bonne note de l'ensemble des interventions. Je vois qu'il y a encore beaucoup de travail pour établir un compromis global sur ce texte. Il y a eu de nombreuses interventions qui étaient dans la recherche de compromis. Et je pense que l'idée, évidemment, c'est d'avoir une position du Parlement qui puisse être la plus large possible, comme sur tous ces textes qui concernent la rénovation de la politique agricole commune. Et comme l'a dit mon collègue Herbert Dorfmann, on parle ici du cadre financier, mais il est impossible de parler de ce cadre financier et du suivi du cadre financier sans évoquer les autres textes qui sont liés à la politique agricole commune.
Et de mettre la charrue avant les bœufs, on le sait en matière agricole, ça marche en général pas très bien. Donc je vous souhaite en tout cas un très bon travail pour arriver à définir une position commune sur ce texte avec Marlene Neuichl. Merci.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay, thank you vice chair and colleague. We are in the end of this item and the next and the last today item is exchange of view with the Commission on biofuels. The Agri coordinators at their last meeting of the 5th of May briefly discussed the Commission delegated act introduction a trajectory of gradually decrease the contribution of high indirect land use change risk biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels to renewable energy targets.
During that meeting, the Agri coordinators expressed serious concern regarding the potential implications of this delegated act for the biofuel sector and more broadly for farmers. So, I would like to welcome here representative from the DG ENER as well as from DG ENVI.
And I also would like to warmly welcome members from the ITRE committee who are also present. In addition, I would like to recall that the recent questions to the Commission from our Renew members were not answered and would be happy to hear a reply also on those questions asked. First, how does the Commission assess the risk that the RED in its current form could weaken the EU's security of supply, including limiting the availability of key commodities such as soya owing to regulatory complexity and uncertainty about the requirements in place? It's the first question.
And the second one is methodological basis for the high ILUC classification of soya under the Renewable Energy Directive. On the issue concerning the methodological basis for the classification of soya as high ILUC risk under the, under RED, under the Renewable Energy Directive.
So I would like now to give the floor, do we have the list here? Thank you very much, to Kitty Nyitrai from DG ENER, for Alessio Cortese, or I don't know who is here, Jeroen Verhaegen from DG ENVI. So you have 10 minutes for your presentation together.
Kitti Nyitrai
Thank you, Chair and honorable members.
I'm very pleased to be here. It's the first time that I'm invited to the AGRI Committee, so thank you very much for giving the opportunity to speak here. So, what we would like to emphasize, of course, we look at this very strongly from the energy angle and from an energy perspective, as the Renewable Energy Directive does. And we must say that for the second time in less than five years, Europeans are paying the price of Europe's strong dependency on imported fossil fuels. And this is a stark reminder that accelerating the transition to clean, secure, affordable, and especially homegrown energy is not only of the essence to avoid the severe impacts of global warming and to meet our international commitments and our own legal mandates, but it is also a clear economic and security imperative.
The crisis confirms that the approach envisaged by the EU legislation to decarbonize transport, while electrification remains the most effective way for decarbonizing road transport, renewable fuels, so liquid fuels, including sustainable biofuels and sustainable electrofuels, play a critical role.
And this is so especially in several hard-to-abate sectors, so several sectors where emissions are hard to abate and which cannot be electrified, such as aviation and maritime transport. It is hence essential to support and incentivise the production in Europe of sustainable biofuels and electro-fuels.
Kitti Nyitrai
In addition, as the Commission has highlighted in the Accelerate EU communication, for other sectors such as agriculture, fisheries and mobility logistics, increased access to sustainable biofuels for existing combustion engine vehicles can secure their uninterrupted contribution to the supply chain, notably for our food. However, biofuels need to be sustainable with no induced negative impacts as outlined already in the sustainable transport investment plan.
So against this background, the co-legislators back in 2019, and in this debate the European Parliament had a very, very strong voice, decided to limit the contribution of food and feed-based, food and feed crop-based biofuels towards the renewable energy targets, and that they are not eligible to contribute towards the targets set under some move legislation, so under the...
Veronika Vrecionová
Madam, interpreters ask you to slow down a little bit. Thank you.
Okay.
Kitti Nyitrai
So the co-legislators and where the European Parliament had a strong voice have decided to limit the contribution of food and feed crop-based biofuels towards the renewable energy targets, so in order to avoid food and feed competition with bioenergy and also to limit the contribution or that they cannot contribute to other legislation targets like the aviation fuel, so the ReFuelEU Aviation regulation and the maritime fuel targets. And the contribution towards the renewable energy targets of biofuels from feedstocks that have a high indirect land-use change risk, which we call ILUC, these compete with food and feed production, but they are also associated with deforestation and therefore the co-legislators have decided to gradually phase out their contribution towards the target until 2030 unless they meet specific criteria by which their sustainability can be proved.
So this policy has been in place since 2019, and what the Commission is tasked to do is to regularly review the data, especially also the deforestation data. And this is what we have done recently. So we have not changed the methodology, the methodology has been in place since 2019, and we have reviewed the data.
