Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Replay
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
AGRI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsJean Chrysostome Ngabitsinze
These are not simply African priorities. They are shared investment in global food security, economic stability, responsible migration management, and sustainable growth. The external dimension of common agriculture policy offers another opportunity to strengthen resilient food systems across Africa while reinforcing stable agriculture markets that benefit both continents. History rarely remembers those who merely reacted to crisis. History remembers those who prepared wisely before the storm arrived.
It remembers leaders who transformed uncertainty into opportunity and partnership into progress. Let Europe and Africa become known as the generation that chose foresight over complacency, resilience over regret, cooperation over isolation, and hope over fear. The Mediterranean should never be seen as a frontier separating our peoples. It should remain a bridge connecting two continents whose prosperity is inseparable. When an African farmer withstands drought because science met solidarity, Europe is stronger.
When a government prevents famine instead of responding to it, humanity is stronger. When resilience replaces emergency, both our continent move closer to lasting peace and shared prosperity. Together, I mean here Africa and Europe, field by field, village by village, nation by nation, we transformed risk into resilience, resilience into opportunities, and opportunity into lasting prosperity. That shall be our common legacy. I thank you so much.
Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. And I would like to immediately ask our coordinators for their questions or remarks. Dear colleagues, you have two minutes each, and I would like to start. Herbert is not here, so I have question if somebody from, if you want to, Vice-Chair Buda, please take the floor.
Daniel Buda
Doamnă președintă, doresc să intervin. Please put your headset. Deoarece am avut plăcerea și ocazia să vizitez continentul african în urmă cu doi ani de zile, am stat o săptămână în Africa de Sud, unde am reușit să văd fața, să spun așa, a sectorului agricol și pot să spun că pe foarte multe paliere sunteți exemple de urmat pentru noi ca și Uniunea Europeană. Doar dacă mă gândesc la mecanismele de utilizare a lânii de la oi, am văzut astfel de centre de colectare unde voi aveți capacitatea de a valorifica foarte bine acest produs. Pe de altă parte, eu cred că Uniunea Europeană și-ar putea îndrepta mecanismele de colaborare cu dumneavoastră plecând de la un element pe care noi nu îl avem aici în Uniunea Europeană și anume suficient de mult teren pe care să cultivăm, să punem culturile.
Și eu cred că s-ar putea încheia acorduri de cooperare cu dumneavoastră, dat fiind faptul că dispuneți de suprafețe de teren întinse, astfel încât să putem dezvolta capacități de producție în statele dumneavoastră, în așa fel încât să avem posibilitatea de a garanta securitatea alimentară. Deoarece vreau să știți că pentru noi este extrem de importantă securitatea alimentară. Știți foarte bine că războiul din Ucraina ne-a creat dificultăți în ceea ce înseamnă aceste exporturi de cereale către zonele africane, cu consecințe evidente, incomensurabile, dar am făcut eforturi pentru a asigura acest flux de cereale către dumneavoastră. Însă eu cred că trebuie să ne canalizăm eforturile către acest mecanism de cooperare, de a vă sprijini la un nivel adecvat pentru a putea să vă dezvoltați capacitățile de producție în zonele dumneavoastră, deoarece aveți terenuri care sunt foarte bogate, pe de o parte, foarte fertile, pe de altă parte aveți și clima care poate fi folosită pentru dezvoltarea diverselor culturi agricole, în așa fel încât să putem ca împreună să garantăm securitatea alimentară. Pentru că ceea ce am văzut în filmulețul dumneavoastră, acei oameni care săpau porumb, da, trebuie să devină doar o chestiune pe care să o vedem în filmele din trecut.
Nu, avem nevoie de implementarea a noi tehnologii pentru a putea într-adevăr să fim competitivi la nivelul, să spun așa, întregii, sau la nivel mondial, deoarece nu putem să discutăm despre securitatea alimentară decât atunci când avem copii care să meargă să se culce mâncați, sau mă rog, sătui, să spun așa, și în Africa, și în Europa, și în orice parte a globului. Și împreună spun eu că putem să facem aceste eforturi pentru a putea garanta această securitate alimentară la nivel mondial.
Gilles Pennelle
Merci beaucoup, Madame la Présidente. Le meilleur moyen de garantir la sécurité alimentaire est pour une nation de produire sur son propre territoire une part essentielle des denrées destinées à nourrir sa population. Le développement de l'agriculture africaine est donc un impératif pour renforcer la souveraineté alimentaire du continent et réduire sa dépendance bien évidemment aux importations. Ce développement passe nécessairement par la modernisation des exploitations agricoles. La meilleure réponse aux crises climatiques, aux aléas climatiques, aux risques, réside dans l'augmentation de la production locale grâce à l'innovation, à l'irrigation, à la mécanisation, à l'amélioration des semences et au progrès agronomique davantage selon nous que dans la multiplication des mécanismes d'indemnisation.
L'Union européenne consacre directement ou indirectement plusieurs dizaines de milliards d'euros au développement de l'Afrique et prévoit de mobiliser 150 milliards d'euros supplémentaires dans le cadre de l'initiative Global Gateway. Une partie importante de ces financements bénéficie au secteur agricole. J'aurais deux questions à poser. Disposez-vous d'une évaluation démontrant que ces investissements ont permis d'améliorer durablement la productivité agricole et de réduire la dépendance alimentaire de l'Afrique ? La Cour des comptes européenne a récemment estimé que les résultats obtenus demeuraient en deçà des attentes, notamment en raison d'un ciblage insuffisant des financements.
Avez-vous le même avis ? Enfin, quelle part des financements européens destinés à l'agriculture africaine est consacrée à la modernisation des exploitations et à l'augmentation de la production, notamment par le développement de l'irrigation, de la mécanisation, de l'amélioration variétale et des autres innovations agronomiques par rapport aux dispositifs de gestion des risques et d'indemnisation ? Merci.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you, Gilles. Now I would like to give the floor to Elsi Katainen, please.
Elsi Katainen
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for your impressive presentation, Director General. As you said, when everyone has food and water, we are all much safer.
Unfortunately, we are currently facing more and more extreme weather events all over the world. Some areas like Africa is one of the first ones to face significant consequences. It is valuable that you are today giving the presentation on the matter, so we can better understand the situation as well and we can learn from your actions. On these situations we must prepare ourselves better for the risks exposed by climate change. Of course we cannot anticipate all possible risks we might face, but like we see already now, increasing amount of forest fires all over the year which also raises concerns about food production.
I'd like to ask you how have farmers in Africa taken your initiatives? Do they find and recognize them and how does the future look like? Do you have enough funds to keep this ongoing process? Thank you.
