Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
FEMM European Parliament
Follow its sittingsLina Gálvez
Okay. Thank you. Anna Strolenberg is substituted by Benedetta Scuderi. And then in the Left, Irene Montero is replaced by Hanna Gedin. Ah, yes, Hanna is there.
Okay. So... So when Mr. Furlas will replace Ms. Vossenberg. Mr. Furlas is in INTA, I just see him. So in AFET.
So is... Well. Furlas was not... He's in AFET, I'm sure, because I'm coming from there. So...
Yes. Okay. Perfect. So we'll... Yeah.
And now before the... Yes. Who else?
Lina Gálvez
Aha. Okay. So Mariam Vinde instead of Emma Rafowicz. Okay. Okay.
Thank you. Thank you. And I'm sorry for that, but we have today, I know some other committees don't, but we are very, very strict with the rules, sorry for that. And so before starting the vote, I would like to give the floor to the rapporteur Raquel García Hermida-Vanderwalle, but I don't see her for one minute. Sorry?
So if anyone from Renew wants to take the vote, if not, we will then vote. Okay? So we start now to vote on the budgetary amendment vote. And so we start by compromise one. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted. I hope I still remember how. Compromise two.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise three.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Adopted. Abstentions? Adopted.
Compromise four. Who is in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Compromise five. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Compromise six by roll call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote. And it is adopted. Compromise seven.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise eight.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment 13.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted. And we go to the final vote by roll call vote.
I open the vote. I close the vote. And it is adopted. Congratulations and thank you very much.
And now we will vote the accompanying resolution. So we start by compromise five. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions?
Adopted. Compromise six by roll-call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote and it is adopted. Amendment 22.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment 23.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment 24 by roll-call vote.
I open the vote. I close the vote and it is adopted. Amendment 25. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise seven. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise eight. Who is in favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise nine. Who is in favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise 10. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment 39 by roll-call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote and it is rejected.
Amendment 40 also by roll-call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote and it is rejected. Amendment 41 by roll-call vote. I open the vote.
I close the vote and it is rejected. Amendment 42 by roll-call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote and it is rejected. Compromise one.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise three.
Who is in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise four.
Who is in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment six by roll-call vote.
I open the vote. I close the vote and it is adopted. Compromise two. Who is in favor? Who is against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment eight. Who is in favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment nine. Who is in favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. And we go to the final vote by roll-call vote. I open the vote. I close the vote and it is adopted.
So congratulations and we end the vote. So thank you very much and we leave some times because I'm sure some members will leave the room.
So, as soon as you're ready, we can continue with our agenda. So please, I ask you to take the seat because we have more points to go through in our agenda. So we continue, thank you, thank you very much. We continue with point five, which is the FEMM mission to Tbilisi in Georgia that took place from the 26th to 28th of May. And so in accordance to our rules, we really need to report back to the committee.
As you know, the purpose of this mission was to explore the situation of gender equality and women's rights in the country, including women's representation in politics and threats they face, such as gender-based violence, gender disinformation, digital violence, and to show support for the European aspirations of the people of Georgia and their strong commitment to European values and democratic governance. By the way, talking about gender violence, Carolina Morace, that is member of this committee, gave to me this violentometro, which is a way very easily to measure or to be able to at least to know what is gender violence from zero that it is to thirty. So probably we can, if you are interested, obviously you know it is here. Probably we can translate it into English. It's in Italian because I think it will be very useful because it's a way, especially for young women and not only that young, to distinguish and to know what could be considered gender violence from more kind of simple way to obviously to risk of death or to being killed by partner or former partner.
So, having said that, we start by our procedure that it will be to give the floor to the members of the mission. It was Mr. Salimesh, our first vice-president, chairing the mission because I did not go to that mission, but he's not with us today. So I will give the floor to Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus, S&D coordinator, for five minutes. Thank you, Joanna.
Joanna Scheuring-Wielgus
Thank you, Lina. It's good to see you, all of you. I hope all of you you had a very good holiday. And I would like to take about the Georgia in Polish, if you don't mind, it will be easier because it was a very specific mission for me. Rzeczywiście to była bardzo wyjątkowa i specyficzna misja dla mnie.
