Committee on 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.
DEVE European Parliament
Follow its sittingsBarry Andrews
By show of hands, those in favor? Who's against? Abstentions? Rejected. Next is amendment 20... I beg your pardon.
Did we...? Yes, no, it was rejected, Lucas, rejected. Yes, we can check. So let's go back to amendment 213 by roll call vote. Voting is open.
Or by normal electronic vote. This is 213. Okay. Wait, no, no, hang on a second. Where is it?
213, yeah. Okay, voting is closed. Yeah, rejected. And it is rejected. So we move to amendment 27.
Those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment F.
Those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment F.
Those in favor? Against? Adopted. Abstentions? Amendment 30.
By show of hands, those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment 31.
Those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment G.
Those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment H.
Those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment 246.
Those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment 251.
Those in favor? Against? Abstentions? We'll check. Amendment 251.
The voting is open. 251. Wait, leave it open for a sec. Where's 251? Okay, you can close.
Close? I think so. And it is rejected. Amendment 252. Those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Rejected. Compromise amendment I. Those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment J. Those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment 277. Those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 278. Those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Rejected. Compromise amendment K. Those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment 282. Those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Rejected. Compromise amendment 283. Those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 284. Those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 42. Those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment L. Those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment 292. Those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 45. Those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment A. Those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Final vote is by roll call vote. The voting is open.
And the voting is closed. And it is adopted. 14 in favor, one against, and three abstentions. So now we go on to the next voting list. And I'll just thank you, Christian.
Okay, this is the strengthening global health resilience in partner countries, the adoption of a draft motion for resolution. If approved, this motion will be included in the draft agenda of the July plenary session and followed up with a debate. So this is it here. And we're going to start with compromise amendment 8. Those in favor?
Those against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment 9. Those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment 10. Those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment 11. Those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment 41 by roll call vote is split in two. Part one, the voting is open.
Part two of two, I beg your pardon. So just to repeat, amendment 41 will be by roll call vote.
It is a split vote. We're voting on part two. The voting is open.
Speaker 3
Renew has one vote too many. Yeah, one Renew member has to withdraw their card.
Hilde Vautmans
Okay, no, I won't vote. I haven't voted. Is that better? I haven't voted.
Barry Andrews
We still have one over. Okay, but who is it? One, two, three. But we have only three here. One, two, three.
Yeah, the system says plus one. That can't be right. Okay, but just hold on a second, folks, so we guarantee we have this correct. Can you check? We have only three people here.
I haven't voted. Yeah, I don't know how to check that at this point. Okay. What do you want to do? I could ask one of your members not to vote.
But they have...
Okay, what we'll do is we'll just, we're going to have to start this vote again because it appears that there's more than three Renew Europe voters present in the room. So, Hilda, Justina, can you agree that we have three Renew voters only? Hilda won't vote. Okay. So we go back, no problem, Hilda.
We go back to amendment 41, which is a roll call vote on part two. The voting is open. The voting is open.
Barry Andrews
And the voting is closed. It's a tie on the split and we checked and in a split where there is a tie, it is carried. So next is amendment 72, roll call vote, part one of two. The voting is open. And the voting is closed.
And it's a tie and on a split it is carried. We move on to compromise amendment 12. Those in favor? Those against? Abstentions?
Carried. Compromise amendment 12A is by roll call vote. The voting is open. We're still waiting for two voters. And the voting is closed.
Speaker 9
And it is carried. Compromise amendment 13 by roll call vote. The voting is open.
Barry Andrews
13, yeah. And the voting is closed. And it is carried. Next is compromise amendment 14. Those in favor?
Those against? Abstentions? Carried. Compromise amendment 15. Those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Carried. Compromise amendment 16. Those in favor?
Those against? Abstentions? Carried. Compromise amendment 17. Those in favor?
Those against? Abstentions? Carried. Compromise amendment 18.
Barry Andrews
Compromise amendment 17, check. The voting is open. Compromise amendment 17.
Barry Andrews
Close the vote.
Carried. Compromise amendment 18, those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Carried.
Compromise amendment 19, those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Carried. Compromise amendment 20, those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Carried. Compromise amendment 21, those in favor? Against?
Abstentions? Carried. We move on to amendment 71. Those in favor? Against?
Abstentions? Carried. Compromise amendment 22 by roll call vote, the voting is open. And voting is closed. And it is carried.
Amendment 79 is a split vote, part two of two. Amendment 79 is by roll call vote, the voting is open. And the voting is closed. And it is carried. Compromise amendment 23, those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Carried. Compromise amendment 24, those in favor? Against?
Abstentions? Carried. Compromise amendment 25, those in favor? Against? Abstentions?
Carried. Compromise amendment 26, those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Carried.
Compromise amendment 27, those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Carried. Compromise amendment one, those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Carried. Compromise amendment two, those in favor? Against?
Abstentions? Carried. Compromise amendment three, those in favor? Against? Abstentions?
Carried. Compromise amendment four is by roll call vote, the voting is open. And the voting is closed. And it is carried. Compromise amendment five, those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Carried. Compromise amendment six, those in favor? Against?
Abstentions? Carried. Amendment 13, those in favor? Against? Abstentions?
Carried. Compromise amendment seven, those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Carried.
The final vote is by roll call vote, the voting is open. And the voting is closed. And it's carried with 16 in favor and four against. So now we move on to the final voting on item six, which is the joint communication on humanitarian aid and if approved this will be included in the draft agenda of the plenary session. So we'll start with compromise amendment two, those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Carried. Amendment 71, those in favor? Against?
Abstentions? Rejected. Compromise amendment three, those in favor? Against? Abstentions?
Carried. Compromise amendment four, those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Carried.
Amendment 69 is a split vote and we're voting on part two of two by show of hands, those in favor? Those against? Abstentions? It is rejected. Compromise amendment five, those in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Carried. Compromise amendment six, those in favor? Against?
Abstentions? Carried. Compromise amendment seven, those in favor? Against? Abstentions?
Carried. Amendment one, those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Carried.
Compromise amendment one, those in favor? Against? Abstentions? Carried. The final vote is by roll call vote, the voting is open.
And the voting is closed. And it's carried with 17 in favor and two against. Thank you very much.
We'll take a quick break before we reassemble to talk about Mozambique. Thank you everybody. No, no, no worries. No, no, no. Okay folks, we'll get going again now folks.
Okay, let's resume our, our agenda. First of all, we'd like to welcome the Emerging Leaders Program who are in the back of the room. They join us as a program from the European Parliament London Liaison Office. We're delighted to see you here and we hope you have a very, very useful visit here in Brussels today. So, now we go on to item 7, which is the Committee on Development mission to Mozambique, which took place on the 26th to the 28th of May 2026.
I unfortunately I couldn't attend and I wanted to thank particularly Hilde Vautmans who on very short notice took up the role as chair of the delegation and which she discharged her responsibilities with the usual aplomb. So thank you very much Hilde for stepping in. The main objectives were to look at the Global Gateway program in real time, to also link the humanitarian development and peacebuilding interventions, and also the delivery of development cooperation efforts in education and vocational training, having regard to George Holvényi's expertise in this area. So today actually Mozambique celebrates its national day, marking the day in 1975 when the country declared its independence. So before I give the floor to Hilde and to the other participants, we will watch a short video.
We can all join the mission at least in, in images. So let's roll it there, Colette, as they say in Ireland.
Hilde Vautmans
I really would like to thank the President of Parliament and the President of the Commission of Foreign Affairs. We really had an excellent exchange of views about parliamentary diplomacy, about the partnership, very strategic partnership between Europe and Mozambique. Thank you very much.
Barry Andrews
That's fabulous. Well done to the team who put it together, yeah, very good. Looks like it was all very hard work, tough. Okay, so let's start then with Hilda Vautmans, who is head of the delegation, to give a summary of your observations on the mission.
Hilde Vautmans
Well, thank you very much and Barry and the team. Sorry, Barry, that you couldn't assist because I think when you see the video that it was really, really a very interesting but also a very good mission with a good atmosphere between the colleagues, with all the colleagues working really hard on the content of the program, always being there. So and of course the secretariat performing at its best. So thanks a lot and a big applause to both of you. I think we can say that.
On the program. It was a full program, colleagues, like you all have seen in the film, between Pemba in the north province of Cabo Delgado and the capital Maputo in the south. And that allowed the delegation to meet the two main objectives of the mission: to assess, first, the implementation and impact of Global Gateway projects and the EU strategic investments, and secondly, the interlink between humanitarian development and peacebuilding interventions.
Mozambique is a priority country, both for DG INTPA, with over 600 million euro for 2021 to 2027, and also for DG ECHO, with the latest annual allocation reaching 24.5 million euro. Cabo Delgado province is plagued by proactive conflict and regular natural disasters. We saw it on the pictures there, we were there, cyclones causing floodings, periods of drought. Since 2017, northern Mozambique has been subjected to violence perpetrated by armed groups, later affiliated to the Islamic State, which has displaced over 1.3 million people, mainly women and children. Over half the population is under 18, with little hope for a better future.
Child marriage, early pregnancy are very common and becoming a more frequent coping mechanism in a dire poverty. Thanks to the direct intervention with various organizations active in Cabo Delgado, members could make a critical assessment of the national and international response. More specifically, members appreciated that the EU has effectively put in place an interconnected action based on the humanitarian development and peace nexus to allow for a coordinated and holistic approach. However, only 25% of humanitarian needs are covered and the central government does not demonstrate a tangible engagement to overcome the deprivation of the province. Lack of basic services results in lack of trust in government, which is a breeding ground for the insurgency.