Barry Andrews
Thank you, Veronika. Just a few questions, then. First of all, thanks for your presentation and just wanted to get some insights from you if I can. As you probably know, the European Commission is preparing a new budget for 2028 onwards. And one of the big changes in the external financing is the introduction of the idea of European preference.
So taking a much more economic approach to foreign policy, much more focused on European interests. So from your perspective, how would you perceive this change in European policy? Is it something you will be able to adapt to or are you concerned that it will add cost to projects that would otherwise have been able to be pursued on a market basis in the future? Secondly, I mentioned at the beginning that the World Bank has changed its approach to climate financing and it has dropped its target of 45% of its projects for climate financing. It has, as they say, retired that.
So on the one hand, the United Nations represented by yourself is telling us that climate change is something we have to be prepared for and on the other hand, a key player is quietly dropping its commitments to climate change. Again, I would be interested to hear your opinion on that. And then just two questions really on you talked about sovereign climate risk insurance. Just explain what role the European Union can have in supporting your African Risk Capacity Group in climate risk insurance and how that works at a sovereign level. Are we supposed to are we supposed to help you with guarantees or what is the European role in that idea?
Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you, Barry. And now Luke Flanagan would like to take the floor.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Thank you very much for your presentation, very interesting and very positive and I've heard a lot of people come in here and very professionally given, so well done, you're doing a good job. And I just further to what Barry Andrews had said, it is I was reading about that myself about the World Bank and moving away from funding issues in connection with climate change, which well you're at the forefront. I come from a country like Ireland, we're going to have a problem with climate change, but ye have you're facing massive, massive problems, so never more has funding been needed.
And it's, it's, let's just, let's just, I don't believe in a God, but let's pray these few years of the American presidency pass quick. But I'm just from an EU policy point of view, and we're working on the new Common Agricultural Policy. And while the Common Agricultural Policy is massively important for areas like mine and everyone in the European Union, it, the impacts of it don't stay within the European Union. And we hear mixed stories about the impacts of cheap imports into Africa of powdered milk, particularly countries like Senegal, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, and Cameroon, and how locals just can't compete with this product which has vegetable oil mixed with it and basically puts the locals out of business. And some people agree with that sort of stuff, the idea that well, anywhere Europe can make a buck, all the better.
And now we're going further down the road in Europe of well, be competitive, that's the number one thing, and never mind about any nuance in any other area. So I'm just wondering, do you have anything to say about that, about there are positives to the Common Agricultural Policy and it's good for Europe in many ways, but are you worried about that impact that it might have in Africa and in areas that you've seen and explored? Anyway, thank you very much.
Ivan David
Já děkuju za to sdělení, které jsme mohli vyslechnout. Situace v Africe je pro nás důležitější, než by se na první pohled mohlo zdát. U nás se říká, že chceš-li někomu pomoct, nedávej mu rybu, nauč ho chytat ryby. Já si myslím, že se i v Africe můžeme něco učit a na druhé straně předat celou řadu informací. U nás v Praze na Vysoké škole zemědělské máme katedru tropického zemědělství, o kterou je velký zájem, a to si myslím, že je dobrý vklad do mezinárodní spolupráce.
Země Evropské unie se také podílejí na vykrádání Afriky, kdy například platí velmi málo za produkty v Africe, nejedná se teda jenom o minerály, i o zemědělské produkty. Na druhé straně jsme byli taky svědky naprosté likvidace Libye, kde se podařilo rozvinout zavlažování. Mě by zajímalo, nakolik je možné čelit těm problémům například zalesňováním, tak jako v Číně, kde v poušti vysadili statisíce stromů a už to má dobré výsledky. Takže mě by též zajímalo, že například v Keni poklesl jaksi podíl lesů na celkové ploše skoro o devadesát procent za posledních šedesát let, jestli to taky nejsou věci, které jaksi zhoršují situaci v Africe.
A nakonec bych se chtěl zeptat na růst populace, která může limitovat ty úspěchy zemědělství vzhledem k tomu, že je potřeba uživit daleko více lidí.
Thank you. And I think that I'm in the end of our list of speakers and I give the floor again to Mr. Ngambinzinze and you please for your you have just enough time for your answers remarks. Thank you.
Jean Chrysostome Ngabitsinze
Thank you so much honorable chairs. I will excuse myself I'm not being able to take the names but the questions and contributions I have been able to take and understand them. First of all I thank the support and the push you are giving us in terms of working together. So we really appreciate. We really appreciate that.
The situation in Africa, if I start with honorable Buda and I will touch on the war in Ukraine and impact on the current situation in our economies is that of course the dynamism around economic growth and political economy and more external shocks of course they can impact the current of level of wealth and income generation. But with the partnership, in particular the partnership EU has with Africa, it has been even said millions are given to African countries in particular in agriculture to de-risk, to de-risk agriculture sector to make sure that I come later on productivity that the production can increase because I agree now the current productivity is under the average if you see you see the numbers. So I still believe financing Africa is an investment not only a way of giving money where perhaps accountability is not there. No that will be generalization but if you see there are a good number of countries doing well in in I think we can continue to support and organizations like African Risk Capacity can support on de-risking sectors beyond beyond agriculture. The issue of food insecurity in which you talked about.
Yeah we still have we still have millions of Africans in the range of food insecurity meaning that they are not able to have enough in quality and in the quantity of food. Usually the minimum time to eat is three times but it's not only the number of the time you eat is the what proteins and the food content you eat. So we still have a lot to do. For that reason continuing support on agriculture productivity is very is very important as as you have said. We should not allow our children to go to bed with an empty stomach.
So that is not human. So I really call the the support and then of course we will go in parallel in terms of accountability and the money well spent. So the experience you saw in South Africa for sure regarding the livestock, the processing transformation, it's very important. In Africa even when we produce the capacity to transform what we do still need support and push in terms of technology, internet of things what we call IoT and so and so on. So the support will really help along the value chains from the production to the market.
The issue of cutting support on climate change. Okay that can be a political decision but as an economist's point of view climate is causing more loss than other shocks if you see the values.
If you see now in Africa, the climate shocks are really impacting negatively our GDP to trillions, two to three trillions every year, meaning that it's real, it's real. And then we just count money, but if you see the loss of humans, it's really high. So I respect a political decision, but I challenge it with data. For that reason, in ARC, we work with data, we show what we do, we show impact, we show benefits, we show challenges, and of course, we change lives of people because we work with tangible data. And then small small, I'm sure even countries who are leaving support to support climate change will come back because it's a global, it's not even localized a problem, it's a global problem.
