Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development Ordinary meeting Joint meeting Committee on Budgets Committee on Regional Development BUDG-REGI-AGRI (CJ71) Joint committee procedure (Rule 59)
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
AGRI, BUDG, REGI European Parliament
Karlo Ressler
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 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 the amendments now, there is a huge number of them and they were 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 format 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.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you very much. Now I give the floor to Mr. Andrey Novakov from REGI EPP rapporteur.
Andrey Novakov
Thank you, Chair. I'd like to start by expressing my gratitude to all opinion-giving committees and shadow rapporteurs. I consider these 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 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 develop their infrastructure and overcome the consequences of the war.
I believe that the cohesion should be more flexible and it should let more freedom to local authorities and the government to design a program and a plan that can actually cover the requirements 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 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 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 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 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, and now pass the floor to my co-chair, Mrs. Vrecionová, for the conduct of the next session of this meeting.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay, thank you, thank you, Dragoș, 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 - das gilt für die Agrarpolitik wie für die Regionalpolitik - nur in der Mitentscheidung sind, sondern die Regionen sollen nach meinem, nach unserm 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 Spezifizitäten 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 Flexibilitten auch bei der nderung des national- und Regionalplanung. Auch da sind die Besonderheiten der GAP zu bercksichtigen. Wenn wir mal ein Beispiel geben, in der zweiten Sule haben wir verschiedenste Frderprogramme, in manchen Mitgliedstaaten auf der nationalen Ebene, zum Beispiel in meinem Mitgliedstaat dann auf der regionalen Ebene. Dann sind es Frderprogramme, die vielleicht nicht so gut laufen.
Man hat in der Periode eine weitere Idee, ein neues kleineres Frderprogramm aufzulegen, zum Beispiel fr die Landwirte. Das muss selbststndig auch so mglich sein und zu einer Plannderung mglichst unbrokratisch und schnell dann zu fhren sein. Das heit also, dass da Ausnahmen der Mglichkeiten geschaffen werden, allein fr diese nderungen einer Teilregion eines Mitgliedstaats eben auch schnell zu nderungen zu kommen. Und wenn es notwendig ist, und das ist auch sicherlich ein groer Unterschied zur Regionalpolitik, bei der GAP geht's um jhrliche 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 unter dem 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 as and the shadow reporter 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 Europa 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-Haushalts 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 werden, 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 es 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 Verordnungen 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
Muchas 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 20 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.
El nuevo artículo 35 bis permite prolongar las intervenciones sectoriales más allá de 2027 y obliga a la Comisión a adoptar, si es necesario, una decisión de financiación específica para 2028, 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.
En tercer lugar, garantizamos la continuidad de las ayudas en el periodo transitorio 2027-2028.
Veronika Vrecionová
Cristina, please, I ask you slow down a little bit because interpreters cannot interpret you.
Cristina Maestre
Okey, 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 nacional 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
Köszönöm elnök asszony, hadd beszéljek magyarul. Részletes vitákat folytattunk 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. 20 százalékos a forráskivonás az agráriumból, ez a tény.
Aki ezt támogatja, azt gondolom, hogy a lehető legrosszabb pillanatban követnek 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, s ha reálértéken nézzük, akkor a csökkenés 50 százalékos 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 apróbb részletszabályai másodlagosak.
Csaba Dömötör
Szval nem tudok erre mst mondani, mint hogy egy célzott merényletrl van sz az eurpai mezgazdasg ellen, ehhez a tényhez képest az j alap aprbb részletszablyai msodlagosak. Aki azt gondolja, hogy ez a kérdés csak a gazdkat érinti, az téved. Mert hogyha nincsen ers eurpai mezgazdasg, hogyha egyre inkbb behozatalra éptnk, akkor a csaldok nem is tudjk majd, hogy pontosan mi kerl az asztalukra, és ami éppen ennyire fontos, az élelmiszerrak tovbb emelkedhetnek. Ez az, amit Eurpa a mostani helyzetben egészen biztosan nem engedhetne meg magnak. Ksznm.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you. Agri Patriots rapporteur is Mireia Borrs Pabn, so Mireia please.
Mireia Borrás Pabón
S, muchas gracias, presidenta. Debatimos hoy una propuesta que nunca ha debido de salir adelante bajo nuestro punto de vista, y es que no estamos ante una simple reforma administrativa, estamos ante un cambio tan drstico en la poltica agrcola europea que supone prcticamente el desmantelamiento de la PAC. La Comisin pretende reunir en un mismo fondo la cohesin, la agricultura, la pesca, la migracin y la seguridad, y que todas estas polticas adems se gestionen mediante un nico plan por Estado miembro. Nos quieren vender que esto es simplificacin, 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 de turno. Muchas gracias.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thanks. BUDG shadow rapporteur Corina Crețu, please. The floor is yours.
Ruggero Razza
Thank you, I'll speak in Italian.
Grazie Presidente e per prima cosa volevo ringraziare per l'attenzione i relatori e per i primi scambi che abbiamo avuto. Nell'illustrare alcuni degli emendamenti che per noi sono importanti, partirei da quelli in materia di infrastrutture. Per il nostro gruppo è fondamentale, per quel motivo di crescita economica, che i nuovi fondi continuino a poter finanziare infrastrutture e riteniamo, nel pacchetto degli emendamenti che il gruppo ECR ha presentato, che sia prioritaria anche la possibilità di considerare con una espressa previsione il finanziamento di tutto ciò che serve per l'adattamento al cambiamento climatico e soprattutto per la siccità che impatta in maniera molto forte sulle produzioni agricole. Nei nostri, nelle nostre proposte un'attenzione particolare abbiamo riservato al tema della formazione per combattere la disoccupazione e l'inoccupazione attraverso la riduzione del divario di competenze tra ciò che il mercato richiede e ciò che viene offerto dai lavoratori.
In linea con il report che è già stato approvato dalle commissioni EMPL e SANT, abbiamo posto una particolare attenzione sul tema della formazione socio-sanitaria. Il fondo unico, come i colleghi sanno, prevederà anche il Fondo Sociale Europeo e quindi è fondamentale che si voglia investire sui temi socio-sanitari. La neutralità tecnologica ed energetica è per noi un altro punto di vista, così come chiediamo che il report possa avere un espresso riferimento al nucleare come opzione da tenere in considerazione. E per noi diventa anche fondamentale che le politiche investano, sia le politiche di coesione che i fondi messi a disposizione della competizione all'interno delle politiche di coesione, investano sull'innovazione tecnologica. L'ultimo pacchetto di emendamenti, lo dico anche come componente della commissione BUDG, riguarda la semplificazione amministrativa.
È per noi fondamentale la piena attuazione dell'articolo 157 del regolamento finanziario dell'Unione Europea che riguarda anche la gestione degli audit e delle autorità di gestione. Grazie.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you. Francesco Ventola, REGI's shadow rapporteur, please Francesco, the floor is yours.
Francesco Ventola
Thank you, President, I speak Italian.
Bene, non siamo spaventati e credo che nessuno debba essere spaventato o inquieto rispetto ai tanti emendamenti che sono stati predisposti. Significa che c'è dinamicità, significa che tutti i gruppi, a prescindere dalle loro appartenenze, sanno il momento storico particolare che stiamo vivendo e che questo nuovo NRPP è totalmente diverso di come si era pensato o come sono stati strutturati negli altri anni. Ragion per cui guardare all'aspetto della semplificazione e della flessibilità sono due principi che vanno condivisi in linea di principio perché significa poter mettere nelle condizioni chi dovrà redigere i piani, quindi regioni e stati nazionali, ma mi riferisco soprattutto anche ad una governance multilivello con il partenariato che abbia un'importanza strategica, credo che siano fondamentali da condividere e anche i nostri emendamenti, parte dei nostri, vanno verso questa direzione. Al parimenti merita stessa attenzione anche la possibilità di avere di sostenere quei comuni più piccoli per la loro magari incapacità amministrativa. Tutti conosciamo le difficoltà dei comuni minori dove magari ci sono pochi dipendenti e quindi non riescono nemmeno ad attrarre ad poter attingere a finanziamenti.