All counterparts, from local authorities till international organizations, UN agencies, local organizations, converged in highlighting how essential it is that the EU remains present in the region through aid and development. They appreciated in particular the financing of UNHAS for humanitarian access. In Pemba, members visited and we saw it on the video and it was amazing, Mais Emprego, which is an EU Global Gateway flagship vocational training project, a hospital service for treatment of malnutrition. And there I must say, Barry, what we saw there, the images of the children and the mothers, I think all of us we still see it when we close our eyes and think back of the mission. And we also visited the National Disaster Risk Management and Reduction Institute, demonstrating EU support to job creation and youth employment and second, tackling malnutrition and health challenges and three, promoting natural disaster preparedness and resilience.
The second part of the mission was in Maputo, focused notably on economic development and EU Global Gateway projects. It included meetings with government representatives, including the Minister of Foreign Affairs, members of parliament, civil society, members of EU Youth Sounding Board, as well as representative of EU member states and the EU private sector. Thematically, these meetings covered the priority areas for EU-Mozambique cooperation: the energy transition, digitalization, education and job creation.
They included a visit to Maputo Digital, an EU Global Gateway flagship project supporting digitalization and entrepreneurship, a meeting with the Ministry of Energy to discuss the National Control Center for Energy Infrastructure, another EU-led flagship, and a discussion on the immense challenges for education given the rapid population growth and literacy rate in rural areas at only 50%. The mission program provided members with a good overview of the multiple components of EU-Mozambique partnership, valued as strategic by both sides: development, humanitarian, security, business and political engagement. At the end, and I must say outside the official mission program, I must stress that, members went to the EU Military Assistance Mission headquarters in Maputo, where they were briefed on the EUMAM training for and support to the Mozambican Armed Forces, the FADM, in their counter-terrorism fight in Cabo Delgado. The EUMAM pleaded for its mandate to be extended beyond 2026, since the FADM is not yet ready to address the situation on its own, while the support of some 5,000 Rwandan troops is not sustainable in the long term and also mainly limited to securitizing the corridor of the gas exploitations. I just took the freedom and Jasper and the team helped me to elaborate three possible recommendations, but feel free to add, to comment and to pass them by.
We will say goodbye to the guests maybe, thank you very much, enjoy your stay. First, feed the findings of the mission into DEVE's scrutiny of the NDICI-Global Europe instrument, the Humanitarian Aid instrument and the Global Gateway instrument. Second recommendation: follow developments in Mozambique, such as the deliverables of EU cooperation and efforts, in particular to support access to education and vocational training and empowerment of girls and women, as well as to further promote the humanitarian-development-peace nexus, advocacy to step up government engagement to invest in human development in Cabo Delgado. And three: follow further developments of LNG investments from the perspective of the local population. And the third recommendation, but it's not of the DEVE committee, but I talked already to the chair of the SEDE committee, propose to SEDE to engage in exchange of views on the possible prolongation of the EUMAM mission.
So colleagues, I hope this overview, that I didn't forget a lot of things. I can tell you about the good food we had, about the good talks we had, about the friendship that was done, about the feeling of the seawater, but I must also say that what is not in there, to thank also the EU ambassador at place. He was in Brussels yesterday, so I had lunch with him yesterday, and we're still reflecting on the very good mission. He also talked about later, the week after our mission, there has been a Global Gateway Business Forum. He said it was a big success.
I don't know, I don't have more information than his oral words, but maybe you can talk about that later. But I really want to thank of course DG INTPA, DG ECHO, the EU ambassador and the whole team, and of course the wonderful colleagues who assist on this mission.
I think we all learned a lot and we are more than ever convinced that we will work together on a EU-African partnership. Thank you very much.
Barry Andrews
Thank you, Hilde, for that overview. And now we will go to Marette for S&D, please.
Marit Maij
Yes, thank you very much, Chair, and thank you, Hilde, for your overview. Let me start by also thanking the staff for the organization of this mission because it was really very well organized by our team, but also of course by the team from the EU mission in Maputo. Next to what Hilde has mentioned, let me share maybe three thoughts. First, there's something which I will not forget. We were sitting at a meeting with the NGOs and UN agencies in Pemba and then the UNICEF director said that half of the girls between 15 and 19 had been pregnant.
No, are pregnant. He said are pregnant. So I said, you mean they have been pregnant? He said, no, they are pregnant. Which actually means that a girl by the age of 20 already has three or four children.
And I think we can all understand that this is probably not voluntary. So this, it sheds a light on the situation of girls, it sheds a light on the situation of desperation in the country, in the area, especially this was in the north in Cabo Delgado, but from what we understand this also happens in other areas in the country. And it also sheds a light on the situation, I think, of particularly of women and girls where it was said that this is used as a coping mechanism. So you sell off or you marry off your daughter to have maybe some food or some funds from someone who is much richer, who then has the possibility to abuse the girl, but at least your family has food. It is something that has stuck into my brain and it will not go away.
Especially because the day after we were in the, as Hilde said, in the hospital in Pemba and there I talked to a 21-year-old lady who had her seven-year-old girl there, but also three other children. And what's the future of people in this situation? I mean, this is really something which is devastating. And then if you combine it to the wealth of this country, the fact that we have identified the north of Mozambique as one of the five areas for critical raw materials and for our energy transition now as a priority because the energy that we get from other areas in the world is much more under pressure. So this would be a good alternative.
And actually all this richness in the ground does not bring any wealth to the local population. It brings conflict, it brings distress, and it brings a lot of wealth to external actors and not to the population there itself. And I think this is one of the main stories that we see in several areas on the continent of Africa where there is this wealth in the ground, which is either gold or other critical raw materials or gas also in the case of Cabo Delgado. And here I think we also play a role as Europeans. Because of course it's good that we are there and that we bring a lot of humanitarian assistance, that we support these organizations.
The organizations have told us some that, no, really the fact that USAID does not have any support anymore, it helps that the European Union is a stable partner.
But at the same time, of course, there is companies from the European Union that are also investing there and that are present there and that are part of this, I want to use a word which I'm not going to use here, but they're part of this, let's say, explosion which is taking place and which does not bring any wealth to the local population. So I think here we really also in everything that we will do with Global Europe and with other investment programs, we must make sure that it also brings wealth to the local population and not just to the companies that invest there. And I think this is really, really something that we learned. And last, and I know you're looking at the clock, sorry. Because it gives, you know, we learned a lot and I think it brings us a lot of information.
We see that there is a lot of distance between Maputo and Cabo Delgado. And not just physically, I think it's a few hundred kilometers, maybe flying from Brussels to the north of Finland, but also mentally and also in priority. And I think here if we are an important partner and if we want to be a partner and if we have all these European companies also investing there, we should also make sure that in our partnership with the government there is more priority to what is happening in the north and more of the funds, because apparently now there is a sovereign wealth fund from the money that comes in from the oil and the gas, sorry, exploration in Cabo Delgado. We must also make sure that our companies that are working there also are part of the fact that some of this funds from the sovereign wealth should not only go to the development of Maputo but should also go to the development of the north. So I think we do have some responsibility here and we should also make sure that what we do on the one side, which is good, is not outbalanced by what we do on the other side, which is I think from what we've seen so far not so good yet.
Okay, thank you.
Barry Andrews
Thank you, Marit. And György, would you like to share with us your reflections?
György Hölvényi
Oh yes, oh yes, very shortly. Yeah, no, it's, it was mentioned already several things and Hilda was, yeah, of course this is a, it's a replacement, it was necessary, but it was really successful. I think it's, it was a really, it's a good leadership, yeah, and it was really a good team. And here finally the recommendations are okay. This is good.
This is a good three points. And here I would like to underline two really humanitarian aspects. It was not, it was mentioned but not so directly. Is what I'm telling you is it's not my opinion, it's based on meetings, you know, with this, it's mentioned the humanitarian organization like UNICEF, Caritas, US agencies and the NGOs as well. Especially Cabo Delgado, but that was the aim of the visit, Cabo Delgado.
Mozambique is nice, yeah, and 2,000 kilometers, yeah, from each other, Pemba and Maputo. The decade-long uncertainty in Cabo Delgado, terrorism with really religious motives, the poverty and the human suffering following in the displacement are an economic reason. We have to underline it. This is an economic reason, very complex but an economic reason. The formerly absolutely renovated resort, you know, at the beach, yeah, it was destroyed totally.
It's totally nobody go there. It's as we've seen, it's really the poorness is there, healthcare as it mentioned, services are miserable condition and we have witnessed this. But it was not, not the same 20 years ago. We have to underline it, yeah.
And it's it's not independent for this point that the LNG extraction which began early 2010 is continued virtually uninterrupted. In the fact the industry is flourishing, industry is flourishing. The coming period the considered or duty highlight the true publication connections between this activities, the economical activities and terrorism. We have to we have to take pay attention on it. Yeah, how belong to each other.
And I think it's what I learned, it's not my, you know, it's a political vision or la la la la, no, it was absolute based of the testimony of the local people. They're for 30 years and they seen what's the consequences of this issue. And of course we have to work very consistently to calculate with the private private investment in Africa. But we have to have the capacity, how is it a good question, thanks for the recommendation, to to follow it, what what does it means for us. And what is the European and not only European but investments from the humanitarian situation.
But I would like underline, you know very well for me the educational church-related education is very important. But this is not a religious act. It's not the Islamism there. Islamism is only a something, you know, between Christians and Muslims, it's not about. This is a economical situation what we lost the control, yeah, the big guys are there, yeah, and they are happy, they are fantastic investments there, but anything else is yeah, how would you say, out of control.
Yeah, that's it. Thank you.
Barry Andrews
Great, Gyorgy, thank you very much. And yeah, look, I think the key point here from listening to you is that we have to use this practical experience to influence the way we approach the Global Europe instrument. And at the moment there is, as I see it, a really strong move away in the Global Europe instrument from the geographic pillars, the allocations to the geographic pillars. So if we were serious about taking the learnings from this and developing a budget for 2028 to 2034, then we have to really focus on that. Large-scale investments, that's where all the attention is going from the member states and from the Commission.