Zaraz powiem dlaczego. Gruzja jest nie tylko historią dla nas o kryzysie politycznym, który teraz tam jest, ale jest dla nas też historią o prawach kobiet, o prawach człowieka i o tym, jak te sprawy są ze sobą bardzo mocno powiązane. I nasza misja miała przyjrzeć się właśnie sytuacji kobiet w Gruzji, ale bardzo szybko podczas naszej misji stało się dla nas jasne, że nie możemy mówić o prawach kobiet bez oderwania od tego, co się dzieje politycznie, od stanu demokracji i praworządności. Gruzja jest krajem, który w zdecydowanej większości bardzo uważnie patrzy w stronę Europy i bardzo chce być w Europie i w Unii Europejskiej. Te europejskie aspiracje zapisane są w gruzińskiej konstytucji.
Tymczasem nowa władza systematycznie od momentu, kiedy przejęła swoją władzę, dąży do zatrzymania, ale również odwrócenia procesu integracji. To, co było takie szokujące właśnie dla nas, że Gruzja rzeczywiście bardzo dobrze się przygotowywała i nagle po wybraniu nowych władz te aspiracje wejścia do Unii Europejskiej są hamowane i zatrzymywane w najróżniejszy sposób.
Jeszcze kilka lat temu Gruzja była jednym z liderów regionalnych jeżeli chodzi o równość płci. Te reformy wszystkie są teraz wycofywane w zasadzie z miesiąca na miesiąc. Zlikwidowano radę zajmującą się równością płci. W ogóle same pojęcie równości płci jest usuwane ze wszystkich aktów prawnych. To po prostu się dzieje nagminnie.
A organizacje pozarządowe i dla kobiet, ale również dotyczące praw człowieka po prostu tracą finansowanie. I nawet jeżeli ktoś ma taką myśl, żeby pomóc tym organizacjom, to nie jest to możliwe, ponieważ te organizacje są sprawdzane przez obecną władzę. Jest oczywiście cały ten aspekt mówienia przez władzę, że równość płci jest ideologią, że trzeba jakby dbać tylko i wyłącznie o wartości rodzinne, czyli cała ta narracja, która jest obecna u nas tutaj w Europie i która idzie też ze strony Ameryki jeżeli chodzi o ruch MAGA. I to jest jedna rzecz. Ale druga rzecz to jest propaganda, która idzie ze strony rosyjskiej i mnóstwo, naprawdę mnóstwo dezinformacji, które uderzają bezpośrednio w Unię Europejską i w nas i w ludzi, którzy w Unii Europejskiej pracują.
I wygląda to naprawdę bardzo, bardzo niebezpiecznie. Dla nas po tej misji w zasadzie był tylko taki jeden wniosek, który z tego się kształtował. Wniosek, który możemy zawrzeć w zasadzie w jednym zdaniu, że kiedy atakowana jest demokracja, a tak się dzieje przez obecną władzę, prawa kobiet są w pierwszej kolejności atakowane. I oczywiście my to znamy, ale w Gruzji naprawdę ewidentnie widać jak społeczeństwo obywatelskie, jak kobiety walczą. One od momentu wybrania nowej władzy w zasadzie prawie co tydzień manifestują, co tydzień o tym mówią, że chcą wejść do Unii Europejskiej, jak bardzo ważne są prawa człowieka.
Walczą o wszystkie osoby, które są wsadzane do więzienia, bo rzeczywiście jest mnóstwo osób takich z organizacji pozarządowych, w szczególności kobiet, które siedzą w więzieniu. Więc jakby ze strony społeczeństwa obywatelskiego, młodego pokolenia jest bardzo duża chęć bycia w Unii Europejskiej, a ze strony władzy jest blokowanie. I ostatnia bardzo ważna rzecz i tutaj pozwolę sobie na perspektywę polską. My w Polsce bardzo dobrze wiemy, że droga do Unii Europejskiej nie kończy się tylko i wyłącznie na tym, że jest akcesja do Unii Europejskiej. Że później trzeba walczyć, walczyć, walczyć o to, aby i żeby to była presja społeczeństwa, aby bronić praworządności i praw kobiet.