Per cui la parte che riguarda la semplificazione deve riguardare anche un'assistenza tecnica più diretta in particolar modo alle amministrazioni pubbliche più piccole. Per questo uno dei nostri dei nostri emendamenti eleva dal 3 al 3,5% anche il finanziamento per l'assistenza tecnica. Così come anche tra i nostri emendamenti c'è pure quello di aumentare la quota di prefinanziamento. Soprattutto nella fase appunto che stiamo vivendo avere più risorse da poter investire immediatamente con l'approvazione dei piani credo metta nelle condizioni tutti di poter raggiungere quanto prima i propri obiettivi. Così come anche il meccanismo che riteniamo di dover sostenere del disimpegno mantenuto all'N+3 e non all'N+1 perché obiettivamente continuo a sottolineare il momento che stiamo vivendo in diverse parti della nostra Europa sono totalmente particolari che non consentono di poter pianificare come se stessimo seduti a tavolino con regole chiare e certe.
In ultimo, anche i nostri emendamenti vanno verso una direzione che rafforzi il partenariato e la governance multilivello, perché quanto più si discute a livello locale un proprio piano, tanto più si ha la possibilità veramente di poter poi mettere a terra le risorse a disposizione. Ragion per cui continuo ed auguro buon lavoro ai relatori prendendo atto già del lavoro che è stato svolto finora e il nostro gruppo non farà mancare il proprio sostegno operativo e soprattutto di merito rispetto ad una fase storica che ci deve vedere tutti protagonisti. Grazie.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you. And AGRI shadow rapporteur is Bert-Jan Ruissen, please Bert.
Bert-Jan Ruissen
Dank u wel voorzitter. Ik blijf het herhalen, namelijk dit, dat ik het een slecht idee vind om het gemeenschappelijk landbouwbeleid op te laten gaan in de NRPP's. De landbouw heeft wat mij betreft echt en wat ons betreft echt behoefte aan een eigen zelfstandig beleid met een eigen budget en met een eigen plan. Ik vind daarom echt dat we ook in de onderhandelingen moeten proberen om het gemeenschappelijk landbouwbeleid zo veel mogelijk te ontvlechten van het NRPP en daar zal onze inzet ook echt op gericht zijn.
Ander aandachtspunt voor ons betreft het budget voor de zogenaamde sectorale interventies. Dan heb ik het onder andere over steunmaatregelen voor bijvoorbeeld de telersverenigingen, producentenorganisaties. Ik heb het over het gemeenschappelijke de gemeenschappelijke marktordening. Die budgetten worden nu geïntegreerd in de nationale enveloppen. Slecht idee.
Onder andere omdat als je kijkt naar de telersverenigingen die werken vaak grensoverschrijdend. Dat is niet vaak dat heeft vaak niet betrekking op slechts één lidstaat. Dus ik zou er echt voor willen pleiten om die budgetten voor die sectorale interventies om die uit de nationale enveloppen te houden en om die centraal te financieren vanuit de EU-begroting of vanuit een EU-post. Verder voorzitter is het natuurlijk een weeffout dat visserij de visserijcommissie helemaal niet aan tafel zit in deze besprekingen. Ja, ze hebben een recht van opinie.
Ik voel me daarom de vrijheid om als lid van de visserijcommissie toch zo af en toe wensen vanuit de visserijcommissie nadrukkelijk ook in te brengen in dit overleg. Eén concrete wens die leeft bij de visserijcommissie er zal deze week over worden gestemd is de wens om de controlekosten en de kosten voor datacollectie om die kosten buiten het geoormerkte budget voor de visserij te houden omdat wij van mening zijn dat het geoormerkte budget voor de visserij ook echt bij de visserman terecht moet komen. Dus vandaar deze wens om deze controlekosten daar buiten te houden.
Ik hoop dat we dat echt mee kunnen nemen in de besprekingen. Laatste punt, we hebben het vanochtend ook al aan de orde gesteld. Eén van de grote problemen waar natuurlijk de landbouw in toenemende mate mee te maken krijgt is waterschaarste. Dat is een probleem wat speelt natuurlijk in Zuid-Europa, maar we merken zelfs in Nederland dat in sommige gebieden waterschaarste echt een serieus probleem is, ook verzilting. Dus ik denk echt dat we daar ook aandacht aan moeten besteden binnen het kader van het NRPP om ervoor te zorgen dat ook voorzieningen in de sfeer van het aanleggen van leidingnetwerken, drainagesystemen etcetera om te zorgen voor voldoende beschikbaarheid van zoet water om dat ook onder het NRP te kunnen laten vallen.
Wat aandachtspunten zo vanuit onze kant. Dank u.
Monika Hohlmeier
Thanks a lot, Veronika. Now we are coming to Lucia Yaaz, BUDG Renew shadow rapporteur. Lucia, you have the floor.
Lucia Yar
Thank you, Chair. Firstly, I would like to thanks to co-rapporteurs for really doing a great job. It is a massive effort that you are putting in and your technical team as well. We very much appreciate.
We are also looking forward to smooth in a little bit the working methods that we still are kind of juggling around, but I think we are very close to to find some compromise on it. So from the Renew's perspective on budget in in the Budget Committee, the starting point here for us is pretty simple: supporting a framework that is flexible enough to adopt to new challenges and crises while ensuring that NRPPs can be implemented effectively, which means that the flexibility must never come at the expense of accountability. So I will have a couple of points which are going to be some of the priorities which we are hoping to find within the compromises. Firstly, it will be a strong framework for compliance with the rule of law and fundamental rights. This is a Renew priority overall, requiring clear procedures, predictable timeline, and a meaningful role for the European Parliament.
We also believe that the do no significant harm principle should be included among the horizontal principles guiding the implementation of the plans.
Thirdly, when it comes to implementation, the new model is fundamentally a performance-based system, meaning that it makes it even more important to have a certain common methodology for the Commission to assess the national and regional partnership plans. And the same applies to the assessment of milestones and targets, as well as a common guidance for Member States on estimating the costs of reforms and investments. That is why it's going to be pretty essential to ensure equal treatment across Member States and the greater transparency in the use of EU funds. Fourthly, we also need clearer rules on the interruption of payment deadlines, payment suspensions and financial corrections. I think this is going to make everybody's life easier once we have the clear setup for that.
We strongly also support the N plus three decommitment rules together with the sufficient pre-financing to ensure the timely delivery of investments. We need to incorporate a smart conditionality principle. This is also something that you hear a lot from the Renew Europe, meaning that if a central government breaches the rule of law, regional authorities or civil society organizations, universities, students should not be deprived of funding for projects they are implementing responsibly.
So we need to find a proper methodology to do that. Finally, we also call for a stronger support for eastern border regions throughout the regulation, increased technical assistance where needed and greater flexibility in the use of crisis reserves so that member states can respond more effectively to unforeseen challenges. Thank you everybody and looking forward to hear more from you.
Ľubica Karvašová
Thank you very much chair and good afternoon colleagues. As it was said here, we are three committees, which is very unprecedented. So I would like to very much also encourage our co-rapporteurs and dear co-rapporteurs while preparing for the compromise amendments to already keep in mind that we will at the end of the day need to defend the European Parliament's position as a whole. Not fighting against each other, not fighting Agri against Regi, Regi against Budg, etc, etc. This will be very important because we will face the Council and the Commission in the trilogues.
We will be on our own, so we really need a strong mandate as Andrej Novakov said from the European Parliament and from the groups in the European Parliament.
From the Renew REGI perspective, our main goal and priority will be to empower the regions. That means involvement is not enough, will not be enough, and we want to make sure that throughout the NRPPs, regions are empowered. What do we mean by that and why is it important? In the past, we were used that central governments are those defending the regions in the MFF. But also given on the new architecture of the European Commission, central governments will fight for themselves, unfortunately, not for the regions anymore.
So this will really be up to us here in the European Parliament and in this house to speak in their favor and to defend them, because they are those who will be key if we want to increase the competitiveness of the Union as a whole, we need to start from the local economies. Having said this, Renew will continue having four key priorities throughout the discussions in the NRPP. First, and I'm glad it's already included into the draft report, is the partnership principle as a horizontal condition, meaning, or to put it simple, no money without regions on board.
And for this, we also believe a mandatory regional chapter is necessary to be part of the process. We need to empower regions and show their priorities in a very visible and clear way in the NRPPs. Second priority, ring-fencing for all categories of the regions, but here I would add also specifically Eastern border regions as a new category, and I'm glad that it has been already introduced as a new category in the draft report from the co-rapporteurs. Third priority, a long-standing priority, is a more direct access for local and regional authorities to EU funding. This is really a key issue here that goes very much in line with the empowering of the regions, and we have an existing tool for that: integrated territorial and urban development.