But our practical experience and exposure to these programs should encourage us to reconnect human development and prioritize it in the Global Europe instrument. For me that's the very strong takeaway, but there are very key recommendations already as both Hilda, Marenz and Gyorgy have pointed out. So with that, I would like to give the floor to Philippe Latriche, who is here from DG INTPA. He is the head of unit for Southern Africa and the Indian Ocean and also took part in the mission and, as Hilda pointed out, will also be able to tell us about the business forum that took place a couple of weeks after the delegation to Mozambique. So Philippe, the floor is yours for three to five minutes.
Philippe LATRICHE
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, and on behalf of all colleagues in the delegation that could not join today and all colleagues here in Brussels, whether INTPA, ECHO, FPI, EEAS, colleagues, really thank you to all, to all the members, but also indeed to the colleagues in the DEVE Secretariat for the mission. Very shortly on the mission because in short, thank you and very much sharing your positive assessment. Politically, your mission contributed, I think, to a very positive sequence following the visit here of President Chapo earlier in the year and just before two other events, I'll say a word, the Global Gateway Business Forum and our partnership dialogue with Mozambique that followed. As you said, as the members explained, I think it really from our perspective allowed to showcase and exemplify that we're delivering on a really wide range of issues, from the nexus in action that we saw, by the way, the day the Commission was adopted, the communication on this issue, to the briefing by Euronews, to Global Gateway investment, to education and youth.
I think the whole spectrum of what Europe together is delivering for our interest, but also for theirs in Mozambique, not only us as EU institution, but with Member States, we've seen with UN partners, you've seen them up north. And I think indeed, as mentioned, your visit politically to the north was quite instrumental to continue to put the light about what's happening up there in Cabo Delgado. So again, thank you, very much sharing the positive assessment that you presented. Just quickly then, indeed, after your mission, we had two EU-Mozambique events that took place, a Global Gateway Business Forum the week after, also coupled with RENMOZ, which is the biggest renewable energy conference in Mozambique that took place around the 9th and 10th of June. From our side, we were represented by our Deputy Director-General in DG INTPA and by the Portuguese Minister of State Reform, again to show that this is a Team Europe effort in action.
Very successful Global Gateway Business Forum. President Chapo joined with eight or nine ministers, stayed for almost five hours in various interactions, whether the formal opening or interaction with businesses from Mozambique, but also from Europe that participated. I think it was actually a very good moment for those Mozambican and European businesses to share views about what works, what doesn't work, and for him to engage directly with them. And certainly an opportunity for us to continue to push for that reform agenda. Happy to give you a bit more details about who was there, how many participants, but it was from, let's say, an investment perspective, a very good interaction at all levels.
Also a good opportunity for us to value what we have adopted this year together, including through comitology, our Annual Action Programme 2026 adopted earlier, which was showcased, valued together with Member States that are in some of those actions co-financing some of our operations on energy, on digital and education, which are the three priorities that you've looked at, but that we also translated into concrete financing in our Annual Action Programme. I think the President's participation, I think, was a sign of the strong political partnership, but I think it was also extremely useful that he could engage and listen very operationally to some of the recommendations, issues around the business environment, the reform agenda that he needs to continue to promote.
So very successful business forum that took place and then very quickly also to mention that the week after, so last week on the 17th of June, we held the fourth EU-Mozambique partnership dialogue, which is the yearly political exercise between us and partner countries, where we were represented by the European External Action Service, the managing director for Africa, and on the Mozambique side by the foreign affair minister who you've met during the the mission. Again, a very successful partnership dialogue that really reaffirmed the strong bilateral relations and that allowed for very broad discussions covering issues from again governance, macroeconomic stability, I already mentioned this, but also going into security cooperation, notably in Cabo Delgado, as well as regional issues and international consideration on which we are together with Mozambique trying to push our views. In to mention that this partnership dialogue was also a good opportunity to welcome and continue to support the national inclusive dialogue, which you've also heard about during the mission, as a key opportunity to advance democratic governance, political stability, electoral reforms, human rights and civic space in in Mozambique. I think the message from those two events is the need also to continue reforms from the economic angle but also from the political from the political side. Also a good opportunity through this partnership dialogue to exchange views on cooperation in security, maritime governance in in the Canal of Mozambique, obviously, and surely continue to position Europe strongly given the positioning of other actors in the region to be to be short.
Happy if you want more details on the business forum, certainly to provide more information, but I think again just to to thank everyone, I think that sequence of the mission, the Global Gateway Investment Forum, the partnership dialogue in a space of of three four weeks really allow us as as you said chair to continue as Europe to engage, to be present for our interest, for theirs, and really to to to be and I think we've seen this to remain as a as a stable long-term engaged partner with Mozambique. So thank you and happy again on the business forum if you want more details to to share. Thank you chair.
Barry Andrews
Okay, Philippe, thank you very much for that. Just a final reflection, first of all to thank Ambassador Maggiore and the delegation on the ground for facilitating and also being present at much of the mission. Just finally on on Global Gateway, of course, business forum, I think I think the big problem we have and and I'm trying to work on is to connect what we heard about child marriage, what we heard about malnutrition to the Global Gateway, the human development part of it. So it's good to have a Global Gateway business forum, but if you're using money that's used for poverty eradication, we've got to connect that up. That has to give it the European character.
I get what you're saying. I the microphone is open if you wanted to reply to that, but I think that's the key issue for me. So but I think it it sounded like a wonderful mission, the more I heard about it, the more I'm sorry I didn't wasn't able to go. But so did you want to say something quickly, Philippe? Thank you.
Philippe LATRICHE
No, thank you. I don't want to engage into a discussion on the Global Gateway, just to say indeed that just to recall that what we've seen clearly, I think what we're promoting is both our interest but theirs, and I think we're trying to push the mutual aspect of things. And again, not to to engage into the the the further discussion, but for example, what we saw in Cabo Delgado notably through the TVET program that we see is both something that we manage to fit into what we do as part of the nexus operation in Cabo Delgado and at the same time which is obviously Global Gateway relevant because we're providing technical V I mean TVET to to young kids. So I mean I've take all the points, but I think what we've seen also I think in some concrete example allows allows to see both in action including in the north.
Barry Andrews
But again, I don't... No, that's fair. Thank you, Felipe. Appreciate your coming back on that. And Hilde, just the final word, did you want to...?
Hilde Vautmans
Yeah, thank you very much. I think all the addings from the colleagues are very useful and we should add them to the report, I think. Then we have a global, then it stays, then especially on the child marriages, the malnutrition, which was very important and also what Serge said. But in our group, Barry, and you know that, I proposed, and it's decided in our working group, I just tell it to the members, I hope they can support it, that we would love to have a debate in plenary with a resolution so that the result of this mission gets a really voted resolution in the Parliament to do the follow-up. And so I think Valérie will propose it and defend it in the CoP.
So I hope that the colleagues can try to convince their parties to support it because I think that's the only way to really... Because if you do good missions with good recommendations, I think if it's voted, then it stays and we can have a reflection afterward. It shouldn't be long. I hate long resolutions, but I think it can really help because one thing that I mentioned there also was they always counted on a US-financed instrument in Africa to predict like epidemic, like Ebola, like Ebola. And now it's gone because United States stopped financing and they're also looking towards Europe.
And I think with what's going on with Ebola and touching the region, I think it's something we should also take into account. But so I really hope that it will pass. We cannot foresee, of course, because the agenda are very busy. But if I may ask to add the comments of the colleagues to the official report, then it's more completed, I think. Thank you very much.
Barry Andrews
Okay, thank you very much, Hilde, and thank you very much to everybody. It was clear that it was probably one of the best missions we've had in my experience on the DEVE. So congratulations to everybody involved and let's make sure there's an afterlife to this work. Okay, we'll take a five-minute break and then we'll resume on item eight on our agenda. Thank you.
Okay folks, we will resume our agenda now with item eight. Item eight is an exchange of views with Mr. Ramanathan Balakrishnan, who is the Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary General, UN Resident Coordinator and Humanitarian Coordinator ad interim. We are also joined here by Hans Das, who's the Deputy Director General of DG ECHO here on the podium and also Mr. Sergio Cecchini, yes Cecchini, who is the MSF representative to the EU and NATO. So South Sudan is, we, you know, there's a peace agreement from 2018 as people will know, but it is very, very fragile and there are spillover consequences from what's happened in Sudan. It's a country I visited on two occasions when I was working for an NGO in, called GOAL, an Irish NGO, and we worked in the north in Abyei on the border with Sudan and back in 2013 before the peace agreement.
But frankly, we can see that very little has changed, but it does require attention. So I'm really delighted that we have an opportunity to talk about South Sudan here in this committee at this point. There's so much focus on other humanitarian crises around the world and it's easy to forget this South Sudan, the youngest country in the world, I think. And but unfortunately plagued by conflict and poverty in its very short history. But we are joined by some extremely well-informed individuals who will help to update us on the current humanitarian situation.
So I can see Mr. Balakrishnan on the screen. So if you can hear us and see us, we will give you the floor for approximately seven minutes. You're very welcome Mr. Balakrishnan to the committee, the floor is yours.
Ramanathan Balakrishnan
Thank you, Chair. Honorable members, excellencies, thank you for the opportunity to address you today and a very good morning. I take this opportunity to thank European Union for its continued support to the humanitarian response in South Sudan. Your support enables humanitarian operations to continue and provide critical assistance to millions of people affected by the crisis.
As you all know, and as the chair briefed, South Sudan remains a highly complex humanitarian operating environment, driven by a convergence of simultaneous multiple shocks. Conflict, food insecurity, disease outbreaks, and climate-related shocks such as flooding continue to drive the humanitarian caseload across the country. In 2026, an estimated 10 million people, that is more than three-quarters of the population, require humanitarian assistance. However, due to severe funding shortfalls, humanitarian partners have prioritized assistance for 4.3 million people in 2026, down from 5.4 million people in 2025. This reduction is in no way a translation of the reduced needs.