Productivity, it's still an issue, I said it. We have to work hard. We have enough land, it has been said, even more land in surplus, but we don't have the technology, the right technology to use. We have a human force, human capital, but at the end, we don't have the right skills. So for that reason, supporting research, supporting education, supporting technology, supporting our young people, for sure will help Europe, as I have said, even to reduce the willingness African young people they want to come in Europe always.
So to support them in that way, it will help to increase productivity and increase income and will reduce the risk we see here and there on trying to come to find a better life in Europe. So research and development is very key and in ARC we are putting all our efforts to support our thirty-nine member states in which we will increase even more in a few years. The question on insurance, how EU can support insurance. Insurance usually requires two things. The first one is risk analysis.
The risk analysis, how we do it in ARC is through modeling. Now currently we have modeling on drought, modeling on flooding, modeling on tropical cyclones. From the data we have, in which we thank even Europe because the projects we have today they support member states to do that, we can arrive where we can propose a product. It's a sovereign product, it will pass through government, but at the end we can say, so develop the capacity to analyze quickly and to be able to communicate the risk to member states, that's one. The second will only ask you as Europe to put your money when you see the model is working.
So the second part is a win-win situation. You can support through premiums, you know that you are supporting a country to deal with a shock, then you are supporting livelihood, supporting people to not to fall under food insecurity because you support to have a premium so they can have a payout. Otherwise, we can even do as business, it's an investment, a capital in which of course we'll have a return because now countries in Africa they are planning to put their money, their money on climate risks or catastrophic risks because they saw it's causing high level. But for ARC today, we really ask to support us on having the capacity of early warning, to model, to have a data, we are developing a data center, and of course we have ARC Limited doing the business side. So we have accurate on our modeling, then of course we can support all our member states.
So the same, the question came again, the change of policy in Europe. I understand the preferences of a continent. And for sure, every human being will first prefer his own land, and it's understandable. That is human being. But we know, we know even from the principles of economics, there is no way to live without supporting or working with others.
So meaning that, yes, Europe first in terms of consideration because you have a continent to support. But if you see the potentialities we have in Africa, let's just take in agriculture sector, what we can sell here, if we are supported to have a good product, quality product, then the price we are talking about that they are low, they will increase. But this needs a support to make sure that we can have the product the Europe need, and we can produce them because we have the land as I have said, and we have other products. So yes, I agree, Europe first, but we remember that the power of partnership, the power of value chains, because they start at production, they end in our markets, in our supermarket everywhere in the world. So to me, investing in agriculture sector in Africa is an investment in which I can encourage everyone to do because it will give money back.
It will give money back and it will help people to have nutritious and quality food in their table. So again, it's a political decision, but I am sure in which we can support with evidences on how. There is no free lunch. There is no free lunch. We want to participate on producing that lunch, then we can share the gain.
So it's a win-win situation. So there is an issue of cheaper imports on powdered milk. Unfortunately, that requires standardization. If you see currently in Africa, countries who have what we call standards organizations where you have let's say right people, right technology, right tools to use to check the quality of what we are producing in particular is not easy. And of course, beyond the standards, there are deals between a country and another or a person to another who sells.
Here I can just say, we cannot allow cheap product to go anywhere in the world because cheap product, they cause a very social high cost, in particular if you go on health side. So this is a fight we have to fight all of us, and unfortunately we still have them. The common agriculture policy, in which personally I know it very well from my background at university in Italy, it's something goes beyond Europe because if you see the partnership among universities, I have that background, so it's changing really in terms of skills many Africans. And today, if you see the number of capable people in terms of working in the sector of agriculture, doing things well, if you see the companies from Europe importing the few products we have in Africa, you will see that the researchers inside there, they have been supported through Europe education. So I can say again, we can increase.
Then the side of tariffs and other commercial macro indicators, people can deal them separately. But I still believe that the EU policy, in particular the common agriculture policy, can still support Africa, support organizations like AK to educate people to do better, to do more, and of course to gain from their knowledge.
I thank you chairs, and there is one on population growth, even if the person has not been able to finalize. Population growth, yeah, it's a variable in which you have to take care in my continent, in our continent. We cannot say perhaps what is the right number to have in a household, but the question is what are the capacity in terms of financial we have to support the children we can have. But really if you see the rate of growth is above 2%, and if you see today in 2060, 50, the African population will be really multiplied. I think with the health system, the good quality of education, it will be possible to normalize without shaking the people or without taking the measures in which we cannot even be able to sustain because of cultural values and so on.
But I think through education, through health measures, it is possible because I totally agree the income per capita is the total of income divided by the total of number. So if you have more population, you understand for that reason you will see that many countries still in low level in terms of income, but one side you have to accept that human capital is always important. Thank you honorable chairs.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much Director General, and just now I would like also to ask colleagues if you have any questions. Okay, I don't see anybody. In this case I also would like to ask Mr. Luca Zampetti from DG ECHO for his statement, please.
Americo Beviglia Zampetti
Thanks a lot to everybody. I'm sorry but I was not informed that I would have had to deliver a statement, but let me welcome this opportunity to thank the General Director of the African Risk Capacity. The work the agency is doing is particularly important in a context whereby we are seeing unfortunately increasing natural disasters due to the negative effects of climate change. And we praise the work of the African Risk Capacity in disaster preparedness, which is something that ECHO is working on together with African Union and the RECs, the Regional Economic Community, in different parts of Africa. We are particularly looking at cooperating with these entities, and we are also organizing later this year an event on disaster preparedness which should progress a bit also our cooperation in that field with Africa.
Let me end here and welcoming also this presentation which would add to our work and our collaboration with the African Union already established. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you, and I ask again Barry if you have some remark in the end.
Barry Andrews
No, thank you Veronika, thank you very much to our guests, I have no further comments.
Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. So, in this case, thank you very much for your coming. Thank you very much for a lot of very interesting information for this discussion. And I hope that we will continue in our discussion in future. Thank you very much.
So, dear colleagues, we have votes now, but it's we have to wait ten minutes because it's supposed to be at 4:00 and we have to wait for our colleagues. Let's vote now.
So dear colleague, I would like to ask you to take a seat and I think it's time to start with voting, please. Dear colleague, please take a seat. And I am going to start. So first we would like to, we will vote establishing a budget expenditure tracking and performance framework and other horizontal rules for the Union programs and activities. So let's start.
Remember that you have your, if you have your voting card in the machine. And we start with compromise number one. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain?
And it was adopted. Compromise number two. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain?
It was adopted. Compromise three. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain?
Adopted. Compromise four. In favor. Against. Abstain.
So please let's check it. I open the vote. On compromise four. Four. I open the vote.