But I would like to underline that importantly, these rules do not represent a ban. Member States can decide to continue promoting biofuels produced from high ILUC feedstock, so also from soy. It only limits, the limits only apply for counting towards the renewable energy targets. So they in that sense, they do not affect the other uses of feedstock, so the primary use of feedstock, for example, as animal feed or food for human consumption. The Commission, as said, has the obligation to regularly review the data and this is what we have done recently.
The data that underpin the delegated act.
And this, and in this delegated act, we have to, based on the data, lay out which feedstocks qualify as high and indirect land-use change. And it was found that beyond palm oil, that has been already part of this data for several years, recently also soybean data qualifies soybean as high indirect land-use change risk feedstock according to the existing methodology. The Commission therefore revised and was under the obligation to revise the delegated act and has submitted it to the European Parliament on 10th of April.
And we hope that the Parliament can support it. Of course, our work does not stop here because we are in parallel working on other important elements to the puzzle, for example, on the rules of certification so that such soy produced sustainably can be certified as low risk of indirect land use change and also that biofuels produced from intermediate crops can be considered in this context.
And for doing this, we are revising our implementing regulation on certification and that revision is ongoing. It will include new rules on certification that we hope will help producers in this respect and this revision is due before the end of this year. And to ensure that the rules work for European farmers, we are working closely with the sustainability committee as well as the experts from our colleagues from the Directorate General for Agriculture, DG AGRI. And the Commission considers that the use of intermediate crops for the production of biofuels has great potential and will also provide European farmers with new opportunities.
Thank you, and I'm handing over to the colleagues from DG Environment.
Jeroen Verhagen
Thank you, Chair, honorable members of this committee. The objectives of the regulation on deforestation-free products and the Renewable Energy Directive are complementary and mutually reinforcing.
The EUDR aims to minimize the Union's contribution to global deforestation and forest degradation by ensuring that products placed on the EU market or exported from the EU market are deforestation-free and legal according to the laws of the country of production. The legislative amendments to the EUDR agreed in December 2025 by the co-legislators have substantially streamlined the implementation of the regulation and reduced the administrative burden. In addition, at the request of the co-legislators, the Commission published on 4th May the simplification review of the EUDR.
This package of measures was designed to provide simplifications within the legal boundaries of the revised law in order to prioritize legal stability, predictability and clarity, a big ask of all stakeholders. This package, combined with the simplifications introduced since 2023, will reduce annual compliance costs for companies by about 75% compared to the original provisions of the UDR. As part of this package, the Commission published an updated guidance document and frequently asked questions, which address in a pragmatic way many of the practical issues most frequently raised by stakeholders and competent authorities. Let me also highlight here that even before its entry into application, the UDR is transforming global supply chains, improving traceability and transparency.
Partner countries and industry actors are establishing national traceability systems and sustainability initiatives across commodity supply chains. Operators are also increasingly reporting preparedness for EUDR compliance, reflecting significant progress in the development of traceability and due diligence systems. With the recent simplifications and clarifications provided by the Commission, we are confident that all stakeholders will be well positioned to meet the regulation requirements by the end of this year. Thank you.
Okay, thank you very much. And now I would like to give the floor to coordinators EPP Herbert Dorfmann. You have Herbert two minutes.
Herbert Dorfmann
Ja, herzlichen Dank Frau Vorsitzende. Ich habe, muss ich sagen, ich habe heute den Eindruck, heute haben wir einen Nachmittag, wo ich schon Zweifel habe, ob man in der Kommission sich eigentlich gemeinsam abspricht oder ob dort wirklich die eine Hand weiß, was die andere tut. Beim Vertreter der DG ENVI habe ich jetzt den Eindruck gehabt, dass wir eigentlich von ganz was anderem reden. Wir reden ja nicht von EFA, wir reden über diesen delegierten Rechtsakt, was die Sojabohnen angeht. Und ich denke halt, es wäre mal vielleicht der Mühe wert zu schauen, wie viele Dokumente, Stellungnahmen, Initiativberichte wir in diesem Haus und in diesem Ausschuss in den letzten zehn Jahren gemacht haben zur Frage der Proteinversorgung und der Proteinsicherheit in Europa.
Unzählige. Und dann machen wir delegierte Rechtsakte, wo wir de facto der Protein, der den Anbau von Soja und de facto Protein bedeutet de facto Soja zum größten Teil, wo wir einen weiteren, ein weiteres Hindernis einlegen. Weil niemand wird, und ich glaube, das ist der Fehler in der Denkweise der Kommission, niemand wird Soja anbauen oder gar Soja aus Argentinien oder Brasilien kaufen, um diese Soja dann in einen Biokraftstoff umzuwandeln. Das ist ja finanziell überhaupt nicht darstellbar.
Aber Biokraftstoffe aus Soja sind Teil einer Wertschöpfungskette. Und wenn man sich die wenigen, ganz wenigen Staaten anschaut in Europa, die noch funktionierende Sojaketten haben, Österreich zum Beispiel, das eine recht ordentliche Eigenversorgung mit Soja hat, dort funktioniert eben genau diese Kombination in der industriellen Verwendung, wo halt auch Biokraftstoffe vorkommen. Und deswegen, ich glaube, irgendwann müssen wir uns entscheiden.