It doesn't indicate that. The gap between needs and assistance continues to widen, increasing the risk of preventable loss of life. The communities do continue to demonstrate their resilience. However, the capacity to cope is under increasing strain. Let me illustrate this through the situation in Akobo in Jonglei State.
Since December 2025, conflict intensified across parts of Jonglei, Upper Nile, and Unity States. In Jonglei State alone, more than 300,000 people were displaced. At least 142,000 people were displaced to Tiergol in Ethiopia, and that underlines the transborder nature of the conflict that we're talking about and the humanitarian situation that we're talking about. Although security situation has improved in early May and many displaced people have started to return, condition remains fragile. Two weeks ago, I was in Akobo, where I witnessed humanitarian workers delivering critical health services at Akobo County Hospital under extremely challenging circumstances.
As I talk, in Akobo now there are more than 30 humanitarian organizations providing emergency assistance, including food, healthcare, nutrition, water, sanitation, and hygiene services. While humanitarian partners are responding, needs continue to exceed available resources. Akobo is a case in example for that. A US $12 million allocation from United Nations Central Emergency Response Fund, supported by contributions from member states, including those of European Union, is helping to sustain the emergency response in Akobo. In addition, European Union ECHO has provided critical funding to many frontline NGO partners and UN agencies, enabling us to scale up the assistance in priority counties other than Akobo as well.
South Sudan remains at high risk of Ebola virus disease importation from neighboring countries. Although no cases have been officially confirmed, risk remains very high due to the porous borders and a strained healthcare system. Preparedness measures have been strengthened since outbreak was reported. The US $2 million ECHO contribution to the International Medical Corps is highly appreciated and will support the efforts to strengthen health systems in anticipation of a potential outbreak. Let me underline here, a $1 million investment in preparation in Ebola today in South Sudan is far more valuable than a $20 million investment one month or two months down the line when we have the first case already.
Excellencies, let me turn to the next most important piece that I want to share with you: the protection of humanitarian personnel. South Sudan remains one of the most dangerous places globally for humanitarian workers. This year alone, 24 humanitarian aid workers, including contractors, have been killed since January. Humanitarian personnel, particularly national staff, continue to operate under extremely difficult circumstances with a high risk quotient. Every incident affecting humanitarian workers not only puts lives at risk but also disrupts assistance to communities that depend on humanitarian support.
Protecting humanitarian workers and humanitarian assets is essential to sustaining the response, and in this context, your continued advocacy on this topic is of utmost importance and help to us. The next topic is humanitarian access, of course. Between January and May 2026, humanitarian partners reported in excess of 300 access-related issues, including conflict-related disruptions, violence against humanitarian personnel and assets, interference with humanitarian activities, and bureaucratic impediments. These challenges affect the speed, the scale, and most importantly, the cost of humanitarian operations, leaving vulnerable people exposed to greater risks. South Sudan faces another threat: flooding.
It's a recurring threat. As the country goes through another rainy season, preparedness measures are critical. Experience consistently demonstrates the value of early action: prepositioning relief supplies, strengthening logistics networks, and supporting community-led and community-level preparedness can significantly reduce humanitarian impacts. As I said earlier in the case of Ebola, it holds true here as well. Investments in anticipatory action is extremely important, and so is climate resilience-driven investments.
The European Union has been a strong advocate for humanitarian-development nexus cross-pillar coordination. In South Sudan, this approach remains critical. The humanitarian response alone cannot address the underlying drivers of vulnerability. It is about addressing root causes and enhancing resilience while responding to immediate needs. We have recently expanded the area-based coordination approach to all states in South Sudan.
This is helping us focus investments on critical development priorities: essential services, climate resilience, food security, displacement solutions, governance, and violence prevention. At the state level, through the area-based coordination approaches, we are having a better success, we are having better results, we are already seeing better results in bringing together the cross-pillar nexus coordination. Allow me to conclude with a couple of priorities. A: we need to deliver critical life-saving assistance to people in need in a more efficient manner, and for this, we need resources, access, and cross-pillar coordination, and safety and protection for humanitarian workers and humanitarian assets. Second: increased and early investment in anticipatory action, particularly for flood preparedness, climate resilience, and disease outbreaks and episodes such as Ebola, cholera, etc.
Third: strengthening the protection of humanitarian workers and the communities they serve.
Fourth, continuing efforts to facilitate humanitarian access and remove operational constraints that delay assistance and makes humanitarian assistance, humanitarian response costly. Fifth, protect the core of critical systems such as food security, health, education, WASH through a cross-pillar coordination approach. And fifth, calling upon government and opposition groups, political and military leaders, community leaders to prioritize peace and recommit to the full implementation of the revitalized peace agreement. The people of South Sudan deserve peace and not renewed conflict. Excellencies, South Sudan faces significant challenges, but these challenges are not insurmountable.
With sustained partnership, adequate resources and continued engagement, including from the European Union, we can help communities navigate this difficult period and reduce humanitarian suffering. The people of South Sudan continue to demonstrate resilience under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. They look to all of us to match that resilience with sustained commitment, adequate resources and continued engagement. I end my address here. Thank you.
I remain available for clarifications.
Barry Andrews
Thank you very much, Mr. Balakrishnan. We will come back to you with comments and questions in due course. We appreciate you joining us this morning. So next is Hans Das, who is the Deputy Director-General at DG ECHO. Hans, you're very welcome again.
You have the floor for five minutes.
Hans Das
Thank you so much and good morning to all of you. And let me start by congratulating you on the adoption of the motion for a resolution on the humanitarian aid communication. We were very grateful for the support you're providing and we take good note of all of the points you're making and we're very keen to work with all of you in further developing that and we look forward to the adoption of the resolution in the plenary. Thank you also for putting South Sudan on the agenda. It is really very much appreciated.
We need to keep it high on the political agenda and we all need to step up where we can. I went to South Sudan myself at the end of last year to take stock of the situation and our response, to show support for our partners, but primarily to advocate for humanitarian space, access, protection of civilians and respect of international humanitarian law. I was in Malakal, a major humanitarian hub, and I traveled to several remote communities along the Nile and Sobat rivers. It was very impressive, these all very small pockets of population in islands along these rivers with virtually no or very little assistance reaching them. I was in areas under both government and opposition control and what I saw throughout the whole region was a very dire humanitarian situation, which is not getting any better, quite to the contrary.
The combination of armed conflict, economic instability and climate shocks, in particular floods, creates a situation where 10 million very vulnerable people require assistance urgently. Conflict is the main driver of needs in the country and a significant obstacle for humanitarian actors to reach people in need. At this moment in time, the situation has deteriorated further since my visit in December last year. To name the facts, civilians are being killed, they're being raped, they're starved, they're forcibly recruited and they're being maimed. Over 400,000 people have been displaced this year alone.
Civilian infrastructure has been targeted repeatedly. Significant lootings of humanitarian reserves have taken place. There has been targeting of health facilities and I'm sure our colleagues from MSF will say more about that.
Very importantly, people are being deprived of basic services such as health, food and education. The government's failure to meet its citizens' basic needs is deepening the crisis and traps people in a cycle of hyper-dependence on aid. In my meetings with the government I learned that last year the government spent 0.4% of its national budget on health needs and that figure in itself says it all in my view. We see politicization of aid, we see access denial, there's no-fly zones being imposed, obstruction of medical referrals, obstruction of humanitarian staff movement, obstruction of deliveries of essential supplies. Humanitarian partners were forced to close their operations in times when prepositioning of supplies ahead of the rainy season was critical.
We saw many testimonies or we heard many testimonies of complex bureaucratic hurdles and attempts of multi-layered illegal taxation on aid shipments. There were stories of humanitarian aid shipments arriving in Malakal port being taxed illegally by ten different entities just in that port. And very clearly this is further hindering response efforts. It's also increasing costs. The humanitarian operations in South Sudan are among the most costly we're funding globally and it is delaying urgently needed aid distribution.
So there's a need for further support and there is a need for stepping up on advocacy. We need a more unified voice among humanitarian actors and stronger alliances with donors and political actors to demand tangible change from the government. I invite therefore also the members of this committee to join advocacy efforts on three elements. First of all, cessation of hostilities and respect for civilian lives and dignity. Secondly, ensuring humanitarian access to assist people in need across frontlines and territories regardless of who is in control of that part of the territory.
And finally, calling on South Sudan's government to implement their responsibility to provide basic services to their population. It's time they start paying salaries to their health workers and teachers and to contribute their share in providing medicines and medical supplies. It is not only about advocacy, it's also about funding support. The role of humanitarian aid remains critical. Without it, lots of lives will be lost.
Funding cuts by many different donors are having visible and severe impacts on the ground. The European Commission remains committed to providing assistance to the most vulnerable in South Sudan. In 2025, our funding amounted to 106 million and that made us the second largest humanitarian donor in the country after the US. This year our allocation for the time being stands at 72.1 million but I'm very optimistic that we will be able to further improve that or increase that very soon. Just want to add my voice to what was said by the UN colleague just a moment ago on Ebola preparedness.
We're doing a lot of work on Ebola in DRC and around DRC but I think we all see very clearly that the worst case scenario would be a potential spread of Ebola into South Sudan and that's why we are stepping up with 1.5 million for the deployment of various experts and deliveries of supplies to South Sudan also to make sure that they are ready to respond.
Also very happy to say two sentences about the situation in Venezuela if that is allowed because that is happening as we speak. So we're all monitoring very carefully obviously. As you saw from the media, two earthquakes have been confirmed a few hours ago with major disruption of all basic services and critical infrastructure, severe damage and destruction of residential and other buildings. The number of fatalities and injured is increasing by the minute and it's clear that the toll will be very severe. It's equally clear that Venezuela will need external assistance.
