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
Replay
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
AGRI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsEric Sargiacomo
Dans les deux cas, qu'il s'agisse des interventions sectorielles ou du School Scheme, les craintes sont fortes que ces programmes passent à la trappe de la logique des fonds uniques, du fonds unique national. Il semble que ces craintes ne soient pas infondées car on connaît les réflexes des administrations nationales qui préfèrent dépenser l'argent européen le plus facilement possible avec le moins de risques possible. Et forcément, le plus facile à dépenser, ce sont les aides à l'hectare, même si elles sont loin d'être aussi efficaces qu'on le voudrait. Donc même s'il s'agit de petites enveloppes extrêmement efficaces, il faut que l'on obtienne que les États membres continuent de les mettre en œuvre car elles ont un fort effet levier et une réelle plus-value communautaire. Si je rentre un peu plus dans le détail des propositions du Comité des régions, je relève que vous voulez prendre davantage en compte le lait, les produits issus de l'agriculture biologique, mais aussi les produits sous indication géographique.
Cela me semble être une bonne piste de travail. Pour les interventions sectorielles, vous voulez voir réintégrer pouvoir réintégrer les filières de fruits et légumes transformés, mais à l'inverse vous ne souhaitez pas laisser de place aux organisations de producteurs qui ne sont pas encore reconnues. Il me semble que sur ce dernier point que si l'on peut accepter des situations transitoires, on ne peut pas accepter le transitoire qui dure trop longtemps. À mes yeux, et il en est de même pour les organisations de producteurs sans transfert de propriété que l'on a dans le secteur laitier par exemple depuis le paquet 2010, on doit les aider à évoluer pour remplir pleinement leur rôle. J'ai relevé que vous avez également fait des amendements pour introduire le principe selon lequel les prix doivent couvrir les coûts de production.
Je partage sans ambiguïté cet objectif, mais il me semble difficile de faire cela via les contrats. On doit préserver la liberté des contrats. En revanche, cette logique de prix minimum sera bien présente dans mon rapport, mais d'une autre façon, via le rehaussement des prix d'intervention de la PAC. Aujourd'hui, les prix minimums de la PAC sont trop bas, ils couvrent à peine la moitié des coûts de production. Il faut les rehausser au moins à 80 % du niveau des coûts de production pour qu'ils constituent un réel filet de sécurité pour les agriculteurs, puisque ce filet de sécurité fait partie des propositions de la Commission, sans pour autant revenir à la situation d'avant 1992 où ils couvraient la totalité des coûts de production et empêchaient les ajustements.
Par ailleurs, dans votre avis, vous portez un amendement pour supprimer les tolérances à l'importation sur les résidus de pesticides interdits. C'est un sujet que portait déjà mon prédécesseur Éric Andrieu lors de la réforme de l'OCM en 2021. Je dois dire, je suis globalement favorable à toutes les mesures qui peuvent permettre d'aller vers davantage de réciprocité dans les échanges internationaux. Nos importations doivent respecter les normes que nous imposons à nos producteurs, sinon cela s'appelle de la concurrence déloyale. Votre amendement me paraît pertinent mais nous devons toutefois vérifier s'il n'a pas été déjà traité dans le cadre du règlement Omnibus sur la sécurité sanitaire qui est en cours.
Enfin, vous proposez d'intégrer les régions et l'ensemble des collectivités locales dans la définition des plans de sécurité des approvisionnements. Je pense que c'est une très bonne idée car les régions et même les grandes villes doivent pouvoir être parties prenantes dans la constitution de stocks stratégiques. Je le vois en France, de nombreuses villes s'intéressent à leur approvisionnement alimentaire. C'est d'ailleurs le cas de Paris qui a engagé des mesures intéressantes sur des questions de logistique et de stockage. Je considère que la proposition de la Commission sur ce sujet de stocks stratégiques alimentaires est une très bonne base.
On retrouve bien le sens des recommandations du rapport Ninistö. Il me semble qu'on devrait les élargir aux engrais, aux semences et à l'alimentation pour le bétail. C'est ce que font déjà nos collègues finlandais que j'ai eu l'occasion de rencontrer la semaine dernière à l'invitation de la ministre de l'Agriculture Sari Essayah. Voilà pour mes commentaires à la lecture de l'avis du Comité des régions. Je remercie Monsieur Alessio Mammi pour son travail et celui des membres de la commission NAT.
C'est important que les régions soient impliquées dans le processus et je ne doute pas que nous aurons d'autres occasions d'échanger sur ce sujet. Et maintenant j'ai le plaisir évidemment de pouvoir écouter mes collègues shadow rapporteurs sur ce dossier. Merci.
Thank you Eric. And now it's time for shadows and first I would like to give the floor Daniel Buda our vice chair and shadow from EPP and you have two and a half minutes.
Daniel Buda
Mulțumesc foarte mult, doamnă președintă. Mulțumesc foarte mult, domnule Alessio Mammi pentru expunerea proiectului de aviz și evident domnului raportor Eric Sargiacomo pentru expunerea domniei sale. Pe zi ce trece ne dăm seama tot mai mult cât de important este să avem o organizare comună a pieței la un nivel adecvat și foarte eficientă deoarece putem observa că avem foarte multe șocuri care dacă nu avem o bună organizare a pieței ele nu pot să fie absorbite la un nivel adecvat. Dar aș începe prima dată să mă opresc la programul de fructe și legume în școli. În primul rând cerem Comisiei Europene să fie de acord cu poziția Parlamentului European din acest punct de vedere de a nu avea acele alocări la nivelul statelor membre deoarece acest lucru ar duce la fragmentarea pieței.
Ar fi o situație în care unele state ar finanța, altele nu ar finanța, ori trebuie să plecăm un pic în sens invers. Acest program de fructe și legume în școli care este destul de vechi la nivelul Uniunii Europene și-a demonstrat eficiența pentru că foarte mulți copii nu au acces la o masă caldă, nu au acces la ceea ce înseamnă aceste fructe și legume.
Și în același timp este foarte important să și conștientizăm, da, ce înseamnă acest program și ce înseamnă aceste fructe și legume și laptele în școli prin implicarea tinerilor în sectorul agricol. Prin ceea ce înseamnă practică, prin ceea ce înseamnă vizite în teren, deoarece tot noi aici tot vorbim de ceea ce înseamnă reînnoirea generațională. Foarte mulți copii, să știți, de la nivelul Uniunii Europene cred că puiul crește într-o pungă de plastic, pentru că n-au văzut niciodată ce înseamnă un pui crescut în fermă. De aceea acest program trebuie să fie finanțat la un nivel adecvat și de la nivelul Uniunii Europene. În același timp este foarte important să avem în vedere depozitele de alimente.
Stimați colegi, aceste depozite în opinia mea ar trebui să fie avut în vedere nu doar pentru timp de război. La început așa a plecat această chestiune, dar vedem că avem astăzi șocuri care pun în dificultate producțiile agricole. Dacă ne uităm la ceea ce înseamnă îngrășămintele, vedem că există limitări serioase și sunt fermieri la nivelul Uniunii Europene care nu și-au fertilizat culturile din cauza lipsei îngrășămintelor sau datorită faptului că sunt prea scumpe. Cu combustibilii la fel. Iată de ce este important să putem absorbi ceea ce înseamnă sau să putem manageria ceea ce înseamnă producțiile agricole la un nivel adecvat în aceste depozite.
Pe de altă parte, este foarte important ca aceste depozite să se manifeste ca și importanță atunci când avem supraproducție. În momentul de față, în unele părți ale Uniunii Europene, și aici reproșez Comisiei Europene că n-a avut în vedere această chestiune, avem o criză de supraproducție de lapte. Pentru că sunt foarte multe vaci de lapte bune producătoare, dar nu mai avem o piață care să absoarbă acest lapte. Dacă aveam, dacă am fi avut niște mecanisme de compensare, am fi putut să intervenim în mod adecvat, să facem stocare privată la un nivel adecvat, să putem să menținem mai departe aceste ferme. Pentru că o vacă dusă în abator n-o mai întorci în cinci ani de zile înapoi în producție.
În același timp este foarte important să putem, aceste mecanisme de intervenție să fie eficiente și să putem compensa pierderile de venit din partea fermierilor. Sunt convins că împreună cu colegul Dariusz Joński și cu toți ceilalți colegi implicați vom face ceea ce trebuie în acest sens. Mulțumesc.
Valérie Deloge
Chers collègues, madame, monsieur, pardon, le rapporteur, cette réforme de l'OCM n'est pas un simple ajustement technique. Elle touche à l'essentiel : l'alimentation de nos enfants, la rémunération de nos agriculteurs, la protection de nos filières et au fond la souveraineté alimentaire de la France et de l'Europe. Derrière les mots, la réalité est toujours la même : nos agriculteurs français croulent sous les normes, subissent la concurrence d'importations qui ne respectent ni nos standards ni nos contraintes. L'Europe ne peut pas exiger le meilleur de ses agriculteurs et accepter le pire dans ses importations. Dans ce contexte, le programme scolaire européen n'est pas un détail politique, c'est un levier concret pour l'éducation au goût, pour la santé des enfants et pour le soutien de nos filières.
Il doit donc répondre à une priorité claire : reconnecter les enfants avec des produits européens et d'abord avec les produits locaux issus de nos territoires, de saison et de qualité. Nous partageons l'objectif d'une alimentation saine à l'école, mais il ne faut pas que ce programme ne devienne un outil d'approvisionnement standardisé, déconnecté de nos producteurs. La priorité aux produits de l'Union doit être réelle et non symbolique. Elle doit bénéficier en premier lieu aux producteurs locaux et nationaux, elle ne doit pas non plus conduire à ouvrir ce marché à des grandes centrales d'achat trop souvent déconnectées des réalités du terrain et des petits producteurs. Je veux insister sur un point essentiel : les produits laitiers ne doivent doivent rester pleinement au cœur du programme scolaire.
Le lait, les yaourts, les fromages sont des produits fondamentaux à la fois pour l'équilibre alimentaire des enfants et pour leur la survie économique d'une filière déjà fortement mise à mal. Nous ne devons pas accepter que ce programme brouille les repères en en mettant sur le même plan le lait et les substituts végétaux qui n'ont ni la même composition, ni la même valeur nutritionnelle, ni la même réalité agricole. Je veux également rappeler que ce programme ne se limite pas à distribuer des produits, il convient comprend aussi un pilier éducatif essentiel.
La Commission elle-même le prévoit : visites de fermes, jardins scolaires, ateliers de dégustation et de cuisine, cours sur l'alimentation. L'objectif est clair : faire découvrir aux enfants le programme des aliments de la ferme à l'assiette et de leur faire comprendre le travail des agriculteurs. Or ce volet éducatif ne peut pas fonctionner s'il est déconnecté des réalités agricoles. Il faut que les enfants puissent voir, goûter, toucher des produits réellement européens de leur région et de saison. Le programme doit donc intégrer dans une seule et même réflexion les produits des assiettes et de l'éducation.
Il en va de sa crédibilité. L'Union doit soutenir ce qui nourrit réellement nos enfants et ce qui fait vivre nos agriculteurs. Cela suppose des règles simples, une vraie priorité donnée à l'origine européenne mais surtout aux circuits courts, à la localité pour que cela profite d'abord aux producteurs. Je vous remercie.
Thank you. ECR colleague Terheș, please, the floor is yours.
Claudiu-Richard Târziu
Mulțumesc, doamnă președintă. Stimați colegi, pentru început aș dori să subliniez că acest dosar trebuie privit în contextul mai amplu al discuțiilor privind viitorul politicii agricole comune și noua arhitectură financiară propusă de Comisie. Din punctul meu de vedere și al nostru, trebuie să păstrăm caracterul cu adevărat comun al politicii agricole comune. Agricultura europeană are nevoie de obiective și instrumente comune care să asigure condiții echitabile pentru fermierii din toate statele membre și nu de o fragmentare tot mai accentuată a politicii agricole, cum deja s-a spus aici. Se pare că suntem majoritari cu această perspectivă.
Aș dori să evidențiez câteva aspecte pentru a sublinia importanța lor, nu pentru că ele nu au fost deja amintite, dar este și poziția noastră. Schema Uniunii Europene pentru școli, foarte importantă. Consider că finanțarea acesteia trebuie să rămână în cadrul politicii agricole comune. Transferul către planurile naționale și regionale riscă să reducă predictibilitatea sprijinului și să creeze diferențe între statele membre. De asemenea, este nevoie de mai multă flexibilitate în aplicarea criteriilor nutriționale pentru a nu exclude produse tradiționale.
Apoi, intervențiile sectoriale. Susțin flexibilitatea statelor membre în stabilirea sectorilor agricole care beneficiază de intervenții și finanțare, astfel încât sprijinul să răspundă nevoilor specifice și naționale. Și nu în ultimul rând, standardele de comercializare. Consumatorii trebuie să știe clar ce cumpără, iar denumirile tradiționale asociate produselor din carne trebuie protejate împotriva utilizării înșelătoare. De asemenea, susțin consolidarea securității alimentare și a rezilienței sectorului agricol.
Totuși, rezervele strategice trebuie să rămână un instrument excepțional, aflat în responsabilitatea statelor membre, în timp ce rolul Comisiei ar trebui să fie unul de coordonare. În final, cred că viitoarele măsuri trebuie să răspundă nevoilor fermierilor, fără a pierde din vedere diversitatea sistemelor agricole existente în Uniunea Europeană. Vă mulțumesc.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, Chair. I'll be speaking and reading the text on behalf of our shadow rapporteur, Jeremy Decerle, my colleague who sends his apologies for not being able to join us this morning. The text on the common organization of the markets is crucial for our farmers, as it defines common rules for all 27 Member States, from production support through to marketing. At a time when the Commission is dangerously proposing a renationalized approach for the 2028-2034 CAP, the question of how we organize our common market is a pressing one. The prerequisite for a common market remains a policy that is also common.
That this is why my group and I are working to first restore harmonized rules within the framework of the NRPP to prevent any distortion between Member States. That being said, regarding the CMO proposal itself...
Ciaran Mullooly
Apologies, Chair. That being said, regarding the CMO proposal itself, it contains interesting measures that our group and I will seek to deepen and expand upon. On the issue of market intervention and public storage, this is obviously a critical point, and the crisis we are currently experiencing on fertilizers, for example, are proof of this. I will advocate for voluntary mechanisms that are attractive enough to ensure every Member State has an interest in participating. On sectoral support, particularly for fruit and vegetables, wine, and school schemes, I will defend common harmonized co-financing rules with strong EU participation.
I will also ensure that we preserve the achievements of the wine package, and I know I can count on the rapporteur in this regard. Finally, the marketing component will be essential. This is needed to move towards greater contract production, naturally in consultation with each sector, and to advance towards increased transparency regarding the origin of agricultural raw materials. This is a strong demand from the farming community, and the promotion of our agricultural models depends on it. Ultimately, the CMO must provide a simple and a robust toolkit to guide our sectors towards greater competitiveness and autonomy.
And contrary to the Commission's proposal, let us restore harmonized rules and ensure that the European market remains a common market. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Thomas Waitz, Greens.
Thomas Waitz
Yes, thank you, Chair, and good morning, colleagues. And I mean, once again, surprise, surprise, our colleagues from the Committee of Regions, so the ones that are out there in the regions, come with the same feedback as many of us here. We are in a situation that it's pretty hard to explain to farmers that we intend to cut the funding, that we intend not to repay the losses due to inflation. I just last week had a big meeting with farmers where they were, you know, they were asking how, how are we doing our math here in the European Union? They, they're telling me, look, I mean, we have to, we have to pay the prices that have risen through inflation.
We're not outside of the usual economic cycles. So this feedback also comes from the Committee of Region, and I think it's very important to have it here, that it's pretty hard to explain to farmers how we can put them in a difficult situation with international trade and at the same time cut the support towards them, especially in times of climate crisis and weather extremes. This is not explainable in the region, and I think all of you will be in troubles explaining this to our farmers back in our home countries, especially in the circumstances of a nearly doubling EU budget. So we have double the money, but farmers get less, okay. That's, that's hard to explain.
The second thing is again, and that's quite interesting here, that even colleagues that usually call for, you know, national rules and renationalization, when it comes to agriculture, everybody here understands that if we have different funding schemes and different support schemes in different national contexts, that this is going to lead to massive market distortion. And this is going to lead to a competition and a spiral that goes downwards when it comes to prices. When it comes to producers' organizations, the support of producers' organizations is key, also cross-national boundaries, because producers' organizations are, I would say, the most effective tool to somehow counter the market power of the big up-buyers and big retailers. And there, I mean, anyway, we should look into some cartel legislation when it comes to processing, but especially to retailers. So supporting producers' organizations is key to ensure fair prices for farmers.
Also quite interesting that the Committee of Regions is also supporting the call to cover the costs of production, which, I mean, somehow this is a no-brainer. I mean, who can produce under production costs for a longer period of time? And it also leads to the reality that farmers start to really calculate in detail whether the one or the other production scheme is still, you know, paying off at the end of the year. This is also a very important development. I mean, look at the Spanish example.
I think it's a good example to see how this can actually drive a better and fairer market share of the produce. And I leave out the point on school schemes and leave this to my colleague Anja Hazekamp. Thank you.
Thank you. Anja Hazekamp, The Left, please, Anja, the floor is yours.
Anja Hazekamp
Dank u wel, voorzitter. De keuzes die wij hier maken over voedsel zijn van levensbelang. En hoewel we in de landbouwcommissie redelijk vaak tegenover elkaar staan, heb ik na het vorige debat toch een klein beetje hoop gekregen dat we elkaar op een aantal punten wel zullen vinden. Bijvoorbeeld als het gaat over de eiwitsector. De zorgen over de grootschalige import van soja worden hier volgens mij breed gedeeld.