I z tym mamy do czynienia w Gruzji. I uważam, że jako Unia Europejska nie możemy od Gruzji się odsunąć. Musimy ich wspierać i musimy wspierać każde państwo, które aspiruje do wejścia do Unii Europejskiej, ale również te wszystkie państwa, które są w Unii Europejskiej, które mają zakusy na to, żeby z Unii Europejskiej wyjść. Więc bardzo ważna misja i przed wyborem naszych misji na kolejny rok myślę, że powinniśmy zwrócić bardzo uwagę na to, aby jeździć do krajów aspirujących, ale również żeby jeździć do krajów w Unii Europejskiej, które mają problem z praworządnością. Dzięki.
Thank you, thank you very much and indeed we really need to visit and to support especially women movement that is under attack as and thank you, thank you very much for your contribution. And now I would like to give the floor to Carolina Morace from the group of the Left.
Sì, grazie, grazie Lina. La missione della commissione FEMM in Georgia ci ha permesso di raccogliere numerose testimonianze sulla situazione dei diritti delle donne e della parità di genere, della società civile e della libertà di informazione.
Carolina Morace
Il quadro è, come ha detto la collega, è preoccupante. Negli ultimi due anni è stato segnalato un significativo arretramento nel campo dei diritti delle donne e dell'uguaglianza di genere. Particolare preoccupazione riguarda l'indebolimento degli strumenti di contrasto alla violenza di genere, l'abolizione di organismi dedicati all'uguaglianza e la bassa rappresentanza femminile nei luoghi decisionali e le nuove restrizioni nell'accesso all'interruzione della gravidanza. È stato inoltre denunciato uno stallo nell'attuazione della convenzione di Istanbul e nelle riforme legislative, comprese quella relativa alla definizione di stupro. Particolarmente grave è il quadro descritto dalla società civile.
Le ONG denunciano restrizioni all'accesso ai finanziamenti internazionali e un contesto nel quale diventa sempre più difficile operare liberamente. Giornalisti e media indipendenti, in particolare le donne giornaliste, riferiscono pressioni, intimidazioni e difficoltà crescenti nell'accesso alle informazioni pubbliche. Abbiamo ascoltato anche denunce molto gravi sulla repressione delle manifestazioni, sugli arresti e sull'utilizzo del sistema giudiziario contro esponenti dell'opposizione e della società civile. Un altro elemento emerso con forza è l'utilizzo politico delle questioni di genere e dei diritti LGBT. Secondo diverse organizzazioni incontrate, questi temi vengono utilizzati per contrapporre i cosiddetti valori tradizionali ai valori europei e per alimentare una narrazione antioccidentale.
Allo stesso tempo non possiamo ignorare le difficoltà dell'opposizione. Durante gli incontri è emersa anche una forte sfiducia di una parte della popolazione verso le forze di opposizione, considerate frammentate e non sempre capaci di offrire un'alternativa politica credibile, soprattutto sulle questioni sociali ed economiche. Questo aspetto è importante perché la nostra analisi non può ridursi a una semplice contrapposizione tra governo e opposizione. Vorrei infatti evidenziare un limite importante della nostra missione. Non abbiamo incontrato alcun rappresentante del governo o delle istituzioni georgiane.
Le informazioni che abbiamo raccolto provengono dall'opposizione, dalla società civile, dai media indipendenti e dalle organizzazioni internazionali. Ritengo che questo sia un problema di metodo. Non significa mettere in discussione le denunce che abbiamo ascoltato, molte delle quali sono estremamente gravi e trovano riscontro anche in organismi internazionali. Significa però che una missione ufficiale del Parlamento europeo dovrebbe cercare di ascoltare tutte le parti, anche quelle con le quali siamo profondamente in disaccordo. Solo in questo modo possiamo formulare una valutazione politica completa e soprattutto credibile.
