Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Replay
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
AGRI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsPierre Bascou
We are in 2025 at a bit more than 25%. We are aiming to increase I think the and increase our capacity to to produce and our share of this kind of product I think by 10 percentage point by 2035. And to conclude, I would like to underline that the protein action plan should enable to strengthen our resilience, strategic autonomy, I think the sustainability of our system, and this on the on the basis of a comprehensive roadmap. You have seen I think in the annex I think of the communication, and on this action plan I think we have listed a series of important action that we need I think to implement I think very soon. And we hope that I think this the implementation of this action I think will address I think this dependency, will increase the competitiveness and also will create jobs I think for our primary sector, for our value chain and for our rural economies.
Thank you very much.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much, Mr. Bascou. And now I would like to ask our our coordinators, first Herbert Dorfmann, the EPP.
You have two minutes each, please.
Herbert Dorfmann
Thank you, chair. Ja, ich glaube, das ist ein wirklich wichtiges Thema, über das wir hier heute reden, und wir sprechen ja viel über Ernährungssouveränität in Europa. Und es muss klar sein, wenn es Probleme in den internationalen Handelsketten geben würde, würden die ersten, die Hunger leiden in Europa, wären nicht wir Menschen, sondern wären die Tiere, weil wir haben in keinem Bereich größere Abhängigkeit von Importen wie eben bei Protein für Futtermittel. Ich muss auch sagen, nach einigen Jahren, wo ich in diesem Haus bin, gibt es so wiederkehrende Dinge, und eines dieser wiederkehrenden Dinge ist alle paar Jahre entweder Initiativbericht oder Strategien zur Eiweißversorgung in Europa, und die Fortschritte, die wir machen, sind eigentlich mehr oder weniger null. Und dafür gibt es Gründe.
Herr Pascu hat viele aufgezählt. Dazu gehört einfach auch die Tatsache, dass der Anbau von Soja in Europa für die Bauern und Bauern uninteressant ist, finanziell uninteressant ist. Voraussetzungen, die andere große Produzenten haben - wir waren ja selbst letztes Jahr im Cerrado in Brasilien - haben wir nicht. Wir können nicht zwei Ernten auf der gleichen Fläche machen, zumindest in den meisten Teilen Europas nicht. Aber wir haben uns in Europa auch Erneuerungen und Innovationen verschlossen, die halt heute bei Soja zu Buche schlagen, also gentechnisch veränderte Organismen, auch die RED III, die genannt worden ist, die verhindert, dass wir eine vernünftige Kaskadennutzung bei Soja machen können.
Und dafür bekommen wir jetzt die Rechnung präsentiert. Deswegen, ich glaube, und da bin ich mit Herrn Pascu sehr einverstanden, wenn wir wollen, dass wieder mehr Proteinpflanzen angebaut werden, und das wäre für unsere Böden existenziell wichtig, dann müssen wir das in der GAP berücksichtigen, dann müssen wir Anreize schaffen, dann müssen wir vor allem bei Fruchtfolgen Proteinpflanzen in die Fruchtfolge zwingen. Anders wird es nicht gehen. Anders werden wir die Bauern nicht überzeugen, Proteinpflanzen anzubauen, weil es ganz einfach nicht interessant ist oder finanziell nicht interessant ist. Und ich denke, dass wir vor allem, und damit komme ich auch zum Ende, auch da bin ich mit Herrn Pascu sehr einverstanden, das Thema Ukraine im Auge behalten müssen.
Die Ukraine kann ein ganz, ganz wichtiger Lieferant von Proteinprodukten und vor allem von Soja für die Europäische Union werden. Und ich glaube, wir müssen mit der Ukraine in Debatte treten, dass die Ukraine jene Produkte anbaut, die wir in Europa vor allem brauchen, wenn sie zu uns exportieren wollen, und das sind halt vor allem eben Soja und andere Proteinprodukte. Herzlichen Dank.