And the last but not least, if any central government breaches rule of law principle, we need to make sure we protect the funding that goes directly to the regions. So looking forward to the discussions ahead of us and to the ambitious, very ambitious calendar. Thank you.
Damian Boeselager
Yes, thank you, Chair. I just want to also comment quickly on the need of a common aligned text that is supported by the political majority of the MFF.
I mean, the law has around 80 articles. We talk about 800 billion euros. So if we do the math, that is 10 billion euros per article. And I think it's worth spending at least one hour on these 10 billion euros per article, which means that if we calculate that correctly, we have around 80 hours of work to discuss each article. And we have eight weeks left.
That means we have around 10 hours per week that we need to discuss on these articles if we want to do a decent job. And to be honest, I don't see yet how the working methods will allow for such an in-depth discussion per article. And again, I think the money behind it warrants a very detailed discussion. We submitted 670 amendments. I would like to discuss all the articles and the relevant points.
I don't think, I don't expect that I will win all the 670 amendments, but I would like to know what I lost and what the majorities were when we were discussing them. So I'm happy to reiterate the points that we also have mentioned before.
I mean, for us, the horizontal principles and the horizontal governance of the NRPP is crucial. That includes, and I'm very happy this was also mentioned by other groups, the do no significant harm, but of course the rule of law, the fundamental rights, the democracy, horizontal conditions, and we would also like to strengthen the European Pillar of Social Rights and the partnership code. In general, the partnership principle should be a horizontal principle as also proposed by the rapporteurs, and I think that's a good direction to go. Second, the governance needs to make sense. And here we proposed the way that Article 2 would be the overall eight priorities of the file, Article 3 would specify these priorities, Article 22 then basically looks at the criteria and the requirements that need to be looked at, and so that we basically have a hierarchy of priorities that is then followed through.
And then, and this is super important for us, that we tell the Commission on how to assess these different requirements, so that we know when the plan can pass and when it can't pass, depending on the importance of the different requirements put out, and I think that actually also warrants a bit of a evaluation annex. In general, we also believe that it's important for the Parliament to have a strong role in this. This is a co-decision procedure at the beginning, but we know how this will work in the end when the plans are submitted by the member states to the European Commission.
And I think it's important that we have hard power as Parliament also in the approval of the plans and maybe at mid-terms also at the changing of the plans. In general, I think we should also learn from what happened during the past window and I think here we saw that especially in crisis situations it's also important to look at the national contribution rate so that regions which are severely affected and I want to mention here that it's five years exactly today since the floods in the Ahr Valley. I think it's important that we learn also from crisis situations and how we can best help there. We want to increase the social objective target and I think I stop here as I said there is many more points but the time is up. Thank you so much.
Monika Hohlmeier
Thank you very much Damian. Now we have for the Greens for REGI and for AGRI in the name of David Cormand-Aiser. So Gordon Bosonak speaks in the name of both.
Gordan Bosanac
Thank you chair and I will continue where Damian has stopped but first colleagues I would really like to call all of us to start really to prepare for the negotiations because what we were hearing even today we see and hear high level of agreement for example of the partnership principle. Everyone is in favor of that and actually let us immediately after the summer start to negotiate and shape this partnership principle really to be strong one and as it was mentioned to have strong Parliament position on that.
As us as Greens, for us this is really, really important that the regions, but not only the regions, the cities and civil society is put on board. And let's give the power to the Commission to reject NRPPs if the partnership principle has been broken. The second thing I would like to mention is about the architecture. We know that consensus we are still looking for, but reality is there. There will be one plan.
But also, we are in favor to have stronger sectoral regulations, which does not exclude one plan, but let us go in the direction that the sectoral regulations will be there as well. On chapters, for us as Greens, apart from the territorial one, it's also important to have housing chapter, urban chapter, CAP as a separate chapter, just transition and also outermost regions where needed. Rule of law was mentioned. I would just like to add, once when rule of law is broken, let's also learn the lessons from Hungary. Do not stop the money for the whole country.
Do not stop the money for the people which governments are breaking the rule of law.
Let's find the mechanism that money can continue directly from the Commission. Also, we would be very much in favor of direct access to EU funding for the cities because as we know, the regions play very important part in some member states, but in some member states, cities are the ones who are playing more important part than the regions because not all member states are federal member states in European Union. And finally, as a Greens, and in the days where we are facing the second heatwave and we are here under very comfortable air condition, let us not undermine the climate threats. So let's keep the green and climate target serious one and also do no significant harm, let us be the horizontal rule. And just few more sentences on CAP on behalf of my colleague David.
For CAP, it's also important that the rule of law conditionality is there, not that CAP avoids the rule of law conditionality. It should be implemented also in the CAP. And also we propose some earmarking in the CAP like 35% earmarking for agro-environmental measures in CAP and 5% of the LEADER in rural development. And we would also like to see 100% EU funding for agro-environmental measures, for school schemes and for the sectoral programs on protein crops. Also, the LEADER program is very, very much important.
So where there will be the CAP and regional chapters, territorial chapters, let's also then put LEADER inside those chapters.
And I will stop here and call us all of us, let's start negotiations immediately after the summit on the chapters where we are more than ready.
Dragoş Benea
So, thank you very much, Dragos. Now I would like to give the floor to Valentina Palmisano from the Left.
Valentina Palmisano
Thank you, Chair. I will speak Italian. Complimenti per la pronuncia. Ribadiamo la nostra contrarietà, come abbiamo appunto detto più volte prima di questa riunione, all'architettura del regolamento dell'NRRP così come proposta dalla Commissione perché delinea una deriva centralizzatrice e cela un tentativo di destrutturazione, se così vogliamo, della stessa proprio politica della coesione che mette a rischio i territori e, come dire, anche il modello di governance multilivello che abbiamo tutti conosciuto finora. E, diciamo, io mi soffermerò su alcune delle nostre priorità, anche perché abbiamo avuto modo di vederci settimana scorsa a Strasburgo e abbiamo parlato appunto delle nostre priorità.
Innanzitutto noi vogliamo rimettere al centro l'Europa della coesione della coesione sociale. Ad esempio l'approccio attuale frammenta le priorità ambientali e sociali quindi le tratta come se fossero comparti stagni come se fossero diciamo delle priorità che non avessero nulla a che fare una con l'altra secondo noi invece vanno assolutamente trattate insieme perché altrimenti ad esempio se noi pensiamo ai fondi per la transizione giusta la transizione ecologica però non accompagniamo anche con degli investimenti e una visione strategica che accompagni questa transizione con anche dei sostegni sociali ecco alla fine diciamo creiamo delle asimmetrie e degli squilibri che vanno a scapito degli degli stessi cittadini. E chiediamo di aumentare il target sociale dal 14% proposto al 25% del bilancio totale. Poi vorrei fare un accenno alla a un'assenza un'assenza ingiustificata di questo testo dei giovani non non ci sono più i giovani di cui tanto parlavamo invece in in passato.
E questa come dire assenza questa cecità generazionale rischia poi di come dire accelerare la fuga delle competenze dei nostri appunto giovani dai territori più fragili di cui appunto anche in questo caso tanto parliamo. Sanità vorrei fare un accenno quindi io invito tutti a concentrare come dire meno le proprie energie nel parlare di difesa militare acquisto armi difesa dei nostri confini sicurezza militare e di parlare anche di sicurezza sociale e di sicurezza sanitaria perché i nostri cittadini ok gli va bene che difendiamo i confini però poi non possono accedere a quelli che sono i diritti fondamentali quali appunto quello della sanità e noi abbiamo il dovere invece di rispondere a questi a questi cittadini. In ultimo un accenno alla legalità nel senso che già da ora dobbiamo pensare a prevenire diciamo il questi flussi che questi flussi finanziari siano attaccati dal punto di vista della criminalità e delle infiltrazioni della criminalità organizzata appunto e anche evitare i conflitti di interesse perché altrimenti poi sarà troppo tardi. Grazie.
Luke Ming Flanagan
It's like being back at the CONT committee almost. Anyway welcome.