La Georgia resta un paese nel quale una parte molto importante della popolazione continua a considerare l'integrazione europea come una prospettiva fondamentale. L'Unione europea deve quindi continuare a sostenere la società civile, le donne, i giornalisti, le minoranze e tutti coloro che difendono pacificamente i propri diritti, ma deve farlo mantenendo aperto anche il dialogo istituzionale. La nostra responsabilità non è scegliere una parte del conflitto politico georgiano, ma difendere e salvaguardare principi precisi: democrazia, stato di diritto, libertà di espressione, pluralismo, diritti delle donne e delle minoranze. E questi principi devono essere applicati con lo stesso rigore in Georgia come in qualsiasi altro paese che aspiri ad avvicinarsi all'Unione europea.
Lina Gálvez
Grazie. Just to just to mention because obviously you said that the mission did not meet any did not meet anyone from from government and it is true and it is probably theoretically it could have been a very good idea but it was the this was a decision from coordinators from this committee not to do it so that's why and it was following the a parliament resolution regarding not recognizing a parliament resolution on the 17th of June 2026 about not recognizing the results of of the elections because they were not done properly. So that's the the reason behind the decision of coordinators of this committee of not meeting but I said it was a coordinators decision. Yes, Carolina.
Carolina Morace
Io non voglio fare polemica per" c'" anche una storia che va considerata e anche la Georgia ha una storia. " solo quello. Io credo io credo che il nostro la nostra funzione sia una funzione assolutamente super partes e credo che dobbiamo ascoltare tutti e non dobbiamo avere soprattutto doppi standard che purtroppo in questi anni ci stanno stanno stanno evidenziando il nostro atteggiamento come Parlamento Europeo.
S" grazie ma comunque " una decisione di coordinatori. Allora queste cio" io capisco quello che che lei dice per" " una cosa che si deve proprio parlare e trovare una soluzione nei coordinatori perch" " loro responsabilit". Vabb" soltanto questo grazie.
So if anyone else would like to take the the floor there had been two wonderful and very good interventions both of them highlighted how important for us is to visit those countries how important for us is to support women's movements. Maria Noichl please you have the floor for one minute.
Maria Noichl
Ganz herzlichen Dank danke f"r den Bericht mich w"rde interessieren was ist der n"chste Schritt? Ist der n"chste Schritt dass wir weiterhin versuchen mit diesen Organisationen die jetzt nicht der Regierung angeh"ren sondern die sich um Frauenrechte in Georgien k"mmern dass wir mit denen weiterhin Kontakt halten ist der n"chste Schritt sie mal einzuladen soll es eine m"gliche gibt es eine m"glichkeit speziell hier Anbindung zu machen denn ich meine ich muss schon sagen es ist schon eine besondere Situation wenn man in ein Land kommt und es eigentlich nicht m"glich ist mit Regierungsvertreter und Vertreterinnen zu sprechen das ist eigentlich auch nicht die Art und Weise wie wir reisen. Wir reisen eigentlich nicht in der Weise sondern wir sind schon als Europ"isches Parlament auf die ja derzeit ist es ja nicht m"glich in Georgien aber sonst auf die Regierenden immer zugegangen und mich w"rde interessieren was ganz speziell in dieser Situation jetzt der n"chste Schritt ist. Wann stehen dort Wahlen an wann gibt es dorten eine eine Regierung die dann zu besuchen ist oder sagen wir wir haben jetzt hier eine Beobachtungssituation denn das allerschlimmste ist mit so einem Besuch Hoffnung zu sch"ren und dann kommt nichts mehr. Das wissen wir das haben wir ja in anderen L"ndern teilweise auch weil es uns zeitlich oftmals gar nicht m"glich ist die n"chsten Schritte zu tun aber speziell hier d"rfen wir die Zivilgesellschaft nicht einfach mit einem Besuch dann h"ngen lassen m"chte ich mal sagen.
Das glaube ich ist ist wirklich wichtig.
Lina Gálvez
Thank you. I repeat and I agree that we should talk with also the institutions because it is important if we really want to improve the situation of women and women organizations in those countries. But again, this is a discussion that should be that should take place in coordinators. And unless we want to challenge what was decided in coordinators in the committee, it is the procedure. So next time this situation will arrive, I will ask your coordinators to discuss and to find an agreement in coordinators.