There is one non-attached too many. Please if you, I don't know if Mr. Lazaros or somebody, okay, please take off. Okay, okay, thank you. So again, let's start again. It's compromise number four.
I open the vote. I close the vote. It's adopted. Compromise 4A. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstain? It's adopted. Compromise five. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstain. Adopted. Compromise six. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstain. Adopted. Compromise seven. In favor.
Against. Abstain. Adopted. Compromise 7A. In favor.
Against. Abstain. Adopted. Compromise eight. In favor.
Against. Abstain. Adopted. Compromise nine. In favor.
Against. Abstain. Adopted. Compromise ten. In favor.
Against.
No. No, compromise it's six... No. No. Compromise ten is now.
In favor, against, abstain adopted. Please I ask you, I it was adopted but please show your hand better. Okay, compromise eleven, who is in favor, against, abstain adopted. Compromise twelve in favor, against, abstain adopted. Amendment two nine two in favor, against, abstain, it was rejected.
Compromise thirteen, who is in favor, against, abstain adopted. Compromise fourteen in favor, against, abstain adopted. Amendment twenty-two and three two four are identical, who is in favor, against, abstain rejected. Amendment three three one in favor, against, abstain rejected. Amendment three three two in favor, against, abstain rejected.
Okay, let's check it. It was amendment three three two. I open the vote. I close the vote. It's adopted.
Compromise fifteen in favor, against, abstain, it was adopted. Compromise sixteen in favor, against, abstain adopted. Amendment three four zero in favor, against, abstain, let's check it. I open the vote. I close the vote.
It is adopted. Amendment three four one in favor, against, abstain rejected. Amendment three four two in favor, against, abstain adopted. Compromise seventeen in favor, against, abstain adopted. Amendment twenty-four and three four eight are identical, who is in favor, who is against, who abstain, please check.
I open the vote. I close the vote. It was adopted. Amendment three four nine and three five zero are identical. Who is in favor, who is against, please and who let's let's check because I don't see your hands.
I open the vote. I close the vote. It was adopted. Amendment three five four, who is in favor, who is against, who abstain, we have again to check it. I open the vote.
I close the vote. It's adopted. Amendment 355. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstains? It's please again check. I open the vote. I close the vote. It was rejected.
Amendment 356 and 375. We vote together. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains?
It was rejected. Compromise 18. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains?
Please check. I open the vote. I close the vote. It was adopted. Compromise 19.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted. Amendment 393.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted. Compromise 20.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted. Amendment 404.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was rejected. Compromise 21.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted. Compromise 22.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted. Compromise 23.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted. Compromise 24.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted. Amendment 439.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was rejected. Compromise 25.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted. Compromise 26.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted. Compromise 27.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted. Compromise 28.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted. Compromise 29.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted. Compromise 30.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted. Compromise 31.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted. Compromise 32.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted. Compromise 33.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted. Compromise 34.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? It was adopted. Compromise 35.
Okay. Compromise 35. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains?
It was adopted. Compromise 36. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains?
It was adopted. Compromise 37. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstain? It was adopted. Compromise 39, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstain? It was adopted. Amendment 34, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain?
It was adopted. Amendment 39, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain? It was rejected.
Amendment 41, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain? It was rejected. Amendment 55, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstain? It was rejected. Amendment 54, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstain? Please check. Amendment 54, I open the vote. I close the vote. It was rejected.
Amendment 57, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain? It was rejected. Amendment 56, who is in favor?
Who is against? Could you show me again who is against? Okay. Who abstain? It was rejected.
Amendment 58, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain? It was adopted. Amendment 60, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstain? It was adopted. Amendment 61, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstain? It was adopted. Amendment 59, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain?
It was rejected. Amendment 66, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain? It was adopted.
Amendment 69, who is in favor? Who is against? Please check. I think it was rejected, but I have to check it. I open the vote on amendment 69.
I open the vote. I close the vote. It is rejected. Amendment 70, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstain? It was rejected. Amendment 71, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain?
It was adopted. Amendment 74, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain? It was rejected.
Amendment 75, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain? It was rejected. Amendment 76, who is in favor?
Who is against? Please check. I think 76, I open the vote. I close the vote. It was adopted.
Amendment 77, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain? It was rejected. Amendment 78 and 79 are identical.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain? It was rejected. Amendment 82, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstain? It was rejected. Amendment 83, who is in favor? Who is against?
Please check. Change majorities. It's amendment 83. Who, I open the vote. I close the vote.
It is rejected. Amendment 84, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain? It was rejected.
Amendment 85, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstained? It was rejected. Amendment 87, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 88, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was rejected. Amendment 89, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was rejected.
Amendment 93, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? Please, I don't see really your hands. I have to check.
Please, amendment 93, I open the vote. I close the vote. It is rejected. Amendment 94, who is in favor? Who is against?
Again check, please. I think it was adopted, I am not sure. 94, I open the vote. I close the vote. Oh, it is rejected.
Amendment 95, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 96, who is in favor?
Again, who is in favor, please? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 97, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstained? It was rejected. Amendment 98, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was rejected. And now roll call vote, final vote. I open the vote. I close the vote.
And it was adopted. So, now let's move to amending regulation as regards certain production labeling and certification rules and certain rules on trade with third countries. It's organics, yeah. Rapporteur is Carmela Laureti and I think that will be a shorter one. Just, okay.
Compromise 4, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Compromise 1, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted. Amendment 102, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstained? It was rejected. Compromise 2, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Amendment 145 and 212, we vote together. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained?
It was adopted. Compromise 3, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? It was adopted.
Amendment 189 and 190 and 191 are identical. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstained? I think it was rejected, but please I want to check it.
I open the vote. Yes, 189, 190 and 191 are identical. These three. I close the vote.
I think it was rejected, but please, I want to check it. I open the vote. Yes, 189, 190, and 191 are identical. I close the vote. It was rejected.
Amendment 198 and 200 are identical. Who is in favor? Who is against? So again, I have to check. I open the vote.
I close the vote. It was adopted. Now, amendment 216, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain, it was rejected.
Amendment 217, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain, it was rejected. Amendment 134, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstain, it was rejected. Oh, just now, sorry, because our iPad is dark, just a second, I have to wait. I don't know. Okay, amendment 134, who is in favor? Oh, it was voted already.
I'm sorry, it was adopted. Yes, it was adopted. Adopted. Okay, sorry, something happened. Okay, now amendment 103, who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstain, it was adopted. Amendment 221, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain, it was adopted.
Amendment 223, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstain, it was adopted. Compromise 5, who is in favor? Who is against?
Who abstain, it was adopted. And now roll call vote, final vote. I open the vote. I close the vote. It was adopted.