Thank you for the work that the rapporteurs have done. At the end of this process, for me, I would say we would have done it well if we can guarantee accountability and transparency for beneficiaries and if we can legitimately say who is responsible for agri policy. Because I've said it before and I'm going to keep saying it, when there are issues with this policy in the future, the people have to know who to go to to ask who was responsible for it and who can improve it if it needs to be improved. And I think it says a lot about the disagreement with what the Commission proposed when I'm actually going to steal your great slogan, Bert, and tell you what I would love to see happen here: own policy, own plan, own budget. I think it's actually a great slogan.
But as one of the Green members said, I don't think we're going to quite get that. And failing that, and we put in amendments along these lines, that there is more visibility of the CAP and that it has its own heading, there is more and that specifically says what it's about, not the vague term that's there now at the moment. And also the visibility for fisheries. And that's really, really important because they don't have a voice here at all directly.
I'm on the PECH committee, there's a lot of frustration about it and we need accountability for fishers as well at the end of this process. And like I hear we need all to go in with one united voice to take on the Commission and take on the Council. But I'd have to say I wouldn't like to be the Commission coming in defending what they're after proposing to us. Because to me, if let's say if the Commission were running a household, what they would propose on the same logic would be that we would have dinner, we would have lunch, and we would have breakfast all put in the one bowl and mixed up together. Because it'd be simpler.
It would actually be simpler. I'm a parent. It wouldn't be very nice for my children. It wouldn't work out very well. And we'd call it simplification.
It might be simple alright, but it wouldn't work out very well in the long run. So of course we've got to have a united position, but I'm absolutely dying to hear how the Commission are going to come in and defend what they proposed, because I don't know who asked for that. There is one particular big issue when it comes to access to funds for less developed regions and for regions like I come from where you have NUTS 3 and NUTS 2 together, where you have some of the richest regions from a GDP point of view in the whole of the European Union and you have some of the poorest areas.
And the way it is currently structured, people in those areas would have no access to over 200 billion euros in funds, areas that need them the most, areas like Galway City and areas like Inishowen where I come from. That can't be the case, they need access to those funds. We're also looking for the recognition of public goods and the mention of public goods in it because it is important and particularly to farmers, it is something that they will be able to make a living out of in the future if they're properly remunerated for. But to me I hear an awful lot of agreement, I hear from MEP Maestre, I hear from many different people that from an AGRI perspective we need to have control over that area and we need the policy done as best as possible. Thank you.
Monika Hohlmeier
Thank you very much. And now I heard that the colleague Bossdorf is here, where I didn't see her.
Irmhild Boßdorf
Ja, es ist nicht Herr Bossdorf, sondern Frau Bossdorf, aber das macht nichts. Hier. Ja, vielen Dank für das Wort. Entschuldigen Sie mein Zuspätkommen, ich hatte noch einen anderen Ausschuss. Auch wir sind ein bisschen in Sorge über diese STEP-Verordnung.
Wir befürchten ein bisschen, dass die Vereinfachung zu Lasten der territorialen Ausrichtung geht und dass die Regionen noch geschwächter dann aus dieser Neuverordnung hervorgehen wollen.
Wir haben ein paar zentrale Prioritäten, die uns ganz, ganz wichtig sind. Wir wollen, dass auf jeden Fall die territoriale Verankerung der Kohäsionspolitik bewahrt wird. Da müssen weiterhin regionale Unterschiede abgebaut werden, Konvergenz gefördert werden. Und die Pläne müssen einfach den spezifischen wirtschaftlichen, sozialen, territorialen und demografischen Herausforderungen eines jeden Mitgliedstaats und einer jeden Region widerspiegeln, und Sie wissen, wie vielfältig die EU ist. Zum anderen, ein zweiter Punkt, der uns sehr am Herzen liegt, dass wir nämlich die regionalen und lokalen Gebietskörperschaften einbeziehen.
Die müssen im Einklang stehen, diese Einbeziehung, das muss im Einklang stehen mit dem institutionellen und rechtlichen Rahmen eines jeden Mitgliedstaats, damit man angemessen Pläne ausarbeitet und umsetzt. Ein drittes Thema, Frau Paisana hat es eben schon angesprochen, das sind die demografischen Herausforderungen, vor allem in den ländlichen Regionen.
Und die Pläne müssen Maßnahmen gegen den demografischen Wandel, Alterung der Bevölkerung, Bindung der Bevölkerung an den ländlichen Raum, Sozialinklusion, vor allem aber auch die Zukunftsfähigkeit von Jugendlichen und Kindern in ländlichen, peripheren und von Entvölkerung betroffenen Gebieten fördern. Das ist uns extrem wichtig, denn im ländlichen Raum liegt auch die Zukunft der Familien und damit auch die Zukunft, um möglicherweise doch dem demografischen Winter in Europa etwas entgegenzusetzen. Wir wollen auch, dass Einheitslösungen vermieden werden. Unterschiedliche Regionen haben ganz unterschiedliche Herausforderungen. Wenn wir nach Osteuropa gehen, da haben wir ganz andere Themen als zum Beispiel in Südeuropa.
Und auch Deutschland, das sollte man nicht vergessen, steht eben tatsächlich vor großen Umbrüchen in ländlichen Räumen. Wir haben eben auch schon ländliche und entvölkerte Gebiete, die unbedingt auch da einbezogen werden müssen. Rote Linien sind für uns die Schwächung der territorialen Dimension in der Kohäsionspolitik, eine Zentralisierung der Programmplanung, die zu Lasten der Regionen geht. Wir wollen kein Einheitsansatz für regionale, demografische oder soziale Herausforderungen und kein Governance-Modell, das den Verwaltungsaufwand nachher noch erhöht, statt ihn endlich abzubauen. Vielen Dank, das waren unsere Anmerkungen.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you so much. I will now invite the rapporteurs of the opinion. Each rapporteur will have the floor for two minutes, and I start with S&D rapporteur Mr. Victor Negrescu.
Victor Negrescu
Thank you, Chair. I will first start by thanking the co-rapporteurs and colleagues for their interventions, underlining something that was clearly expressed also in the Public Health Committee: the fact that there is still a lot of work to be done in order to improve the framework for the future national regional and partnership plans. In this regard, we also emphasize the need to actively involve local authorities, civil society, social partners in defining those plans, but also in monitoring the implementation of those respective plans. We also have to define the role of the European Parliament, but in the same time making sure that the access to funding will not be conditioned by reforms that could go against the social development of our societies. In this regard, of course, in our opinion, we call for the creation, for the possibility to create dedicated health chapters in the national plans, with clear milestones, with clear targets, with financial allocations.
We also come up with numbers, and numbers are important, we cannot ignore them.
We are asking in the national plans all over Europe to have at least 20 billion euros allocated for health priorities. This will reinforce key topics that are of specific importance for our citizens and we can continue to invest in hospitals, primary care, emergency services, prevention, mental health, pediatric care, medicine in remote, rural and mountain areas, making sure we are dealing with staff shortages, digitalizing our systems, but also ensuring strategic reserves. We can do that right now, so there is no reason why not to continue to doing that in those future partnership plans. We also would like to make sure access to funding will be simplified. We want visibility, we want traceability, we want accountability, and I think we think this can be ensured by having a clear definition of all those elements in what the Parliament is going to present.
Last but not least, my kind call to the co-rapporteurs is to integrate the opinions in the report, not ignore the opinions, the voices of colleagues in those respective committees are important. Thank you.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you very much. We continue with the co-rapporteur Mr. Tomas Bahada.
Thomas Bajada
Thank you, chairs. Although the ECON opinion addresses several highly contentious issues in our remit, it has been adopted with a strong majority of 82%. I greatly thank my colleagues for this result. This was possible because the compromises were built around two key principles: increasing democratization and protecting end beneficiaries. On the design of NRPPs, ECON strengthens the role of local and regional authorities by giving them meaningful participation, including voting rights, and also reinforces the involvement of social partners in monitoring and implementation.
The opinion also makes clear that country-specific recommendations should remain exactly that: recommendations. They should guide Member States and not dictate national investment priorities.
On macroeconomic conditionality, ECON agreed to maintain the existing safeguards right now under the Common Provisions Regulation, including the condition for triggering conditionality, the caps, and the scope of funding to which suspension applies. Furthermore, the opinion recognizes the important role of financial instruments in supporting investments across Europe. Finally, the opinion addresses the permanent economic and structural disadvantages faced by islands, mountainous regions, and cross-border territories. It establishes a concrete mechanism directed at both the Commission and Member States and introduces a preferential co-financing rate for areas under Article 174 of the Treaty. And I would like to stress that there is little value in referring Article 174 in recitals if we are not prepared to give any practical effect.