They have indicated that much in the last few hours. We stand ready to support from the European Commission both through our humanitarian funding instruments. We're looking at making an additional allocation to Venezuela in response to the earthquake. We're also looking at humanitarian air bridges and we're looking at activating the civil protection mechanism to channel assistance from our member states. Thank you and apologies for going over time.
Barry Andrews
No, not at all. It's very timely to make that reference to the work that you're doing in as a result of what we read about overnight. Okay. So let's give the floor now to Sergio Cecchini who is the humanitarian representative to the EU and NATO for Médecins Sans Frontières. Please Sergio, you have the floor for five minutes.
Sergio Cecchini
Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you very much honorable members to dedicate this session to South Sudan. MSF has been operating in South Sudan since over 30 years and today is the second biggest project we have around the world with a total budget of 120 million euros to cover all our different operations and covering different needs. We witness a cycle of crisis unfolding in this fragile context and very recently we released a report documenting the dramatic escalation of violence across South Sudan with indiscriminate attacks on civilians, on civilian infrastructure, on healthcare workers as previously mentioned. And we witness that it has been growing in intensity, in geographic spread and in deliberate targeting with all parties to the conflict being involved.
Since January 2025, MSF have responded to at least five separate instances of mass attacks on civilians perpetrated by both SSPDF, SPLA in opposition and the White Army and other affiliated groups. This include airstrikes in Ulang and Nasir, attacks on civilians in Adong and Abiemnom and violence in different parts of Jonglei State which has reached an alarming level of brutality and scale. Our teams have provided care to over 6,000 people who have experienced different forms of violence, almost 2,000 more than 2024. Gunshot wounds have increased of 67% compared to the previous year. Last year alone, we treated more than 2,600 survivors of sexual violence.
96% were women and girls, some under the age of 15. MSF facilities themselves have not been spared. Since 2025, our staff and structures have been attacked 13 times: aerial bombardments, lootings, gunfire, abduction. Two MSF hospitals have been bombed into non-functionality: in Fangak in May last year and February this year in Lankien. Both are now permanently unfunctional.
As direct result, an estimated 762,000 people have lost access to healthcare in the region. In March this year, we were forced by SSPDF to evacuate Akobo. After it has been retaken by opposition forces, we were able to get back in town documenting that 15 health facilities that were there were been destroyed, looted, made non-functionals.
17 water towers and the water systems was destroyed. We took over the support of the Akobo teaching hospitals with overwhelming figures. We have today 680 patients in the hospital that has a capacity for 30 beds, and in an area where IPC ranks level five, so on the brink of famine. At the same time, we are witnessing that humanitarian access is being blocked and aid is being instrumentalized or used as a tool to control territories or to forcibly move population out of certain areas. At the very moment that violence and humanitarian needs are sharply increasing, the international funding is collapsing.
South Sudan's health system is critically dependent on external aid. MSF alone currently covers between 50 and 60% of the entire Ministry of Health budget in the country. Essential vaccine for tuberculosis and polio have been out of stocks for over six months. Thousands of children are missing life-saving birth dose of immunization. And to give an example, in July, 57% of 4,000 children arriving in our malnutrition center are malnourished, with severe acute malnutrition rate of above 20%.
As mentioned before, there is also a new and urgent risk on the horizon, which is the possible arrival of Ebola cases. And South Sudan border with DRC is already one of the highest risk zone where key activities that are essential to detect and do infection prevention control are extremely at risk. Outreach activities in this area are impossible due to the risk of kidnappings. In June alone, at least six NGO workers were abducted in two separate incidents while operating in these bordering areas.
Okay, okay.
Sergio Cecchini
Yeah, okay, so I go quickly. So, okay, given the escalating violence, the collapsing of the health system and the worsening needs, this is the worst possible moment to scale back humanitarian assistance and political engagement in South Sudan. I have one particular and the last second call, as the negotiation on the next multi-annual financial frameworks enter their decisive phase, we urge the committee to defend the humanitarian aid envelope. Cutting it does not save money. It creates far larger costs downstream in displacement, regional destabilization and preventable deaths.
Thank you very much.
Barry Andrews
Okay, Sergio, that's very clear, call to action for the committee. So let's open the floor to comments and questions. As we have a short time and we'd like to hear from our guests in reply to any questions or comments, I think we'll take them all together. So, Niels, would you like to... Oh, I beg your pardon.
So, because it's humanitarian issue, Niels, we have to go first to the rapporteur for humanitarian aid, and that is Lera Pajín. So, apologies, Niels, we'll go to Lera for two minutes, please.
Leire Pajín
Thank you so much, Chair, I'm going to speak in Spanish. Quisiera que mis primeras palabras fueran también de solidaridad con el pueblo venezolano tras conocer la información del último terremoto que sin lugar a dudas tendrá consecuencias devastadoras en la sociedad y para pedirle a la Comisión Europea que movilice como ya ha anunciado aquí cuanto antes los recursos necesarios para estar a la altura de una situación difícil. Y quiero empezar también poniendo en valor cuando hablamos de Sudán el rol de los trabajadores humanitarios.
Ese quiero que sea mi mensaje hoy, especialmente un agradecimiento a Médicos Sin Fronteras por reportar la realidad de Sudán. Si no fuera por su reporte, si no fuera por su rol hoy desconoceríamos la situación de muchas zonas de Sudán, por tanto un profundo agradecimiento a ese a esa labor. Y también la denuncia de lo que hoy le está costando las vidas a esos trabajadores humanitarios. Lo hemos hecho en muchas ocasiones, el último año se ha vuelto a batir récord los ataques a los trabajadores humanitarios y tenemos que desplegar todo lo que esté en nuestras manos para que eso no vuelva a ocurrir. No solo les cuesta la vida atender y socorrer a las personas, sino también ser testigos de genocidios, de violaciones del derecho humanitario internacional y esa es una de las razones por las que pierden la vida y son atacados.
Y en ese sentido me gustaría decirle también a la Comisión que celebramos por supuesto la financiación y el compromiso de la Comisión en Sudán, pero creemos también que la Unión Europea no puede limitarse a ser un donativo pasivo, que debe ejercer un liderazgo político firme y coordinado y que debe desplegar toda la diplomacia humanitaria posible para traducirse en acciones concretas que utilicen nuestro peso en el mundo para exigir el fin a los ataques de infraestructuras civiles y garantizar un acceso de asistencia seguro e irrestricto en una zona del mundo donde somos conscientes de las peores atrocidades contra la población. Por eso yo le quiero preguntar, acabamos de aprobar la resolución de la comunicación de ayuda humanitaria de la Comisión y quiero preguntarle a la Comisión pero también a nuestros organizaciones internacionales qué medidas concretas bajo esa comunicación de ayuda humanitaria que habla de diplomacia humanitaria debería tomar la Unión Europea para garantizar la protección de los civiles y también la protección de los trabajadores humanitarios. Gracias.
Niels Geuking
I speak in German so please use the headphones. Ja ich kann mich meiner Vorrednerin nur anschließen, dass wir dankbar sind für den Beitrag, den jetzt vor allem auch Sie, die jetzt anwesend sind von Ärzte ohne Grenzen, die Sie leisten, weil Sie setzen Ihr Leben dafür ein, um anderes Leben zu retten und zu schützen und insofern vielen Dank für Ihre Arbeit und dass Sie eigentlich dann der verlängerte Arm der Europäischen Union sind und unsere europäischen Werte. Mich würde interessieren, wie wir vielleicht den Kreislauf vor Ort durchbrechen könnten, damit wir die Hilfskorridore vielleicht auch längerfristig aufrechterhalten. Wie können Sie beispielsweise aus der Akoboro-Region aber auch andere schwer erreichbare Gebiete, was was braucht es am Ende, damit wir den Zugang nicht immer wieder verlieren und dann wieder neu aufbauen müssen und jeder Neuaufbau wird ja auch nur teilweise tatsächlich wiederhergestellt. Das heißt aus Ihrem wertvollen Erfahrungsschatz vor Ort aus der Praxis, was hat sich bewährt, was nachhaltig wirklich funktioniert hat, um den Zugang zu den Menschen länger aufrechtzuerhalten.
Dann zu Herrn Das, also ja Venezuela wollte ich gleich auch noch was zu sagen, aber bleiben wir kurz eben bei bei der humanitären Hilfe. Sie sprachen darüber, dass wir die humanitäre Hilfe regelmäßig auch teilweise künstlich verteuert sehen in Form von Steuern, die dann vor Ort passieren. Das heißt theoretisch könnte man sagen, hier wird ein Geschäft mit humanitärer Hilfe gemacht. Wie sehen Sie das, wo wäre hier ein Hebel, damit genau das nicht passiert? Also wie können wir da vielleicht gewisse Dinge auch politisch einleiten und umsetzen, damit der Euro bei den Menschen ankommt, die es wirklich brauchen und nicht in einem System vorher ja eigentlich künstlich die die Mittel gekürzt werden, denn politisch haben wir alle das große Problem, wie wir die Mittel überhaupt mobilisieren müssen und wenn dann vor Ort auch noch die Mittel in diesem Maße falsch eingesetzt werden, sollten wir auch da genau hinschauen und es möglich machen, dass die Gelder wirklich da ankommen, wo sie hingehören.
Also wie ist nach Ihrer Einschätzung der bestmögliche Hebel, um diese künstliche Verteuerung der humanitären Hilfe dann auch zu begegnen?