And we have to vote on the mandate. It's also roll call vote for mandate. I open the vote. I close the vote. Okay, it's adopted.
And now we have the single vote on PRM. Yes, we have single vote, it is the last vote today, production and marketing of plant reproductive material. And it will be just single vote and roll call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote.
It is adopted. So dear colleagues, thank you very much and it was the last item of our meeting. I just, not last, it's here any other business? Please, can I ask you just for a moment because any other business? I don't see anybody.
And let me only inform you the date of our next meeting will be in September, 23 and 28 September. And now, if we will have joint committee procedure of BUDG, REGI and AGRI. So it will start, what time it will start? We will start half past four, so in six minutes. Thank you very much.
Let me also welcome here, oh, just a second, I can't find where we are. Okay, also to welcome here, okay, thank you, that's mine, our colleague from Committee on Budgets, Monika Hohlmeier. Welcome here, Monika, and also our colleagues from Committee on Regional Development and the, and of course our Committee of Agri Rural Development. Thank you, Monika is helping me. And now I have first, we have the first point, it was adoption of agenda.
If I don't see any objection, I think it was adopted. And then I have chair's announcement also. We have interpretation in 20 languages and our meeting today is webstreamed. Adoption of minute, again, I don't see any objection, so it seems to be adopted. And now let's go to the our item, following the presentation of the draft NRPP report by our three rapporteurs on the 2nd of June, we received your amendments as well as most of the opinions of the opinion-giving committees.
The number of amendments received more than 6,500. I think it's clear that identification of the importance of this new legislative framework for the future of our cohesion policy and the common CAP. Building on our rapporteurs' draft report as well as the European Parliament's interim report on the MFF, your proposals send clear messages on what our priorities should be.
We will now have to make sure that we can find compromise solutions so that these priorities translate into operational and clear-cut policy proposals. And I am therefore grateful to the rapporteurs and the shadow rapporteurs for their effort in this direction and invite our members and their teams to participate in this exercise in a constructive way. With this, I just now would like to pass the floor to Monika Hohlmeier. Monika, please.
Monika Hohlmeier
Thank you very much, Veronika. Good afternoon, dear colleagues. Today's exchange is an important step in the work of our joint committee towards the aim of adopting the report on the NRPPs. We are three committees, so it's really a challenge for our rapporteurs to get in line with everything with more than 7,000 amendments. So I wish our rapporteurs the best, that they are successful.
We are all aware of the timetable for this procedure. And I am glad that we already have achieved a lot of progress with the presentation of the draft report and the tabling of the amendments. Today's discussion about the amendments should help clarify the different positions of groups and MEPs and will provide an important basis for the construction of compromise amendments. This will be another intense period for us and I encourage everybody to continued cooperation with a view to reaching a balanced and workable outcome. And now I would like to give the floor to Dragoș because we are three, the REGI chair today.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you so much. Dear colleagues, I would also like to welcome you to this meeting and to thank you for your strong engagement in the work on this very important legislative file. Today's discussion will provide valuable guidance for our rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs in their work towards building compromises by giving them a clearer understanding of the priorities of the political groups as well as the areas of the potential red lines. I encourage colleagues to keep the interventions focused on the substance of the amendments and to respect the speaking time so that we have a fruitful exchange of view. I will first invite our co-rapporteurs to present their first assessment of the amendments for three minutes each.
And we start with Mr. Ressler, you have the floor.
Karlo Ressler
Thank you very much. Let's try to be as effective as possible. So I think that it's quite clear already now that the regulation will shape almost half of the next multiannual financial framework and it is also arguably one of the or perhaps the most politically delicate file of the next MFF. The Parliament has expressed reservations regarding the governance from the beginning and now our task is to really address them concretely and constructively what we consider to be the main shortcomings of the regulation as it is now and as it was proposed a year ago by the Commission. We now have the responsibility to strengthen the regulation and deliver a work framework that can really work in practice, as you said, that is balanced but that is also workable.
So you all know and you mentioned it also that we're working on this in almost unprecedented framework of three different committees but also of politically very sensitive file. And given the scale of all these challenges, preparing the Parliament's position has been a particularly demanding exercise.
And in this context, I would really like to underline really constructive cooperation between the three committees, also among the co-rapporteurs and our respective teams. And I think that it will be even more important that we continue like this in the weeks and months ahead. Since the publication of the proposal one year ago, we have worked quite strongly on this and published our draft report that now serves as basis for the Parliament's negotiations. And the goal is, as you know, to reach the position of the Parliament by the end of this year. It will be important to speak with political groups to understand the amendments now.
There is huge number of them and they were put forward and now we are trying to digest them all and in the way in the end to have ultimately a credible common agreement. And with almost more than 7,000 amendments, this will definitely be a true challenge. So in this regard, I think that the exchange today can definitely be useful to better understand the political sensitivities, the political positions and red lines of different political groups. We are working also in this formats of the shadow rapporteurs in the three committees, but also focusing within each of our responsibilities and working together on this. So there are many different perspectives behind the proposals.
Let's hear them now in the next two hours or so. And I'm looking forward to hearing the contributions, but also to continuing our work immediately. Thank you.
Andrey Novakov
Thank you very much. Now I give the floor to Mr. Andrey Novakov from REGI EPP rapporteur.
Thank you, Chair. I'd like to start by expressing my gratitude to all opinion-giving committees and shadow rapporteurs. I consider this 6,100 amendments as a improvement, as a help of our work, not as a burden. However, the complex work that lay ahead of us is a huge challenge. And my main concern is how to accommodate the wishes and the requirements and the needs of each and every colleague.
Along with that, I know that our biggest goal currently at that state of play is get a strong mandate because the Council is almost ready. They will be ready at the autumn and we should start negotiating. We have, let's say, around 12 months to reach an agreement. And if the Parliament is split, that will weaken our negotiating position. So we have nine out of the 11 opinion-giving committees' opinions and I'm looking forward for the next.
If I have to sum up the main priorities when it comes to REGI, I think that the biggest one is multi-level governance, horizontal principle. We have to ensure that mayors and regional governors are included. There is not a single meeting for us, the co-rapporteurs, for the past one year that someone didn't raise the issue about too much centralization of power in one minister and one commissioner. So we need more regional dimension of this policy as it was designed from the very beginning. The second one is the place-based cohesion.
It should have an individual approach because there is so different priorities and needs in even neighboring regions. So we could not create one-size-fits-all policy. This is why we need the mayors and the local authorities on board.