Our daily realities deserve more than just recognition; 17 million people in islands across Europe deserve tangible action. And I wish you all the best for this process, and ECON and myself remain available for detailed discussion if necessary. Thank you.
André Franqueira Rodrigues
Thank you very much. Now we give the floor to pitch rapporteur Mr. André Rodrigues.
Despite very tight timetable, I'm pleased to present the outcome of the negotiations on this opinion to be voted tomorrow in the Fisheries Committee. Our first message is clear. We want a robust, visible, properly funded Common Fisheries Policy in the next Multiannual Financial Framework. The Commission initial proposal was unacceptable and just as we began correcting course in the interim MFF report, this opinion reinforces Parliament's political message in defense of fishers, shipowners and coastal communities. First, funding.
Thank you, Chair.
We insist on a minimum of 7,290 million for CFP interventions, plus 7,330 millions specifically for the permanent structural constraints of the outermost regions and at least 1,120 million through the EU mechanism to support CFP implementation, including data collection and control. Second, we secure in the opinion a minimum 400 million allocation for fisheries, aquaculture and the sustainable blue economy in the outermost regions, including a new sector-specific POSEI program addressing the structural fragilities of the Azores, Madeira and the French and Spanish outermost regions.
Third, we set national co-financing at 30% with full exemption for the outermost regions, a fair balance between Member State responsibility and protection of the most vulnerable territories. Fourth, we create the fisheries safety net, enabling compensation during crisis and major market disruptions. Finally, we strengthen community-led local development and fisheries local action groups with attention to generational renewal in coastal and island communities. As I said in plenary after the PECH Committee visit to the Azores, stocks are recovering, but fleet income is falling. The sector is aging, costs are rising.
We cannot discuss the future of fisheries with 66% funding cut, so this opinion is our answer. I thank all shadow rapporteurs and political groups for making this balanced compromise possible. Thank you.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you so much. Is somebody from CULT rapporteur here, Mr. Helder Sousa Silva? If not, I will now pass the floor to my co-chair, Mrs. Vrecionová.
Okay, thank you. And just now, let's start with CJ11. You have one minute each.
Veronika Vrecionová
And first is, okay, first is Daniel Buda, vice-chair of AGRI committee, please, you have the floor.
Daniel Buda
Da, mulțumesc foarte mult, doamnă președintă. Dați-mi voie în primul rând să-i felicit pe raportori, pe toți raportorii din umbră și cei care au depus amendamente. Numărul mare de amendamente reflectă preocuparea noastră, pe de o parte, de a crea un instrument care să poată să fie folosit la un nivel adecvat de toți actorii naționali. Și în același timp, aș dori să vorbesc din perspectiva unui membru care este în Comisia AGRI, dar este membru și în Comisia REGI, sau REGI și AGRI, cum vreți să o luați. Pentru noi este foarte important să avem parte de predictibilitatea fondurilor.
Mi se pare absolut și mi s-ar părea absolut inadmisibil să avem o încăierare în statele membre între fermieri, pe de o parte, și între beneficiarii politicii de coeziune, pe de altă parte, cu privire la ceea ce înseamnă împărțirea acestor resurse financiare. Stimați colegi, dincolo de dimensiunea financiară care este importantă, chestiunea legată de predictibilitate și de a ști fiecare beneficiar pe ce fel de bani se bazează este mai importantă decât orice altceva. De aceea, avem nevoie de această predictibilitate. Și ultima chestiune legată de condiționalitate.
Nu vreau să cred că vom avea condiționalități care vor duce la pierderea fondurilor europene în afara sectoarelor despre care vorbim. De aceea pentru noi este foarte important să urmărim aceste chestiuni să se regăsească în documentul final. Mulțumesc.
Eric Sargiacomo
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you are very quick and very long. Okay, thank you. And now our second vice-chair colleague, Sergio Giacomo, please, Eric.
Merci beaucoup, Madame la Présidente. Je souhaiterais vous attirer l'attention des rapporteurs sur mes amendements concernant l'article 32 qui porte sur le nouveau filet de sécurité unitaire. Ce budget de 6,2 milliards d'euros doit nous permettre de mieux gérer les crises du marché agricole, comme alors que nous le faisons pas assez bien aujourd'hui. Pour être plus efficace, nous avons besoin d'être plus réactifs face à ces crises de marché. C'est pour cela que nous avons besoin que la Commission établisse des lignes directrices pour préparer, filière par filière, l'utilisation de ce filet de sécurité unitaire.
La Cour des comptes européenne le demande également. C'est une nécessité. Nous avons besoin d'indicateurs et de cibles, y compris en matière de prix, pour préparer le déclenchement des outils de crise du règlement OCM.
Nous ne pouvons pas en rester à la situation actuelle où c'est le nombre de tracteurs dans les rues qui constitue l'indicateur qui déclenche ou non l'action de la Commission européenne.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you. And now I give the floor to Madame Fourat, please. Madame, the floor is yours.
Angéline Furet
Is it for AGRI or for BUDG? Thank you. Is it for AGRI? Anyone I want? Patriot, and I don't know.
Okay. So I'll do for BUDG to start with. And I will speak in French if you don't mind. Devant l'architecture inédite de ce règlement 2028-2034, il y a un détail technique de notre ordre du jour qui m'interpelle. Onze commissions ont dû se prononcer pour tenter de baliser ce texte et pourtant, face à cette usine à gaz financière, l'évaluation budgétaire de notre institution a curieusement acté une absence d'avis.
Ce silence est un aveu. En fusionnant les bases légales, vous créez une porosité juridique totale entre la cohésion, la sécurité et l'agriculture. J'ai donc deux questions purement juridiques.
Premièrement, ce méga-fonds implique-t-il que le versement des aides à nos agriculteurs pourra désormais être suspendu au nom de la conditionnalité État de droit par simple contamination des règles de cohésion ? Et deuxième question, puisque l'évaluation budgétaire a déclaré forfait, comment garantissez-vous que cette fusion n'est pas conçue pour empêcher la Cour des comptes d'auditer les transferts opaques entre nos politiques agricoles et vos urgences géopolitiques ? Je vous remercie.
Joachim Streit
Ja, vielen Dank, Frau Vorsitzende. Ich unterstütze das Ziel, die EU-Förderarchitektur einfacher und effizienter zu gestalten. Allerdings überzeugt mich der gewählte Ansatz nicht vollständig.
Vereinfachung darf aus meiner Sicht nicht bedeuten, sehr unterschiedliche Politikbereiche wie Kohäsionspolitik, Landwirtschaft und andere Programme unter einem gemeinsamen Rechtsrahmen zusammenzuführen. Gerade diese Politikbereiche verfolgen eigenständige Ziele und gewachsene Strukturen. Besonders wichtig ist für mich die Rolle der Regionen. Sie kennen die lokalen und regionalen Bedürfnisse am besten und müssen auch künftig eine starke Rolle bei der Planung und Umsetzung der EU-Fördermittel spielen. Es besteht die Gefahr, dass ihre Einflussmöglichkeiten durch stärkere Bündelung der Programme und die nationalen und regionalen Partnerschaftspläne zugunsten der nationalen Ebene geschwächt werden.
Für mich wird entscheidend sein, dass Vereinfachung tatsächlich zu weniger Bürokratie führt, die Rolle der Regionen gestärkt und nicht geschwächt wird. Vielen Dank.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you. I'm sorry, I have many, many changes here on my list. So, I think just now I ask Ciaran Mullooly from Renew Regi.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, Chair, and I wish good luck to the co-rapporteurs on this mammoth task in front of them with 6,000 amendments.
I've tabled 65 amendments on a wide range of issues, but primarily to stop the next MFF becoming a centralized blank check for national governments. One of the main criticisms I've heard on the file was the centralized nature of the fund, therefore I've put a strong emphasis on the engagement of local authorities and regional assemblies from the preparation stage to the evaluation of the plans. Furthermore, the consultation of farming and rural stakeholders, fisheries groups and civil society is a key element of my additions. So my amendments also strengthen support for rural, for the island districts, mountainous and border areas with a particular focus on transport connectivity, local infrastructure and cross-border cooperation. I think this is about ensuring at the end of the day that regions like the Midlands-North-West are not left behind in the new and the next EU budget.