Entweder wir wollen die Versorgung mit Proteinen in Europa verbessern, dann müssen wir diesen Blödsinn, den die Kommission hier vorgeschlagen hat, und entschuldige für den Ausdruck, aber anders als Blödsinn ist es nicht, dann müssen wir den lassen. Oder sonst möchte ich eigentlich nicht mehr, dass wir hier in diesem Ausschuss über Proteinversorgung in Europa reden, denn sonst werden wir vollkommen unglaubwürdig. Im Übrigen hoffe ich, dass wir hier erfolgreich sind, diesen delegierten Rechtsakt abzulehnen, oder dass es sonst zumindest der Rat ist, wo ja eine ähnliche Initiative läuft und wo immer mehr Mitgliedstaaten einsehen, dass dieser delegierte Rechtsakt vollkommen unsinnig ist.
Dario Nardella
Grazie. Grazie, Presidente. Il tema dei biocarburanti è diventato sempre di più un tema strategico, soprattutto dopo l'impatto terribile della guerra in Medio Oriente e di quella in Ucraina. Ed è un tema su cui l'Europa può decidere facendo dell'agricoltura un vero e proprio motore della transizione energetica. In alternativa, il rischio è di continuare a produrre normative che penalizzano gli agricoltori in nome di una sostenibilità che è solo astratta a tavolino e non concreta e valutabile.
Io vorrei concentrarmi, avendo sentito i due relatori delle DG ENVI e ENER, sull'atto di esecuzione per la certificazione delle materie prime incluse nell'allegato IX della RED III. Le colture intermedie e quelle su terreni degradati, infatti, possono svolgere un ruolo reale nella bioeconomia europea, aumentando la produzione di biomassa senza sottrarre terra e creando nuove filiere tra agricoltori e settore energetico, cosa che chiedono loro stessi.
L'ultima versione dell'atto delegato che circola informalmente presenta alcuni miglioramenti rispetto alle precedenti. In particolare sono state corrette alcune incoerenze tecniche emerse nelle prime versioni del testo ed è stata riconosciuta una maggiore flessibilità agli Stati membri nell'identificazione delle colture principali. Si tratta di elementi positivi che vanno nella giusta direzione e che sono concretamente aderenti alla realtà produttiva europea. Tuttavia la nuova versione mantiene una serie di criticità.
La proposta continua a limitare l'eleggibilità delle colture intermedie alle sole aree considerate a raccolto singolo sulla base di criteri agroclimatici. Un'interpretazione del genere rischia di escludere molte aree del territorio che potrebbero invece contribuire alla produzione sostenibile di biomassa senza alcuna competizione con la produzione alimentare e mangimistica. Il punto infatti è che la produzione di biomassa con le dovute attenzioni e i giusti criteri non vanno assolutamente contro la produttività di mangimi e alimenti. Chiediamo quindi un approccio pragmatico. La definizione di coltura intermedia deve essere ancorata a quella di coltura principale e il concetto di terreno degradato deve essere determinato a livello nazionale.
Speaker 39
Dario, could you slow down? But you know, you are out of time already. Conclude.
Dario Nardella
Concludo. Concludo dicevo la definizione di coltura intermedia deve essere ancorata a quella di coltura principale e il concetto di terreno degradato deve essere determinato a livello nazionale in proporzione alle specificità dei suoli locali. Grazie. Mi scuso per l'ultra time.
Speaker 40
Okay, thanks Dario. Patrice Jel, Pan Jel, please the floor is yours sir.
Gilles Pennelle
Merci Madame la Présidente. N'en déplaise aux tenants du Green Deal encore trop nombreux dans l'assemblée parlementaire, le développement important des biocarburants suppose d'abord une agriculture productive, compétitive et libérée des contraintes environnementales excessives qui fragilisent nos filières.
On ne peut pas prétendre réduire notre dépendance aux énergies fossiles grâce au bioéthanol, par exemple, tout en affaiblissant les cultures qui les rendent possibles. Je prends l'exemple dans mon pays, la France, la betterave, très pénalisée par l'interdiction de l'acétamipride, car bien évidemment, on est en train de tuer nos betteraviers. Donc il y a là des contradictions qu'il faut soulever. Il est nécessaire de prévoir qu'en cas de surproduction agricole, de crise énergétique ou de menace sur les approvisionnements fossiles, les États doivent pouvoir activer une clause de souveraineté permettant d'incorporer davantage de biocarburants dans les carburants finaux, jusqu'au maximum techniquement compatible avec les moteurs et bien sûr les infrastructures.