So thank you. Anyone else would like to take the floor? Otherwise, we move to point six, which is evaluating the implementation and impact of GAP III as a foundation for designing GAP IV post-2027. So the European Union's third Gender Action Plan, GAP, that we know as GAP III, that initially covered years 21-25, was extended until 2027 to align with the current MFF. And as you all know, it's coming to an end.
And in preparation for the upcoming fourth GAP, the DEVE and FEMM committees are jointly preparing an own-initiative report and both committees commissioned studies to support the work. The FEMM study concentrates on the assessment of GAP III implementation to identify for GAP IV post-2027 and it provides an overview of how GAP has influenced, GAP III sorry, has influenced European Union's external action, where has been progress and where there are gaps and institutional capacity, monitoring, accountability, civil society participation and the post-2027 financial framework. But in any case, I'm not the best person to tell about this study. The best person for that is the author of the study. So I would warmly welcome Professor Petra Debusscher, who is the author of the study of European Union's third Gender Action Plan and the lessons we can learn from it ahead of the upcoming fourth GAP.
So she is online. So I hope she is... hello. I can see her already. So thank you, thank you very much for being with us in the FEMM committee, also for doing the study. And the floor is yours for 10 minutes.
Thank you, thank you very much.
Petra Debusscher
Thank you so much, Madam Chair. So yes, this study, co-authored with Blerina Vila, asks a very practical question: what should the upcoming GAP learn from its predecessor, GAP III? And our conclusion is not that GAP III has failed, far from it. These successive GAPs that have been introduced over the past 15 years have been actually tremendously successful, especially if you look at it from a longer-term perspective. GAP I introduced the framework, set the three-pronged approach, set up the gender focal persons network.
GAP II extended this to all external actions, insisted on this institutional culture change within the Commission and within the delegations, introduced better reporting. And then GAP III introduced targets, CLIPs, gender analysis, all these key bureaucratic routines.
And these three Gaps have really made gender equality today much more visible, routine, and firmly embedded within across EU external action, each one building on the previous one. That success also exposes the main limitation. Institutionalization is not the same as transformation. So the next question that we tried to look at in our report is how do all these tools actually change spending, implementation, results, and ultimately power relations? And this is where the evidence becomes more uneven.
Yeah, so what did we examine? We structured the study around three questions. What has changed under Gap 3? Where has implementation progressed, where do gaps remain, and what can Gap 4 and the post-2027 financing framework do differently? So we reviewed a lot of policy documents, legal documents in depth.
We reviewed all EU and European External Action Service reporting, evaluations, also a lot of Parliament, Court of Auditors material, civil society assessments, academic research, all kinds of program examples, data from international organizations. And we looked across all six Gap 3 thematic areas, but we also looked at the machinery underneath this. So targets, financing, gender analysis, monitoring, institutional capacity. And finally, for this study, we also analyzed 217 submissions to the Commission's 2026 call for evidence on Gap 4 because we really wanted to have a view of what the wider stakeholder community is expecting from this new Gap. So next slide, please.
Yeah, so let me begin with the positive story because this is, in my opinion, really substantial. Gender equality, the institutionalization of including gender equality has really become mainstream in EU routines in its external actions and especially in development. I have been following this area for a long time, so for 20 years now, so I really have seen it evolve. The EU is a strong global gender actor. It's really expected from the EU, people look at EU for guidance, and we can be really proud of that.
All the investments over the past decades have paid off. I did fieldwork in 2013 in several EU delegations, and now I did a set of interviews again this year, and the change in the institutional culture is really huge. There is no speech anymore or a programming that doesn't mention gender in a way. So for me, that's really the success of Gap set in motion by Gap 2.
So yes, GAP 3 really succeeded in making gender so much more visible, routine, and institutionalized. And we also see this in the figures that you already know, probably. So you see that the share of new EU external actions has gone from 64% in 2019 to 82% in 2024. For NDICI, this is almost 85%. So the conclusion here is quantified targets work.