Und zuletzt, der Südsudan importiert jährlich Lebensmittel im Wert von knapp 800 Millionen US-Dollar, obwohl nur knapp 5 % der Ackerflächen selbst genutzt werden. Jetzt kann man sagen, ein Land wie in der Krise kann auch kaum Ackerflächen nutzen, aber auf der anderen Seite sehen wir auch, wie die Ukraine es ja auch irgendwie schafft, sich zu versorgen und sogar europäische Märkte noch mit ihrem Angebot unter Druck zu setzen mit dem Weizen. Was ist also im Sudan erforderlich, um private Investitionen auch in dieser schwierigen Lage noch irgendwie voranzutreiben? Auf der Landwirtschaftskonferenz in Juba forderten die Teilnehmer halt wirklich ganz gezielt, dass wir das nicht aus dem Blick verlieren dürfen, dass wir wirklich schauen müssen, dass wir den Privatsektor auch in dieser Zeit nicht verlieren. Wie ist Ihre Einschätzung dazu, wie können wir das miteinander verknüpfen, weil diese Gelder am Ende des Tages ja auch miteinander konkurrieren?
Die humanitäre Hilfe kostet Geld und auch die Mobilisierung von privaten Geldern kostet Geld, aber Hilfe zur Selbsthilfe, wenn hier nur 5 % der Ackerflächen aktuell bewirtschaftet werden können, ich würde lieber es sehen, dass man vor Ort, so wie auch die Welthungerhilfe es dann regelmäßig auch schafft, 40, 50 % der erforderlichen Lebensmittel vor Ort trotzdem noch in solchen Krisen zu erzeugen. Wie wäre hier der Hebel im Sudan, dass das eventuell auch noch funktionieren könnte? Vielen Dank.
Marit Maij
Yes, thank you very much, Chair, and thank you for your testimonies and for your information. I think it's shocking, the situation in South Sudan. You mentioned that MSF has worked there for more than 30 years. I first set foot on the soil of South Sudan in 1997 when it was Operation Lifeline Sudan, and from what I hear from you, nothing has changed and it has worsened. So I really have this feeling that where do we go if we, we need of course to bring humanitarian assistance.
We've had this discussion previously on the north of Mozambique. We need to bring humanitarian assistance and we need to make sure that the people, they survive. But when the cause of the conflict is still there, and the cause of the conflict already 30 years ago was natural resources, was oil, was the same companies that are working there right now. So I, and also the leaders are almost still the same as they were 25, 30 years ago. So when you talk about access to humanitarian assistance and when you talk about the possibilities and what our colleagues also said of what there is for also for humanitarian workers, but for people to move forward, to work on their lands and also to do the things that they need to do to survive normally.
How do you discuss this also, because there is a cause for this conflict and we seem not to care, maybe because the oil companies and also the traders are from outside of the European Union, but I would like to also ask you if you can maybe share some of your thoughts on that. Thank you so much.
Barry Andrews
Okay, thank you, Marit. And finally, unless there's any other questions, I'll just add in one more question, which is for the UN representative. Oh, sorry, Marco, please. I'll just go back to Marco.
Marco Tarquinio
Grazie, Chair. In italiano, molto rapidamente solo su un aspetto che è rimasto fuori dalle domande, ma è stato accennato in relazione, per cui ringrazio anch'io molto i nostri relatori. E riguarda le previsioni che conosco, quello che è uscito sulla stampa a questo proposito, ma sulla possibile impatto dell'arrivo di Ebola in una situazione esplosiva come questa.
La provincia congolese di Ituri è estremamente collegata per motivi tribali, per motivi anche contingenti adesso a diverse aree del Sud Sudan con una vulnerabilità che avete già descritto molto bene, ma interessa capire che tipo di volano potrebbe... perché stavolta gli allarmi sono molto forti. Davvero grazie.
Barry Andrews
Yeah, thank you Marco, and just yeah, one question for Mr. Balakrishnan. I mean, I was struck by your presentation in that you pointed out the way in which the United States is supporting the humanitarian effort. I think, you know, the big issue we're all grappling with is the collapse of USAID, actually, and a 60% reduction of US support for South Sudan, which is obviously having a dramatic impact. It's happening in Europe too. So, I mean, I'm just curious to know why that didn't come into your presentation.
Would you be critical of the United States travel restrictions on South Sudan in circumstances where the World Health Organization has clearly stated that there are no clinical reasons for travel restrictions or border closures of the sort that the United States government has announced, if you could make that point. And finally, just to MSF, you know, when MSF closes an office, which you had to do briefly in Jonglei, it's a... MSF would have a very high risk appetite, of course, so maybe you could explain how you... how that came about, because it's always MSF are the last to close any offices. So with that, we'll go back to Mr. Balakrishnan. We only have six minutes, so unfortunately we'll have to give you just two minutes each in reply to the comments and questions. Mr. Balakrishnan, you have the floor, if you can hear us in Juba.
Ramanathan Balakrishnan
Thank you very much. In South Sudan, on the humanitarian side, the US contribution to the South Sudan humanitarian pool fund alone has been till date 150 million dollars, of which 100 million dollars has been processed as the first tranche and implementation is already ongoing. And we are in the process of programming the remaining, the second tranche of 50 million dollars. So yes, the US government continues to be a major funder of the humanitarian, life-saving humanitarian efforts in South Sudan. So when I mentioned... so that's ongoing.
And of course, there is also funding coming from other donors to the South Sudan humanitarian fund and also a significant amount of funds that are being channeled directly by member states towards bilateral partners such as IMC, International Medical Corps, and so on and so forth. So that's one thing. On the Ebola side, I fully... the Italian delegate, you know, I fully identify with what was mentioned and the borders of South Sudan along with Uganda and particularly Democratic DRC Congo is extremely a vulnerable area. They are porous borders and therefore the Ebola response that we are put in place and the preparation efforts that we are putting in place are focusing on 15 counties which are bordering those areas and our immediate support is primarily to shore up the readiness of the health units, health facilities in those 15 counties. Obviously, the health system is under severe stress because of the past... the hollowing out of the health system over the last cycles of years and lack of funding and lack of payment of salaries and so on and so forth.
But that is where we are focusing with the limited resources available to us. And last but not least, I would again say that, you know, access remains a major issue. However, in South Sudan, we are working, the UN system works together with the UN, the agency funds and programs and the humanitarians work with the support of the United Nations mission in South Sudan.
Barry Andrews
Sorry, Mr. Balakrishnan, I'm going to have to ask you to make your concluding remarks and also address the question of travel restrictions imposed by the US.
Ramanathan Balakrishnan
Thank you, Chair. The United Nations, the efforts of humanitarian efforts are supported strongly by the United Nations mission assets in South Sudan, including the uniformed personnel, as it was seen last, very recently in the Akobo issue. On the travel restrictions, I unfortunately I do not have anything to say other than, you know, again, direct us to the WHO recommendations on travel restrictions being imposed only when necessary. I'll stop there. Thank you.
Speaker 30
Thank you very much, Mr. Balakrishnan. So, Hans, you have the floor for two minutes.
Hans Das
And I'll try to be very brief. First of all, fully agree on the importance of the protection of aid workers in line with the communication that we just presented and in South Sudan, it's certainly a case in point. On the cost of the operations, what I mentioned about the operations in South Sudan being among the most costly operations we're funding. Just to be clear, it is related partly to access restrictions. It is partly also related to basic lack of infrastructure, road infrastructure and other infrastructure, which means that some of the aid is still being dropped through air bridges.
There's still aerial drops sort of taking place, which is the most expensive way of providing that. But the various illegal taxes and the various bureaucratic impediments are also adding to the cost of these operations in the sense that they are delaying delivery of aid. Very often ships are staying for days or weeks at checkpoints, in ports, etc., making the whole distribution extremely cumbersome and very, very slow and costly. So what can we do to avoid that and to improve that situation? I think it is essentially an advocacy crisis.
This is an access crisis and we need to step up on advocacy towards the government. The government should start paying salaries so that there is no longer a need for all sorts of entities to be levying illegal charges and taxes. It is a governance issue also in the sense that the central government in Juba does not have control over big parts of the territory of the country. So we need to step up on advocacy towards all parties to the conflict to make sure that access is guaranteed and that lives, civilian lives are protected. On the causes of conflict, I couldn't agree more.
I had very open conversations both with the Vice President and with the security advisor of the President of the country and we named the issues very clearly. And I think they are open to discuss this, but they very clearly need a lot of help to get there. The UN is doing a lot of work on joint advocacy. I think where we can do better is sort of having this joined up donor-UN partner sort of advocacy. I'll stop there.
Thank you.
Speaker 31
That's great. Thank you, Hans. And final words, Sergio, please, you have the floor for two minutes.
Sergio Cecchini
On how to negotiate humanitarian access, we try to engage with all the warring parties, no matter if they belong to the SSPDF or opposition groups.
What we reported and we documented in our report that despite we share all the GPS coordinates of our medical facilities, despite we coordinate movement and so on, this doesn't prevent armed forces to deliberately attack health facilities and humanitarian workers. And this is for a simple reason, because they know that there will be no consequences. And this new normal of granting impunity to anyone in different context to attack health workers without any consequences is just giving the free floor for all armed groups, including official army, to conduct this kind of attacks in violation of IHL. So how to tackle this? With stronger advocacy, with stronger call for the perpetrators to be accountable, and I commend the recent joint humanitarian communication to put at the first pillar the protection of aid workers.
And this coming on the 10th anniversary of the 2286 resolution is an encouraging messaging, but now has to put into action. On when we close operation, yes, closing an operation for MSF is a very dramatic moment, and we act only when we do not receive any guarantees by the belligerent, by warring parties or any kind of armed groups about the protection not only of our health facilities, but the protection of their people, the patients that we treat. Is a last resort measure that we are forced to take in this case in some location in South Sudan, but not preventing us to returning back as we did in Akobo. And one last word, it's about joint advocacy effort. This year the Commission organized the fourth senior official meeting on Sudan, but broadening the scope about the regional dimension and the regional consequence of the Sudan crisis.