Wat veel mensen zich alleen niet goed realiseren is dat driekwart van die soja gebruikt wordt voor veevoer. Met onze grootschalige import van soja voor veevoer zijn wij medeverantwoordelijk voor de ontbossing van regenwouden, voor kinderarbeid, voor slavernij en voor grootschalige landroof. Daarom moeten we absoluut een importverbod instellen voor soja voor veevoer. Maar ook het veevoer dat hier in Europa geproduceerd wordt moet wel duurzaam zijn. Regionale teelt mag niet ten koste gaan van kostbare grond.
Twee derde van alle landbouwgraan, van het verbouwde graan in Europa wordt nu gebruikt voor veevoer. In plaats daarvan zouden we landbouwgrond juist veel meer moeten gebruiken voor rechtstreekse voedselproductie voor mensen. Minder gangbare eiwitgewassen zoals erwten, quinoa, lupine, kikkererwten worden ook geproduceerd door boeren en verdienen dus ook een steuntje in de rug. En vergeet niet, en vergeet ook niet dat ze in de discussie over de landbouwreserves. Ik deel de zorgen die eerder zijn geuit over het grootschalig opslaan van voedsel volledig.
Wat ons betreft wordt er dan ook geen belastinggeld meer gebruikt om vlees, vis en zuivel op te slaan. Peulvruchten en de eerder genoemde eiwitgewassen opslaan is veel duurzamer, veel efficiënter en een voedzame manier om landbouwreserves aan te leggen.
En tot slot toch nog enkele woorden over het schoolprogramma. Het schoolprogramma moet inderdaad efficiënt, duurzaam en gezond zijn en zou alleen regionale in de Europese Unie geproduceerde producten mogen bevatten. En dat kan ook door ervoor te zorgen dat plantaardige alternatieven voor melk in het programma opgenomen worden en ook de eerder genoemde dopvruchten. Niet in het belang van de vee-industrie handelen, maar het belang van kinderen en een gezonde, duurzame en diervriendelijke toekomst vooropstellen. Ik kijk uit naar een goede samenwerking om dit te realiseren.
Dank u wel.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you, Anja. Colleagues, Stoyanov is not there, so in this case we can start with ECR. Colleagues, you have one minute each and let's, the first is Gilles Pennelle, Patriots, you have one minute.
Gilles Pennelle
Merci, Madame la Présidente. Face à la situation dramatique que connaissent beaucoup de nos agriculteurs, nos débats sur l'OCM ne peuvent se limiter à des discours d'autosatisfaction sur plus de lait ou plus de légumes à l'école. À cet égard, la proposition de règlement présentée par la Commission constitue une évolution marginale qui ne répond pas aux difficultés structurelles auxquelles sont confrontés les agriculteurs européens. Le remplacement d'une politique de soutien des marchés par une politique de soutien des revenus s'est révélé une impasse. Les agriculteurs nous le disent, ils ne souhaitent pas vivre de subventions compensatoires, ils demandent avant tout des prix stables, prévisibles et rémunérateurs leur permettant de vivre de leur travail.
Nous réclamons, nous, un relèvement significatif des seuils d'intervention afin de garantir des prix rémunérateurs aux producteurs. Nous demandons le renforcement des capacités de stockage public pour sécuriser les approvisionnements et stabiliser les marchés. Nous demandons une protection accrue du marché intérieur, une protection radicale du marché intérieur face aux importations qui ne respectent pas les mêmes normes de production que celles imposées aux agriculteurs européens. Et enfin, nous demandons des mécanismes de maîtrise de la production, y compris par le recours à des quotas dans les secteurs où cela s'avère nécessaire.
Georgiana Teodorescu
Thank you, Madame Toader-Roscov, ECR, please.
Thank you, Chair. Mesajul meu pentru acest dosar este fără echivoc: nu tăiem bani de la hrana elevilor. Prea mulți copii vulnerabili pentru care o masă la școală face diferența între educație și abandon școlar. Avem nevoie de bugete mai mari, de mai puțină birocrație și de lanțuri scurte de aprovizionare, astfel încât școlile să cumpere direct de la fermierii noștri locali. Să investim în sănătatea copiilor și în viitorul satului românesc și european.
Modificarea programului pentru școli nu este doar o discuție tehnică, ci o datorie directă față de copiii noștri. Ca mamă, văd zilnic realitatea din clase: tot mai mulți elevi suferă de intoleranțe și alergii severe. Acești copii nu pot consuma, de exemplu, lapte clasic sau produse cu gluten din motive medicale. Trebuie să fim foarte clari: incluziunea lor nu înseamnă să lăsăm grupuri de interese să deturneze programul pentru a-și promova agenda laptelui și a produselor vegetale. Înseamnă să răspundem unei urgențe medicale și să oprim risipa alimentară.
Niciun copil nu trebuie lăsat pe dinafară din cauza unei afecțiuni. Voi depune amendamente ferme în acest sens.
Sebastian Everding
Thank you, colleague Everding.
Vielen Dank, Frau Vorsitzende. Ich muss an dieser Stelle vielleicht einmal die tier- und klimapolitische Sicht einnehmen und aus dieser Perspektive ist der Teil der Entwurf, den ich gesehen habe, eine ziemliche Katastrophe, weil Tiere dort noch viel stärker als zuvor als einfach eine auszubeutende Ressource angesehen werden.
Und das, obwohl Artikel 13 der EU-Verträge ganz klar Tiere als fühlende Lebewesen anerkennt. Und was auch wieder problematisch ist, dass eine ganze Liste von Fleischbegriffen exklusiv geschützt werden soll, wie beispielsweise das Wort Filet. Und es ist wieder einmal so, dass hier in diesem Parlament einige Kreise pflanzliche Alternativen massiv ausbremsen wollen. Ich kann verstehen, dass man den Wandel hin zu pflanzlichen, ethischen und tierschutzkonformen Alternativen nicht unbedingt fördern will, aber man sollte doch zumindest eine Koexistenz zulassen, weil das, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, das ist auch Industrie, das ist auch Landwirtschaftspolitik. Bitte, bitte bedenken Sie das auch mal.
Und vielleicht noch ein Satz zum Schulprogramm, da reicht es einfach nicht, dass man das Tierwohl oder einen CO2-Fußabdruck als eine freiwillige Priorisierung nennt. Pflanzliche Proteinangebote, die müssen stattdessen prioritär aufgenommen werden. Und alles andere ist so ein bisschen ein Verrat an jungen Menschen, denen ethische Grundsätze einfach sehr, sehr wichtig sind. Und abschließend fehlen auch noch Tierwohlpflichten in sektoralen Interventionen und in der Krisenvorsorge komplett. Das bitte noch ergänzen, wir werden da auch noch Änderungsanträge machen.
Vielen Dank.
Esther Herranz García
Muchísimas gracias, presidenta. Yo lo que veo es que, bueno, y si ustedes convendrán conmigo en que los sectores, la política sectorial siempre ha sido la hermana pequeña de la política agrícola común, porque estos sectores, aceite de oliva, el vino, frutas y hortalizas, no dependen de las ayudas, dependen directamente del mercado. Por esto este programa sectorial que nunca ha sido muy costoso debe mantenerse. Debe mantenerse por temas como investigación o marketing, que lo ha dicho el ponente, el señor Sarjakomo, y desde luego lo hemos hecho en el paquete vino y lo hemos hecho muy bien, y además con el señor Sarjakomo también, porque es fundamental para el futuro, y no solo para el vino, también para frutas y hortalizas o el aceite de oliva. Y con respecto al programa en las escuelas, es muy bueno, es cierto, pero puede ser mejor.
Algunas cosas ha apuntado el ponente. Debe ser más intenso, debe ser más completo y más accesible para todos los sectores. Y ha dicho una cosa importante, las indicaciones geográficas o los alimentos ecológicos. Es verdad que eso nos puede ayudar de cara a que los alumnos el día de mañana estén más formados como consumidores por los temas del alimento de proximidad o los alimentos de temporada. Pero recuerde también, señor Sarjakomo, que nos acercamos a una cosa importante que es la reforma del etiquetado, entre ellos el alimentario.
Sería muy importante que vinculáramos eso con la información al consumidor desde pequeños los chavales. Gracias.
Herbert Dorfmann
Ja, thank you, Chair. Ja, abgesehen davon, dass dem Kollegen Evertding offensichtlich entgangen ist, dass wir die Regulierung der Bezeichnungen für Fleischprodukte bereits in der letzten Reform der GMO gemacht haben, aber abgesehen davon finde ich mich sehr wieder in dem, was der Herr Landesrat Amhof als Vertreter des Ausschuss der Regionen hier gesagt hat. Wir haben ein über Jahrzehnte jetzt im Bereich Obst und Gemüse ein sehr erfolgreiches System, um Erzeuger zu stärken. Wieso sollten wir das jetzt aufgeben und wieso sollten wir das nicht als europäisches Instrument behalten, sondern den Mitgliedstaaten abgeben? Und ich denke, manchmal wäre es auch besser, Dinge, wenn sie funktionieren, einfach nicht zu ändern.
Wir haben diesen dauernden Wahn, Dinge zu ändern. Und wenn Dinge funktionieren, dann muss man sie auch mal lassen. Und ich glaube, im Bereich Obst und Gemüse muss man Dinge einfach lassen, so wie sie sind. Ich warne ein bisschen davor, also ich verstehe schon, dass die Bauern und Bauern gerne, und das ist auch sehr populär zu sagen, wir müssen die Verbraucherpreise oder die Hersteller, entschuldige, Erzeugerpreise berücksichtigen. Aber die Erzeugerpreise sind unterschiedlich in Europa.
Und deswegen denke ich, ein starker Eingriff in den Markt, wo wir glauben, dass wir dann Erzeugerpreise garantieren müssen, die unterschiedlich sind in der Ebene, in den Bergen, in effizienten und weniger effizienten Betrieben und die dann letztendlich dazu führen, dass die Effizientesten wieder den Markt fluten, weil sie natürlich dann mit höheren Preisen sehr effizient arbeiten können, dann sind wir wieder bei der Agrarpolitik, die wir vor 30 Jahren hatten mit vollen Lagern und Marktüberbeständen und das sollten wir eigentlich nicht riskieren. Ich glaube, der freie Markt ist noch immer ein gutes Instrument. Wichtig ist, dass wir den Produzenten stärken.
Barry Cowen
Thank you, Chair. Having recently worked on an amending regulation to the CMO, I can tell you that this is not an easy file to get consensus on. I would point out to the long and drawn-out discussions we had on the issue of mandatory contracts as evidence of that. Nobody was particularly delighted with the final outcome and in my book, sometimes that's what a good compromise looks like. So I'd implore on the rapporteur and colleagues here today not to reopen the agreement reached several months ago, particularly on mandatory contracts for the milk sector specifically.
These may make sense in certain countries, but they're not being sought by farmer organisations in many others, like my own. So in this committee, we often express dismay against the one-size-fits-all approach and this time should be no different. I would simply say that let's protect the models that work and improve the ones that don't. Thank you.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, Chair. Ireland's school milk programme is one of the state's most effective public policy successes, delivering measurable gains in child health, supporting Irish family farms and reinforcing a food culture that values nutrition, quality and local production. In Ireland, we consume around 105 litres of fresh milk per person each year, well above the EU average of 70 litres consumed per capita. That tells its own story. Irish farmers value fresh milk, Irish children drink it and Irish schools embrace it.
This programme helps build healthy habits from an early age. It ensures children have access to a nutritious, affordable product every day, while also strengthening the connection between young people and the food produced by Irish family farms. So at the same time, it provides a stable and reliable outlet for high-quality Irish dairy production. In my opinion, colleagues, the school milk programme stands as a practical, evidence-based policy that delivers tangible benefits for children, parents, teachers and indeed farmers alike. So Ireland's strong milk consumption patterns demonstrate why this scheme matters and why it must remain protected, properly funded and strongly supported by the Commission and by Parliament.
Thank you.
Thank you, Madame Stollenberg.
Anna Strolenberg
Thank you, Chair. The CMO, I think, is no longer just a tool for market stabilisation, but also a tool to shape our food systems and diets. And this is also an opportunity because we know that half of the Europeans right now is overweight and this is something we should work on. And I think the school schemes can be an important tool to do so, because it will promote healthy food, for example, the uptake of fruit, vegetables, but also plant-based milk. It has an important education factor.
People will learn from a young age what is healthy food, how to keep up a healthy diet. And within these school schemes, it's important to keep involving local and regional authorities. A second important element of the CMO is that it could support the protein sector. So as said before by colleague Hazekamp, it can help to promote the uptake and the cultivation of legumes, of beans, of proteins here in Europe, which could feed our markets, could be used for food. It could deliver a double win because we become less dependent on imports of soy and we can create a healthier balance between animal and plant-based proteins here in Europe.
So let's use this CMO also to talk about healthy foods and healthy diets.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Thank you very much. Very important file. We're going to be talking about generational renewal after this, and we won't have any generational renewal unless we guarantee at minimum that farmers get what it costs them to produce their product, and this regulation is important in doing that. And as one of the previous speakers said, the last negotiations on the CMO were very complicated, difficult to get agreement on, and it is true to say that it depends which farmers' groups you listen to on contracts, though, because if you actually listen to them, the dairy groups actually wanted tighter contracts, and I'd like to see that coming through in any reform. In relation to hemp, which no one has mentioned, we are talking about a multi-billion euro sector.
What's proposed in this regulation is very good when it comes to harmonization of THC levels, and more importantly, that the whole plant will be allowed to be used. We have a situation in Ireland where at 3,000 euro a kilo, we have companies importing hemp flower, and in Ireland, the same hemp farmers are actually told they have to destroy the same flower. So I look forward to what's proposed coming through in the regulation to free up the hemp industry, because we are looking at exponential growth in the future, and Europe should be there and be able to take advantage of it, and Ireland too, for that matter. Thanks.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Dank u wel, voorzitter. Belangrijk onderdeel van de GMO is de steunregeling voor de zogenaamde telersverenigingen, de producentenorganisaties. Ik zou echt ook weer vandaag het belang van die regeling willen onderstrepen. We hebben daar hele goede ervaringen mee. Het heeft geholpen om de positie van de teler te versterken in het kader van de hele keten.
Nu heeft de Europese Commissie voorgesteld om die steunregelingen voor die telersverenigingen om die op te laten gaan in de nationale enveloppes. Ik vind het een echt heel slecht idee. Dat ondermijnt ook de steunregelingen voor deze telersverenigingen. Dus ik zou een dringende oproep willen doen ook richting de collega's om mee te denken voor een oplossing. En ik zou eigenlijk voor willen stellen om het budget voor die telersverenigingen echt apart te houden, om daar gewoon een centraal budget voor te creëren en om het niet op te laten gaan in de nationale enveloppes.
Ik denk dat het echt een heel slecht idee is, met name ook omdat we zien dat we hele goede ervaringen hebben met die steunregelingen en die moeten we echt zo goed mogelijk continueren wat mij betreft. Dank.
Asger Christensen
Tak for det. Mig og min kollega Bert-Jan, vi har haft det også i Danmark, et system der har fungeret fantastisk i år, 150 år omkring producent- og aftagermejerierne. Og det skal vi ikke ødelægge her fra EU. Tak.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much. So we are in the end of our list of speakers. So that is the reason I would like to ask Brigitte Misonne from DG AGRI. You have, madam, three minutes, please.
Brigitte Misonne
Thank you, Chair.
Good morning honorable members of Parliament. It was very interesting listen to both, listening both to the rapporteur from the Committee of the Regions and to both, to all of you. And I see that we have a lot where our views, our views converge. So there is reason to be optimistic about what we will achieve with the amendment to the CMO regulation. Many thanks to the rapporteur, Mr. Sarjacomo, and the shadow rapporteurs for the constructive cooperation and discussions we had so far on the subject.
Like you, the Commission proposal preserves the core role of the CMO regulation, meaning ensuring the proper functioning of EU agricultural markets, helping manage volatility and shocks, maintaining the CAP's market orientation and market-based price formation. The Commission proposal also embeds the CMO in the post-2027 CAP and the MFF architecture to improve coherence, notably by bringing detailed rules on sectoral interventions back into the CMO and making the school scheme fit the new budget architecture. It strengthens tools available for resilience, preparedness and farmers' position in the food supply chain. As you know, there are four main elements. First, the EU school scheme, and most of you have mentioned it in your interventions.
It is made simpler, you have called for that, more effective, you have called for that, reducing administrative burden, prioritizing EU products, which is also one of your main calls, supporting local and seasonal supply and promoting more sustainable choices for children. To make the link with the Committee of the Regions report, it is also providing a role for regional and local authorities thanks to the NRPP architecture. Second element, sectoral interventions. They remain a very important market tool. They will be governed by the CMO and financed through the national and regional partnership plans.
Questions on allocations and financial programming are to be addressed, of course, in the wider NRPP and MFF negotiations in which you are also taking part. The third element of the proposal is the creation of a stronger framework for protein crops, you have called for it, and clearer rules on hemp, you've called for that as well. This responds to strategic needs, reducing import dependency, strengthening EU value chains and giving farmers legal certainty for crops that have agronomic, environmental and bioeconomy potential. The fourth element of the proposal is the introduction of a new chapter on the availability of agricultural supplies in crisis times. Member states would develop national food security plans, where necessary they may set up reserves of agricultural products.
This remains, however, entirely a national prerogative. What we do with the CMO is to set principles to minimize market distortions, primarily requiring transactions at market prices. At EU level, we propose to strengthen coordination, supporting early warning, which is crucial under prevailing conditions, stress tests and exchanges of best practices, and as you know, we are already doing that in the EFSCM. On intervention prices, we understand the concerns raised by some of you.