We are living in unprecedented times. We could not allow ourselves to be just an experts and dealing with cohesion policy. There is a war going on and the consequences of that war are quite severe in the eastern flank of the Union, in Poland, in Baltic states, in Romania, in Bulgaria. The drones are falling. The mines are floating in our beaches.
So I think those neighboring regions to Russia and Ukraine deserves that 20% pre-advance pre-financing payments that can actually increase their capabilities to to develop their infrastructure and overcome the consequences of the war. I believe that the cohesion should be more flexible and should let more freedom to local authorities and the government to design a program and a plan that can actually cover the requirements of and the needs of the people there. In that saying that, we should find a way to encourage and invest more in dual-use infrastructure and the projects that are connected with military mobility and and defense. And finally, I believe that ensuring coherence between the regulation and the sector-specific regulations is crucial. I think we should create a legislation which is easy to read as a newspaper.
One of the main reasons to have that major reform in the cohesion policy with NRPP is simplification. So let's keep it simple. Thank you.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you so much. Now I give the floor to Mrs. Elsi Katainen from AGRI Renew rapporteur.
Elsi Katainen
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, colleagues, for your views. And as mentioned already, we have significant amount of amendments to go through. I want to thank for your cooperation and I recall again the importance of your willingness to compromise during the negotiations as we have many different views and it is important to have a balanced outcome. As we all know, NRPP is bringing together many different programs. There is still some hesitations for the overall architecture, but I'm pleased to see that most of the groups from this house are already and ready to make this legislation more workable.
We should keep that as our guiding principle in our coming work. On AGRI issues, I'd like to remind that we have several amendments on on the transferred parts and we will not open the discussion again on these parts because they belong to CAP negotiation now. So I hope that you have tabled these some amendments also for the CAP regulation. It is important to secure the workable and standalone common agricultural chapter under the NRPP framework. Ensuring the food production all over the Europe is the cornerstone of our overall security and that's why we cannot put agriculture and rural development against the regional development as there are so many synergies and we should more strengthen these than make both weaken.
On the sectoral specific issues, we are more than interested to receive the opinions. Most of them has already arrived and some will arrive shortly, but I am happy to see that there is a good proposals how to enhance the text to fix the purpose. We will have close look on these during the negotiations and you have brought your priorities during your negotiation this spring and we are willing to incorporate ideas during the next phase of negotiations. And in addition, it is also important to find a suitable solution on the preparation of the plan, which includes our stakeholders, regional actors and all relevant participants so that local needs are taken on board and that the plan would not be decided in the capitals only. Attention needs to be paid also to the management and monitoring, which needs to draft in a way that it works for the different funds as well.
And with these words, I'm more than happy to hear our shadow rapporteurs and opinion-giving committees' views on this matter. Thank you.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you very much. I now pass the floor to my co-chair, Mrs. Vreionova, for the conduct of the next session of this meeting.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay, thank you, thank you, Dragoř, thank you very much. And now I would like to have the round of the shadows rapporteurs. Please, colleague, I would like to inform you that you have three minutes maximum each. And first, I would like to ask AGRI EPP shadow rapporteur Norbert Lins. Norbert, the floor is yours, please.
Norbert Lins
Vielen herzlichen Dank an die Co-Berichterstatter für ihre ersten Einschätzungen. Ich will vor allem noch mal deutlich machen, was die Rolle der Regionen betrifft. Ich glaube, es reicht nicht aus, wenn die Regionen, und das gilt für die Agrarpolitik wie für die Regionalpolitik, nur in der Mitentscheidung sind, sondern die Regionen sollen nach meinem, nach unserem Dafürhalten die volle Entscheidungsgewalt behalten, was die zweite Säule der Agrarpolitik betrifft, aber eben auch was die Regionalisierungsmittel betrifft. Also es geht nicht um eine Mitsprache, sondern es geht um die alleinige Entscheidungsgewalt in den Mitgliedstaaten, wo wir eine föderale oder regionale Ausrichtung der mitgliedstaatlichen innerstaatlichen Organisation haben. Für die Agrarpolitik geht's vor allem auch darum, dass die Spezifitäten der Kofinanzierung, die wir traditionell haben, insbesondere auch in der zweiten Säule der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik, dass die weiter abgebildet werden.
Und da gibt's natürlich deutliche Unterschiede auch zur Regionalpolitik. Wir haben ja teilweise hundertprozentige Kofinanzierung, achtzigprozentige, also verschiedene Prozentsätze. Das ist uns ganz, ganz wichtig, dass diese speziellen Kofinanzierungsraten auch abgebildet werden im NRP-Plan. Es geht um die Flexibilitäten auch bei der Änderung des National- und Regionalplanung. Auch da sind die Besonderheiten der GAP zu berücksichtigen.
Wenn wir mal ein Beispiel geben, in der zweiten Säule haben wir verschiedenste Förderprogramme, in manchen Mitgliedstaaten auf der nationalen Ebene, zum Beispiel in meinem Mitgliedstaat dann auf der regionalen Ebene. Dann sind's Förderprogramme, die vielleicht nicht so gut laufen. Man hat in der Periode eine weitere Idee, ein neues kleineres Förderprogramm aufzulegen, zum Beispiel für die Landwirte. Das muss selbstständig auch so möglich sein und zu einer Planänderung möglichst unbürokratisch und schnell dann zu führen sein. Das heißt also, dass da Ausnahmen oder Möglichkeiten geschaffen werden, allein für diese Änderungen dann einer Teilregion eines Mitgliedstaats eben auch schnell zu Änderungen zu kommen.
Und wenn es notwendig ist, und das ist auch sicherlich ein großer Unterschied zur Regionalpolitik, bei der GAP geht's um jährliche Zahlungen. Also schon im Jahr 28 geben die Landwirte zum 15. Mai dann ihren Antrag ab und erwarten dann zum Ende des Jahres 28 dann, wenn wir es schaffen, wo ich nicht optimistisch bin, um es klar zu sagen, aber dann erwarten die schon Zahlungen unterm Weihnachtsbaum. Das heißt, dass da auch die Spezialität der GAP eben auch berücksichtigt werden muss. Hier geht's um jährliche Zahlungen und nicht um Projekte, die dann irgendwann ausgeführt werden oder nicht ausgeführt werden. Das sind die wichtigsten Punkte, die ich hier vortragen wollte.
Danke.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you, Norbert, and now I would like to give the floor to REGI S&D shadow rapporteur Sabrina Repp. Okay, Sabrina, please.