And I think and we do believe that this is the way we need to address from an advocacy point of view. The crisis in South Sudan is a multiple facet crisis, with also consequences of the crisis on Sudan or consequence of the external factor, external sponsor state using the stabilization of the region for their own purposes. Thank you very much.
Barry Andrews
Well, thank you Sergio and thank you also to all of you for putting this back on the agenda for us and giving us an opportunity to understand the consequences of some of the decisions that have been made here and the potential pitfalls that we're looking at in the future. But unfortunately it is a situation that hasn't changed a lot since I visited 10 years ago or you visited 20 years ago, so it's a really very unfortunate. But it will inform our dealing with the Global Europe instrument of course and our efforts to protect the humanitarian budget in particular, which is continuing to be under pressure, not just you know the number itself, but it will be a proportion of any reductions that are made at the Global Europe. So something that we have to bear in mind, there are consequences and costs in lives when we make these political decisions. So thank you everybody once again.
We will resume very shortly with the final item on our agenda in just a few moments. Thank you.
Okay, folks, a little bit delayed, but we will start with the final item of our agenda, which is item nine, the general budget for 2027. So the Commission presented it on the 10th of June, and we have to engage very quickly because our vote on the opinion and the amendments will take place on the 2nd of September. The draft budget concerns the final year of the current MFF, and obviously we're now focused on the MFF itself for 2028, but we actually have to keep surfacing the current budget and the budget for 2027. As we've probably, I think we all know, there's been big shifts under the current budget under the NDICI away from LDCs towards major investments, and we are a little bit concerned about that, the lack of focus on heavily indebted countries and fragile countries, the use of the emergency reserve for trade agreements like Mercosur and EU-India. Money that should really be used for vaccinations and for education and malnutrition projects are being used to shore up trade agreements.
So the use of the reserve is something we're quite concerned about. I know that the rapporteurs have been discussing this. So Mr. Goerens unfortunately is unable to be here today, so he's asked me to read out his comments. Mr. Goerens is the rapporteur on this, so I'll do that now, right? Yeah.
Will he go first? Well, actually, in fact, he wanted the Commission to go first. Oh, he wants the Commission to go first. Okay. So with your permission, I will ask the Commission to begin for three minutes each, and we are joined first of all by Mr. Daniele D'Amico, Head of Unit for Planning, Budget and Reporting from DG INTPA.
Daniele, you're very welcome. You have the floor for three minutes.
Daniele D'Amico
Thank you, Chair. Honorable members, thank you very much for inviting me to this exchange of views on the draft budget 2027. The discussion takes place, as everybody knows, in a particularly demanding geopolitical context. The global instability remains high, crises are multiplying, and needs on the ground continue to grow. In such an environment, it is essential that the European Union remain an assertive and reliable partner.
Let me reassure this committee that the 2027 draft budget remains anchored to our core objectives: poverty reduction, support to the most vulnerable partners, and sustained engagement in fragile contexts. Allow me to begin with a few words on 2025 implementation. INTPA financial implementation has been excellent. We have been committing and using the full voted budget for over 6.1 billion euro. And I would say this strong performance reflect our ability to translate the political priorities in concrete action and visible result on the ground, and this in full respect of the principle of sound financial management.
In 2026, we are continuing this work with the same focus on delivery, impact, and partnership. Through Global Gateway, we are supporting not only sustainable infrastructure, but also the enabling environment required for durable impact, including policy and regulatory frameworks, governance reform, and investment in people. Global Gateway must deliver concrete benefit for partner countries through sustainable investment, connectivity, and stronger local resilience. Looking ahead to 2027, our proposed budget will preserve the Union capacity to deliver on those long-term commitment, while at the same time retaining the needed flexibility to respond to the volatile international environment. The EU external action financing will build stronger and more resilient strategic autonomy.
Our agenda cater for the Union competitiveness by building strategic interest, including economic security, migration management, connectivity, and energy security and critical raw material supply chain. The continued leveraging of the Team Europe approach will be crucial in this respect. The EU must continue to deliver on international commitment and uphold multilateralism. We recognize the very tight margin available under Heading 6 and the need to preserve the capacity to respond to unforeseen external challenge, and this require a prudent and need-based approach. Finally, as we prepare the next phase of the work, we look forward working together in the design and implementation of the next multiannual financial framework.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Barry Andrews
Yeah, you're looking forward to the negotiations, I suppose you're the only person who's looking forward to it. Now, thank you very much, Daniele, and we now are joined by Ms. Dominique Albert, who is head of unit for programming, control and reporting at DG ECHO. Dominique, you have three minutes.
Dominique Albert
Thank you, Chair. The South Sudan previous discussion provides a very good illustration on how the overall humanitarian situation is concerned. In addition, global humanitarian funding is decreasing, and the outlook for 2027 is quite bleak. Today, 252 million people are estimated to require humanitarian assistance and protection. Forced displacement remains at historically high levels, 118 million people displaced.
At the same time, the global food security crisis continues to escalate. In 2025, famine was declared in two locations at the same time, in the Gaza Strip and in Sudan. Looking ahead, famine risk situation also remain of particular concern in South Sudan, in Yemen, in Somalia, in Nigeria. The situation is expected to remain highly fragile with consequences extending into 2027. El Niño is already compounding existing vulnerabilities, increasing the risk of drought, floods, failed harvest, higher food prices, water scarcity, malnutrition and disease outbreaks in already fragile context.
Against this backdrop, the funding situation is particularly concerning. According to the Global Humanitarian Overview, 33.6 billion US dollars are required in 2026 to assist 135 million people. So far...
Dominique Albert
Sorry. So, 33.6 billion are required today to assist 135 million people. So far, as of today, only 10 billion US dollars have been provided. So, one third of the requirement. This come in addition to further funding cuts in the past years.
The humanitarian system experienced the largest funding decline in record in 2025, with more than 8 billion less compared to the previous year, following cuts in 2024 of 6 billion. So these shortfalls have direct operational consequences. You saw South Sudan situation, I can take the example of DRC where the World Food Programme had to reduce the number of people targeted for food assistance from 2.3 million to only 600,000 in October 25, a reduction of about 75%. And at the same time, the number of people facing emergency levels of food insecurity rise to 3.9 million in 25 and early 26. In practical terms, this means households skipping meals, selling remaining assets, begging or resorting to dangerous coping mechanisms simply to survive.
EU humanitarian aid has remained a reliable source of support in this difficult environment. With thanks to your support, reinforcement in particular through the emergency aid reserve has helped the EU to respond to deteriorating crisis and maintain predictability for humanitarian partners. Looking ahead to 2027, it will be crucial to define a humanitarian aid budget that allows EU humanitarian aid to remain predictable, reliable and principled. In a context where other donors are contracting, this will be important for the EU to continue leading by example and to preserve its capacity to respond where needs are most acute.
Barry Andrews
Thank you very much, Dominique, for that summary of the view of DG ECHO. So now I am going to read out the speaking points of the rapporteur for this file, Charles Goerens. So, colleagues, we are not debating accounting lines this morning, we are deciding whether Europe keeps its word to the people who depend on us and to itself. The budget before us is the smallest margin we have ever had to work with, and it lands at the worst possible moment. When a quarter of a billion people need help and the world covers less than a third of it, a cut is not a saving, it is a decision about who we are willing to abandon.
Europe has never been that continent, and I refuse to let this budget make us one. We set ourselves a limit of 10% for migration management. We are heading towards 17%. Every euro pushed past that line is a euro taken from a school, a clinic, a harvest. I am not against managing migration, I am against doing it by quietly hollowing out everything else.
So let us be honest and let us be consistent. If member states want to spend beyond the 10% that NDICI allows, then they should pay for it themselves, not raid the development budget to do it. The rule is the rule. What goes above it is a national choice and it should carry a national price tag. Let us speak plainly: across the world, the biggest donors are walking away, and 17 of our own member states cut their aid last year.
As America pulls back, Europe is following, not leading. Development is not a tap you switch off when budgets are tight and switch on when cameras arrive. Disengagement has a price, and it is paid in lives. I will not let this Parliament look away. Our proposal is modest: 85 million euro, the bulk of the only margin we have, modest in money but clear in meaning.
In a year of retreat, this Parliament chooses to stand by its commitments. I count on the broadest possible support from across this house, on behalf of Mr. Goerens. So now we move to the shadows, who will have two minutes each on this short exchange of views. And first of all, I hand the floor to Mr. Niels Geuking. Niels, you have two minutes, please.
Niels Geuking
I speak in German, so please use your headphones. Vielen Dank, Herr Vorsitzender. Zunächst kurz einmal die Anmerkung, wir haben nicht die Möglichkeit jetzt zumindest so detailliert jetzt zu der den Diskussionspapier zu sprechen, wie wir es gerne würden, denn wir haben erst gestern den den Vorschlag erhalten, aber wir wissen vom Berichterstatter selbst auch, dass er sehr zeitlich kurz angelehnt war, also insofern kommen wir dann noch mit konstruktiven Vorschlägen sehr gerne auf Sie zu. Inhaltlich zu dem, was auch schon gesagt wurde, auch gerade schon vorgestellt wurde seitens der Kommission, dass der Fokus auf Armutsbekämpfung, internationale Partnerschaften stärken, humanitäre Hilfe, das begrüßen wir. Die ersten diskussionsbedürftigen Stellen haben wir dann aber schon ausgemacht, unter anderem teilen wir nicht so ganz die Einschätzung, dass der Emergency Aid Reserve vollständig der humanitären Hilfe zu verplanen sein sollte.