This changes incentives, this really gives delegations a benchmark so that they can report, that they know they will have to report against. We also see this in the country-level architecture. In 2024, 96% of EU delegations had a country-level implementation plan. So this means that 130 delegations out of, oh, countries out of 136 have a CLIP, a country-level implementation plan. Also, if we look at gender budgeting, GAP 3 set a target of 20% of new actions supporting public finance management reforms that they include a gender budgeting component.
And the Commission report shows that 63% of those actions have included such a gender component since 2021. So what you see in the data is that gender has really infiltrated in so many areas previously untouched. So yeah, again, decades of training, communication, building expertise have paid off. But as I was saying, the evidence is much stronger in the visibility, the routines, and commitments than if we look at long-term outcomes and structural change. Next slide, please.
Yeah. So... Previous slide, please. Yeah. Yeah.
So what you see here is, it's mostly, if you look at the figures, there is also a depth problem. So yes, we have the 85% target that has really driven gender mainstreaming. On the other hand, only 4% of gender-marked NDICI Global Europe actions were G2, meaning that it is much less common for EU programming to be designed primarily to change gender inequality. If we look at actions marked G0, actions that are classified as not targeting gender equality, according to GAP 3, they need to justify why gender is considered irrelevant. If we look at the data from 2024, only 50% were correctly justified.
So we have a huge black box here. And then there is a results problem. Yes, in programming, we did a tremendous step forward in including gender objectives, indicators. But if we go one step further, we don't really know what is happening when contracts are signed. Also, if we then look at, okay, setting up gender indicators in programming, good.
But if you then look at the data, only 53% had sufficient data for those indicators. So okay, programming is good, but what happens afterwards? So right now, we cannot properly address progress, let alone transformation.
So what we have right now is that it's very clear what a program intended to do at the design phase, but it does not tell us what has actually changed. Same tension appears in women's rights organizations. The amount, but this is something that you have already tackled in the previous opinion, but the amount that is going to women's rights organizations is quite small compared to the overall budget. Although it has increased, it is still below 1% of gender equality ODA. Next slide, please.
Yeah. So I will, due to the time, I will skip this more or less. So mainstreaming can be shallow because we don't really know what the G1 marker is telling us. Yes, there are some minimum quality standards, but they are mostly focused on having a gender analysis, having gender indicators, but what is not there is having a budget, having the resources. So this could be improved also in terms of accountability.
Results remain hard to demonstrate. And then investment remains the area where gender mainstreaming really lags furthest behind. And yes, DG INTPA is working on this. It has developed special guidance, training, and has now extended the use of equality markers to EFSD+ operations. But the most recently published portfolio data from 2021 to 2024 still show that only 63% of blending operations and 59% of guarantees were marked G1 or G2, so well below the target of 85%.
So this is also something to really keep in mind. I see that my time is up, so I will stop here.
Lina Gálvez
Okay, thank you, thank you, thank you very much. Very useful and very interesting for us. And now, before giving the floor to the different political groups, I would like to give the floor to the co-rapporteurs of the INI report. We only have one who is DEVE rapporteur, but is also a member of FEMM, who is Abir Al-Sahlani, because Paulo do Nascimento Cabral, who is the co-rapporteur from FEMM, just had a baby, so congratulations to him. I hope for the next meeting he will be able to participate online, but for this one we did not have time to really pass by coordinators that should decide if that is possible.
So unfortunately we will not have him. I hope we will be able to have for next meeting. And I would like to insist to congratulate him for being a father. So now, having said that, I would like to give the floor to the DEVE co-rapporteur and FEMM committee member from Renew, Abir Al-Sahlani.
So the floor is yours for three minutes. Thank you.
Abir Al-Sahlani
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good evening, no, good morning to you all. It's so good to see you all with your tans and all smiley faces. It's good to be back here in the European Parliament. And congratulations to my esteemed colleague, Mr. Cabral, for becoming a parent.