But let me say it again. Public intervention remains a safety net for exceptional circumstances. Raising reference thresholds risk distorting market price formation, encouraging structural oversupply and placing significant pressure on the agricultural reserve, so the funds that we have to finance crises. Finally, some of you mentioned meat-related terms and contracts. We would encourage the Parliament not to reopen discussions already addressed and closed in the so-called targeted CMO amendment that aimed at strengthening the position of farmers in the food chain.
The current file that we are discussing today should remain focused on the post-2027 architecture, on simplification and on resilience. Thank you again for today's debate. We continue to look forward to constructive work with you on this important file for the future of farming in Europe. Thank you.
Thank you very much. And the last speaker of this item will be Eric Sargiacomo, rapporteur. So Eric, you have four minutes for your conclusion.
Eric Sargiacomo
Merci Madame la Présidente, je vais peut-être pas utiliser les quatre minutes parce que je vais surtout utiliser cette semaine pour prendre en compte tout ce que vous avez pu dire dans vos interventions qui rejoignent d'ailleurs beaucoup des éléments qui ont pu être dits par Monsieur Alessio Mammi et j'observe une très grande convergence entre le Comité des régions et la commission AGRI du Parlement européen et finalement pour moi ce n'est pas un étonnement. Mon collègue Buda l'a dit effectivement le programme School Scheme est d'une importance fondamentale. Ma collègue Iratxe García a souligné le caractère éducatif de ces futurs consommateurs de ce programme. Je crois qu'il faut aller au-delà. Alors il a été dit que ce programme devait être simplifié et je pense qu'effectivement dans son application, lorsqu'on a l'occasion d'échanger avec un certain nombre d'États membres, il y a quelques complexités dans la proposition de gestion de la Commission qu'il mérite aujourd'hui de simplifier l'accès à ce programme.
Bien sûr, je vais revenir sur les interventions sectorielles parce que c'est un morceau important évidemment de l'organisation commune de marché, c'est un des outils phares de cette boîte à outils qu'est l'OCM. Je rappelle parce que tout le monde dit on va financer, on finance, on continuera à financer. Mais que je sache, c'est avant tout les filières elles-mêmes qui se financent puisque le financement public vient en contrepartie en fait de la valeur de commercialisation des produits par ces filières-là. Donc il ne faut pas inverser la mécanique et il faut surtout garder ce lien entre la commercialisation des produits par les filières et donc le contrepoint en termes d'aide publique qui vient sur l'accompagnement des filières et c'est d'abord la production et la vente des produits par les filières qui permettent aujourd'hui de financer ces programmes opérationnels par la suite. Je rappelle d'ailleurs que dans ce cadre-là, on a des taux différenciés par rapport à la VPC, c'est 4,1 pour les organisations de production, 4,5 de la VPC pour les associations d'organisations de production et quelque chose qui est complètement passé à travers aujourd'hui de la proposition de la Commission, ce sont les organisations de producteurs transnationales, ce qui est quand même un paradoxe lorsqu'on parle d'Union européenne et de marché global à l'échelle de l'Union européenne, 5 % pour ces organisations aujourd'hui transnationales.
C'est cet ensemble-là et plusieurs collègues l'ont dit, ça fonctionne.
Ça fonctionne. Alors pourquoi mettre en jeu la pérennité et le financement d'un outil qui fonctionne ? Je n'arrive toujours pas à comprendre, même au nom de la compétitivité, même au nom de la simplification, qu'est-ce qui a amené une modification telle qu'aujourd'hui on est à se poser la question de l'efficacité d'un des mécanismes les plus efficaces aujourd'hui à l'intérieur de la politique agricole commune. Et comme certains collègues l'ont dit, la plupart de nos paysans souhaitent vivre de la vente de leurs produits, et c'est exactement ce que l'on fait à travers les organisations de producteurs, et pas nécessairement à travers des aides publiques. Donc je crois qu'il faut revenir vraiment au fonctionnement tel qu'il est.
Je reviens sur l'idée que personnellement moi je suis très attaché au financement européen sur ces organisations de producteurs et sur les programmes opérationnels pour éviter à l'évidence les distorsions de concurrence d'un pays à un autre. Sur un certain nombre de filières, j'ai entendu parler sur notamment les protéagineux. Je rappelle, et d'ailleurs on en a parlé hier à propos d'un acte délégué sur notamment la trituration du soja et au fait qu'entre la trituration du soja, ben il fallait que l'on puisse avoir des débouchés pour l'ensemble des produits qui permettaient aujourd'hui d'avoir une filière protéagineuse en Europe et nous permettre de ne pas importer un maximum de protéagineux de continents qui ne sont pas les nôtres. Et de créer cette filière et qu'elle soit efficace, il faut effectivement qu'on puisse utiliser l'ensemble de ces produits du continent européen. Donc encore une fois, je crois que c'est un découpage fictif de parler et de l'alimentation humaine et de l'alimentation animale et également de l'huile qui sert pour les biocarburants en matière de protéagineux.
Et je note que d'ailleurs le commissaire Hansen a proposé un plan à l'échelle de l'Union européenne pour renforcer les protéagineux en Europe. Pour plein de raisons, il me semble que c'est effectivement quelque chose d'extrêmement important. Alors évidemment, ça sera le travail que l'on aura à faire dans les mois prochains. Je sais que vu le nombre d'interventions aujourd'hui, je ne manquerai pas et d'amendements et de discussions dans les prochains mois pour aboutir à une position, j'espère aussi forte de notre commission pour proposer au Parlement européen que celle du Comité des régions dans les prochains mois. Et encore merci beaucoup de vos interventions.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you, Eric. And we are in the end of this item. Let's immediately start with our next item, generational renewal in agriculture. The Commission strategy for generational renewal in agriculture addresses one of the most crucial structural challenges facing EU agriculture, namely the rapid ageing of the farming population and the insufficient entry of young and new farmers. As the strategy sets ambitious long-term objectives and relies heavily on Member States' implementation through national strategies and CAP instruments, a dedicated report by the committee is necessary to provide political guidance, ensure coherence and ambition, and assess whether the proposed measures are sufficient to secure the future of European agriculture, food security, and rural vitality.
Maria Walsh's draft report addresses crucial issues such as guaranteeing...
She will be. Okay, we, but we in this case we can start then with shadows. Okay. But she addressed crucial issues such as guaranteeing access to land, securing finance and risk management, facilitating intergenerational farm succession and making rural life a viable opinion. So, one very important information, please note that the deadline for tabling amendments has been set on Wednesday the 10th of June at 1:00 PM.
She's late.
Veronika Vrecionová
So, but Maria Walsh is late and I don't know if just now we have wait or if we can start with shadows. I think that we... She's just here. Okay, we have wait. So, Maria welcome, we are waiting just for your speech and you have just now, you can take your time and then you have five minutes.
Maria Walsh
Perfect. Thank you Chair and apologies for being late, I was a shadow rapporteur for a health file and we had a shadows meeting and unfortunately in current state, not that I should use an excuse, I could not run. I'm really pleased to present this draft report at such a crucial moment for us all, not just this committee, but also any committee that we're working across as work on the next common agriculture policy is underway as we speak. I do so not only as a rapporteur, but as someone who grew up in a small livestock farm in the west coast of Ireland where my father combined farming with construction work to support our family and as someone who only last year completed a masters in Ag extension and innovation very much working with generation renewal as a core theme. And those experiences, as many colleagues would know, have given me and themselves a very close understanding of both the realities facing farming families today and the challenges facing our next generation that we are asking and in some cases begging to take over.
And when we look at the data, the reality is very concerning. The average age of farmers in the European Union is now 57, I would challenge that and say it's older in many areas, my country included, young farmers face a financing gap of about 14 billion. The number of farm managers under 35 has fallen by 47% over the last 15 years and while young female farmers represent just 2% of all women in farming, these are not statistics, they are reflected in what is happening on the ground right across the 27 member states. And they mean farms being sold because there is no successor or there's financial burdens that a young person simply cannot accept. And they mean young people with the skills and the motivation to farm being unable to access land or credit.
And they mean rural communities losing families, businesses and opportunities and if we're serious about reversing this trend we must match our ambitions with the necessary funding and better policy.
This is why my report calls for at least 10% of the next Common Agriculture Policy budget to be dedicated specifically to supporting young farmers, not aspirational, not voluntary, but binding. And at the same time, we must tackle the two greatest barriers facing young farmers: access to land and access to finance. For many, the first challenge is simply getting started. And in many regions, the cost of buying or renting land has risen far beyond what a young farmer can reasonably afford. This is why the report calls for the rapid operization of the EU Land Observatory and stronger national measures to facilitate access to farmland.
Finance is equally important, as we all know. Too often, young farmers with viable projects cannot secure the capital they need to turn their business, turn their ideas, I should say, into businesses. We therefore need tailored financial instruments, including low-interest loans, guarantees and effective risk management tools to help farmers navigate the growing market and climate volatility. But generation renewal is not only about supporting those entering in the sector, it's also about supporting those who have spent a lifetime working in it. And across Europe, many older farmers would like to transfer their farms but face inadequate retirement options, legal complexity or uncertainty about the future.
And as a result, succession is delayed and opportunities for younger farmers are being lost. Farmers must be able to retire with dignity and financial security, and better advisory services are needed to support succession plan and farm transfers. And many colleagues would have heard generation renewal is not just about young people, it's about cradle to grave, as we say in Ireland. And if we want young people to choose farming, we must also recognize the hardships of daily life in farming sector: long hours, administrative burdens, financial insecurity, climate pressures, of course, and enormous strain on farming families. That's why mental health support, farm relief services and measures to improve work-life balance must be formed in our response.
And we must also address inequalities that women continue to face in agriculture and ensure that national strategies include concrete measures to support their participation and leadership. Successful farms also depend on thriving rural communities. Young people are far more likely to remain in a rural area when they can have access to services, healthcare and economic opportunities. Ultimately, however, the success of generation renewal will depend on the fundamental question: can farming provide a fair and decent income? We've heard this from colleagues in this room again and again and again.
Because if a farmer cannot earn a living from a farm, from farming, no policy objective written here will convince the next generation to enter the profession. And as a rapporteur, as I conclude here, I want this report to send a very strong message ahead of the CAP negotiations that this House is committed to supporting young farmers, whether they're in Ireland, Bulgaria, Sweden, Italy or anywhere else in the European Union. The decisions we take in the coming years will determine whether more family farms survive and continue into the next generation. And that's inclusive of the likes of LEADER programme which, as I said in the outset, touches the likes of our REGI committee and many other committees. Thank you very much and apologies for being late again.
Yes, sure, sure. Thank you very much. And now let's start with shadows, S&D. I would like to ask again Eric Andrieu. So you have two and a half minutes, please.
Eric Sargiacomo
Merci beaucoup, Madame la Présidente. Je ne suis pas rapporteur fictif sur ce dossier-là, c'est mon collègue André Frankera, mais il n'a pas pu être là.
Il m'a demandé de lire une intervention. Je voudrais commencer par remercier la rapporteure Maria Walsh pour le travail accompli et pour l'approche ouverte et constructive qu'elle a adoptée tout au long de ce processus. Le texte présenté par la rapporteure part d'un constat essentiel : le renouvellement générationnel dans l'agriculture n'est pas seulement une question d'âge. C'est une question d'avenir pour l'agriculture européenne, de sécurité alimentaire, de cohésion territoriale, de vitalité de nos zones rurales. Je considère que ce rapport va dans l'ensemble dans le bon sens.
Il valorise une approche intégrée qui relie la PAC à l'accès au foncier, au financement, à la transmission des exploitations, à l'éducation, à la formation et aux services dans les zones rurales. C'est fondamental car les jeunes agriculteurs n'ont pas seulement besoin d'un soutien à l'installation, ils ont besoin d'un revenu juste et stable, d'un accès au crédit, d'un accès aux terres, de prévisibilité, de meilleures conditions de vie et d'une position plus forte dans la chaîne alimentaire. Nous saluons également la référence au droit au paiement qui doit soutenir et non entraver le renouvellement générationnel, ainsi que l'attention accordée aux retraités, à la transmission des exploitations et aux nouveaux agriculteurs, aux personnes qui ne sont pas issues de familles agricoles et aux femmes agricultrices. La dimension territoriale est également essentielle. Un jeune agriculteur vivant dans une île, dans une région de montagne, dans une région ultrapériphérique ou dans un territoire confronté à des contraintes naturelles ne fait pas face aux mêmes conditions qu'un jeune agriculteur installé dans une région centrale.
Dans les régions ultrapériphériques comme les Açores, les coûts de production sont plus élevés, les marchés sont plus éloignés, la dépendance logistique est forte, les économies d'échelle sont limitées et l'accès aux services présente des difficultés particulières. La politique européenne doit pleinement reconnaître cette réalité. C'est pourquoi, dans la perspective de la phase des amendements, je pense qu'il est encore possible de renforcer certains aspects de manière équilibrée. Une référence plus explicite à l'article 349 du traité et au programme POSEI, un lien fort entre renouvellement générationnel, revenu équitable et répartition de la valeur au sein de la chaîne alimentaire, une attention accrue à la concentration foncière, à l'égalité entre les femmes et les hommes ainsi qu'à la résilience climatique, y compris face à la rareté de l'eau. Voici le sens des amendements que je déposerais.
Dans un esprit constructif, nous sommes prêts à travailler avec la rapporteure et les autres rapporteurs fictifs afin que ce rapport soit utile, ambitieux et fidèle à la réalité des jeunes agriculteurs de tout le territoire de l'Union européenne.
Gilles Pennelle
Ce texte va dans le bon sens et les constats de ce rapport montrent une évidence : on ne sauvera pas l'agriculture européenne avec seulement des primes à l'installation si dans le même temps l'on détruit les conditions économiques du métier. Les jeunes agriculteurs ne demandent pas à vivre de subventions, ils ont d'ailleurs compris qu'ils en auraient de moins en moins, ils demandent à vivre de leur travail. Ils veulent des prix rémunérateurs, une protection contre la concurrence déloyale, une réelle régulation, des normes supportables, un accès facilité au foncier et au crédit et une stabilité réglementaire et la reconnaissance de leur rôle stratégique. Le meilleur moyen d'assurer la continuité du secteur agricole, c'est d'offrir aux jeunes de meilleurs revenus. La France, mon pays, a perdu 100 000 exploitations agricoles entre 2010 et 2020, notamment à cause du problème du revenu qui n'attire plus les jeunes dans ce métier.
Et puis il faut aussi les écouter, ces jeunes. Ils ne veulent plus des contraintes dites environnementales du Green Deal. Ils veulent aussi ne plus être stigmatisés. Trop souvent à l'école, dans les médias, on les montre du doigt, on les accuse de tous les crimes. Ils veulent qu'on leur reconnaisse qu'ils ont une véritable passion pour leur métier.
Ils veulent bien évidemment une simplification administrative.
Parallèlement, en ce qui concerne le foncier, qui est un véritable problème, le mouvement auquel j'appartiens demande l'exonération des droits de succession sur les transmissions d'exploitations agricoles. Voilà une mesure qui porterait ses fruits parce que l'accès au foncier est aujourd'hui un frein à l'installation. Et puis enfin, je l'ai déjà dit ici, les jeunes générations n'accepteront pas, et c'est normal, les sacrifices de leurs parents et de leurs grands-parents. Ils ont besoin de week-ends. Ils ont besoin aussi de partir en vacances.
Mais pour cela, il leur faut des revenus, des revenus pour se faire remplacer, des revenus pour embaucher des salariés. Donc oui, il faut se mobiliser parce que la problématique du renouvellement générationnel est centrale pour l'avenir de l'agriculture.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much and the shadows of ECR, it's me, so but I will speak in my language now. Děkuji paní zpravodajce za vyvážený a kvalitní návrh zprávy. Bez nové mladé generace farmářů nebude potravinová bezpečnost Evropy ani životaschopnost venkova udržitelná. To není rétorika, to je fakt. Předložím několik pozměňujících návrhů.
Zaprvé, mladí lidé potřebují stabilní a předvídatelné prostředí. Nikdo neinvestuje na třicet let dopředu do systému, který se mění každé tři roky. Občas si říkám, že by neuškodilo, kdyby každý, kdo píše zemědělskou legislativu, strávil aspoň pár měsíců na nějaké farmě. Zadruhé, podpořím návrh na povinné zastropování a degresivitu přímých plateb. Pokud budeme penězi plýtvat a vyhazovat je na zisky těch největších podniků, tak mladí farmáři budou mít zavřené dveře k půdě i ke kapitálu a do zemědělství nepůjdou.
Zatřetí, předávání farem. Fungující modely existují: dobrovolný odchod do důchodu, postupné převody, daňové pobídky. Komise by tyto osvědčené postupy měla shromáždit, zveřejnit a doporučit jejich širší využití napříč členskými státy. Není třeba vymýšlet kolo, stačí se podívat, co funguje. A konečně, veterináři hospodářských zvířat na venkově.
Tento problém si Komise a členské státy příliš dlouho přehazují jako horký brambor. Přijímáme nové požadavky na dobré životní podmínky zvířat, ale bez veterinářů je jednoduše nesplníme. Navrhnu evropskou strategii pro generační obnovu ve venkovské veterinární praxi, protože bez zdravých zvířat není zdravé zemědělství a není budoucnost. Děkuji. And now Renew colleague Mullolly please.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you chair, once again I'll be speaking and reading text on behalf of our shadow rapporteur Jeremy Decerle who sends his apologies for being unable to attend this morning. Generational renewal is a key issue if we want to maintain our food sovereignty at a time when many farmers are preparing to retire. We must help them hand over their farms seamlessly by simplifying administrative procedures and creating incentives. We must also help them find young successors by working on the attractiveness of the agricultural professions. In this regard, Jeremy thanks the rapporteur Mo Walsh for her excellent draft report which provides a solid and balanced basis for our work.