Diesen Ansatz, den halten wir für falsch auf den ersten Blick. Wir erkennen natürlich an, dass die Situation weltweit so ist, wie sie ist. Der Bedarf ist enorm. Die Zahlen liegen ja auf dem Tisch. Aber selbst wenn wir die Emergency Aid Reserve so nutzen, wie vorgeschlagen, würde das den Bedarf ohnehin nicht decken, würde uns aber in der Handlungsfreiheit und der Flexibilität womöglich einschränken, mehr einschränken als uns lieb ist, so dass gerade unvorhergesehene Krisen vielleicht nicht mehr in dem Maße zügig reagiert werden könnte, wie es der Fall ist.
Und wir sehen jetzt gerade auch mit Venezuela, kann man sich eigentlich kaum vorstellen, zwei Beben in der kürzesten Zeit, unvorhergesehene Dinge sind heutzutage nicht wirklich planbar, gerade im humanitären Bereich, so dass wir uns das genau anschauen, dass wir nicht die Flexibilität an dieser Stelle hier verlieren.
Darüber hinaus sollten wir in der Opinion auch die strategischen Prioritäten des Kommissionsvorschlags tatsächlich auch widerspiegeln. Wurde auch bereits angesprochen, dass die Rolle der EU als globaler Akteur gestärkt werden muss, Partnerschaften auf Augenhöhe müssen wir fördern und der Erfolg muss am Ende des Tages in der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit heute mehr denn je auch messbar sein. Denn wenn der messbar ist und wir tatsächliche Wirkungen dann ja auch aufzeigen können, dann hilft es uns zumindest gerade in der Politik dann auch Gelder vielleicht einfacher zu mobilisieren. Wichtig in dem Zusammenhang finden wir auch dann die Schaffung von Arbeitsplätzen und die berufliche Bildung und gerade auch die Entwicklung lokaler Unternehmen, denn nach unserer Auffassung ist gerade der Arbeitsplatz mit das Positivste, was auf die menschliche Entwicklung am Ende des Tages sich auswirken kann, weil das schafft am Ende Perspektive vor Ort, stärkt dann auch unsere strategischen Partnerschaften und macht dann auch europäische Entwicklungszusammenarbeit insgesamt und langfristig auch wirksamer. Wir freuen uns entsprechend auf den Austausch und auf auch wir freuen uns auf die Verhandlungen in der Tat und werden dann entsprechend mit den Änderungsanträgen auf Sie zukommen.
Danke.
Barry Andrews
Okay, so there's more than one. Very good, Niels, thank you very much. Maret Mai will present the comments of Carla Tavares on behalf of S and D. Maret, you have two minutes.
Marit Maij
Yes, thank you, Chair. So on behalf of Carla, I would like to thank first the rapporteur for his work and for presenting his draft opinion. From our side, we believe the text goes in the right direction. It's balanced, recognizes the seriousness of the international context and clearly identifies the main challenges for the European Union's development policy in 2027. But we need to be clear.
2027 will not be a normal year. It will be the last annual budget in this multiannual financial framework at the time when humanitarian needs continue to rise, food insecurities worsening and the conflicts are becoming more protracted. International development financing is under increased pressure. The role of the European Union is needed more than ever, particularly considering the US withdrawal and the reduction of support from major national donors across the world. Our first priority must be humanitarian assistance.
The level proposed remains below real needs. In a context of prolonged crisis, forced displacement, hunger, climate-related disasters and conflicts, we support a substantial reinforcement of the humanitarian aid line and the full mobilization of the emergency aid reserve for humanitarian needs in third countries. Second, we must protect and continue to finance the main priorities of development policy, which are health, education, nutrition, gender equality, human rights, civil society and first and foremost in fragile countries. Women and children and people in the most vulnerable situations are always the first victims when international aid is cut. Third, we must ensure that sub-Saharan Africa is not weakened further.
There are political and legal commitments that must be respected and we cannot accept that other priorities are financed at the expense of countries and populations with the greatest need. The Middle East and Gaza in particular must also remain at the center of our concerns, including this Parliament's continued support for UNRWA. The European Union must provide immediate humanitarian support but also predictable and sufficient financing for recovery and reconstruction in full respect of international law and in response to the needs of the civilian population.
Thank you.
Barry Andrews
Just in time. Very good. Okay. Erik, did you want to come in on behalf of Greens?
I'm sorry, I must ask you to slow down a tiny bit, Maret.
Erik Marquardt
Yes, but I will speak in German. Also genau, erstmal vielen Dank für die Diskussion, auch für die Anmerkungen der Kommission und vor allem vielen Dank an den Berichterstatter für seinen wirklich guten Entwurf. Ich glaube, dass wir für das ja dann letzte Jahr des aktuellen MFR auch sehen, wie herausfordernd die Situation eigentlich ist. Die Krisen werden immer größer und die Mittel werden weniger. Wir haben ja auch gehört, dass das dann nicht nur einfach Zahlen in Tabellen sind, die etwas sinken, sondern dass das auch einfach ganz praktische Konsequenzen hat.
Ich freue mich auch auf die Verhandlungen, auch um gewisse Dinge noch mal zu klären. Beispielsweise habe ich die Anmerkung der EVP nicht ganz verstanden, was die humanitäre Hilfe angeht. Ich glaube, dass wir sehr stark unterstützen, dass wir die Spielräume in Rubrik 6 vorrangig für die humanitäre Hilfe und auch die festgelegten Mindestmittel für Subsahara-Afrika nutzen sollten, genau um die Flexibilität zu haben, um auf Krisen zumindest halbwegs reagieren zu können. Insgesamt ist halt leider zu wenig Geld da und uns ist wichtig, dass wir mit dem Geld, das da ist, dann nicht versuchen, symbolische Projekte, zum Beispiel im Bereich des Migrationsmanagement, zu finanzieren, wo sehr viel Geld für wirklich sehr wenig entwicklungspolitischen Mehrwert ausgegeben wird. Es ist ja bekannt, dass wir die Ausgaben für Migrationsmanagement in NDICI-Global Europe von 10 % überschreiten, während wir an anderen Stellen eigentlich deutlich mehr Mittel brauchen, beispielsweise bei Investitionen, Klimaanpassung, in Ernährungssicherheit und in Resilienz allgemein.
Ich glaube und hoffe, dass wir aus diesen Haushaltsverhandlungen dann nicht nur als Parlament, sondern auch insbesondere das Signal an die Mitgliedstaaten aussenden können, dass wir Lehren für den nächsten MFR auch aus den Erfahrungen ziehen müssen, die wir jetzt in diesem und in den nächsten Jahren machen. Ich glaube und hoffe, dass wir auch das Signal setzen, dass die Vorschläge der zyprischen Ratspräsidentschaft bei den vorgeschlagenen Kürzungen, ich glaube etwa 4 %, da noch mal diskutieren können und hoffe, dass wir die Mitgliedstaaten überzeugen, in Zukunft etwas mehr Geld zur Verfügung zu stellen, damit wir besser helfen können.
Barry Andrews
Okay, thank you, Erik. And so we'll go back for very, very briefly just for quick reactions to the Commission for maximum two minutes each, please. So starting with you, Daniele, to respond to some of the comments and questions that you heard.
Daniele D'Amico
Thank you very much, Chair. Indeed, I would say the further reflection from the honorable members reflect a little bit what is the feeling of the Commission compared to the current situation. Indeed, we are at the last year of the financial programming cycle, so resources are limited, we know, and this is why it is extremely important that in the context that we know, we preserve as much as possible the necessary flexibility to be able to respond to the different crises to which we are exposed. And at the same time, preserving and ensuring the commitment that we have been taking and on which we continue to be engaged.
So the point of flexibility is absolutely taken from from our side in the difficult budgetary context that we know that we are at the end with the with a very limited amount of resource knowing that the margin which is available on this last year it it is limited to 100 million euro and and not more. This is why it is extremely important that looking forward indeed to the to the to the negotiation to come that we we struggle together to preserve let's say the the the budget for the for the next financial period. On migration because this has been raised also in your speaking point on on behalf of the of the rapporteur indeed indeed we are beyond the spending target which is which was fixed at I think at least 10% in the in the in the instrument that we are implementing but I would like to precise that that if we do more is because it's needed to do more because we are we are doing migration management. So so it's a consequence of a certain number of situation that you know are occurring with a lot of people which which which return to their home countries so our specific role is also in this particular context to make sure that those people is safely returned to their country of origin and receives also to the extent of possible the the accompanying measures in order to ensure a proper resettlement. So it's it's I would say it's mainly the the consequence of this situation the fact that you see this this percentage which which is now 16 17% as was mentioned in your speech.
Oh yes sorry. Okay but thank you very much for for that.
Barry Andrews
Thank you very much for that and now finally Dominique please you have the floor for two minutes.
Dominique Albert
Thank you chair I will be very brief. I want first to to support this committee and all the members for the for the good understanding and the full support for the humanitarian funding situation. I want also to reassure you that any reinforcement will end up in immediate in concrete impact with very concrete support to be delivered to people in need. So any reinforcement of the humanitarian aid budget would allow to resume increasing significantly food ration in context where they have been cut for refugees for example or it would end up in allowing our partners to reopen health facilities where they had to to close them because of the funding cut. So in terms of impact in terms of concreteness of action please be reassured that we will do our utmost to make sure that it's end up supporting people in need.
Thanks.
Barry Andrews
Thank you very much Dominique and indeed to Daniele for their presentation. So the deadline to table amendments to the opinion is July 1 at 1800 hours for the amendments on the budget lines themselves the deadline is the 16th of July at 10. This year everybody will work for the first time in the inter-institutional budget information system. What could possibly go wrong? DEVE coordinators confirmed that we will work in English only for tabling amendments.
Okay. So that's it 10 is any other business our next agenda item is does anyone have any other business to raise? That not being the case thank all colleagues involved the smooth running of this meeting and the interpreters and the secretariat for all of their work in preparing the meeting and our next meeting is on the 15th of July 9 o'clock here in Brussels. Thank you. As we will now go to in camera please if you're not involved in the coordinators meeting we'd ask you to move on.