L'objectif doit être simple : produire une énergie souveraine. Je suis très moi attaché personnellement à ce mot de souveraineté qui valorise en plus notre agriculture. Nous soutenons donc nous toutes ces innovations qui permettent également de constituer un complément de revenu. Mais attention toutefois de garantir que ce revenu supplémentaire pour nos agriculteurs ne devienne pas le revenu principal parce qu'il faut que la production nourricière soit bien évidemment préservée étant donné, je le rappelle encore une fois de plus ici, que le but premier de l'agriculture c'est de nourrir les hommes.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Dank u wel voorzitter. Ik wil om te beginnen beginnen met een vraag te stellen aan de Europese Commissie, namelijk deze vraag: kijkt ze ook naar het prijsopdrijvend effect van de eisen die ze stelt in het kader van de Renewable Energy Directive? Ik vraag dit omdat als je bijvoorbeeld kijkt naar de binnenvaart, in de binnenvaart zijn ze volop bezig om fossiele brandstoffen te vervangen door biobrandstoffen. Daar zie je dat die omslag naar het gebruik van groene brandstoffen gewoon stokt. Sterker nog, het komt tot stilstand en men schakelt zelfs weer terug naar fossiel.
En hoe komt dat? Dat komt omdat de biobrandstoffen die ze daar gebruiken, ik heb het over HVO, die zijn gigantisch duur.
Begin van het jaar lag het prijsniveau ongeveer drie keer boven het niveau van fossiele brandstoffen.
En nu met de hoge prijzen voor fossiele brandstoffen is de prijs voor HVO nog steeds aanzienlijk hoger ten opzichte van fossiel. Op die manier bevorderen we natuurlijk de vergroening in het gebruik van brandstoffen natuurlijk nadrukkelijk niet. Dus kijkt de Commissie daarnaar? En de vraag is natuurlijk ook: hoe kunnen we er nou voor zorgen dat zo'n product als HVO bijvoorbeeld wel voldoende betaalbaar blijft, bijvoorbeeld voor zo'n sector als de binnenvaart? Ik denk echt, voorzitter, dat we er behoefte aan hebben om vooral op een pragmatische manier met dit onderwerp om te gaan.
Geen ideologische stokpaardjes berijden, zou ik zeggen.
Kijk, soms hoor je wel eens het geluid van ja, energiegewassen dat is niet goed, want dat gaat ten koste van voedingsgewassen, dat gaat ten koste van de teelt van eiwithoudende gewassen. Ik denk eerlijk gezegd, zeker in de Europese context, dat energiegewassen heel goed kunnen bestaan naast voedselgewassen. Bijvoorbeeld in het bouwplan kunnen die heel goed passen, ook in het kader van de vruchtwisseling passen die goed denk ik bij elkaar. Dus ik denk een pragmatische aanpak is belangrijk, maar nadrukkelijk ook de vraag hoe kijkt de Commissie aan tegen de extra eisen die ze stellen aan biobrandstoffen en de gevolgen die dat heeft voor de prijzen. Dank.
Christine Singer
Ja, vielen Dank, Frau Vorsitzende. Die Europäische Kommission spricht zunehmend über Versorgungssicherheit, strategische Autonomie und Stärkung heimischer Produktion. Und gleichzeitig sollen jetzt aber regulatorische Vorgaben eingeführt werden, die sich auf heimische Produktionssysteme und europäische Wertschöpfungsketten negativ auswirken können. Bereits Anfang März habe ich die Kommission zur methodischen Grundlage der geplanten High-ILUC-Einstufung von Soja im Rahmen der Erneuerbare-Energien-Richtlinie gefragt. Eine Antwort ist erst heute Mittag eingegangen und ich bin gespannt auf die weitere Diskussion.
Wie wir alle wissen, entsteht bei der Herstellung von Sojaöl Sojaschrot als zentraler Eiweißträger für die europäische Tierhaltung.
entsteht bei der Herstellung von Sojaöl Sojaschrot als zentraler Eiweißträger für die europäische Tierhaltung und genau diese Koppelprodukte stärken die europäische Eiweißversorgung und sie reduzieren Importabhängigkeiten. Erst vor wenigen Tagen habe ich in Bayern einen Biobetrieb mit Weiterverarbeitung besucht und dort wurde mir mit großem Stolz berichtet, dass inzwischen 5000 Hektar Biosoja und insgesamt über 22.000 Hektar Soja in Bayern angebaut werden. Und genau solche regionalen Kreisläufe sollten die Europäische Union eigentlich stärken und nicht erschweren. Und trotzdem plant die Kommission weiterhin Soja pauschal als Rohstoff mit hohem ILUC-Risiko einzustufen, selbst dann, wenn dieses in Europa produziert wird.
Und dabei sollte über Herkunfts- und Nachhaltigkeitsnachweise, insbesondere auch über die EUDR, ausreichend nachvollziehbar sein, woher Rohstoffe stammen und unter welchen Bedingungen sie erzeugt wurden. Und deshalb frage ich die Kommission: Warum halten Sie an pauschalen Einstufungen fest, anstatt auf präzise Herkunfts- und Nachhaltigkeitsnachweise zu setzen, obwohl dadurch europäische Verarbeitung, heimische Eiweißversorgung und regionale Wertschöpfung geschwächt und neue Importabhängigkeiten geschaffen werden? Und wie will sich die Kommission, wie will sie erklären, dass Europa einerseits mehr Resilienz, mehr Autonomie und stärkere heimische Wertschöpfung fordert und andererseits aber genau jene europäische Produktionsketten regulatorisch ausbremst, die Eiweißversorgung und regionale Kreislaufwirtschaft sinnvoll miteinander verbinden?