The rapporteur highlights the important points such as supporting with a ten percent dedicated budget allocation and the need to align the CAP with land-related policies.
Jeremy will also support the special attention given to retiring farmers, which is essential for farm succession, as well as specific support for women farmers. Finally, he supports the focus on maintaining viable rural areas to attract young people to our countryside. Among the points Jeremy will be pushing for are support for farm set-up and succession, including new forms of installation, for example, joint farming or multi-partner set-ups. He'll also be calling for support for collective investment for purchasing equipment, for instance. Ensuring agricultural professions are truly attractive, this will only happen if they are profitable for the farmers.
Therefore, he will pay very close attention to the issue of income and value sharing. In short, this report must send strong and positive signals to two different areas. Firstly, to young Europeans, particularly farmers, to show that the to show them that the agricultural sector has a bright future and is fully supported by public authorities. The attractiveness of farming depends on it. And secondly, it must send this message to the Council and to the European Commission to assert the importance of generational renewal while the next CAP is currently being discussed.
This initiative report must also allow us to secure strong measures right now for the 2028 to 2034 CAP, starting with a dedicated budget allocation of at least 10% to foster generational renewal. On this file, let's count on those who have the expertise on the matter, especially the CEJA, the European Council of Young Farmers, to propose concrete and relevant measures and then have them relayed in this report. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Greens, Madame Strolenberg.
Anna Strolenberg
Thank you, Chair. Generational renewal strategy for this is much needed, and if we're serious about the next generation, it cannot just stay with nice words and applause. We have to have concrete actions and more a long-term vision. And I think Maria Walsh did a great job in representing the demands that young farmers have. Because when I talk to them, they are very clear.
They want access to land, fair prices for their products, good living conditions, and investing in climate mitigation and adaptation for the future. And I sit here today not just for myself, but also my colleague Pär Holmgren, who works on this report, and he and the Greens have very concrete and feasible solutions. We think that policy should support investments in sustainable and future-proof business models, production models like agroecology, investment in new protein crops, both for feed and food, especially also for food. And we have to enhance circularity. A second issue that is also close to my heart is that we have to address the issues that female farmers face.
Because right now, they don't have the same abilities, access, for example, to finance, succession support. They need advisory services and decision-making power in agricultural organizations to get to the top jobs as well. So if we want them to do their job well, we should also invest in public services such as childcare and healthcare. Then lastly, we have the CAP, the most powerful instrument that we have, and we should invest and use it wisely. We support the CAP startup pack for young farmers, but this alone is not enough.
The CAP now supports the largest farms and because of this we have land concentration by prioritizing the largest farms. And I think we should move away from direct payments and effectively finance generational renewal with this ring-fenced budget. And then I think we can actually deliver for young farmers. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. Thank you. Arash Saeidi, I know he's not there. Okay, Luke Flanagan.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Yeah, unfortunately Arash can't be here. He's doing his bit for generational renewal, he's looking after his newborn baby, so he wants me to speak on his behalf if that's okay. This initiative on generational renewal is vital for the future of our agricultural model and our food sovereignty. European agriculture is facing a major demographic and attractiveness crisis. The average age of farmers is now 57 and over the past 13 years, the number of farms run by people under 35 has fallen by nearly 50%.
At the same time, the barriers to setting up farming continue to mount. In this context, the direction of the future CAP 2028 to 2034 is crucial. A reduction in the agricultural budget along with the weakening of start-up aid and income support would primarily undermine young farmers and accelerate the concentration of farms. Generational renewal cannot succeed without ensuring decent living standards and incomes as well as effective access to public services in rural areas. It also requires addressing the social and health challenges facing the sector, which is characterized by high levels of job insecurity, stress, and isolation.
Finally, this renewal must not serve as a pretext for continuing a model that exacerbates economic pressure and land speculation. On the contrary, it must be accompanied by a transformation of the agricultural model, making it fairer and more sustainable. That is why he will advocate in particular for a greater proportion of the CAP budget to be earmarked for young farmers, increased transparency regarding land concentration, and clear support for cooperative, collective, and agro-ecological models. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you. ID doesn't have shadows, so in this case let's start with ECR. You have one minute each and colleague Wiśniewska is first.
Marko Vešligaj
Hvala predsjedavajuća. Generacijska obnova u poljoprivredi sigurno je jedno od ključnih pitanja za budućnost europskih sela, ali i sigurnost europske hrane i ekonomskog razvoja Europske unije. Ako želimo da nam mladi ostaju u ruralnim područjima, nije dovoljno govoriti samo o potporama, moramo omogućiti stvarne uvjete za rad, ulaganja i dugoročno planiranje. Posebno je važno, i to želim naglasiti, urediti vlasništvo i zakup poljoprivrednoga zemljišta jer mladi poljoprivrednici teško ulaze u sektor ako su zemljišni odnosi nejasni, ako ne mogu računati na sigurnost korištenja zemlje kroz duže razdoblje, ako je pristup državnoj zemlji spor. To je jedan od većih problema i u Hrvatskoj iz koje dolazim, uključujući i rascjepkano zemljište.
Činjenica da jedan poljoprivrednik u prosjeku u Hrvatskoj koristi 7 hektara zemlje, dok je prosjek Europske unije 17,4. Mislim da je ukrupnjavanje zemljišta ključno za mlade poljoprivrednike jer pretvara rascjepkane i neučinkovite parcele u veće povezane cjeline i taj proces onda izravno uklanja prepreke za ulazak u sektor jer smanjuje troškove proizvodnje, naravno omogućuje i korištenje suvremenije tehnologije i stvara financijski konkurentnija i održivija poljoprivredna gospodarstva. I drago mi je da je zapravo i kolegica Walsh i u samome nacrtu izvješća adresirala ovo pitanje i nadam se da ćemo to i kroz proces usvajanja ovoga izvješća, znači kroz donošenje amandmana, ovaj to također i naravno glasovanje o samom izvješću to još dodatno ojačati jer sigurno da nema bez ovakvog pravno sigurnog zemljišta nema ozbiljnijih ulaganja, nema modernizacije i nema onoga što je najvažnije, a to je ostanka mladih ljudi u ruralnim područjima. Hvala.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Thank you, Carmen Crespo Díaz.
Gracias, presidenta. Bueno, felicitar a Maria Walsh por el informe y además cómo establece no solamente para los jóvenes, sino también la perspectiva de la mujer en el mundo rural. Por tanto, enhorabuena por esa perspectiva. Yo creo que es un tema que primero hay que aplaudir la estrategia de relevo generacional que ha hecho el comisario Hansen y hay que materializar esas medidas adecuadas en la futura PAC. Creo que es el momento idóneo para blindar las ayudas, especialmente también las acopladas dirigidas a los ganaderos, que hay muchos jóvenes en el sentido y podría ser un sector vulnerable.
Pero además de ello, lo más importante, el acceso a la tierra, los incentivos fiscales para la compra, herencia, transmisión de tierra agraria y también hay que dejar a los gobiernos nacionales que puedan hacer un registro digital de tierras. Es importante la cesión o el arrendamiento. También bajo mi punto de vista favorecer la reagrupación o concentración es importante para los jóvenes agricultores y la simplificación en las medidas. Desde luego, como ya estamos de acuerdo ambas, el acceso al crédito a través del BEI, fundamental, pero también los avales cero, una fiscalidad especial y adaptada al inicio del negocio de los jóvenes es la clave. Y además darle acceso a la modernización, digitalización, regadío sostenible y todo ello se tiene que hacer a través del fondo de competitividad.
Por tanto, esto, las medidas están muy bien orientadas, garantizar el acceso a la tierra y también los incentivos fiscales, pero sobre todo que esté reflejado en el nuevo marco financiero es fundamental poder llevarlo a cabo. Gracias.
Jessika van Leeuwen
Thank you very much, Chair. I would like to congratulate the rapporteur Maria Walsh on this report because this report clearly states that generational renewal must become a central pillar of future EU agricultural policy. She argues that this requires dedicated CAP funding up to 10% ring-fenced for young farmers, better land access, improved finance, fair succession systems, innovation support, stronger rural services, sorry, and better quality for farming families. And many of our colleagues stated that women have not the same access to land and financing. By law, they do have the same access to land and financing.
However, they're less likely to pursue a career in agriculture as their counterparts. So this report correctly frames that generational renewal is not only an agricultural issue, but it's a demographic challenge. It's a rural development issue and a strategic question of EU food security and resilience. It's a very complete report. I have not very much to add.
I only will be tabling two types of amendments along the line of tax benefits to stimulate in Member States to have easier access to land and family raising and stimulation of the use of the newest technologies to attract young people to the innovative precision farming in Europe. Thank you.
Esther Herranz García
Muchas gracias, señora presidenta. Llevamos más de 30 años haciendo el mismo informe. Está muy bien todas las medidas técnicas que aquí se han dicho y las apoyo y las apoyaré, pero también presentaré mis enmiendas. Pero vayamos al fondo del asunto.
Y por otra parte, desde el Consejo toman decisiones presupuestarias sobre el marco financiero plurianual y siempre es a costa del dinero que se destina a la gran política europea que es la PAC. Eso lo hemos vivido década tras década. Así que ahora no me extraña que los agricultores y los ganaderos estén tan envejecidos como que la edad media sea de 57 años, porque los jóvenes tienen una imagen de la agricultura y la ganadería que no se corresponde con la realidad, que corresponde a una imagen que, como digo, es sectaria y simplista impuesta por algunos sectores políticos europeos. Gracias.
Csaba Dömötör
Ok, colleague Demeter.
A Bizottság nagyon sokat hivatkozik a fiatal gazdák támogatására, ennek megfelelően most bemutatott egy akciótervet, ami önmagában jó hír, az már kevésbé, hogy ez az akcióterv semmilyen új támogatási formát nem tartalmaz. És hogyha az ezen túli terveiket nézem, akkor ennél is súlyosabb a kép. Az új hétéves költségvetés agrárkasszáját 20 százalékkal akarják csökkenteni, ami akkor is súlyos, hogyha megengedik, hogy a tagországok saját költségvetésből költsenek többet, hogyha akarnak. Mondok mást. Vajon mit gondoljon egy fiatal gazda arról, hogy a kereskedelmi megállapodásokkal megnyitják az uniós piacokat az import előtt, így ők nagyobb versenyhátránnyal indulnak.
A fiatal gazdák helyzetét nem egy akcióterv puszta léte határozza meg, főleg hogyha az üres, sokkal inkább az, hogy mit gondolnak arról, hogy lesz-e egyáltalán erős uniós agrárpolitika és hogy milyen mértékű támogatásokra számíthatnak. A helyzet az az, hogyha a Bizottságon múlik, akkor sokkal kevesebbre. Ilyen körülmények között inkább el fogják hagyni a mezőgazdaságot, nem pedig életpályát terveznek benne. Semmi más nem határozza meg jobban a kilátásaikat, mint a biztonságérzet és a jövőbeni költségvetés számai. Azok pedig elég csúnyán néznek ki.
Köszönöm.
Christine Singer
Ok, colleague Singer.
Ja, vielen Dank, Frau Vorsitzende. Zunächst möchte ich der Berichterstatterin Maria Walsh herzlich für ihren Berichtsentwurf danken. Der Generationswechsel ist eines der zentralen Zukunftsthemen für unsere Landwirtschaft. Ich begrüße es besonders, dass der Bericht den Zugang zu Land, Finanzierung, Hofnachfolge, Beratung und die Attraktivität des ländlichen Raums so klar in den Mittelpunkt stellt. Junge Menschen übernehmen nur dann Verantwortung für einen Hof, wenn es dort eine echte wirtschaftliche und auch persönliche Perspektive gibt.
Besonders wichtig ist mir, dass wir die praktische Realität der Betriebe noch stärker berücksichtigen. Dazu gehört vor allem der Zugang zu Flächen, auch durch mögliche steuerliche Anreize der Mitgliedstaaten. Dazu gehört weiter gezielte Investitionsförderung für die Tierhaltungsbetriebe, um moderne und tiergerechte Ställe sowie klimaresiliente Infrastruktur aufzubauen. Außerdem müssen Grünlandregionen, Berggebiete und besonders benachteiligte Gebiete stärker berücksichtigt werden, denn gerade dort entscheidet der Generationswechsel darüber, ob Kulturlandschaften weiterhin erhalten werden, ob Weidewirtschaft weitergeführt wird und ob ländliche Regionen lebendig bleiben. Wichtig ist mir auch, dass Innovationen für kleine und mittlere Familienbetriebe leistbar bleiben und Frauen in der Landwirtschaft rechtlich, sozial und wirtschaftlich besser anerkannt werden.
Dafür möchte ich mich in Änderungsanträgen einsetzen. Vielen Dank.
Willemien KONING
Colleague Keun- Gisler, ok, Keunig, Madam Keunig, pardon.
Dank u wel. Dank aan Maria Walsh voor het rapport. Toegang tot grond is één van de grootste belemmeringen voor jonge boeren en punt negen wijst de mogelijke richting met grondmatching. Ik wilde graag nog één concreet instrument aan toevoegen en dat is de grondbank. Een regionale of nationale grondbank kan doen wat dit verslag beoogt.
Daarnaast is het belangrijk dat de overdracht van familiebedrijven ook fiscaal goed mogelijk wordt gemaakt. Er moet na de bedrijfsoverdracht een rendabel bedrijf overblijven. Wij zien gelukkig dat ook steeds meer vrouwelijke bedrijfsopvolgers aanwezig zijn in de sector. Maar soms hebben zij nog barrières te overwinnen en daarbij is ook extra steun nodig zoals toegang tot financiën voor hen en voorzieningen op het platteland. Voor ons platteland en voor de voedselvoorziening is bedrijfsoverdracht ontzettend belangrijk dus goed dat we aandacht besteden aan dit rapport.
Thank you colleague Cohen.
Barry Cowen
Thank you chair and thanks very much to our rapporteur Maria Walsh. I think it's a very balanced report and I agree with much of what is included. However as is the case when addressing a lot of issues in this committee the report will not count for much unless we front up the money to support our younger generation provide the right economic incentives for change. A 20% cut at the budget makes supporting any farmer difficult let alone younger farmers. As the Renew Europe lead negotiator on the CAP file one of the most important points for me is ensuring that the transition from older generations can occur in a managed transition from older generations in a respectful way.
It cannot be a blunt object used to displace farmers. I was happy to see that the rapporteur acknowledges this point in her report. And personally I see huge potential in succession schemes to bring farmers into the future. Our young our young people are the best placed of course to improve economic output environmental sustainability and digitize our systems. So supporting them in achieving this is not just a policy option in my eyes it's a policy imperative.
Thank you.
Colleague Mullolly.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you chair. The two essential components for encouraging the next generation into agriculture are access to land and a viable stable income. Everybody I think agrees on that. Coming forward with the finance and coming forward with a way to make it sustainable is the challenge facing us and the Commission. In Ireland we do have a number of government measures and tax incentives aimed at encouraging land transfer both through permanent transfer and long-term leases.
But when you speak to people as I have done in the last number of weeks they find the systems sometimes to be far too complex and far too difficult to go through particularly if you're starting out for the first time. Farmers like Sinead Higgins from County Roscommon who came to the Parliament recently and spoke to me about the difficulties in accessing finance particularly if you're a part-time farmer. You have to work to support your family not necessarily just to support the farm and there are expenses and utilities for children's education facing both the man and the woman of course. But it's not always difficult it's not always easy to produce payslips to reflect what you're necessary to show at the end of the day you can take on the responsibilities involved. She tells me that farming at the end of the day must provide a weekly wage.
That's the challenge that at the end of a week on a Thursday or Friday the person who's on the land can go home with a weekly wage. It's easier said than done. There are challenges ahead for us for us in terms of framing this but I support the work of the rapporteur congratulate her on the start that's been made and I'll be coming forward with amendments on the key areas of funding and finance and tax incentives. Thank you.
Colleague Casar. No no you don't want to take the floor. Okay. In this case Bert-Jan Ruissen please and look.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Dank u wel voorzitter.
Hoe zorgen we ervoor dat het beroep van boer aantrekkelijk blijft voor de jonge en de nieuwe generatie? En hoe zorgen we voor soepele bedrijfsovernames? De Commissie heeft daarvoor hele goede voorstellen gedaan wat mij betreft en dat geldt ook voor rapporteur Wals. Meer steun vanuit het gemeenschappelijk landbouwbeleid voor jonge boeren is bijvoorbeeld belangrijk, maar het gaat ook over toegang tot grond en tot financiering. Gunstige fiscale regelingen zijn nodig.
Maar ik zou vandaag toch vooral het belang ook willen benadrukken van het snijden in regels. Vermindering van regeldruk. Ik zie bij jonge boeren heel veel ondernemerschap. Dat moeten we stimuleren. Zodat hun bedrijf toekomstperspectief heeft.
En daarvoor is nodig een stabiel beleid, minder regels, minder top-down beleid. Geef boeren een aantal doelen die ze moeten halen, maar geef ze vooral ook ruimte om op een eigen manier daar invulling aan te geven passend bij de eigen bedrijfsvoering. Met andere woorden: ondernemerschap centraal. Ik denk dat dat een hele belangrijke is, ook als we nadenken over de jonge boeren strategie. Dankjewel.
Arno Bausemer
Colic Bauzemer.