It's an amazing privilege to become a parent and I wish him the best of luck. And I hope that we can also decide from now on or from the next coordinators' meeting that digital participation, online participation, should be a standard way of working so we can facilitate both roles as MEPs and to encourage even younger people to become MEPs so they can have both a family, being a responsible parent, and a responsible MEP. I would like to start with thanking Professor Debusscher for her participation, but for this study and for providing us with a very useful analysis. I subscribe to many of your reflections and recommendations. Together with my co-rapporteur, Mr. Cabral, we are currently finalizing the draft report and your study is very timely and helpful in our drafting.
From Renew's side, we want to see an ambitious and transformative GAP IV that builds on the progress that was made during the GAP III. We are in a challenging political environment where gender equality is under immense pressure. The GAP IV must be a political response to these challenges, to this development, to that pressure. It is a very different environment from when we drafted the GAP III. This study shows that EU have taken an important step in strengthening the institutionalization of our gender equality work, and it was said by Professor Debusscher.
It also shows how gender equality is now more strongly a cross-cutting priority in the EU external action. Many of the tools provided in GAP III contributed to this, of course, in particular the gender targets. These are all great achievements to be celebrated, but they are not enough. We want to see transformative change and a GAP IV must answer to that challenge. GAP IV must provide EU with the resources, tools, expertise, and foremost political support to turn our gender equality work into real progress on the ground.
This means GAP IV must center around addressing the root causes of gender inequalities, contribute to changing gender norms, challenging power imbalances, and driving structural change and promote women's rights. I believe your study offers many avenues on how we can ensure GAP IV does exactly that and respond exactly to these challenges. Strengthening support to gender-responsive budgeting could be one important part in this puzzle, as would increasing support to women's rights organizations. I also want to highlight one of your findings as a key finding: targets matter. Ensuring the gender targets are ambitious and remain in the financial instrument has been one of my key priorities.
I think your study is yet another testimony to the importance of this. We must also keep in mind that EU external actions is under transformation itself, in particular the development sector with the Global Gateway at the center of it.
Finally, ensuring a strong GAP III means ensuring a strong implementation and accountability framework, as you also point out. We want to see strong leadership support on all levels, a gender architecture fit to deliver transformation, tracking of spending on gender equality, and gender-responsive evaluations and impact assessments. These are areas we will look into even more. With that, I would like to conclude and thank the professor, Madame Petra Debusscher, for being here with us, and also once again say congratulations to my dear colleague Paulo. Thank you.
Lina Gálvez
Thank you, thank you very much, and now, thank you very much for all your work, and I hope we will be able to move on both in the and in FEMM. I see people representing the different political groups from FEMM, but not from DEVE. So if I'm missing someone, please let me know. I don't see anyone from EPP, well, we have already mentioned that Paulo do Nascimento Cabral cannot be here for a good reason. And now I would like to give the floor for two minutes to Heléne Fritzon from the S&D.
So Heléne, the floor is yours.
Heléne Fritzon
Thank you, thank you so much, and thank you for the study. It's really important that we always follow up the work for gender equality. Thank you also to Abir. I agree very much with you because we need to take more responsibility. And of course it's important to see in this report, in this study, what has changed, and we can also see the progress have been done.
We need more external action and we need to follow up for our targets, of course. But the most important is how we act further. And for the new GAP III, I think it's very, very important that we continue to create, to follow the targets and to create systems, because the really challenge is that when we ask women and girls in Europe, in our member states, they can, they can tell us that there has been no, there is no difference. There is a backlash for women and girls in Europe, and that means a backlash for women's rights, for resources to women and organizations working for women's rights, as we heard, but also a backlash for representation. So this, this study and this report really can, can tell us how important it is that we continue the work for gender equality and the mainstreaming, even if we can hear that we have it in the, in a good way in the EU institutions, it's not enough.
And we also know when we worked with the MFF how hard it is to really reach a content where we can see that gender equality is included in all the political areas. So there is a lot of work to do. I really look forward. Thank you.
Thank you, and indeed very much linked to, to the budget. And now from Patrios, Enikő Győri is not here, but Margarita de la Pisa will take the floor in her place. So Margarita, you have two minutes. Thank you.
Gracias, presidente, señorías. Este informe muestra una realidad: la institucionalización de género no es sinónimo de mayores logros en igualdad, en dignidad hombre-mujer. Implementar marcadores de...