Sabrina Repp
Vielen Dank. Wir sind in einer sehr angespannten Situation. Ja, also wir haben enorme Verantwortung, das haben meine Kolleginnen und Kollegen deutlich gemacht, diesen EU-Haushalt jetzt über die Bühne zu bringen. Und gleichzeitig stehen wir nach wie vor vor der Herausforderung, an einem Vorschlag zu arbeiten, den wir nach wie vor für deutlich verbesserungswürdig halten und in Teilen sogar inakzeptabel. Und da möchte ich noch mal auf ein paar besondere Punkte eingehen.
Uns ist es besonders wichtig, dass wir weiterhin die starken Regionen als Grundlage eines starken Europas haben. Und das bedeutet eben auch, dass wir etwaige Vorschläge, dass die Mitgliedstaaten dann doch letzten Endes darüber entscheiden, ob diese Mittel den Regionen zugeordnet werden oder nicht, nicht akzeptieren können. Wir müssen ganz deutlich diese Multi-Level-Governance festlegen. Wir brauchen verbindliche Beteiligung der Regionen und Kommunen und die dürfen eben nicht von den nationalen Mitgliedstaaten abhängig sein. Und die müssen eben auch von Beginn an eingebunden werden.
Und das bedeutet eben auch die Mitsprache bei der Planung, bei der Umsetzung, beim Monitoring und bei Änderungen sowie eine starke Rolle von Sozialpartnern, Gewerkschaften und der Zivilgesellschaft. Und dabei ist es besonders wichtig, dass wir auch einen starken ESF brauchen. Wir haben lange Diskussionen darüber geführt, wie wir eigentlich die Architektur des EU-Haushaltes stricken sollen. Und innerhalb der Kohäsionspolitik ist es uns wichtig, dass wir eine verlässliche Förderung für die Förderempfängerinnen und Förderempfänger gewährleisten. Und das bedeutet eben auch, dass wir klar definierte Ziele im Rahmen der verschiedenen Fonds haben, also dem Europäischen Sozialfonds, also dem EFRE, also Interreg, also vom Cohesion Fund.
Wenn wir das nicht erreichen, dann sorgen wir für weiterhin massive Unsicherheiten vor Ort und können am Ende auch nicht sagen, dass wir tatsächlich etwas für diese Förderempfängerinnen und Förderempfänger rausgeholt haben, wenn wir gleichzeitig sie in so massive Unsicherheiten stoßen. Das heißt, wir sind nach wie vor gegen diesen Single Fund und es ist uns wichtig, dass wir klares Ringfencing für die einzelnen Strukturen haben, klares Budget, womit eben die Förderempfängerinnen und Förderempfänger auch weiter planen können. Und gleichzeitig müssen wir uns auch noch mal konkret anschauen, und mein Kollege Norbert Lins hat es angesprochen, wie wir eigentlich mit dem ländlichen Raum umgehen. Ja, weil der nach wie vor in einer herausfordernden Situation ist, gerade dann, wenn's in die Verhandlungen zwischen Rat und Kommission geht.
Weil wir sehen natürlich, selbst wenn wir sagen, wir wollen eine Zwei-Säulen-Struktur innerhalb der Agrarpolitik, dann bedeutet es noch nicht, dass wir auch festgelegte Budgets für den ländlichen Raum haben und dass der derjenige ist, der am Ende hinten runterfällt. Das bedeutet, wir brauchen auch ein klares Budget für den ländlichen Raum über Leader, aber auch in den anderen Kohäsionsmitteln. Und auch das haben wir vorgeschlagen. Und auch das Leader-Programm ist da sehr entscheidend. Auch da müssen wir dafür sorgen, dass dieses Leader-Programm weiter ein klares Budget zugeordnet wird, ein klarer Mindestbeitrag auch für Leader festgelegt wird und am Ende, dass wir die lokalen Aktionsgruppen, also diese Strukturen, stärken.
Also, um es deutlich zu sagen: Starke Regionen als Grundlage eines starken Europa, nationale und regionale Pläne als gemeinsamen Rahmen, aber eigenständige Verordnung von EFRE, Kohäsionsfonds, Interreg und ESF. Und Planbarkeit und Flexibilität müssen in einem Einklang sein. Und das bedeutet auch beim Performance Framework, dass diese Planbarkeit und diese Flexibilität berücksichtigt werden muss, und gerade dann, wenn wir mit vulnerablen Zielgruppen arbeiten. Vielen Dank.
Thank you. Next is Cristina Maestre, S&D shadow rapporteur. So, Cristina, please, the floor is yours.
Cristina Maestre
Muchísimas gracias, señora presidenta, señorías. Las enmiendas que he presentado en mi condición de shadow rapporteur del Grupo Socialistas y Demócratas tienen un objetivo central: asegurar que el nuevo fondo refuerce y no diluya la política agrícola común y la seguridad de renta de nuestros agricultores en un momento de enorme incertidumbre. En primer lugar, proponemos la creación de planes nacionales y regionales de PAC específicos, con un pilar propio dentro del marco del fondo, con sus propias reglas, con gobernanza propia y presupuesto propio. Esto evita que la PAC quede subsumida en un plan genérico y garantiza la plena autonomía legislativa y financiera de la política agrícola común. En segundo lugar, mantenemos intactos el principio de que las ayudas directas y las principales intervenciones del primer pilar se financian al cien por cien con presupuesto europeo, sin cofinanciación nacional adicional.
Nuestras enmiendas sobre el artículo veinte y el listado de intervenciones PAC dejan claro que la Unión Europea sigue asumiendo la responsabilidad plena de sostener la renta agrícola agraria básica y las medidas sectoriales clave. En tercer lugar, garantizamos la continuidad de las ayudas en el periodo transitorio dos mil veintisiete-dos mil veintiocho. El nuevo artículo treinta y cinco bis permite prorrogar las intervenciones sectoriales más allá de dos mil veintisiete y obliga a la Comisión a adoptar, si es necesario, una decisión de financiación específica para dos mil veintiocho, de forma que ningún agricultor, ninguna organización de productores y ningún programa operativo se quede sin apoyo por un retraso institucional. En cuarto lugar, reforzamos la flexibilidad en caso... reformamos la flexibilidad en caso de crisis para que el primer recurso sean los instrumentos y colchones presupuestarios de la Unión Europea.
Veronika Vrecionová
Cristina, please, I ask you slow down a little bit because interpreters cannot interpret you.