Ja, Frau Vorsitzende, es ist korrekt, dass der Bericht konstatiert, dass die unzureichenden Renten eine Hofübergabe oder Betriebsübergabe blockieren. Wir werden aber das nicht erreichen, dass ältere Landwirte ihren Betrieb in gutem Gewissen abgeben, indem wir den Landwirten mit Erreichen des Rentenalters, und die Renten sind nun mal niedrig, dann auch 100 Prozent einfach die Beihilfen kappen. Das muss dringend aus der bisherigen GAP-Planung raus. Es muss ein Landwirt selber entscheiden können, wann er in Rente geht. Und das werden wir nicht künstlich erreichen, indem wir ihn praktisch zwingen mit der Streichung von Beihilfen dann in Rente zu gehen.
Dann wird er keinen schönen Lebensabend verbringen nach einem harten Berufsleben. Es ist korrekt, dass man jungen Landwirten auch die Möglichkeiten schafft, um Kredite zu bekommen. Das gilt eindeutig es zu stärken, damit wir hier einen Generationswechsel hinbekommen. Es braucht Landwirte, die arbeiten und die wirklich arbeiten. Und das Thema ist eben schon gefallen, der Druck wird steigen durch Mercosur.
Er wird aber exponentiell steigen, wenn wir irgendwann die Option haben, dass die Ukraine hier Mitglied werden soll. Diese Frage konnte mir Herr Hansen nicht beantworten und auch hier im Ausschuss noch niemand, wie dann die GAP aussehen soll, wie viel Geld dann überhaupt noch ankommt in unseren bisherigen Mitgliedsländern. Deswegen Nein zur Aufnahme der Ukraine aus vielen Gründen, aber auch aus den Gründen, um unsere Landwirtschaft hier am Leben zu halten. Danke.
Luke Flanagan.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Everyone here today has said access to finance is one of the major impediments to young farmers. But I think we need to look at why is access to finance a problem? And one of the major reasons why access to finance is a problem is because farming isn't profitable. And the first thing we've got to do is try and make farming profitable, whether that be through good regulation in the next CAP or whether it would be a reformed CMO. And if it was any other business, we wouldn't look at it this way.
And what I'm worried about is you give farmers access to finance and then they won't be able to pay it back. So what I would ask is, is it in the best interests of young farmers to entice them into carrying unsustainable debt? Would these soft loans survive a stress test? Would we be advocating this approach in any other sector? And this worries me.
If we're not, if they're not profitable, why would anyone go into it? Obviously, we need to do something to get older farmers out of the system with a decent retirement scheme. But when I talk about profitability, I'm not only on about profitability from private goods. I'm also on about public goods.
And in the areas that I represent, it's very hard to be profitable when you're denied access to these lands because of environmental regulations. No problem with the environmental regulations, but no funding to pay for public goods. And in the reform of this CAP, I notice public goods is taken out of the regulation, a major way to pay people in the area that I'm from. I will be putting in an amendment to this CAP regulation to include public goods again, because if they're not included, generational renewal will not happen in the area that I'm in. I find it ironic yet again that it has to be someone from the left that says, if you're a bank, you're not going to give money to someone if they're not making a profit.
Profit is the first thing, otherwise we're deluding ourselves. Good work, but profit needs to be mentioned. It is in the real world, and we live in the real world.
Okay, thank you. So now I would like to ask Commission colleague Schultes, please, you have three minutes for your statement.
Gijs Schilthuis
Thank you, thank you, Chair, and thank you, Rapporteur Walsh, for the important report and the strong commitment to generational renewal, in fact, a strong commitment from this whole House to this important topic. The Commission welcomes the recognition that generational renewal is key to long-term viability, resilience, competitiveness of EU agriculture and rural areas, as well as the broad alignment of the report, the draft report on the table, with the recently adopted strategy for generational renewal that Commissioner Hansen has presented in this in this House. And the report rightly underlines that generational renewal requires action on on several fronts. And Rapporteur Walsh, you said we need funding and better policy. And indeed, that is, I think, the short summary of of what is necessary.
And the recognition that generational renewal, the aging of the farming population, is not just a fact of life, but is something that we can address, that we should address with good funding and and better policy. Policies at Member State level and at EU level. Both elements are key in our strategy for generational renewal and also in the feedback, in the comments that I heard this morning, you reflect that. Let me briefly touch upon a few elements that are important in our strategy and that were also brought to the table this morning. First of all, access to land.
You all know that the Commission is setting up an observatory on farmlands. This is through an EU pilot project that the Parliament has has initiated. So this is ongoing, and we recently organized already an expert group with Member States to start shaping this this observatory. On access to finance, I think the words that we are living in a real world and that profitability is key for any bank to do a loan, I think that is really important. But at the same time, we also need banks to understand the challenges of agriculture, the challenges of agriculture in a time of climate transition and change.
And therefore, we are working with banks, with the European Investment Bank and young farming organizations to try to improve access and and instruments that are available, for example, during a major conference that we are organizing with the European Investment Bank in Warsaw on the 18th and 19th of June, particularly on this topic. Another important theme is farm transfers and adequate pension schemes. This is a challenge in many Member States. You know we have proposed to phase out payments to farmers receiving a pension scheme, a topic which is controversial in in some in some areas. But maybe it's interesting to see also that in Council, there is now discussion as part of the CAP discussions on schemes for intergenerational transfer, how that can be put in place also as part of the CAP.
And I think that is a topic that also has drawn interest here this morning. Women in agriculture, very important, key to get young women also to start farming.
We have launched the Women in Farming platform in March. We have had a lot of response to that, a lot of interest from throughout the EU, and we are now setting up the first, yeah, the first engagements through this platform, which hopefully will start this summer. So also in that sense, we are we are moving moving forward. Another element I wanted to highlight is our farm relief service proposal in our CAP package, a key a key tool which we think the CAP should finance also to focus on these decent living and working conditions for farming that are so important for creating the circumstances for young people to start in rural areas. And finally, on on financing, we take very good note of the call for 10% of the post-2027 CAP budget to be ring-fenced for young farmers and generational renewal.
This goes in the same direction as the recommendation that we had in our strategy that as of 2028 at least 6% of the CAP budget should be allocated to generational renewal. So on this on this topic, I'm sure we there will be further exchanges, but I think we we we take very good note of your commitment and interest in the draft report in this in this area. And with that, I would like to close. Thank you very much.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you. And just now it's time for the last conclusion of our rapporteur Maria Walsh. You have five minutes.
Maria Walsh
Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that. First, let me just thank all the shadow rapporteurs and their colleagues and those that did catch the eye for their valuable contributions. Many points I agree with, many points are in this. I only wish I could have been a little bit more detailed, but our hardworking secretariat really holds us to a word limit and a page limit, so I couldn't go too far and above.
But of course, like many colleagues here, we'll be tabling additional amendments to really support many many of the points I initially made and my team and I made in in the draft report as you all have. To just break it down quickly to some of the points that have been stressed by many, I fully agree we need a strong and adequately funded CAP after 2027. I think the same goes for improving farm profitability. Just to clarify for some colleagues who spoke that profitability wasn't mentioned, it was. It was also mentioned in my intervention that I just made moments ago because I understand for many farmers this is the biggest barrier entering into the sector is the economic viability and the clarity in order to be able to progress their own enterprise, be it their families or independently bought.
They need a fair and predictable income, and we should not be surprised when young people choose other careers over such because of the difficulty of stepping into this. This is closely linked to farmers' position, of course, in the food supply chain. It also I also intend to further strengthen provisions on active farmers and payment entitlements in my additional amendments.
Additional amendments, CAP support should be targeted for those who genuinely farm the land, be it part or full-time, produce food or contribute to rural communities, not those who simply hold land without any form of agricultural activity. I know from my own neck of the woods in Ireland, the term entitlements is quite broad and it needs to be challenged because this is particularly important when young farmers struggle to access both land and support. We've heard this from colleagues this morning. A young farmer investing in a new barn, precision farming equipment or sustainable production needs predictable policy framework. And while I wish to adjust and adapt the seven-year constraints that we have in the Common Agricultural Policy, unfortunately I don't have the mandate to do that within a generation renewal in a report.
But I agree when I speak with farmers that constant changes in rules create uncertainty and discourage investment in long-term investments because they do require long-term policy consistency and we always don't get that every seven-term CAP proposals. Finally, generation renewal cannot be achieved through agriculture alone and I know this has been pointed out by many colleagues. It really does require a broader vision for rural areas and in particular, if they want to stay or move to rural communities, have to have better access to housing, healthcare, education, digital connectivity, as many colleagues said, and just to pick up what my Green colleague had shared around childcare, incredibly important, particularly for women who carry the burden on childcare predominantly in our EU. Finally, let me just say, if for any colleagues, whether you're a shadow rapporteur or not, if you wish to speak to me on amendments coming through, please do so. My advisor Stefania is also open for your teams to speak to.
We ultimately want to make sure we have a really strong document going forward and that we actually create better impact in the Common Agricultural Policy and in turn making our young people feel that they're seen, heard and valued in our farming sector. Thank you very much.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much. And we are now, I'm sure again, let's move to the next item, EU agri-food promotion policy. So we will move on the consideration of the amendments to the implementation report on EU agri-food promotion policy. At the COMAGRI meeting on the 8th of April, Mr. De Meo, the rapporteur for this file, presented his 20 recommendations organized into five paragraphs, which were warmly welcomed by the AGRI members. They encouraged the rapporteur to continue in the outlined direction.
A total of 293 amendments were submitted by the 15th of April deadline. The committee vote is scheduled for 29th of September. Mr. De Meo, you have the floor now for five minutes.
Salvatore De Meo
Thank you, Chair, thank you for the floor. I will speak in Italian to explain my position on these amendments. Innanzitutto voglio ringraziare i relatori ombra e tutti i colleghi per aver già in questa fase manifestato un forte impegno per migliorare il testo della mia relazione. Sono stati presentati complessivamente 293 emendamenti, quindi un numero importante che conferma l'interesse che questo dossier ha suscitato e soprattutto l'approccio costruttivo adottato dai singoli deputati e da tutti i gruppi politici.
Molti di questi emendamenti contengono dei suggerimenti importanti, preziosi che possono sicuramente contribuire a rafforzare e a migliorare la relazione finale. In diversi casi gli emendamenti affrontano preoccupazioni simili e riguardano, per esempio, la semplificazione, la flessibilità di questo programma, i collegamenti con le altre politiche dell'Unione Europea, l'equilibrio geografico, la gestione delle crisi e la promozione delle esportazioni. In questa fase la parte tecnica ha cercato di dare già un'impostazione e dovremmo arrivare a circa 20 compromessi, alcuni dei quali riguarderanno i temi che vi ho citato, l'impatto di questo di questa misura sulle piccole e medie imprese, sulla semplificazione, sull'equilibrio geografico. L'obiettivo che vorrei condividere è quello di presentare una relazione che rimanga chiara, coerente e di facile lettura, ricordandoci sempre qual è la missione di questo importante programma, però voglio anche considerare l'ampia gamma di contributi ricevuti dai singoli colleghi. I negoziati tecnici inizieranno già da questa settimana e l'intenzione è quella di preservare un approccio strutturato raggruppando gli emendamenti che trattano lo stesso argomento.
In questa fase sono fiducioso che la stragrande maggioranza delle questioni trovi un ampio consenso e posso sicuramente anticipare che su argomenti quali la flessibilità o le indicazioni geografiche, per esempio, gli emendamenti dei diversi gruppi politici vanno generalmente nella stessa direzione e confermano un'ampia convergenza di opinione. Naturalmente ci sono alcuni punti che richiederanno anche a livello politico una discussione più approfondita. Ciò vale in particolare per questioni come l'etichettatura del paese di origine, l'equilibrio geografico o il sottoutilizzo dei fondi destinati ai prodotti biologici nei paesi terzi. Anche su questo fronte ritengo che sia possibile trovare dei compromessi equilibrati e realizzabili. Vi sono poi, infine, alcuni ambiti in cui le posizioni politiche dei gruppi e dei singoli deputati potrebbero essere divergenti anche in maniera molto forte.
In particolare mi riferisco a quanto alcuni emendamenti intendono inserire in questa relazione un aspetto specifico relativamente al collegamento con le altre politiche europee e in modo particolare alla subordinazione degli obiettivi politici della promozione all'esclusione di alcuni prodotti come ad esempio il vino o la carne. Ricordo ai colleghi che questo programma ha una missione ben definita, ossia quella di rafforzare la competitività e la promozione dei nostri prodotti europei sui mercati sia interno che esterno e che un tema così forte potrebbe portarci ad una distorsione di un programma che invece va migliorato nella sua applicazione. Voglio anche sottolineare che un numero significativo di emendamenti presentati da alcuni gruppi politici potrebbe non avere un pieno sostegno considerato che i principali gruppi politici concordano invece ampiamente sull'importanza di evitare la stigmatizzazione, la demonizzazione o l'esclusione di alcuni prodotti. Lascio a voi queste primissime considerazioni perché vi possiate ovviamente già esprimere in questa sede. Vi confermo che i negoziati proseguiranno nelle prossime settimane e come ha già anticipato la presidenza la votazione in questa commissione è prevista per la fine di settembre, quindi molto probabilmente il 29 del mese di settembre prossimo.
Resto a disposizione per accogliere ogni utile suggerimento nella speranza che si faccia sempre presente che l'obiettivo è di migliorare questo programma e non di renderlo ancora più difficile per la sua applicazione.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay, thank you very much and the shadows rapporteur from S&D is Dario Nardella. Dario, you have two minutes please.
Dario Nardella
Thank you chair, I will speak in Italian. Voglio ringraziare il collega De Meo per il lavoro su questo importante punto della promozione agroalimentare in Unione Europea. Il nostro gruppo ha scelto di lavorare su questa relazione in modo mirato e selettivo con emendamenti che non stravolgono un testo già ben strutturato ma lo rafforzano su dei punti specifici tenendo sempre presente che ci troviamo di fronte ad un lavoro di valutazione di una politica europea. Voglio soffermarmi sul tema del biologico. I dati raccolti ci restituiscono un quadro chiaro.
Il mancato utilizzo dei fondi destinati al biologico, fenomeno particolarmente evidente nei progetti nei paesi terzi, non riflette a nostro avviso una mancanza di interesse da parte degli operatori. Le cause sono strutturali: la complessità amministrativa dei programmi e una dimensione dei progetti che non è adatta alle PMI che operano in questo settore. È su questo che come gruppo S&D abbiamo voluto intervenire con emendamenti che chiariscono le cause reali del problema e introducono soluzioni pratiche per abbassare le barriere di accesso e favorire una partecipazione più ampia degli operatori biologici. Un'altra osservazione riguarda una tendenza che emerge dai emendamenti e che trovo preoccupante, colleghi. La volontà di escludere dalla politica di promozione alcuni prodotti specifici, in particolare le carni e le bevande alcoliche e sottolineo il vino, per ragioni che convergono verso un approccio punitivo nei confronti di produzioni che sono parte integrante del patrimonio agroalimentare europeo.
Ci tengo a ricordare che questi prodotti sono eleggibili perché espressamente previsti dall'allegato al regolamento che disciplina la politica di promozione. Non si tratta quindi di una scelta discrezionale ma di un quadro normativo definito. Non possiamo demonizzare categorie di prodotti che in realtà in altri testi sono promossi e tutelati. Penso ad esempio alla recente voto a larghissima maggioranza del pacchetto vino proprio in Parlamento europeo. Grazie.
Okay, thank you Dario. Valérie Deloge, Patriots.
Valérie Deloge
Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, l'Europe ne manque pas d'agriculteurs, elle manque de courage pour les défendre. Nous parlons aujourd'hui d'une politique de promotion, son objectif devrait être simple : faire connaître, vendre et valoriser nos produits agricoles et agroalimentaires européens. C'est particulièrement important pour la France où nos territoires d'élevage, de bassins viticoles, nos zones de montagne et nos régions d'outre-mer ont besoin d'un soutien concret, pas d'un discours abstrait. Mais depuis longtemps, cette politique est attaquée, détournée et parfois même utilisée pour mettre certaines filières sous pression au nom d'une vision idéologique qui n'a rien à voir avec la réalité du terrain. Le rapport de départ a un mérite, il reconnaît notamment que la politique de promotion est un levier essentiel pour la compétitivité de nos filières, pour la visibilité des produits européens et pour l'accès aux marchés.
Nous défendons nos agriculteurs, nos éleveurs, nos viticulteurs, nos fromagers, nos coopératives, nos PME, tout ce qui fait la force de l'agriculture française. Un pays comme la France ne doit pas s'excuser de produire de la viande, du lait, du vin, des produits sous AOP ou IGP. Au contraire, ce sont des richesses et des emplois. Ce sont des territoires vivants et des savoir-faire que nous devons protéger pour transmettre. Pourtant, nos agriculteurs connaissent la pression de la concurrence déloyale, l'explosion des coûts de production et les conséquences des accords commerciaux conclus sans réciprocité.
Je veux souligner les amendements portés par notre collègue rapporteur fictif, Monsieur Stancanelli, qui vont dans le bon sens parce qu'il réaffirme une approche équilibrée de la politique de promotion, refuse toute stigmatisation de certaines productions et rappelle que les produits agroalimentaires commercialisés dans l'Union doivent pouvoir être promus sans discrimination. Et c'est totalement fondamental. Mais il faut aussi retrouver une cohérence. On ne peut pas demander toujours plus d'efforts à nos producteurs et leur imposer toujours plus de normes. La promotion européenne doit servir nos filières, pas les affaiblir.