Okay, thank you. S&D, Madam Cristina Maestre... no, I'm sorry. Okay, Dario Nardella.
Dario Nardella
Yes, thank you, chair, I'm sorry, we changed the program. Ringrazio Monsieur Pascu per questa relazione. Il piano proteico europeo rappresenta un passo importante nella giusta direzione, colleghi, e noi ne riconosciamo il valore. Finalmente la Commissione affronta la dipendenza strutturale dell'Europa dalle importazioni di proteine come una vulnerabilità strategica, non solo come un semplice problema agricolo. Del resto, noi lo diciamo sempre, il cibo è diventato ormai un asset strategico e non è soltanto una commodities.
Tuttavia dobbiamo essere anche onesti sulle criticità. Innanzitutto sull'ambizione del piano: l'obiettivo del 35% entro il 2035 non ci pare che sia considerato un target vincolante, e questo è un primo problema.
Non è accompagnato da un programma di bilancio dedicato e questo è un secondo problema perché si affida alla mobilitazione di strumenti già esistenti come la PAC e il fondo europeo di competitività partenariati pubblico-privati senza garanzie sufficienti per questi strumenti. Voglio anche aggiungere che c'è un dibattito aperto sul fondo europeo della competitività perché il relatore nel Parlamento europeo ha chiesto di eliminare l'agricoltura dal fondo europeo per la competitività e senza queste risorse è ovvio che diventa difficile poter rendere attuabile un piano così ambizioso sulle proteine. Rimane poi irrisolto il nodo dei biocarburanti. Lo scenario attuale limita lo sviluppo di filiere a duplice finalità che rappresentano oggi il meccanismo più immediato per aumentare simultaneamente la produzione proteica e ridurre la dipendenza energetica. Chiedo quindi alla Commissione di tradurre queste ottime intenzioni in impegni concreti e misurabili con dei target vincolanti con delle risorse dedicate nel prossimo quadro finanziario pluriennale e un quadro stabile post 2030 per i biocarburanti da colture europee.
Colleghi il negoziato sul quadro finanziario pluriennale sarà il primo vero test della credibilità di questo piano. Grazie.
Thank you Dario. Patrice Gilles-Penel please Gilles.
Gilles Pennelle
Oui merci. La Commission prend acte de ce que nous savions déjà notre extrême dépendance pour les protéines végétales. Cette extrême dépendance que la Commission d'ailleurs dans les années passées a contribué à créer. Alors je prends note des différentes orientations qui viennent de nous être présentées. Cependant permettez-moi quelques remarques.
Il n'y a aucun financement nouveau identifié. Alors on nous dit la Commission renvoie ça à la future PAC c'est-à-dire qu'on renvoie toutes les dépenses nouvelles à la future PAC alors que dans le même temps la Commission a réduit considérablement son projet financier sur cette même PAC. L'objectif fixé est bien trop faible. Passer de 25 % à 35 % en 10 ans signifie que l'Union européenne serait encore dépendante de 65 % en 2035. Un objectif effectivement modeste.
Et puis il n'y a aucune véritable protection contre la concurrence déloyale car la cause essentielle du déficit est économique. Les protéagineux européens sont souvent moins rentables que les céréales et sont confrontés à des importations de soja à bas prix avec des droits de douane à 0 %. C'est-à-dire qu'il n'y a même pas eu de traité de libre-échange mais on a fixé un droit de douane à 0 %. La production européenne pourra difficilement être compétitive sans véritable protection douanière face aux importations produites selon des normes et des coûts différents. Un mot sur l'Ukraine.
Alors là c'est extraordinaire parce qu'on est en train de nous dire finalement si l'Ukraine adhère à l'Union européenne on sera moins dépendant. Oui bah moi je vous propose quelque chose faisons adhérer à ce moment-là les États-Unis l'Argentine et le Brésil comme ça on n'aura plus du tout de dépendance. Moi je voudrais attirer l'attention des collègues sur un dernier point. Les sécheresses de cet été ont impacté dans mon pays la France par exemple gravement la production de maïs moins 30 % en France cette année probablement. Le foin l'herbe il n'y a pas eu de deuxième coupe et nos agriculteurs ont déjà puisé dans leurs réserves de foin destinées à l'hiver au mois d'août.