Und hat die Kommission außerdem bewertet, welche Folgen diese Einstufung für den heimischen Sojaanbau, die europäische Eiweißstrategie und die Versorgungssicherheit in Europa haben wird? Europa braucht mehr regionale Kreisläufe und weniger neue Abhängigkeiten und genau daran sollten wir unsere Entscheidungen messen. Danke schön.
Thomas Waitz
Danke Vorsitzende, heute ausnahmsweise in Deutsch nach meiner Kollegin Singer.
Zuerst einmal, also wenn wir glauben, dass wir unseren gesamten Erdöl-, Kohle- und Gasverbrauch mit biogener Substanz ersetzen können, dann versteht man nichts von Mathematik. Das wird sich mit all der Biomasse, die auf unseren Feldern und in unseren Äckern und auf unseren Wäldern wächst, nicht ausgehen. Also hier einfach zu denken, wir können weiter so machen wie bisher und nur alles jetzt mit Biosprit, diese Rechnung geht nicht auf, Kollegen, Kolleginnen. Ja, Biosprit oder Biodiesel oder auch andere Treibstoffe wie Flugbenzin werden einen kleinen Puzzlestein beitragen können.
Allerdings sollten wir hier Reststoffe nehmen, alles das, was nicht unmittelbar zur Ernährung dient. Das einmal als generelles Statement. Aber ich muss in manchen Punkten meiner Vorrednerin recht geben. Es ist ein Unterschied, wo das Soja angebaut wird. Ob es in Brasilien angebaut wird auf entwaldeten Amazonasflächen oder wo tatsächlich andere Naturräume umgewandelt werden in massive industrielle Landwirtschaft, oder ob dieses Soja in Europa angebaut wird.
Es ist gut für das Klima, wenn wir mehr Leguminosen in Europa anbauen, denn sie sammeln den Stickstoff selbst aus der Luft mit Knöllchenbakterien, anstatt dass wir Dünger importieren müssen oder Gas importieren müssen, um Dünger herzustellen.
Es ist gut, wenn wir Soja anbauen, weil wir in der Fruchtfolge auch Leguminosen haben. Das ist gut für die Bodengesundheit. Es ist gut für die eigene Versorgung Europas. Und die Realität ist, dass sich mit Sojaanbau und Sojaverarbeitung sehr schwer Geld verdienen lässt in der Europäischen Union, denn wir stehen in einer direkten Konkurrenz mit dem Soja, der ohne jegliche Zölle, übrigens auch schon vor dem Mercosur-Vertrag, in die Europäische Union importiert wird. Also muss man sehr genau darauf achten, dass man eine Wertschöpfungskette zusammenbringt, die sich auch lohnt.
Und kurzfristig und mittelfristig bleibt uns nichts anderes über in den Ländern, die nämlich genau in diesen Sojaanbau investiert haben, eben das Öl, das Sojaöl, das eben nicht in der Nahrungsmittelindustrie nachgefragt wird, weil es dort ausgelistet wurde aufgrund von Gentechnik, aufgrund der Entwaldung, die das bevor, die das verursacht.
Deshalb wird es eben nicht mehr verwendet für Lebensmittel. Es gibt diesen Markt nicht, den uns die Kommission hier vormacht. Und unsere Produzierenden brauchen den Absatz von einer gewissen Menge an Sojaöl im Moment kurzfristig. Und damit würden wir tatsächlich, wenn wir das jetzt untersagen oder auch nicht mehr anrechnen, die Rentabilität von unserer heimischen Sojaproduktion schwer in Zweifel ziehen. Und das ist auch meine Frage an die Kommission: Haben Sie hier die Rechnung ohne die europäischen Landwirte gemacht und ohne die europäische Wertschöpfungskette?
Können wir das nicht differenzieren nach der Frage, wo das Soja herkommt und wie es angebaut wurde?
Okay, thanks Thomas. And Luke Flanagan, Luke.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Thank you very much. I think we have to stick by the principle that we have to feed ourselves before we use it for fuel. And we definitely have to stick to that principle because at the end of the day, it is the poorest people on the planet who will get sidelined. And we'll end up putting it in our cars and then we'll pat ourselves on the back that, hey, look, we've got enough to put in airplanes. But if that means that one person ends up not being able to eat, then our policy should always aim towards making sure that people have food.
And obviously biofuels are going to be part of the mix. But for me, the most sensible way to do it is using the waste material and byproducts that we already have, whether that be use of anaerobic digestion.
But to me as well, the irony, someone from the Left group saying this, some people would say, is that it's got to make economic and financial sense. And it's got to make sense in the long term, not just in the next couple of years, but sustainability is about, well, it's about forever.
But the problem, and I think the last speaker touched on it, the problem we seem to have though is that, okay, we need to find new fuels. We definitely need to find new fuels. But on top of any new fuels that we find, we seem to find new ways to use fuels and to waste fuels left, right and center. So we really have to focus on the area of how we use less fuels. We've got to produce it locally.
There's no denying that. I would like to hear the Commission's answers to much of the skepticism of what you're suggesting.