Elle doit soutenir l'économie réelle, pas satisfaire une logique de culpabilisation. Elle doit valoriser notre modèle agricole, pas le fragmenter. Une agriculture qu'on n'ose plus promouvoir est une agriculture qu'on finit par fragiliser. La promotion agricole sans réel courage politique, sans volonté de défendre ceux qui produisent n'est pas une politique du courage mais une politique de l'abandon. Je vous remercie.
Claudiu-Richard Târziu
Mulțumesc, doamna președinte. Stimați colegi, în primul rând aș dori să-i mulțumesc raportorului pentru efortul depus în elaborarea acestui raport și colegilor pentru contribuțiile și observațiile formulate. Amendamentele pe care le-am depus pornesc de la o constatare simplă. Deși politica europeană de promovare este destinată întregului sector agroalimentar, beneficiile sale nu sunt distribuite în mod egal între statele membre și între diferitele categorii de producători. În acest sens am urmărit trei obiective principale.
Reducerea dezechilibrelor existente între statele membre în accesarea programelor de promovare, inclusiv prin creșterea participării organizațiilor din statele subreprezentate în programele multianuale. Facilitarea accesului pentru fermierii mici, cooperative și IMM-uri, care continuă să se confrunte cu bariere administrative și financiare semnificative. Și nu în ultimul rând, consolidarea sprijinului pentru produsele tradiționale și producătorii locali, în special pentru cei care nu beneficiază încă de scheme europene de calitate. Apreciez faptul că raportorul evidențiază necesitatea adoptării programelor de promovare la evoluțiile pieței și la contextul internațional. Totodată, consider că politica de promovare trebuie să rămână orientată către competitivitate și exporturi.
Nu este vorba despre un instrument pentru implementarea obiectivelor Pactului verde european sau ale strategiei de la fermă la consumator. Voi continua să susțin o politică de promovare bazată pe competitivitate, exporturi și egalitate de tratament între producători, fără discriminarea anumitor produse sau sectoare agricole. Vă mulțumesc.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, Chair. I welcome the work of rapporteur Salvatore De Meo on this important report on the future of the EU's agri-food promotion policy. At a time of geopolitical instability, rising production costs and growing trade uncertainty and equivalent standards of non-EU food products, the EU must back its farmers and food producers with a promotion policy that is ambitious and practical and market-oriented. First, we must recognize the value of EU promotion policy in opening markets, supporting exports, strengthening quality schemes and building consumer confidence in European food production and its food products. Secondly, the budget obviously matters.
The restoration of funding to 206 million euro is welcome, but this funding must be used with greater flexibility and responsiveness. It makes no sense to return funding which remains unspent. There should be scope to redirect funding to alternative and appropriate marketing programs rather than simply returning money unused. Thirdly, we need greater flexibility in implementation. Promotion campaigns often require long-term investment and relationship building in export markets.
And as shadow rapporteur, I've discussed this with agencies such as our own Bord Bia, who agree on this issue. Duration restrictions, including these rigid continuation rules, can undermine successful campaigns. So where justified, operators should be allowed to maintain activity in key markets. I'm also concerned, Chair, by amendments seeking to exclude meat, dairy and other animal products from the EU promotional funding. Europe's livestock sector is central to rural economies, food security, quality production and our agricultural heritage.
Promotion policy should, at the end of the day, support sustainable production and informed consumer choice, not discriminate against legally produced European food sectors. Finally, at the end of the day, as the rapporteur has said today, the labeling on the country of origin is critical in my opinion in terms of this file. We must have clear, unambiguous information on the safety, the origin of country, whether it be EU or non-EU. Particularly at a time, Chair, when we know from the Commission that Brazil has been excluded from the EU's approved third country exporters list with effect from the 3rd of September 2024 because it failed to provide sufficient guarantees on antimicrobial and growth promoter use. Consumers at the end of the day need to have clear labeling.
EU or non-EU provides clarity on these issues. Thank you.
Tilly Metz
Thank you. Greens, Tilly Metz.
Thank you, dear Chair, dear rapporteur, dear colleagues. Thank you very much for today's exchange. So I hope that with the beginning of the technical negotiation, this will be able to reach an agreement on a text that reflects our amendments and sends really also a strong and coherent signal on the future of the EU agri-food promotion policy. So in my amendments, I seek to ensure... Tilly, please slow a little bit down.
Thank you. You are right, yes. Sorry, sorry to interrupt, I will do. In my amendments, I seek to ensure that the EU's food promotion policy fully acknowledges that sustainable production systems, including organic farming, are essential for environmental protection, biodiversity, climate mitigation and public health objectives. We need a full consistency with the Europe's Beating Cancer Plan, with the Farm to Fork strategy and the objective of the Green Deal, whilst ensuring that public funds do not incentivize products linked to chronic diseases, climate change or biodiversity loss and also promote higher animal welfare standard.
So our promotion policy must be aligned with the Union's sustainability ambitions. This means ensuring that sectors such as organic farming are adequately supported and not disproportionately affected by budget reallocations or structural barriers. So the colleague of S&D was going into the same direction. I also call for greater accessibility of promotion programs for smaller operators, particularly again organic producers, SMEs, and also cooperatives. Smaller scale programs, simplified procedures, and revised eligibility criteria are necessary so that regional networks and biodistricts can genuinely participate.
And at the same time, a EU promotion fund should support products that are fully produced within the EU and contribute to strengthening also our strategic autonomy and resilient supply chains. Another important focus is the promotion of healthier and more sustainable food choices. I believe we must progressively align public spending with our health and climate objectives. Therefore, I propose dedicated support for fruit, vegetables, legumes, and pulses, which can both support informed consumer choices and strengthen Europe's protein autonomy by reducing dependence on imported feed. In parallel, we should encourage a phase-out of EU promotion funds for processed meat and alcohol beverages' public health impact as proven by the WHO.
Yes, I know there's not a lot of support in there, but my colleagues, at one moment we need to be coherent also to our public health policies. Thank you very much and looking forward to the negotiation. Thanks.
Okay, thank you, Anja Hazekamp.
Anja Hazekamp
Thank you, Veronika. I want to thank the rapporteur's inclusion of the wording on the importance of accurate information for consumers. However, the wording here needs to be much clearer to truly protect consumers from misleading marketing claims. And then, the rapporteur is proposing that the priorities of the annual work program are based on market demand. I strongly oppose to this.
The purpose of the annual work program must not be to blindly follow the market demand, but to shape it. We are the ones that need to set a strategic direction for the sustainable future of our food system. And this should not be negotiable. The rapporteur furthermore suggests that the promotion policy should not be subordinate to other EU policies. This proposal directly contradicts the principles of EU law.
The pursuit of short-term economic gains cannot contradict the fundamental articles we have on health and environmental protection. And lastly, we know that the European citizens are not making enough use of legumes in their diets. And this is a missed opportunity, also for European farmers. With the upcoming European protein strategy, it is vital that this report calls for more marketing opportunities for the legume sector and extends its scope to include healthy plant-based transformed products as well, such as fermented ones.
One final remark. The European Commission upgraded the platform where citizens can analyze the marketing campaigns funded with European money. But a huge gap remains. It is still impossible to monitor the programs approved for each type of legume, and maybe this data isn't even collected. The data is critical, and it would really help citizens to see how their money is spent.
So I would really like to see this call for more transparency reflected in this report. Thank you.
Thank you. So, yes, and doesn't have shadow in this case, members. I have here a list of our colleagues who want to take the floor. First is Carmen Crespo Díaz. You have one minute, Carmen.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Gracias. Primero agradecer el informe a Salvatore De Meo, que yo creo que ha dado en el clave con todo su informe. Pero yo creo que tenemos que ser más eficientes en el gasto anterior. Para ello tiene que ser un gasto más flexible y menos burocrático y, por supuesto, dirigirse a sectores vulnerables. En este caso creo que en estos momentos tenemos una crisis en el cereal en toda Europa.
Creo que hay que hacer esa promoción de ese sector, además del sector ganadero o el sector del arroz como sensible en los acuerdos comerciales. Además, sin olvidar las marcas de calidad, por supuesto, ni excluir productos por criterio ideológico, ni la carne, ni los productos ganaderos, ni el vino, ni el aceite de oliva, ni la fruta y hortalizas. Y además dedicarnos asimismo a productos vinculados al mundo rural. Creo que es muy importante que pongamos productos dedicados y destinados desde el mundo rural, como es la lana, por ejemplo, especialmente en países como España, primer productor de ovino de la Unión Europea. Por tanto, tenemos un momento ideal, es un gran programa y hay que aprovecharlo lo mejor posible.
Gracias.
Barry Cowen
Thanks, Chair. First of all, can I say I was very glad when the Commission responded positively to my own calls in this committee's report on the future of agriculture to increase the funding to this massively important program. In Brussels, we often talk about the high standards to which our farmers produce food, which is all well and good, but that is merely preaching to the converted. What we need to do is focus on making the case beyond our borders, that EU food is not only more nutritious, but produced with smaller environmental footprints and to a far higher standards on animal welfare and pesticides and antibiotics. This is the real success story of EU agriculture.
We need to ensure that the production models we hold so dearly, whether in dairy, beef, tillage, or any other sector, are properly understood across the world and that they get the recognition that they deserve. And our agri-food promotion policy should have this at its heart. And undoubtedly, as I said earlier, the funding now being provided presents the opportunity to ensure that that is the case. Thank you.
Jessika van Leeuwen
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. De Meo, for this report. And dear colleagues, the EU promotion policy is an important tool to promote EU-produced agricultural products and open new markets. But colleagues, at the same time, we're opening the door for cheap, inferior food produced in countries that we have new trade deals with. This is an unfair competition for our farmers.
And therefore, I believe it's imperative that we protect them. And therefore, I propose the following amendment to this report.
The EU agri-food promotion policy should prioritize encouraging the consumption of food produced within the EU. Therefore a portion of its budget should be allocated to measures that support the affordability of EU produced food, ensuring that it remains more accessible and affordable for citizens than imported products. And I would kindly ask you for your support in this amendment. Thank you.
Céline Imart
Merci présidente. Merci Salvatore pour ton remarquable travail. La politique de promotion doit être en effet un levier puissant au service de la compétitivité de nos agriculteurs et non pas une vitrine aseptisée où l'on expose nos produits en s'excusant de ce qu'ils sont. À cet égard, premier point. Il est essentiel de soutenir la politique de promotion des vins et des viandes rouges de qualité.
Ces productions sont les racines profondes de nos territoires, de leur histoire et le fruit d'un savoir-faire unique, mais trop souvent prises pour cible. Par ailleurs, on ne défend pas nos agriculteurs avec une main sur le cœur et l'autre main sur la bouche. L'origine pays n'est pas un détail sur une étiquette, c'est la carte d'identité d'un produit. La Commission européenne doit donc accepter de généraliser l'étiquetage obligatoire du pays d'origine à l'ensemble des secteurs agricoles. C'est une attente forte de nombreux États membres et des consommateurs européens.
Nous ne pouvons pas exiger l'excellence à la production et organiser la discrétion à la promotion. Promouvoir notre agriculture, ce n'est pas du folklore, c'est défendre une puissance productive, une culture alimentaire et des territoires qui refusent de devenir des décors sans paysans. Merci.
Thank you Gilles Penelle.
Gilles Pennelle
Merci beaucoup. L'agriculture européenne doit certes rester une agriculture de qualité avec des standards élevés, mais elle ne peut se être limitée à une agriculture d'excellence réservée à des marchés de niche. L'Europe doit aussi produire une matière première agricole abondante, compétitive et accessible à tous afin d'éviter de dépendre des importations. Je voudrais revenir sur un point central qui a été abordé et je félicite le rapporteur sur ce point, le vin et la viande font partie des joyaux de la gastronomie française et européenne. Je n'oublie pas bien sûr nos amis italiens à qui je profite de souhaiter une excellente fête nationale.
Les discours hygiénistes qui assimilent ces produits à du poison fragilisent directement les filières. Ceux qui tiennent ces discours ici, à l'école, dans les médias, se rendent-ils compte qu'ils détruiraient des régions entières, des paysages magnifiques ? C'est pourquoi j'ai déposé de nombreux amendements contre la criminalisation du vin et de la viande et aussi pour défendre les produits de nos régions ultrapériphériques trop souvent oubliés.
Esther Herranz García
Gracias señora presidente, no le había entendido. Señor De Meo, tiene usted la joya de la corona entre manos y me gustaría recordarle que he presentado unas enmiendas hablando de las indicaciones geográficas. Creo que es fundamental el apoyo prioritario a este tipo de productos que tanto en su país como en el mío tienen tanto éxito. Porque la verdad es que con el poco dinero, aunque haya crecido, sigue siendo poco, 205 millones de euros para promoción, es verdad que parte se infrautiliza, aquella que va a los alimentos bio y eco, pero sin embargo en las del dinero que va a indicaciones geográficas, denominaciones de origen, hay un déficit porque hay mucha más petición del dinero que se reserva. Por tanto no se puede desperdiciar ni un céntimo de euro porque es dinero público y porque es necesario para el sector.
Así que le pido que por favor tenga, trate con cuidado, trate con cariño esas enmiendas que he presentado para indicaciones geográficas.
Stefano Bonaccini
Grazie Presidente e grazie al collega De Meo per l'ottimo lavoro che sta portando avanti su un tema strategico per il futuro dell'agroalimentare europeo. Noi abbiamo forti tensioni geopolitiche, un contesto internazionale che preoccupa, in particolare anche sui mercati, e di fronte a una competizione globale sempre più intensa bisogna aumentare la politica di promozione che deve diventare un pilastro della prossima PAC. Promuovere i prodotti europei, i nostri prodotti, significa sostenere sia il reddito degli agricoltori ma anche rafforzare la competitività delle nostre imprese, delle nostre filiere, valorizzare un modello produttivo che è fondato su qualità, sostenibilità, sicurezza alimentare e benessere animale. È per questo che bisognerebbe partire dai prodotti di straordinaria qualità quali quelli DOP e IGP. Rappresentano il volto migliore della nostra Europa, dei nostri produttori e la Presidente von der Leyen aveva promesso di triplicare addirittura quei fondi.
Ecco, noi ci aspettiamo che mantenga fede a questa parola.
Luke Ming Flanagan
It makes a lot of sense for the EU to promote its food and in promoting it, obviously we should be telling the world about its qualities, telling the world about our extensive suckler farmers, telling the world about the farming systems that we have that are, well, better than other areas. And that makes sense. But to me, at the same time, we're also saying to justify a Mercosur deal to people like myself who say, sorry, we will not be bringing in product that will be the same standard, I am told, no, don't worry, we have set up systems to guarantee that it will be just as good. So on one hand, we are told the EU is going to go out and promote our unique beef products, but on the other hand, we're told, well, don't worry about what's coming in from Mercosur because it's the exact same. Now how can both of them be true?
Who are we lying to? Is, are our food systems better, which I believe they are? And if they are, why are we lowering our standards? And the question has to be asked, who, has anyone ever met anyone on the streets in their town who told you they don't want to eat local products, they want to eat beef from Mercosur? I've never ever met them.
And the only thing that's been done to make us feel alright about it is to say, but sure it's all the same. If it's all the same, how the hell can we promote EU products as better? Someone's lying here and I know who it is.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. And in the end I would like to ask again Salvatore De Meo for... No, it's the Commission. Oh sorry, excuse me, excuse me. First Commission, I'm sorry.
So, colleague Kangafano from DG AGRI please, I ask you for three minutes for your statement and then again I ask rapporteur, please.
Diego Canga Fano
Grazie Presidente, innanzitutto voglio ringraziare l'onorevole De Meo per la sua relazione eccellente. I'll follow, I'll continue in English saying that we enjoy stability in promotion policy. We have the same rules since 2014 and this stability allows farmers and trade organisations to develop long-term strategies.
On funding, let me be clear, a well-resourced promotion policy is not a luxury, it's a necessity. We have figures which show that for each euro we invest, we get a return of 172 euros of value of exports. And in this year, and I want to thank this committee, we are having more money than ever, 185 million euros, and that's really good. For 2027, the MFF mid-term revision still impacts multi-programs and Commission-led initiatives, but we are determined to maintain a strong level of support, as for example the amendments of Mr. De Meo and Mr. Dorfmann and Mr. Nardella emphasized, we need a strong support for both simple and multi-programs. And at the same time, we must look ahead to the next MFF to secure adequate and adaptable funding.
Now, we have two priorities now, I will reply to you. We want a widening access, so we want to have more Member States to benefit from the funding and we are putting emphasis on smaller agri-food organizations to try to help, for example, the ecological sector. So some of you have raised this issue and we will give a reply. Let me be very specific. For example, in last year we amended the legislation to facilitate representativeness of small organizations to get access to the fund.
Second, we are increasing pre-financing means to facilitate small organizations to apply. Third, we are thinking about technical assistance for under-represented countries to get more money. And finally, we want to enhance information activities and I ask your help of members of this Parliament, please help us in disseminate these funds. We are happy to go to your countries to speak in your languages and try to disseminate so that the 27 Member States benefit from the funds and not only a couple of them. Now, we are looking also on how to simplify things and we have reduced reporting obligations which will facilitate things.
Now let me say that in the vision for agriculture and food, we say clearly that we are in favor of sustainable livestock. So we are not in favor of reducing funding for red meat or wine, we will keep the status quo and that would be consistent. By the way, you have to know that we are financing red meat and alcohol, it is correct, but we are putting much more money in fruit and vegetables and pulses than we are putting on red meat and alcohol. So the promotion of vegetables and legumes, they are already eligible, and second, for fruit and vegetables, there is a specific budget for them precisely to get extra money. So again, thank you very much Mr. De Meo and all the MEPs because your input will really shape the work program in 2027 and that's all what I want to say.
We have an implementation dialogue with Commissioner Hansen and of course your report will be duly taken into account. Thank you very much, Madam.