I've also highlighted the importance of promoting gender equality, addressing the challenges faced by persons with disabilities and the continuation of the crucial work carried out by the EU Just Transition Fund, LEADER and indeed PEACE PLUS. It must go on.
Okay, thank you. Ana Miranda Paz, she's not there I think. So Niina Kärkkäinen, she's there, she's there, okay.
Thank you Chairs. We must get this national regional partnership plans right. It will shape investment in agriculture, rural communities, climate, skills and critical infrastructure for years to come. The funding envelope will be challenging, so every euro must be protected, targeted and used where it delivers the greatest impact.
Nina Carberry
Agriculture cannot become one just one priority among many. We need food security, viable family farms, and vibrant rural communities. CAP funding must remain within the CAP and under control of Department of Agriculture. We should also consider fast-tracking the CAP chapter so farmer payments are not delayed by other parts of NRPP. Farmers and other beneficiaries of EU funding tell me that they've heard a lot about simplification, but they do not feel it on the ground.
The NRPP must turn simplification into reality through clear rules, simple applications, and timely payments for all beneficiaries. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much, and my list just now is Matthias Ecke, but I don't think he's there. And in this case, Paolo Do Nascimento, he is here. Paolo, you have the floor.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thanks so much, chair, I'll be speaking in Portuguese. De facto, agradecer aqui o trabalho dos relatores pelo e desejar as melhores felicidades para este trabalho, eu diria hercúleo, 6.600 emendas. Mas há que destacar aqui em relação à agricultura dois pontos essenciais. Primeiro, estabilidade e previsibilidade.
Nós não podemos estar a trocar a política agrícola comum a cada cinco, seis anos para o próximo quadro financeiro. Os agricultores precisam de estabilidade e não podemos, obviamente, criar aqui, em termos legislativos, esta instabilidade. Uma segunda nota tem a ver com o financiamento. E nós todos compreendemos a necessidade de termos fundos complementares, mas não concorrenciais. O financiamento para o setor agrícola tem que ser garantido porque se há algo que a União Europeia tem tido sucesso é na sua política agrícola, na proteção dos agricultores e na sua autonomia alimentar.
E é isto que nós não podemos pôr em causa neste momento. Portanto, a minha ideia será defender uma política agrícola comum com os seus dois pilares, com um orçamento adequado e salvaguardar as especificidades regionais das regiões ultraperiféricas, como é o caso do POSEI agricultura, que é essencial também para garantir também a competitividade e a participação do setor agrícola das RUP, desde logo dos Açores e da Madeira, naquilo que é o contexto europeu. Muito obrigado, senhora presidente.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you. And the last on my list is Madame Kalniete. Please, Madame.
Oui, merci, Madame la Présidente. Je m'exprime au nom de Francisco Millán Mon, notre shadow PPE de la commission de la pêche. Cinq remarques.
Isabelle Le Callennec
Il est essentiel que le Parlement défende la décision de la Conférence des présidents de transférer certains articles du règlement PNR vers le règlement sectoriel de la politique commune de la pêche. Les commissions compétentes au fond doivent intégrer la formulation de l'avis de la commission pêche, en particulier l'article 3 et l'article 22 lorsqu'ils font référence à la pêche ainsi que dans l'annexe 5. Nous voulons le même taux de cofinancement que celui appliqué pour la période 2021-2027, entre 30 et 70 % avec une exception bien évidemment pour les RUP. Nous estimons que le mécanisme EU Facility doit pouvoir financer le contrôle, la collecte des données qui sont une obligation pour les États membres, c'est l'annexe 15 le point E, mais qu'il finance aussi les conséquences des perturbations du marché ou du dérèglement climatique, ce qui vaut pour l'agriculture. Merci.
I ask Dragoș please if you can continue please. Paulo please. Okay.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you so much, and now it's on my REGI hat. Agradeço mais uma vez o trabalho dos relatores e, na REGI, eu gostaria de destacar a necessidade de nós não termos, é uma injustiça aplicarmos à coesão aquilo que nós neste momento temos, que é uma competição entre apoiar agricultores ou construir escolas, entre apoiar o rendimento do setor das pescas ou criarmos infraestruturas essenciais para a vida das pessoas e dos cidadãos nas suas regiões. Portanto, a coesão, que é a maior política de investimentos, tem de se manter autónoma, não concorrencial e garantir que, de facto, nós temos uma participação multinível com as autoridades locais e regionais no desenho, gestão e implementação destas políticas europeias e dos projetos europeus no terreno. Só com projetos de base local, e aqui destaco a importância de garantirmos financiamento adequado para programas como o LEADER, como o POSEI Agricultura, mas também o POSEI Pescas e o POSEI Transportes para as regiões ultraperiféricas, as logo os Açores e a Madeira, é que nós conseguiremos transformar aquelas que são as boas intenções da Comissão de não deixar ninguém para trás e o direito a ficar numa política concreta que ajuda os cidadãos europeus. O POSEI Agricultura de 7.3 mil milhões de euros, POSEI Pescas também à volta dos 600 milhões de euros e depois o POSEI Transportes nos 700 milhões de euros.
Muito obrigado, senhora presidente.
Claire Fita
Merci beaucoup, Madame la Présidente.
J'aurais souhaité insister sur deux exigences essentielles pour ces futurs plans. D'abord, l'importance de reconnaître pleinement la vulnérabilité spécifique des régions méditerranéennes et deuxième exigence, garantir un rôle effectif aux régions. Pour ce qui est des régions méditerranéennes, si les incendies frappent désormais bien sûr tous nos territoires, ces régions restent confrontées avec une intensité particulière, la sécheresse, le stress hydrique et la multiplication des feux. Cette réalité doit être pleinement reconnue dans les futurs plans de partenariat et conduire à des réponses et à des investissements adaptés. Deuxième exigence, là a été largement évoquée, nous ne construirons pas la résilience efficace de nos territoires sans les régions.
Reconnaître les spécificités méditerranéennes et donner toutes leur place aux régions, c'est rendre l'action européenne plus juste, plus efficace et plus proche de l'ensemble de nos concitoyens. Merci.
Krzysztof Hetman
Okay, so and colleague Hetman please.
Dziękuję bardzo, pani przewodnicząca. Kwestie narodowych i regionalnych planów bardzo gruntownie przedyskutowałem między innymi z organizacjami samorządowymi, związkami, organizacjami rolniczymi czy też pracodawców i muszę przyznać, że z każdej z tych stron płynął jeden wniosek: więcej elastyczności, więcej uproszczeń, a przede wszystkim możliwość tego, aby wszyscy interesariusze tych planów mieli prawo głosu i mogli w procesie decyzyjnym wziąć udział. W tym duchu poszły moje poprawki, zarówno jeśli chodzi o kontynuowanie wspólnej polityki rolnej, także jeśli chodzi o wsparcie miast. Ku mojemu zaskoczeniu Komisja Europejska nie zaproponowała żadnego oddzielnego dla nich budżetu, ja zaproponowałem 8%. I generalna rzecz i uwaga taka generalna do tego projektu jest taka, że naprawdę jeśli chcemy, aby ten projekt jednego wielkiego funduszu się udał, to musimy jak najbardziej włączyć państwa członkowskie oraz regiony do współdecydowania, bo w innym przypadku poniesiemy naprawdę klęskę.
Wszyscy muszą mieć prawo głosu i naprawdę musimy wziąć sobie to do serca. Dziękuję bardzo.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you.
I am now in the end of my list, but I want to ask you if anybody wants to take the floor. No, and it is case I ask Monika Hohlmeier to continue, please Monika.
Monika Hohlmeier
Ich starte zunächst das Letzte und catch sie einfach und wollte nur zum Abschluss folgendes sagen. Ich glaube, dass die NRPPs in ihrer Vorlage einige Dinge die Kommission nicht adäquat berücksichtigt hat. Das Erste ist Rechtssicherheit. Alle Empfänger brauchen Rechtssicherheit, ob das in der Landwirtschaft ist, ob das in der Kohäsion ist, da muss es Rechtssicherheit geben. Als Zweites ist es muss eine Vorhersehbarkeit und eine Verlässlichkeit in der Planung geben, denn wenn du die nicht hast, ist es weder bei den Investitionen noch im Bereich der Landwirtschaft noch in irgendeinem anderen Bereich einigermaßen vernünftig.