It's interesting, nearly every topic everyone here is skeptical of the Commission, but there's a majority here put them in place. Anyway.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay, thank you. And now let's start with catch-the-eye. You have one minute each, and first is our Vice-Chair Eric Andrieu. Eric, please.
Eric Sargiacomo
Merci Madame la Présidente. Dire que je suis assez sceptique par rapport à la présentation de la Commission, c'est peu dire. En effet, on essaie très difficilement depuis des années de construire une filière sur les protéines pour la consommation humaine, pour la consommation animale, et le soja est évidemment un des produits phares pour cela qu'on importe très massivement. Or, quand vous triturez du soja, vous avez deux produits.
Vous avez les tourteaux d'un côté, vous avez l'huile de l'autre. Or aujourd'hui on nous dit : vous allez pouvoir continuer pour l'alimentation animale, l'alimentation humaine, mais vous n'avez pas aujourd'hui de débouché commercial pour votre huile. Qu'est-ce que ça va faire ? Ça va détruire en fait complètement les quelques éléments aujourd'hui de production de filière pour la protéine végétale et absolument nous encourager à importer la totalité de nos tourteaux aujourd'hui de soja pour l'alimentation animale et laisser l'huile finalement comme autre débouché à d'autres pays qui l'utiliseront, le Brésil en grande majorité. Je trouve que là c'est du 100 % raté pour la proposition de la Commission.
Et honnêtement, au moment où le commissaire nous propose de mettre un grand plat, un grand plan sur la production de protéines végétales, je ne comprends pas comment vous n'arrivez pas à parler au sein de la Commission entre DG pour savoir quelles sont les mesures efficaces. Honnêtement, cet acte délégué est un non-sens.
Csaba Dömötör
Thank you, chair, let me speak in Hungarian. Magyarországon a parlament jóváhagyása nélkül, tiltakozása ellenére is életbe lépett a Mercosur-megállapodás. Ez a megállapodás a bioetanol-ágazatban is óriási károkat okozhat. Mert miért is mondom ezt?
A Mercosur-országok 200 000 tonna üzemanyag célú bioetanol behozatalára kaptak lehetőséget. További 450 000 tonnát egyéb ipari célra hozhatnak be egy speciális vámmentes kvóta alapján. Közben Ukrajna vámmentes bioetanol-kvótája is 25%-kal növekszik, 125 000 tonnára. Ebben az országban összesen 1 millió tonnányi gyártókapacitás épül, nyilvánvalóan azért, mert az EU-ba akarják exportálni, és fogják is.
A bioetanolt sokan azért is támogatják, mert zöldebbnek tartják. De ha ezek a termékek sok ezer kilométert utaznak, az sok minden, csak nem környezetvédő megoldás. A bio jelző helyett érdemes inkább a szennyező jelzőt használni. Szóval ezek alapján egy kérdés a Bizottsághoz: a hazai termelés szükségességéről beszélnek, de akkor miért az EU-n kívüli bioetanol-termelőket támogatják az európai termelők helyett? Köszönöm.
Okay, thank you. Asger Christensen.
Speaker 47
Tak for det, hr. formand. Vi skal naturligvis sikre, at den biodiesel, der produceres og anvendes i EU, er reelt bæredygtig. Det er vigtigt, at vi udfaser råvarer med høj ILUC-værdi. Og det er også vigtigt, at første generations diesel, den spiller en vigtig rolle både for europæisk landbrug og for vores forsyningssikkerhed. Produktionen bidrager ikke alene til vedvarende energi, men også til værdifulde råvarer og proteiner til vores husdyr.
Når vi taler om energisikkerhed, handler det ikke kun om elektricitet. Hver en liter bæredygtigt produceret biodiesel, der bliver produceret i Europa, er en strategisk autonomi.
Derfor er fortsat mange sektorer, der har behov for andet end elektricitet. Mit spørgsmål til Kommissionen er derfor, hvordan vil Kommissionen sikre, at den kommende energilovgivning efter 2030 fortsat giver plads til bæredygtig europæisk produceret biobrændstoffer, som bidrager både til klimamål, men også styrker EU's energiuafhængighed? Tak.
Georgiana Teodorescu
Thank you, chair. I will speak in Romanian. Vreau să fie foarte clar de la bun început, dezbaterea de astăzi privind acest act delegat este rezultatul direct al demersului pe care grupul ECR l-a inițiat la nivelul coordonatorilor comisiilor AGRI și ITRE, solicitând ferm prelungirea perioadei de examinare. Noi am fost cei care am tras semnalul de alarmă. Metodologia propusă de Comisie este profund viciată, bazată pe date incomplete și pe o perioadă de analiză mult prea scurtă, care penalizează pe nedrept culturi strategice precum soia.
Dacă lăsăm acest act să treacă în forma actuală, distrugem sectorul european al biocombustibililor și spulberăm eforturile fermierilor noștri de a cultiva plante proteice. În loc de autonomie strategică, vom adânci și mai mult dependența noastră de importurile din țări terțe. Solicităm întregii Comisii AGRI să sprijine demersul ECR. Avem nevoie de timp pentru o reevaluare serioasă. Nu putem sacrifica securitatea alimentară și energetică a Europei pe altarul unor calcule birocratice pripite.