Salvatore De Meo
Sì, grazie Presidente. Ho ascoltato con attenzione tutti gli interventi che confermano quello che vi avevo anticipato a fronte di un numero cospicuo di emendamenti. Abbiamo un'ampia convergenza su molti aspetti, sulla flessibilità, sulla distribuzione geografica, sulle indicazioni geografiche, sulla necessità di garantire un maggiore accesso alle piccole e medie imprese e purtroppo non troviamo la stessa convergenza su alcuni aspetti dove vi anticipo almeno quello che è il mio pensiero. Io credo che la stragrande maggioranza dei colleghi abbia confermato che in questa relazione dobbiamo esprimere equilibrio e dobbiamo conservare quello che è lo spirito di una politica di promozione che non può intendersi come imposizione. C'è la coerenza con le politiche, con le altre politiche europee e la coerenza non significa subordinazione.
Questa probabilmente è la differenza di un approccio equilibrato, moderato che intendiamo dare con il consenso dei principali gruppi politici rispetto a chi continua a voler utilizzare anche questo strumento per imporre ai cittadini cosa mangiare, cosa produrre o cosa non mangiare o cosa non produrre.
Sul biologico, io sono d'accordo con il collega Nardella e con gli altri colleghi che dobbiamo favorire un maggior accesso alle produzioni biologiche, ma è altrettanto vero che per il biologico, così come per altri prodotti, laddove non dovessero essere utilizzate, dobbiamo garantire una flessibilità che permetta di riutilizzare quelle risorse in altri programmi. Sulla impostazione generale di voler così guardare al libero mercato, io credo che è importante che noi si conservi lo spirito di questa politica che, ripeto, essere finalizzata a rafforzare la competitività dei nostri prodotti, soprattutto in un momento geopolitico di grande difficoltà. Ciò nonostante, avremo modo di confrontarci sul livello tecnico e sul livello politico per trovare la miglior soluzione che dia a questa relazione la finalità di stimolare un miglior e maggior utilizzo delle risorse di promozione. Ringrazio il segretariato e tutti i relatori per il supporto che hanno dato e che daranno per il prosieguo dei lavori.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you. Thank you, Salvatore, for your conclusion. And now we turn our attention to animal health matters. Recently, the Commission published delegated act on bluetongue virus control measures, eradication actions and movement of animals. Against this background, AGRI coordinators decided to extend the security period for those delegated acts and ask for the Commission representative presence to explain content, applicability and implementations on AGRI sector of these amendments to the EU animal health framework.
I would like to welcome here Mr. Francisco Reviriego Gordejo, head of animal health unit in the European Commission from DG SANTE. So, and I would like to give you floor now for eight minutes, please.
Francisco Reviriego Gordejo
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, everybody. And apologies for the long title of the point today and also apologies in advance for somehow cryptic language and legal references that I will use during my short presentation. I will try to be didactic, explaining what is the purpose of this exercise. I will support my presentation with some slides.
We are here because the Commission services, we are listening and we have identified problems and we have heard the voices of the stakeholders through our systems of interacting with producers and other operators, the advisory committee, bilateral meetings with a number of stakeholders, the meetings with the chief veterinary officers, listening to the Council, listening to this house. It was clear to us that in the first year of implementation of the animal health law, there were problems and those problems are somehow significant.
In summary, after few years of enacting the terms legally binding through the Animal Health Law, we understood that there was a need to recategorize Bluetongue disease. It's a disease that is transmitted by insect vectors, and there was wide consensus indicating us that the reality was telling us that the categorization in which we embarked ourselves 10 years ago, the outcome was not fit for purpose anymore. We needed to find better alignment of the rules that apply to this disease with a similar disease, that is Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease. We realized that we were suffering all sides from excessive bureaucracy. We were doing an exercise of overdoing in terms of reporting and notification.
We realized that our primary objective, that was to eradicate this disease, Bluetongue I mean, from large areas of the European Union, was simply not feasible after a good number of years deploying all our measures, namely very wide vaccination, we had to record an important failure. We were not eradicating the disease by implementing those eradication programs. So we reflected: which is the purpose of having an eradication program that is not leading to any eradication? We needed to adapt our movement rules to the reality. The message we got from farmers, from operators, is that our rules were interfering too much with the normal life of the farmers without getting a clear benefit in terms of having safer trade.
So we started thinking on how to modulate the rules that apply to those movement in order to be fit for purpose. There was also a very niche production that was affected by the burden of our rules, that is everything related to germinal products, where our rules were somehow disproportionate compared to the risk posed by these products in terms of disease spread over long distances. And then we also realized that vaccination, that is the ideal tool for controlling this disease, was having some drawbacks. The main drawback of vaccination is that you need to have a vaccine that is effective for each and any of the serotypes, and we have at least 24 serotypes, and we had experience with a dozen of serotypes only in this century. So vaccines were there, but were slightly late to be deployed massively to control new incursions in the ideal time.
So the reality prevailed, and the reality was telling us that our rules were not fit for purpose. As these programs were failing, we started thinking why, which is the reason why the eradication programs based on vaccination were not operating as expected. Mainly, we can attribute this failure to climate change: the abundance of insect vectors, the longer seasons with vector circulation, the number of viruses that were circulating in the territory of the EU made it extremely difficult to vaccinate the whole susceptible population with so many serotypes and on due time.
So we realized that it was time to change the policy and we started consulting the experts. And the first item that we were addressing was simplification. And we proposed to remove the rules related to eradication. And eradication programs and the rules associated are an instrument to achieve an objective. If the objective is not attainable, we should consider seriously the instruments we are deploying.
We also identified a second point that was to make our rules for the movement of animals and animal products proportionate to the risk, providing for safe movements but without interfering with the normal operation of the industry. We needed to preserve business as much as possible. And we needed to revise our provisions in terms of transparency. What did the Commission do? We identified the legal means to deliver and to address the problems that we had identified.
And for that, a package was prepared of Commission acts addressing each and any of the points. The construction was complex, so the package contained a number of elements. An amendment to a Commission implementing regulation, numbers do not matter for you, but was on the recategorization of the disease, that is the core of the package. We adapted the rules on notification as well by an implementing regulation. And then the big work was the adaptation of a number of Commission delegated regulations addressing certain aspects of the eradication of the disease, the movement of the animals, the movement of germinal products, semen, ova and embryo, the artifacts introduced through the eradication programs, so that the whole package will operate in a coherent and synergic manner.
This is the package that I was referring to. And then accompanying instruments to the package are the adaptation of the certificates, the way we expressed the guarantees for trade that we decide, and removing the status granted through the eradication programs. The amendments related to trade with the objective to fine-tune the specific element related to these vector-borne diseases were introduced in this delegated regulation that is the subject of the discussion today, Regulation 2020/688. And the real objective is to modulate the rules that they deliver the same level of certainty and security to those trading with animals that will always be safe. And we adapted those provisions to be more simple, easier to comply with while providing the same level of certainty, extending whenever is possible the derogations that are used for safe movement.
The second element that we addressed was much more simple and it was removing the artifacts that were introduced in Regulation 2020/689 as regards the eradication programs and the status. We call it dead weight, but is simply provisions that had no sense once the disease was recategorized. So, in summary, where are we? We are presenting to this house an evolution of the rules, is not a revolution, for which we have detected very wide consensus.
Governments, veterinarians, producers, traders supported this change. We focus on simplifying the life of the competent authorities and all operators, less burden for the producers and continue operating a safe system of movement of susceptible animals that are the ruminants, sheep, goat and cattle. And sorry for the extended presentation, but conceptually the exercise was a bit complicated. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, colleague. And now coordinators' round, first EPP, Stefan Köhler, please.
Stefan Köhler
Yes, thank you, Chair, and I would like to talk in German. Vielen Dank, Herr Kommissionsvertreter, für die Vorstellung dieser delegierten Rechtsakte, und es ist auch wichtig, dass wir heute darüber sprechen. Ich war dazu mit Betroffenen im Austausch, und ohne Änderung dieser Vorschriften kommt es aber leider zu enormen Schwierigkeiten bei der Verbringung von Tieren. Deswegen, ich sehe den Konsens noch nicht so ganz. Insbesondere bei dem Handel mit Kälbern ist es wichtig, dass eine Kombination von PCR-Testung und Schutz vor Vektoren über Insektizide ebenfalls zulässig ist.
Denn wenn wir das nicht möglich machen, würde das zu großen Schwierigkeiten in Gebieten führen, die von BTV-Stämmen betroffen sind, gegen die es eben noch keine Impfstoffe gibt. Und daher möchte ich die Kommission nachdrücklich darum bitten, diese Vorschrift zu evaluieren und abzuändern. Außerdem möchte ich die Gelegenheit nutzen, um einen weiteren wichtigen Punkt anzusprechen, nämlich eine mögliche europäische Impfstrategie. Wenn neue BTV-Serotypen aufploppen, dann haben wir meistens das Problem, dass der Impfstoff einfach nicht zur Verfügung steht, und wir müssen frühzeitig reagieren. Und deswegen frage ich gerne, gibt es Pläne, um eine Strategie zur flächendeckenden Impfung gegen BTV auf europäischer Ebene zu etablieren, und wie können wir Innovation fördern, um so schnell wie möglich Impfstoffe gegen aufkommende Serotypen zu entwickeln?
Vielen Dank.
Cristina Maestre
Gracias, presidenta, y gracias, señor Reviriego, por sus explicaciones. Creo que conviene subrayar algunos puntos y formular varias preocupaciones políticas sobre esta reclasificación de la lengua azul. En primer lugar, el paso de una enfermedad CDE a solo DE supone de facto abandonar el enfoque de erradicación para centrarse en gestionar el riesgo a través de los movimientos y de la vigilancia. Esto puede tener ventajas de simplificación y de claridad normativa, es cierto, pero también plantea una cuestión de fondo. ¿Estamos asumiendo que la lengua azul se convierte en un problema estructural con el que el sector tendrá que convivir indefinidamente?
Por sus implicaciones, interpreto que así lo ven. Puede que sea una decisión pragmática, pero también preocupa. En segundo lugar, el impacto es muy concreto. Llevamos años encadenando distintos serotipos, campañas de vacunación, restricciones de movimiento y costes significativos para las explotaciones ovinas y bovinas. Mi pregunta es: con esta reclasificación, ¿cómo se garantiza que no se traduce en menos recursos para la vigilancia, la vacunación y el diagnóstico precisamente en los territorios más expuestos?
Y además, ¿cómo se piensa apoyar a los Estados miembros que han estado en primera línea para que este cambio no suponga simplemente descargar más riesgo sobre los ganaderos? Y en tercer y último lugar, en un contexto de cambio climático, vectores más activos y nuevos serotipos, la señal política que enviamos es muy importante. Si dejamos de enmarcar la lengua azul en una lógica de erradicación, necesitamos una garantía cierta, firme, de que el esfuerzo de vigilancia no se va a relajar y que los instrumentos de la PAC y de gestión de crisis van a seguir acompañando a los ganaderos afectados. Espero que así sea y que nos aclare estos aspectos. Muchísimas gracias.
Chers collègues, je souhaite intervenir non seulement comme députée, mais aussi comme éleveuse confrontée à cette maladie et à cette réalité. Alors la fièvre catarrhale ovine n'est pas un problème mineur à gérer avec des demi-mesures, c'est une crise sanitaire majeure dont les vingt-quatre variantes touchent vingt-cinq de nos pays européens.
Valérie Deloge
Dégrader l'importance de cette maladie, c'est se dégrader du problème sur le papier, pas dans nos étables ni dans nos bergeries. Les conséquences sont concrètes : restrictions du mouvement de mouvement, blocage des échanges, avortement, mortalité et surtout des coûts de vaccination supplémentaires, plusieurs centaines d'euros par élevage, et ce sans aucune prise en charge européenne. Cette charge supplémentaire menace la viabilité de nombreuses exploitations et surtout les petites. Les éleveurs ne peuvent pas et ne doivent pas porter seuls le poids financier de cette crise. La Commission elle-même reconnaît qu'aucun financement de l'Union européenne n'est prévu pour la fièvre catarrhale sur la période 2025-2027.
Pourquoi ? Parce que la fièvre est classée comme une maladie à éradication, pardon, excusez-moi, éradication facultative, tandis que d'autres maladies animales prioritaires reçoivent des ressources financières. La Commission propose d'adapter les règlements délégués en supprimant les programmes d'éradication optionnels afin de simplifier la gestion sanitaire et autoriser les dérogations de transport. C'est un premier pas nécessaire, attendu par le secteur, mais insuffisant. L'anticipation doit être le maître-mot.
Il faut prévenir plutôt que de guérir. Ces vagues virales, une fois entrées dans l'Union européenne, se propagent inévitablement à tous nos pays. Il convient donc de prévoir et anticiper, pas de réagir dans une urgence une fois de plus, en développant surtout et aussi des vaccins faciles d'accès et produits dans pas mal de laboratoires. Car ne pas traiter le problème, c'est s'exposer à des pertes de cheptel considérables et à la naissance de nouveaux variantes. Sinon, où cela nous mènera-t-il ?
Donc à une nouvelle dépendance aux importations australiennes et néo-zélandaises, détruisant encore un peu plus notre souveraineté alimentaire. Comment pouvons-nous exiger que nos éleveurs assument seuls des coûts de vaccination et des restrictions commerciales alors que nous ne mobilisons aucun fonds européen pour cette maladie qui menace l'ensemble du marché intérieur ? Je le répète ici : anticiper aujourd'hui, c'est éviter l'hémorragie de demain. L'Europe est une fois de plus à un carrefour : souveraineté alimentaire ou dépendance aux importations, protéger ses éleveurs ou les sacrifier.
Jessika van Leeuwen
Thank you very much. ECR requested this exchange of view because even though we welcome the Commission proposal, we believe that it will not really lead to harmonization in practice. The main concern that we have is that vaccination is not a viable solution in many cases. Bluetongue has 24 serotypes and vaccines are not available for all of them. Young calves cannot be vaccinated and this makes compliance heavily dependent on derogations, which already exist under the current system.
As a result, the new rules would effectively reproduce the current fragmented situation rather than simplify it. A key practical problem arises when a non-vaccinable serotype is detected in a region, because animal movements become highly restricted for up to two years. Movement is only possible via derogation or costly and limited vector-protected establishments, or short and not universally available vector-free periods. So this creates significant logistical and economic burdens. To give you an example, to make it easier, in the Netherlands serotype 12 is present, which currently no vaccine exists for.
And because of these limitations, ECR proposes to add an alternative option, which is movement based on a negative PCR test combined with preventive insecticide treatment. But therefore, the European Commission need to consider to amend its delegated regulation. The amendments that we need require movement of listed susceptible animals using a negative PCR, movement of animals under 90 days of age on the base of a negative PCR, allowing PCR testing combined with preventive insecticide treatment to allow for the movement of animals, ensure that movement requirements remain proportionate and risk-based, and to take into account that vaccination doesn't fully prevent viremia or transmission, and preserve the functioning of the internal market and maintain a level playing field inside Europe. So we would like to request the Commission to amend its delegated regulation. Thank you very much.
Once the new rules apply, this will also impact parts of Germany and Belgium.
Thank you, Jessica, and Benoit Cassart, Renew, please.
Benoit Cassart
Merci, Madame la Présidente. Merci, Jessica. Chers collègues, la proposition d'acte délégué portant sur les programmes d'éradication de la maladie de la langue bleue soulève de sérieuses préoccupations pour nos éleveurs ainsi que pour le bon fonctionnement du marché intérieur. Aujourd'hui, les conditions prévues pour permettre les mouvements d'animaux entre les États membres reposent essentiellement sur trois options : des établissements protégés contre les vecteurs, des périodes saisonnièrement exemptes de vecteurs ou la vaccination. Or, dans la réalité, ces solutions sont souvent inapplicables.
En effet, les établissements dits protégés contre les vecteurs n'existent pratiquement pas en raison d'exigences techniques irréalistes. Les périodes exemptes de vecteurs deviennent de plus en plus rares sous l'effet du changement climatique, et les vaccins ne sont pas toujours disponibles, approuvés et autorisés sur l'ensemble du territoire européen. Nous devons donc introduire davantage de pragmatisme. Une alternative crédible serait d'autoriser systématiquement les mouvements sur la base d'un test PCR négatif après traitement insecticide pendant au moins 14 jours. Par ailleurs, les maladies vectorielles ne connaissent pas les frontières nationales.
Imposer automatiquement des restrictions entre États membres ayant des situations épidémiologiques identiques risque de créer des obstacles injustifiés au marché unique. Lorsqu'un même sérotype circule déjà dans le pays de destination, aucune restriction supplémentaire ne devrait s'appliquer. Enfin, nous devons continuer à financer la recherche afin de développer des vaccins multisérotypes efficaces et faciliter les autorisations au niveau de l'Union européenne. Nous avons donc besoin d'une approche européenne coordonnée et fondée sur la réalité scientifique et économique du terrain. J'espère donc que la Commission européenne va revoir sa copie.
Merci beaucoup.
Tilly Metz
Yes, thank you very much for giving me the floor, jumping in a bit spontaneously for Thomas Waitz, who cannot be here with us today.
So this shows again clearly that the farmers are also the first victims of climate change. So we know that these midges are more present with humidity, with the increase of the temperatures, etc. So it's an important point to monitor and to follow and to fight climate change. So my questions, I agree on a lot that was said by my colleague Benoît Cassart, interesting points he raised also on research, for example. And I'm wondering how far we are coordinating our work not only at the level of the European Union, but also the WOAH, so the World Animal Health Organization and FAO.