Die Kommission scheint leider auch in einem Bereich vergessen zu haben, dass es Länder gibt, in denen Regionen die nationale Ebene bilden und nicht die Nation in Regionen unterteilt ist. Zum Beispiel mein eigenes Land. Bei uns bilden die Länder den Bund, so wie das so schön heißt.
Das heißt, die Regionen müssen eine eigenständige Stellung haben, die Regionen müssen eigenständig ihre Entscheidungen treffen können und die jeweiligen nationalen Behörden dürfen sie nicht überstimmen dürfen. Man hat in mehreren, wie zum Beispiel in Spanien gesehen, wie unglücklich das ausgeht, wenn Kindergärten gebaut werden sollen und es Regionen gibt, die schon 100 % haben und eigentlich Wassermanagement brauchen würden gegen Hochwasser oder um Dürreperioden zu überstehen. Also ist es besser, den Regionen das Sagen zu geben, als es dem nationalen Level mit irgendwelchen zentralistischen visionären Plänen zu geben. Das war nur eine kurze Abschlussbemerkung und ich glaube, dass wir da als Parlament eine große Verantwortung tragen und möchte mich ganz herzlich bei den Berichterstattern, bei den tollen Kolleginnen und Kollegen, die alle sich hier eingebracht haben, muss ich wirklich sagen, Hut ab, und auch sich die Mühe gemacht haben, hier Änderungsanträge zu stellen. Und nachdem die Kommission vertreten ist, liebe Christiane Canenbley, wollen Sie noch etwas zu der Gesamtdiskussion sagen oder einen Kommentar mit abgeben?
Sie hätten das Wort, wenn Sie dies wünschen würden.
Kristiane Canenbley
If I get the possibility to speak and to thank you all for the hard work here, of course I will. And thanks a lot for inviting us and I'm not here alone, as usual I'm here with the colleagues from DG REGIO and also from DG AGRI. And I just wanted really to thank for this exchange and also for the hard work which was done here. I think we're advancing well. We appreciate very much the strong engagement here and also are really happy to be here.
Happy also to to bring things forward. I just wanted to reply to a few elements which were mentioned here and also just after the the last intervention here. I mean, looking really at the amendments, I think there are many good things in, many things which we can happily take forward. Two points still I wanted to flag here after the discussion today. The one is really we we hear and we listen carefully to the various requests for further earmarking, for further elements where specific points are taken.
We understand the intention behind it, but, and this is the but I wanted to say, is some of the elements which were also mentioned here by some other colleagues on the need to be able to react in case of crisis, to be able to react to new challenges which might come at the end of the programming period would with this be undermined. And this is why we why we see this as a necessity to leave a certain flexibility in. That said, we believe that with the various elements on the targets, on the minimum amounts, etc., we have the the predictability which is applied for. There were also questions on co-financing, on ways on how we take this forward.
Also here, just to say that there are specific rules already for co-financing for the CAP foreseen. We're happy to look into what else it takes in order to get here an agreement between the co-legislators. Assurance was not so much discussed today, but just to say that we took careful note of the various amendments. We just would like to recall that here we have, I would really caution about introducing a dual system. Sort of where we on the one side have the cost verification and on the other side sort of more the performance-based element.
If we have the dual system, this won't help much. And we agree and are thankful for really the, the support and the importance on transparency which will be increased here. But I think the main bulk of the comments was really on cohesion and agriculture policy. We fully take it forward here, really, that these are the key priorities for the Parliament, for Europe as such. But with this, I hand over to my colleagues who, who cover these areas.
Thank you.
Speaker 49
Thank you very much.
And we've had an opportunity to look at the amendments and I just wanted to highlight a few areas which we think are particularly important from a regional policy point of view. We see a lot of amendments pointing to strengthen the regional dimension of the NRP proposal, many proposals to strengthen partnership, shared management, multi-level governance, to ensure that the regional and local authorities will continue to play a key role in the design, management and implementation of the plan and that regional specificities are properly addressed. I think we see this as positive and as a shared aim of the Commission and we look forward to working constructively with the Parliament on these issues. A second point I would like to make, and I've heard it a number of times, is in relation to the continuity of structures and certainty that national and regional authorities and the authorities responsible for implementing our programs may have. And here again, I think this is also something which the Commission shares.
We should not be changing structures for the purpose of changing structures and here again, I think we can have a constructive dialogue. Finally, I would like to point to one area of caution. We very much welcome the focus on territorial approaches.
This is of course a key feature of cohesion policy on the territorial instruments. At the same time, one of the key benefits we see of the proposal is that it offers better synergies between different policy areas and the ability to bring funding from a number of different directions for the benefit of specific territories and beneficiaries. And there we would caution, and this echoes a little bit the comments by Christiana, about chopping it up into too many silos with different sets of rules and application streams for funding. I think LEADER is an exceptionally good example of this. This is something which has been mentioned by many.
I think we saw this proposal as the potential for unlocking additional types of funding for LEADER groups. This is something we hear very often from LEADER groups, they feel that they are somehow locked out from cohesion and other types of funding. And therefore we should be particularly attentive to this in our further discussions. Thank you very much.
Oliver SITAR
Thank you, thank you Chair. The NRP approach ensures that farmers and rural areas more broadly benefit from synergies as my colleague has said.
Member States will be able to design their CAP interventions with this joined-up logic built in from the start. While we very much welcome the EP's support for a strong common agricultural policy with a strong budget, the approach proposed in the draft report would limit these advantages by splitting up and pre-allocating funds. Today's CAP is built on two pillars, each governed by its own rules. Having said this, this is a source also of rigidity and unnecessary complexity. The Commission's proposed integrated programming approach changes that, while it keeps every single CAP intervention but brings them all under one simpler, more coherent framework.
And it does that without touching the core principles that have always underpinned the CAP. The role of the CAP national recommendations is to ensure a common approach across Member States. Challenges are different, but the approaches should cater for the objectives that we all pursue.
Several amendments propose extending support to, for instance, investments for processors. This, in our view, raises a real tension. Drawing on the ring-fenced amount reserved to finance farmers' needs, this would sit uneasily alongside the amendments that call for a strengthened funding for farmers. If we want to be consistent, the ring-fenced amount should remain protected for what it is meant to do, and that is supporting farmers' incomes. The commitment to the 10% rural target means Member States can keep supporting what matters on the ground: rural start-ups, innovation, cooperation tools like smart villages, and of course, LEADER.
Last but not least, helping farmers become more resilient in the face of shocks and crises is central to the Commission's proposal. Deploying preventive actions at farm level must be the first step. When a crisis hits, the proposed mechanism under the NRP plans will ensure a cascading response afterwards. I thank you.
Monika Hohlmeier
So, thanks a lot. Now we come to our rapporteurs. We're looking very thankful to them, and the first one is Karlo Ressler.
Karlo Ressler
Thank you very much.
Thank you to all the shadows and colleagues for the input today. I was listening carefully and I think that really we have quite constructive engagements so far, both in our discussions in this kind of format, but also through many different bilateral and different exchanges over the past weeks. And I mean, we all understand what is the complexity of this task. We all understand how big is this number of the amendments. And I think that this also demonstrates in a way the importance that all the political groups attach to this file.
So, as rapporteurs, our objective from the beginning was to try to put forward a solid political starting point for our work. And I believe that hearing also you, that this draft report already reflects many of the priorities that were expressed today across different committees, while naturally there is still much room for further discussions where political groups see this need.
I've heard the calculations by Damian and I can definitely ensure you that in the end we will definitely spend and invest more than 80 hours in the coming weeks to really try to have this solution. This will be happening through many different formats and preparations, but allow me please now, without going into detail on many of the points that you have raised, at least try to express and highlight what we see as some kind of the key building blocks of our common work. So I would start with our first priority, which is preserving policy certainty through clear ring-fenced allocations. This was mentioned by many of the colleagues and this follows directly from the political guidance already adopted with the MFF interim report. And our proposal therefore safeguards dedicated envelopes for cohesion policy, for common agricultural policy, including both pillar one and pillar two, as well as envelopes for POSEI, for fisheries and obviously, as it was proposed by the Commission, also for the home affairs funds.