Cristina Maestre
Iré más despacito. Decía que, en cuarto lugar, reforzamos la flexibilidad en caso de crisis para que el primer recurso sean los instrumentos y colchones presupuestarios de la Unión Europea y, solo en último término, la reprogramación de los planes nacionales y el consumo de márgenes internos. Esto protege las dotaciones agrícolas y evita que, ante una catástrofe natural o de mercado, la respuesta consista en recortar a los mismos agricultores que sufren las crisis. A partir de este núcleo agrario, reforzaremos también la dimensión social y territorial: una PAC más sencilla, una PAC más justa y mejor orientada que incluya a los trabajadores agrícolas, el reconocimiento de las zonas rurales y de las zonas escasamente pobladas y que están en declive, y una gobernanza multinivel que sea real, con autoridades regionales y locales en el centro de la programación. De lo que se trata, en definitiva, es de garantizar que la Comisión Europea va a seguir haciéndose cargo tanto de la responsabilidad que tiene con los agricultores como de las zonas rurales, y que no se lave las manos.
En las enmiendas también se busca la seguridad jurídica y financiera para el campo europeo así como más previsibilidad. Y en definitiva pretenden contribuir al establecimiento de un modelo que verdaderamente fortalezca el campo y garantice su competitividad y su futuro. Muchas gracias presidenta.
Csaba Dömötör
Thank you chair let me speak in Hungarian. Részletes vitákat folytatunk itt a módosítókról és arról, hogy hogyan is nézzen ki az új egységes alap, de úgy érzem, hogy pont a lényegről nem beszélünk, arról, hogy miért is akarnak létrehozni egy ilyen új alapot. Az ok egyszerű: az Unió bevételei érdemben nem nőnek, de új programokat viszont akarnak indítani, hadialapokat, bővítést és újjáépítést finanszírozó alapokat. De ha nincs ezekre forrás, akkor csakis úgy tudják ezt megtenni, hogyha leépítenek már meglévő forrásokat. A kohéziós programok mellett a mezőgazdasági támogatásokat szemelték ki az áldozat szerepére.
De hogy ez ne tűnjön fel az érintetteknek, összevonják az alapokat, átkeresztelik őket, hogy ne lehessen könnyen kimutatni a csökkentéseket. Ez a törekvés egyébként egybeesik azzal, hogy egyes tagországok, legalábbis kormányok nyíltan kimondják, hogy nem is akarnak agrártámogatásokat. Sajtóértesülések szerint például a német európai ügyi államtitkár azt állította, hogy egyáltalán nincs is szükség uniós agrártámogatásokra. Na így már értjük, hogy Ursula von der Leyen miért ilyen tervet tett le az asztalra. Húszszázalékos a forráskivonás az agráriumból, ez a tény.
Aki ezt támogatja, azt gondolom, hogy a lehető legrosszabb pillanatban követ el támadást az európai mezőgazdaság ellen. Nem elég az aszályok és a járványok sorozata, az új kereskedelmi megállapodások is súlyos versenyhátrányba hozzák a gazdákat. Úgy kellene helytállniuk az egyre tisztességtelenebb versenyben, hogy közben kevesebb támogatást kapnak innen, hogyha reálértéken nézzük, akkor a csökkenés ötvenszázalékos pár év alatt. Nem tudok erre mást mondani, mint hogy egy célzott merényletről van szó az európai mezőgazdaság ellen. Ehhez a tényhez képest az új alap részletszabályai...
Csaba Dömötör
So nem tudok erre mást mondani, mint hogy egy célzott merényletről van szó az európai mezőgazdaság ellen, ehhez a tényhez képest az új alap apróbb részletszabályai másodlagosak. Aki azt gondolja, hogy ez a kérdés csak a gazdákat érinti, az téved. Mert hogyha nincsen erős európai mezőgazdaság, hogyha egyre inkább behozatalra építünk, akkor a családok nem is tudják majd, hogy pontosan mi kerül az asztalukra, és ami éppen ennyire fontos, az élelmiszerárak tovább emelkedhetnek. Ez az, amit Európa a mostani helyzetben egészen biztosan nem engedhet meg magának. Köszönöm.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you. AGRI shadow rapporteur is Mireia Borrás Pabón, so Mireia please.
Mireia Borrás Pabón
Sí muchas gracias presidenta. Debatimos hoy una propuesta que nunca debió de salir adelante bajo nuestro punto de vista y es que no estamos ante una simple reforma administrativa. Estamos ante un cambio tan drástico en la política agrícola europea que supone prácticamente el desmantelamiento de la PAC. La Comisión pretende reunir en un mismo fondo la cohesión, la agricultura, la pesca, la migración y la seguridad y que todas estas políticas además se gestionen mediante un único plan por Estado miembro.
Nos quieren vender que esto es simplificación, pero sabemos que realmente meterlo todo en un mismo fondo no significa simplificar. Significa que la agricultura pierde autonomía, pierde visibilidad presupuestaria y acaba compitiendo por los recursos con prioridades completamente distintas. Y esto además es especialmente grave porque la PAC no es una política sectorial más. De ella dependen la renta de nuestros agricultores, la continuidad de miles de explotaciones europeas y la seguridad alimentaria de todos los ciudadanos europeos. Por eso nuestras enmiendas persiguen principalmente un objetivo fundamental: devolver a la PAC la autonomía que esta propuesta le ha arrebatado.
Queremos una regulación agrícola completa, con un plan específico para la PAC y una financiación suficientemente protegida. No podemos aceptar que una parte esencial del presupuesto agrario quede pendiente de las decisiones de cada gobierno nacional de turno, especialmente en España, porque imagínense qué desesperación sufren los agricultores españoles sabiendo que su presupuesto está en manos de un gobierno cercado de corrupción como el de Pedro Sánchez. Y además que este presupuesto compita dentro de una misma bolsa de cohesión con migración, como he dicho, seguridad o defensa. Tampoco aceptamos que el agricultor termine convertido en un auténtico rehén de condicionalidades políticas, reformas nacionales o conflictos entre la Comisión y el Estado miembro de turno, que nada tiene que ver con los problemas de esta explotación agraria. Y queremos aprovechar esta negociación para hacer algo que Bruselas lleva años prometiendo sin cumplir y es simplificar de verdad.
Es decir, menos controles duplicados, menos sanciones desproporcionadas y menos obligaciones medioambientales diseñadas sin atender la realidad productiva de nuestros agricultores y ganaderos. Porque ellos no necesitan que cambiemos de nombre los documentos o los formularios, lo que necesitan son menos documentos y menos formularios que rellenar. Tenemos miles de enmiendas, señorías, por delante y un calendario extraordinariamente exigente. Pero detrás de cada artículo que negociemos hay una cuestión mucho más sencilla y es ponernos de acuerdo en si queremos que Europa siga produciendo sus propios alimentos o si por el contrario estamos dispuestos a hacer que producirlos aquí sea cada vez más difícil y más caro. Porque nosotros lo tenemos muy claro y es que la PAC debe proteger a quienes producen, no diluirlos dentro de un macrofondo ni subordinarlos a las prioridades políticas de cada gobierno.