I think also there we need, as I said, there are no borders for the vectors, for the midges, so we need to work together with also these instances. So and then my other question is about working better together with the farmers. Also there, I think we need to be more coordinated and listen and really more and include them more in our prevention work. So yes, we need more vaccination, different vaccines, we need vector control to insecticides, but then also we need to check in the precautionary principle the impact of the insecticides that might be. And yes, we need under, with the tests that were mentioned by Benoît Cassart previously, movement restriction.
So all this together with the farmers, together with the WOAH, Health on Animal Health and the FAO. That's, thank you very much.
Thank you. And the Left, Luke Flanagan? Oh, he's not there. Somebody from Left? No.
And I also don't see Ivan David, so nobody from ESN. In this case, it's the end of coordinators' round and we have here only one colleague who want to take the floor and it's Carmen Crespo Díaz. Carmen, please, the floor is yours.
Carmen Crespo Díaz
Gracias. Bueno, en primer lugar, gracias a la DG SANTE por su trabajo aquí mostrado. Y luego decir claramente que la Comisión, lo que tenemos que tener claro es que tenemos que dedicarle más tiempo, más recursos, más investigación y más prevención a esta enfermedad animal y además que va a ir in crescendo por el cambio climático, la situación de la globalización. Por tanto, lo que hemos visto es que son insuficientes las vacunas y en este caso las comunidades autónomas, las regiones, se han encontrado a veces solas frente al problema de las vacunas, de la investigación, de las indemnizaciones y de los planes de prevención. Por tanto, los Estados miembros tienen que implicarse más en esta materia y tener una coordinación más eficaz.
Con respecto a la DG SANTE, hoy seguimos sin una vacuna multiserotipo eficaz y existen dudas sobre la eficacia práctica de algunas vacunas, especialmente frente al serotipo 3. Por tanto, hay que seguir investigando y, desde luego, los protocolos cambiarlos de forma que sean más eficaces. Las compensaciones, además, hay una cuestión: hay que incluir también al caprino, que está golpeado en este caso también. Y, por tanto, creo que en estos momentos de recursos económicos donde se está debatiendo el marco financiero, una de las cuestiones fundamentales que se tiene que ocupar es el fondo Horizonte Europa, donde hay posibilidad también de la investigación sobre la vacunación. Gracias.
Luis-Vicențiu Lazarus
I will speak in Romanian. Doamna președintă, stimați colegi, în primul rând stau uneori și mă gândesc ascultând aceste discursuri din Comisia noastră de Agricultură și am o nedumerire cu privire la faptul că această Comisie Europeană vrea sau nu vrea să rezolve niște probleme legate de bolile animalelor. Practic, prima dată a venit peste noi pesta porcină. Se spune aici că nu sunt fonduri pentru a găsi soluții pentru eradicarea acestei boli a limbii albastre. Dar pentru pesta porcină au fost fonduri?
Au fost. Și s-au făcut cercetări?
S-au făcut. Și care a fost rezultatul? Niciunul. Nici astăzi nu există niciun vaccin pentru a termina cu pesta porcină. Și în acest moment în Europa există pestă porcină în mai multe țări, printre care și în România.
Dar ce s-a obținut între ghilimele până la urmă? S-a obținut faptul că România a ajuns dintr-un exportator de carne de porc, un importator de carne de porc. Și acuma stau și mă gândesc, după pesta porcină a venit pesta ovină. Pesta ovină a dus ca România să fie în postura de a nu mai avea voie să exporte în Uniunea Europeană nicio oaie în viu. În aceste condiții, dacă o țară, se întâmplă să fiu eu de acolo, România, a avut probleme cu eradicarea pestei porcine pentru că această Comisie Europeană nu i-a dat nicio soluție.
Doi, dacă atunci când a avut pesta ovină a fost interzisă la comercializare, la export pentru oi și în acest moment, după un an și ceva, încă este interzisă, atunci care este logica acestor lucruri? Adică unde vrea Comisia Europeană să ajungă? Vrea să distrugă toți fermierii? Vrea să nu se mai crească nimic în Europa? A semnat și tratatul cu Mercosurul, vrea să aducă animale numai din piețe emergente peste Europa?
Noi am avut aici totuși niște reguli. Noi am respectat niște legi. Fermierii noștri au respectat niște reguli. Acum renunțăm la toate regulile și devenim un fel de no man's land, un teren al importurilor? Mulțumesc mult.
Thank you. And now I would like to ask again Mr. Cordero, you have now four minutes for your replies. Thank you.
Francisco Reviriego Gordejo
Thank you very much. I understand that the core issue that is the exercise in which we are aiming at adapting, improving and simplifying our rules is not at stake by the House. Many details and many consideration have been made and I will try to provide answer to some some of those. The first is whether this change reflects that we surrender to the disease. It's hard for a veterinarian to say that we surrender, but when we play game after game after game and we lose all the games, I think it's the time for the coach to change the strategy of the team.
The strategy was not leading anywhere. There are more and more Member States affected, more and more serotypes. So we need to change the plan for the game and this is reflected in the in the package that we have presented. It can still be improved. I don't deny that.
We need to still find solutions for for businesses like were presented, for the calves, for for the period of time that the animal cannot be vaccinated, whether a PCR plus insecticide treatment is fit for purpose and safe enough. We will come back to this as soon as we have science. For the time being, we have introduced all possible options that were backed by science. Anytime some options become available, we will introduce straight away because the main purpose of this exercise, let's not forget it, is to protect those that are still free and safe from the viruses while enabling trade to happen in the less burdensome manner. Some of the risk mitigation measures that we introduced, we know that are burdensome and some are little practical, but still we aim at introducing all those means.
Whether the resources are enough or not is not for for for the Commission to judge.
We need to dedicate the resources, allocate the resources to the biggest priorities. And in terms of impact and in terms of business continuity, let's be frank, bluetongue is not the big priority. African swine fever has been mentioned, we have foot-and-mouth disease. I think we better dedicate the resources that are scarce to the main priorities and we think on how to live with these viruses. You can aim at eradicating, you can aim at vaccinating, but as soon as you have four serotypes simultaneously circulating in a territory and you don't have a tetravalent for the four serotypes because the industry simply cannot produce this vaccine so quickly, then it's better to use the doses, the vaccines where it's more adequate.
And this cannot be determined or dictated from Brussels. We cannot aim at having an EU-wide eradication campaign in which we force the farmers all over Europe to vaccinate against all the serotypes. This is simply not sustainable and possibly not needed and very likely unsuccessful. We can improve the vaccines, yes, research is welcome. As soon as we have better means, as I said in my previous words, we will incorporate these means into the rules that we are modernizing, providing for an evolution today.
So I'm convinced that we can still find some solutions for some practicalities. More vaccines, more proficient vaccines and, if you allow me, cheaper vaccines would be welcome and we rely on science always for incorporating solutions to our rules. The core of the discussion today was whether the prolongation of the time for this house to object or not to the package is correct. I'm not judging, but the exercise of addressing and assessing the problem has been really exhaustive, has been inclusive and there is a wide consensus according to our understanding on the good step forward that the Commission intends with this package. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much and thank you colleagues for our today morning negotiations, bon appétit and see you at 3 o'clock here again. That's it. Thank you very much. I leave here everything, yes.
Monsieur Bascou, vous avez la parole.
Pierre Bascou
Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le Président. Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, c'est un plaisir pour moi d'être ici aujourd'hui pour vous présenter la situation des marchés agricoles. Comme vous le savez, nous suivons de très près l'évolution de la situation, qui reste marquée par une grande incertitude. L'invasion de l'Ukraine par la Russie continue d'avoir un impact majeur sur les marchés mondiaux et européens. Même si nous avons observé une certaine détente des prix des intrants, notamment de l'énergie et des engrais, ceux-ci restent à des niveaux historiquement élevés.
Cela pèse lourdement sur les marges des agriculteurs. En ce qui concerne les céréales, les prévisions de récolte pour cette année sont globalement positives, malgré des conditions météorologiques contrastées selon les régions. Nous prévoyons une production de céréales dans l'Union européenne en hausse par rapport à l'année dernière. Toutefois, les prix ont baissé de manière significative ces derniers mois, ce qui inquiète les producteurs. Pour le secteur laitier, la production est restée relativement stable, mais les prix du lait à la production ont également entamé une phase de correction après les records de l'année dernière.
Dans le secteur de la viande, nous observons une baisse de la production, en particulier pour la viande bovine et porcine, ce qui maintient les prix à des niveaux élevés. Enfin, je voudrais mentionner la situation dans les pays voisins de l'Ukraine. Nous sommes conscients des difficultés rencontrées par les agriculteurs de ces pays en raison de l'augmentation des importations en provenance d'Ukraine. La Commission a pris des mesures exceptionnelles pour soutenir ces agriculteurs et nous continuons de travailler sur des solutions à long terme pour faciliter le transit des produits ukrainiens vers les marchés mondiaux. Je m'arrête ici pour cette brève introduction et je suis prêt à répondre à vos questions.
Merci.
Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Bascou, pour cette présentation concise et complète. Nous allons maintenant passer aux questions des coordinateurs et des membres. Je donne d'abord la parole à Monsieur Herbert Dorfmann, au nom du groupe PPE.
Pierre Bascou
Merci, Monsieur le Président. Merci, Monsieur Bascou, pour votre présentation. Vous avez mentionné la baisse des prix des céréales. C'est effectivement une source de grande préoccupation pour nos agriculteurs, car dans le même temps, les coûts de production ne baissent pas aussi vite. On se retrouve dans une situation de ciseaux où la rentabilité des exploitations est menacée.
Ma question porte sur les mesures de soutien. Est-ce que la Commission envisage d'utiliser davantage la réserve agricole pour aider les secteurs les plus touchés ? Et concernant l'Ukraine, nous voyons bien que les corridors de solidarité fonctionnent, mais ils créent aussi des distorsions sur les marchés locaux. Comment la Commission compte-t-elle assurer que ces produits atteignent bien leurs destinations finales en dehors de l'Union européenne ? Merci.
Merci, Monsieur Dorfmann. La parole est à Madame Clara Aguilera, pour le groupe S&D.
Pierre Bascou
Merci, Monsieur le Président. Bienvenue, Monsieur Bascou. Je voudrais revenir sur la question de la sécheresse, qui frappe durement le sud de l'Europe, notamment l'Espagne et le Portugal. Les prévisions de récolte pour les céréales et les fourrages sont catastrophiques dans ces régions. Cela a un impact direct sur l'élevage, car les éleveurs doivent acheter des aliments à des prix très élevés.
Quelles mesures spécifiques la Commission prévoit-elle pour aider ces régions touchées par des phénomènes climatiques extrêmes ? Est-ce qu'il y aura une flexibilité supplémentaire dans l'utilisation des fonds de la PAC pour répondre à cette urgence ? Merci.
Merci, Madame Aguilera. La parole est à Monsieur Martin Hlaváček, pour le groupe Renew.
Merci, Monsieur le Président. Monsieur Bascou, vous avez parlé de la situation dans les pays limitrophes de l'Ukraine. Je pense qu'il est crucial de trouver une solution européenne commune. Les mesures unilatérales prises par certains États membres ne sont pas la solution, mais elles reflètent un désespoir réel des agriculteurs. Comment la Commission peut-elle garantir que les mécanismes de transit soient plus efficaces et transparents ?
Et une autre question sur le secteur de la viande porcine. Nous voyons une réduction structurelle de la production en Europe. Est-ce que la Commission analyse les conséquences à long terme de cette baisse sur notre souveraineté alimentaire ? Merci.
Merci, Monsieur Hlaváček. La parole est à Monsieur Martin Häusling, pour le groupe des Verts.
Merci, Monsieur le Président. Monsieur Bascou, vous avez mentionné les prix des engrais. Il est clair que notre dépendance aux engrais chimiques est un problème majeur, tant sur le plan économique qu'environnemental. Que fait la Commission pour encourager la transition vers des systèmes de production moins dépendants de ces intrants, comme l'agriculture biologique ou l'agroécologie ? Par ailleurs, concernant la situation du marché, nous voyons que les prix à la consommation restent très élevés alors que les prix à la production baissent.
Il y a un problème de répartition de la valeur dans la chaîne alimentaire. Est-ce que la Commission compte agir pour renforcer la position des agriculteurs face à la grande distribution ? Merci.
Merci, Monsieur Häusling. La parole est à Monsieur Krzysztof Jurgiel, pour le groupe ECR.
Merci, Monsieur le Président. Je voudrais insister sur la situation en Pologne et dans les autres pays de l'Est. L'afflux massif de céréales ukrainiennes a déstabilisé nos marchés locaux. Les silos sont pleins et les agriculteurs ne peuvent pas vendre leur propre récolte à un prix décent. L'aide financière proposée par la Commission est insuffisante par rapport à l'ampleur des pertes.
Quelles mesures concrètes de régulation du marché la Commission envisage-t-elle pour protéger nos producteurs ? Il ne s'agit pas seulement d'argent, mais de logistique et de contrôle aux frontières. Merci.
Merci, Monsieur Jurgiel. La parole est à Monsieur Ivan David, pour le groupe ID.
Merci, Monsieur le Président. La situation actuelle montre les limites de la politique de libéralisation commerciale de l'Union européenne. En ouvrant nos marchés sans conditions, nous sacrifions nos propres agriculteurs. Les produits ukrainiens ne respectent pas les mêmes normes environnementales et sanitaires que les nôtres. C'est une concurrence déloyale.
Pourquoi la Commission refuse-t-elle de réintroduire des droits de douane ou des quotas pour stabiliser le marché ? La solidarité avec l'Ukraine ne doit pas se faire au détriment de la survie de nos campagnes. Merci.
Merci, Monsieur David. La parole est à Monsieur Luke Ming Flanagan, pour le groupe de la Gauche.
Merci, Monsieur le Président. Je voudrais parler de la situation des petits agriculteurs, qui sont les plus vulnérables face à la volatilité des marchés. Les grandes exploitations s'en sortent mieux, mais les petites fermes familiales disparaissent. La Commission parle souvent de résilience, mais comment peut-on être résilient quand on n'a pas de pouvoir de négociation ? Il faut une intervention plus forte sur les marchés pour garantir des prix minimums aux producteurs.
Et concernant les engrais, pourquoi ne pas soutenir davantage la production locale d'engrais organiques ? Cela réduirait notre dépendance et serait meilleur pour le climat. Merci.
Merci, Monsieur Flanagan. Monsieur Bascou, vous avez maintenant la possibilité de répondre à cette première série de questions.
Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le Président, et merci aux députés pour leurs questions très pertinentes qui couvrent l'ensemble des défis auxquels nous sommes confrontés. Tout d'abord, sur la question de la réserve agricole et du soutien aux agriculteurs, soulevée par Monsieur Dorfmann. Comme vous le savez, la Commission a déjà mobilisé une partie de la réserve pour aider les pays limitrophes de l'Ukraine. Nous examinons actuellement la possibilité d'un nouveau paquet de soutien, mais les ressources sont limitées. Nous devons cibler l'aide là où elle est le plus nécessaire.
Sur la question de l'Ukraine et des corridors de solidarité, notre priorité absolue est d'améliorer la logistique. Nous travaillons avec les États membres et les opérateurs de transport pour réduire les goulots d'étranglement aux frontières et augmenter les capacités de stockage. L'objectif est bien que ces céréales transitent par l'Union européenne pour être exportées vers les pays tiers qui en ont besoin, notamment en Afrique et au Moyen-Orient. Concernant la sécheresse mentionnée par Madame Aguilera, nous sommes tout à fait conscients de la gravité de la situation dans la péninsule ibérique. Nous avons déjà accordé certaines flexibilités dans le cadre de la PAC, par exemple sur l'utilisation des jachères pour le pâturage.
Nous sommes en contact étroit avec les autorités espagnoles et portugaises pour évaluer si d'autres mesures exceptionnelles sont nécessaires. Monsieur Hlaváček a posé une question sur la viande porcine. Il est vrai que le secteur traverse une période de restructuration profonde, liée à la fois aux coûts des intrants et aux exigences environnementales et de bien-être animal. La Commission suit cela de près pour s'assurer que nous maintenons une capacité de production suffisante en Europe.
Speaker 67
Bonjour à toutes et à tous. Je vous propose de commencer nos travaux. Nous avons un ordre du jour assez chargé. Je voudrais d'abord vous demander si vous avez des commentaires sur l'ordre du jour. Pas de commentaires ?
L'ordre du jour est donc adopté. Je voudrais également vous informer que la réunion est retransmise en ligne. Nous passons maintenant au point suivant de notre ordre du jour, qui est l'approbation des procès-verbaux des réunions des 18 et 19 mars 2024. Y a-t-il des observations sur ces procès-verbaux ? S'il n'y en a pas, ils sont considérés comme approuvés.
Nous passons maintenant aux communications de la présidence. Je voudrais vous informer que l'interprétation est disponible dans les langues suivantes : allemand, anglais, français, italien, néerlandais, danois, grec, espagnol, portugais, finnois, suédois, tchèque, estonien, letton, lituanien, hongrois, maltais, polonais, slovaque, slovène, bulgare, roumain et croate. Nous passons maintenant au point 4 de notre ordre du jour, qui est un échange de vues avec la Commission sur la situation des marchés agricoles. Je voudrais souhaiter la bienvenue à Monsieur Wolfgang Burtscher, Directeur général de la DG AGRI. Monsieur Burtscher, vous avez la parole.
Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le Président. Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, c'est un plaisir pour moi d'être ici aujourd'hui pour vous présenter la situation actuelle des marchés agricoles. Comme vous le savez, nous traversons une période de grande incertitude, marquée par des tensions géopolitiques et des conditions climatiques extrêmes. Cependant, nous constatons également des signes de stabilisation dans certains secteurs.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.