We have sought to provide greater territorial balance by also specifying allocations in Article 10 across different categories of regions, including less developed, transition and more developed regions, as well as outermost and northern sparsely populated regions. And in order to reinforce this kind of territorial cohesion, we also proposed appropriate safety nets for regions changing categories in the current MFF and in the new programming period, preventing abrupt reductions in this sense. The second point is that we will definitely have to find a way in which we will build the national plans that are truly responsive to the needs of the EU, of the regions, of the Member States and final beneficiaries. And in that sense, we I think all recognize the need for greater flexibility, but at the same time excessive flexibility also risks undermining long-term planning and predictability. And with this in mind, we proposed this idea of extending the decommitment rule from n+1 to n+3, and I've heard some of those opinions and thinking also today from you as well.
Thirdly, the third area concerns strengthening the role of the European Parliament.
This was one of the topics that was mentioned today as well, and given the strategic importance of the national multi-annual partnership plans, we believe that the Parliament should definitely exercise meaningful democratic scrutiny, especially over their approval. This is why we propose that the plans are adopted through the delegated acts rather than the Council implementing decisions, and we consider this is definitely an important institutional question. To try to conclude, I think that these are some of the central political choices around which we should structure our discussions in the next weeks. We are continuing already tomorrow. Of course, these are not the only issues that we have on the table.
We have, as we have mentioned, more than 7,000 amendments, and we'll have to take a closer look into every each one of them. I think that there is no amendment of the text of the regulation which is in the end prevented from deeper consideration, and I think that for that it's quite clear that each political groups will have to also try to focus and prioritize the amendments. And in that sense, we are ready to discuss all proposals constructively, and as I have already said in the beginning, our objective now is to move from only identifying differences to really towards identifying landing zones and exact wordings for these a bit more than 80 articles.
So thank you once again and looking forward to the good cooperation in the coming weeks.
Monika Hohlmeier
Thanks a lot Carlo and Andrej Novakov is replaced by Daniel Buda.
Daniel Buda
Da, o să încerc. Mulțumesc doamnă președintă. Promit să încerc să vorbesc mult mai mult mai rar. Din păcate colegul Novakov a trebuit să plece la o altă reuniune însă dumnealui așa cum a spus chiar la începutul intervenției nu vede aceste mii de amendamente ca fiind o povară ci din contră cred că este foarte important ca în aceste amendamente să regăsesc dincolo de ceea ce înseamnă viziunea fiecărui grup politic dar să regăsești și nevoile și realitățile fiecărui colț a Uniunii Europene. Pentru că nu putem să fim uniți în diversitate fără să avem în vedere fiecare realitate și fiecare nevoie specifică a unei regiuni.
Plecând de la Azore plecând din România din Germania din Italia cu toții avem nevoi specifice și ele trebuie să se regăsească într-un instrument care să poată să fie utilizat de către beneficiarii acestor politici europene.
Pentru că fie că vorbim de politica de coeziune sau politica agricolă comună, aceste politici trebuie să fie niște politici consolidate. Până la urmă, consolidarea Uniunii Europene este subsumată eficienței celor două politici, pentru că Ursula von der Leyen, atunci când a candidat prima dată, și mereu fac trimitere la această chestiune, spunea că trebuie să dezvoltăm Uniunea Europeană la maniera în care fiecare cetățean european să aibă dreptul să rămână acasă. Ori acest lucru este subsumat legat de ceea ce înseamnă eficiența acestor politici. Și sigur, implicarea decidenților politici, primari, președinți de regiuni, și iată că vedem că această propunere a Comisiei n-a avut în vedere de la început, până la urmă, modalitățile de organizare a fiecărui stat membru, deciziile cum se iau și așa mai departe. Dar prin aceste amendamente vom putea crea acest mecanism care să permită implicarea tuturor beneficiarilor în luarea unor decizii care să corespundă nevoilor lor.
Și în același timp, sigur, cu toții ne dorim această simplificare în ceea ce înseamnă procesul de absorbție a fondurilor europene.
Și a mai spus un coleg o chestiune foarte importantă legată de necesitatea consolidării acestor politici pe de o parte, dar pe de altă parte că nu ne dorim ca aceste politici să devină un pom de Crăciun și ca ori de câte ori Comisia Europeană are de satisfăcut o necesitate, o nevoie, să vină să ia bani fie de la coeziune, fie de la agricultură pentru a-i duce într-o anumită direcție. Una peste alta, sunt convins că împreună cu raportorii din umbră, cu ceilalți coraportori, domnul Novakov va pune pe masa noastră a tuturor un instrument care să poată să fie puternic în discuțiile cu Comisia și cu Consiliul, pentru că până la urmă cu toții avem același obiectiv comun, de a crea instrumente care să fie de un real folos pentru beneficiarii politicilor europene. Mulțumesc.
Elsi Katainen
So, now our last speaker. It's the AGRI Renew rapporteur, Elsi Katainen.
Thank you. Thank you, Chair. It's an honor to get the last word. And thank you all for your, for your remarks. Many important points have been raised and I agree many of you.
Elsi Katainen
First, I'd like to remind that we all agree this proposed system represents a massive change from previous frameworks and requires a return to the basics, addressing concerns about coordinating different systems which ensure the legislation which work all for all these sectors. Regarding agriculture, I have a few specific points to raise. First of all, the continuation of annual payments. They are extremely important from the perspective of agriculture. Our farmers shouldn't be left waiting for EU subsidies simply because of the NRP plans was not finalized soon soon enough.
And then rural development and funding for rural areas are key objectives of this legislation and their continuity must be ensured within the future framework. And also the framework must be as clear and simple as possible for our beneficiaries so that food security is ensured and farmers also have time to develop them farms and make investment to secure their future.
And it is also important that we coordinate our efforts, as we have already done with regard to the CAP negotiations, to ensure that the legislation is well aligned. And with regard to the crisis fund, it is important that farmers and those affected by the crisis receive funding, whether from the EU or at the national level, as effectively and flexibly as possible. The system must be effective. Personally, I'm very concerned about potential national conflicts between agriculture and rural development, between different sectors, as well as inequality among Member States, as they will use their national flexibility in different ways. This also risks undermining the fairness of the internal market in the food sector, for example.
And it is also important that the different governance models of the Member States are recognized and that regions continue to have real opportunities to influence decisions that affect them. We will return to more detailed negotiations in the fall after a well-deserved summer break, and we will face a tight schedule to conclude the negotiations before the end of the year and move afterward to the trilogues so that the legislation can be finalized in time before the start of 2028, when the implementation of the plan and payments are scheduled to begin. Thank you. Thank you all.
Monika Hohlmeier
So, thank you very much. You brought up the rear of the whole discussion as a conclusion to this meeting. Let me warmly thank you for today's constructive discussion and for your thoughtful contributions, dear colleagues. I found today's consideration of tabled amendments particularly interesting. It has shown both the complexity of the issues at stake and the amount of work still ahead of us.
Given this complexity, a broad and inclusive approach will be essential going forward. I want to highlight that a very good level of cooperation between the co-rapporteurs, shadows, and rapporteurs of the opinion-giving committees will be necessary in order to find good compromises that can build a solid position of this House on the NRPPs. And what I thought it was very good, everybody was mentioning the regions and their importance. It was very interesting that here in this House, the principle of subsidiarity is really living. So thanks a lot again, and I would like to give the floor to Veronika.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay, thanks, Monika. So let me thank you for attending this meeting. I am grateful to our rapporteurs, shadow rapporteurs, as well as the rapporteur of the opinion-giving committees for the detail provided on the scope of tabled amendments and the underlined priorities of our different committees. Today's debate are a clear sign that the Parliament's view on the future funding architecture of our cohesion and agri-policies does not align with the Commission's proposal and that we will need to make our voice heard in the upcoming discussion with the Commission and the Council. I would like also to thank to my co-chairs and I wish you very nice summer break.
See you in September.
Dragoş Benea
Thank you. I would like to thank you as well for the constructive debate we had today.
I would like to remind you that we have a demanding calendar ahead of us. Our next joint meeting will take place on 4 November, when it's scheduled to adopt the report. As you know, in line with the Conference of Presidents' decision of 12 March 2026, all MFF sectoral reports should be adopted in committees in time for consideration by plenary by the November second 2026 part-session at the latest. With that in mind, I would like to wish our co-rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs very constructive negotiations. Last but not least, I would like to thank the secretariats for their work and the interpreters for facilitating our discussions today.
Thank you very much and have a nice evening.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.