Vă mulțumesc.
Thank you. Colleague Häusling.
Martin Häusling
Ja, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, Sojaanbau in Europa ist nun wirklich kein Problem. Was Tom gesagt hat, wir bräuchten eigentlich mehr Soja in Europa, dass die Importe sind das Kernproblem. Ich war ja selber in Südamerika, da sieht das teilweise nicht das Soja in der Fruchtfolge, sondern es gibt ja viele Regionen, da ist das fast ein Monokulturanbau und das ist das Problem. Und ich weiß nicht, warum die Kommission da so einen falschen Fokus drauf legt. Und wir haben es ja erlebt bei Palmöl, bei Palmfetten, dass da die Kommission ja auch mal gesagt hat, ja, wir müssen das regulieren, das ist im Treibstoffen nichts zu suchen.
Was ist danach passiert? Es kam über Altfette, über China kam das Palmöl dann plötzlich nach Deutschland und wurde dann beigemischt.
Auch da ist das ja nicht so ganz gelungen mit der Regulierung dieses Marktes. Ich bin allgemein ziemlich kritisch, was hier für Szenarien aufgebaut werden, als könnten wir fossilen Treibstoff jetzt durch Pflanzentreibstoffe ersetzen. Die Zukunft ist elektrisch. Das da wird kein Weg dran vorbeigehen. Wir können vielleicht noch Pflanzenöl in der Landwirtschaft nutzen für den Antrieb von Schleppern, aber nicht im Fahrzeugbereich.
Und wenn ich mir Deutschland anschaue, die Fläche, die Raps und auch Biogas-Mais belegt, die ist fast 20 %.
Das sind schon gewaltige Mengen. Und jetzt in Deutschland soll auch noch dazu kommen, dass man damit auch heizen soll. Also ich weiß nicht, wo das alles so herkommen soll. Das ist weder nachhaltig noch in der Zukunft wirklich ökologisch gerecht. Deshalb können wir so nicht weitermachen.
Wir müssen nachhaltig nutzen, aber dann bitteschön mit dem Ansatz, der hier wirklich überzeugt und nicht mit dem Ansatz, den die Kommission hat.
Benoit Cassart
Colleague Cassart.
Merci Madame la Présidente. Le prix de nos dépendances de tout genre est aujourd'hui particulièrement élevé. Toutes les idées qui conduisent à une réduction de notre dépendance énergétique ont leur raison d'être.
Les biocarburants ont leur place pour plusieurs raisons. 1, la concurrence food-fuel est maintenant devenue une complémentarité food-fuel car à partir de la même biomasse, on peut maintenant faire du food, du feed et du fuel. La technologie évolue chaque jour. 2, les intercultures qui sont unanimement reconnues vertueuses sur le plan environnemental ont également une masse énergétique que l'on peut valoriser. 3, les cultures alimentaires sont productrices de coproduits qui peuvent être valorisés énergétiquement.
Et 4, à l'heure où les revenus agricoles sont en berne et où le défi du renouvellement des générations est énorme, la production d'énergie est une spéculation qui doit être développée.
Daniel Buda
Mulțumesc, doamnă președintă. Am ascultat dezbaterea pe mașină de la aeroport. Așa cum spunea colegul Dorfmann, discutăm de foarte multă vreme această chestiune a biocombustibililor versus de multe ori a securității alimentare și nu reușim nicicum să găsim o formulă de lucru. Mi se pare că patinăm oarecum pe gheață, pentru că din punctul meu de vedere această chestiune a biocombustibililor este prost spusă într-o logică versus alimente, pentru că avem nevoie de ceea ce înseamnă dezvoltarea acestui segment de biocombustibil, dar acest lucru poate să fie într-o bună complementaritate cu ceea ce înseamnă producerea de hrană. Din păcate, însă, din partea Comisiei Europene nu vedem o abordare strategică și o abordare echilibrată, pentru că în urmă cu zece ani în România era foarte la modă să se dezvolte instalații, de exemplu, de prelucrare a biocombustibililor.
Astăzi nu avem astfel de instalații, toate au fost închise. De aceea cred că este foarte important să avem o abordare holistică pe de o parte.
Pe de altă parte, mereu discutăm de producția de soia. Ne-am dori foarte mult să producem soia la nivelul Uniunii Europene, însă, stimați colegi, soia este o plantă care consumă foarte multă căldură. Nu toate statele au această posibilitate să o producă și, din păcate, trăim într-o dulce ipocrizie. Noi nu cultivăm soia modificată genetic în Uniunea Europeană, dar importăm soia modificată genetic din Argentina sau din alte părți. Eu cred că este cazul să ieșim din această zonă și să înțelegem că, da, avem nevoie de soia pentru că nu ne putem dezvolta nici zootehnia și, mai degrabă aș putea spune, nici biocombustibilul.
Mulțumesc.
Thank you, and I just now we are in the end of our list of members, and I would like to ask our colleague from Commission, please. I don't know who wants to take the floor first, but you have eight minutes together.
Kitti Nyitrai
Thank you very much starting on the DG ENER side and I understand that colleagues from environment do not have anything to add so I will try to respond to the points raised today. So first of all I would like to indeed reiterate as honorable members said several times that indeed the future of transport decarbonization is mainly electrical so we know that most of the road transport applications can be electrified efficiently so energy efficiently and cost effectively.
So indeed not the full fossil fuel use in the transport realm and especially not in heating and cooling should be replaced by biofuels or electrofuels. So this is absolutely clear. So we're speaking about the remaining uses that cannot be electrified or remaining fleets in the field of further renewable liquid fuels. And that's as we said mainly maritime transport and aviation where we today don't see how it could be electrified and where reliance on molecules, especially liquid fuels, will still be needed.
Then, I would like to recall that the policy that we are speaking about when it comes to ILUC, so indirect land use change, it has been in place and it's laid out in the Renewable Energy Directive itself. So the Commission has an empowerment to regularly review the data and has an obligation to amend the delegated act whenever the data suggest that an amendment is needed, but the Commission cannot modify the approach to indirect land use change, which is a global approach.
So it is not a case-by-case, land-by-land, country-by-country approach, but it is a global approach because it looks into the global demand for a given crop and the global supply for a given crop because otherwise one could imagine that the demand is displaced to one specific country, but then that demand is displaced from demand from other countries who have less criteria in place when it comes to indirect land use change and deforestation. So this approach has been agreed by the co-legislators, so the empowerment for the Commission is to really review the data and to examine regularly how the data has evolved.
Before it has been only palm oil who has met the thresholds for high indirect land use change, and recently soy has met that threshold as well. At the same time, I would like to reiterate that of course soy production in the EU is very, very important and the protein role of it is very, very important. And this is exactly the reason why we are continuing the work. And Honorable Member Nadella already mentioned and referred to the implementing regulation on certification, where we would like to really place emphasis on things that we can do on low ILUC, so low indirect land use change certification, and also on the role of intermediate crops and also on degraded land, as it was mentioned, because these are very important concepts that could be relied on.
And and a reference was made on a draft circulating, so just to clarify this is a working draft that the Commission has been discussing in a working group with Member States. And of course, like any draft for an implementing act, it will go through the official procedures, so it will be published for public feedback so that everyone can comment and send us suggestions and ideas how to improve the text before then it goes into a comitology procedure for final adoption. So this work is ongoing and there will be instances for for honorable members also to engage with the Commission and to and to to to submit improvements to the text, but we will also discuss it especially with Member States in the official comitology procedure. But what and I heard also all the views on on the what could be done differently for the future.
So as said, the current policy is laid out in a directive that was adopted by co-legislators. And of course, we acknowledge that policy stability is very important and when it comes to biofuels, also the European Court of Auditors has underlined that there's been too frequent policy changes and that we need regulatory stability for the future.
And now later this year, as you might have seen in the Commission work program, the European Commission is planning to put forward a proposal on renewable energies, which of course include also the aspects of bioenergies for the decade ahead, so for the period after 2030. So our ILUC policy mandates a phase-out until 2030, so not an immediate phase-out towards the target. But at the same time, later this year, we will have the occasion to revisit again our bioenergy policy, so within that also the role of biofuels. And also in that context, there will be the occasion for us to be able to examine questions of complementarity that have been also highlighted today.
So I think this is what I wanted to highlight, that there is work ongoing, the work doesn't stop here. This is a delegated act for which the empowerment was framed where the Commission was tasked to do a very specific task that is to review the data, but more work will be coming later this year with the implementing regulation and then later on with the new framework for the renewables for the next decade. Thank you very much.
Okay, thank you. Maybe your colleague from ENVI, you from, I think that you didn't want to take the floor. So in this case, colleagues, we are in the end of this item, but also of our program for today. I wish you nice evening and see you tomorrow morning at nine o'clock. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
I'd like to welcome our colleagues who are following us remotely. I'd like to welcome the representatives of the Commission and the Council. And I'd like to welcome our guests who are here for the public hearing. Before we start, I'd like to remind you that the meeting is being webstreamed. And I'd like to ask you to use your microphones when you speak.
The first item on our agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Are there any comments on the agenda? I see no comments. The agenda is adopted. The second item is the approval of the minutes of the meeting of the 25th and 26th of October.
Are there any comments on the minutes? I see no comments. The minutes are approved. The third item is the Chair's announcements. I'd like to inform you that the interpretation is available in 20 languages.
And I'd like to remind you that the voting session will take place at 11:30. We will now move on to the fourth item on our agenda, which is the public hearing on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. I'd like to welcome our speakers.
Speaker 56
Good morning, everyone. I would like to welcome you to this meeting of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. Before we start, I would like to remind you that the meeting is being webstreamed and that interpretation is available in all the languages of the committee. I would also like to inform you that the meeting will be held in a hybrid format, with some members present in the room and others participating remotely. The first item on our agenda is the adoption of the draft agenda.
Are there any comments or objections to the draft agenda? I see none, so the agenda is adopted. The second item is the approval of the minutes of the meeting of the 25th of October. Are there any comments or objections to the minutes? I see none, so the minutes are approved.
The third item is the Chair's announcements.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.