Que prévoit la Commission pour faire face à cette crise qui est immédiate tout de suite là pour nourrir leurs animaux il va falloir encore augmenter les importations. Moi je pense qu'il y a aussi des solutions qui sont rejetées par certains c'est développer l'irrigation afin d'augmenter nos productions destinées à la nourriture animale.
Jessika van Leeuwen
Thank you very much. ECR Jessica Stegrud please Jessica.
Thank you very much chair. We have an interesting discussion here. It's clear that we have a very large dependency on other countries for high protein feed ingredients. So in essence we welcome the plan to reduce this dependency. The question is whether we're choosing the right path to do so.
Because when we're talking about reducing our dependency soy is not the crop that we need to invest in because when we look at amino acid profile this is the most efficient crop for animal feed. But to comply with the plans of the commission we need to increase our production of soy with at least 40%. This 40% needs so many hectares of land that the question is if we can find those. And it will probably come in replacement of crops that we currently have. Also addressed by my colleagues if it is not profitable for our farmers to produce this it's quite complicated.
And if it's cheaper for animal feed producers to buy soy from Brazil and Argentina than to buy inferior because I have to state that EU soy is inferior of quality because of its low protein content we have to make sure that there is sufficient stimulants in the market to use this soy. At the same time the commission states we're going to prioritize feed additives to reduce our dependency on soy and the only plan that they come up with is to use amino acids to do so. We are completely dependent on China right now which the commission also addresses and say we need to improve our production. But the production of amino acid is not a clean production. So we are taking a natural source away we want to replace that by amino acids and making a more artificial mixture for our animals to grow on.
So I think we need to consider alternatives as well. I think there needs to be a very strong incentive in research on feed additives that improve the efficiency of protein the usage of protein and that reduce the effect of anti-nutritional factors that are present in soy. We have right now the most efficient livestock producers of the world lowest greenhouse gas emissions lowest nitrogen emissions. But if we change the way we feed those animals this will change and we will lose production efficiency. So also livestock producers need to have the guarantee that with this plan what they are doing keeps being profitable.
Because we underline at the ECR that this is a strategic pillar and I'm going to finish chair just one more thing. I think we need to focus on the right things here. We need to focus on replacing our dependency on high protein animal feed. What we question is the emphasis on novel protein sources including insect proteins and insist that EU funding and policy should prioritize conventional agricultural production. Thank you.
Thank you very much Renew Elsi Katainen.
Elsi Katainen
Thank you and thank you commission for the presentation. There is urgent need to strengthen European protein self-sufficiency. It is essential part of the strategic autonomy in EU. Stronger protein sector is needed for both for feed but also for food while investing in other the other benefits too. Commission's action plan is quite good starting point and it is time to take this topic in the center of discussion and actually to recognize the bottlenecks solve those and make it possible for the sector to grow in Europe.
In this discussion we can't afford to put plant-based and animal-based protein against each other. They go hand in hand and have different roles in the value chain. We can enhance possibilities of plant-based protein in human consumption but our citizen has also right to choose one's own diet. Like commission mentioned in the action plan the biotech act will be central legislation on boosting the protein value chain.
I hope that there is concrete actions how to support the protein value chain, enables the development of the new products and gives possibilities for the real circular circular economy. I'd like to hear from Commission how this is planned to be financed, what concrete action actions are planned, and when exactly the Biotech Act will be published. Thank you.
Anna Strolenberg
Thank you very much, Chair. And first of all, I'm also happy that there is this report, because it's true what I share with the colleagues that we need to become less dependent on the import of proteins for feed. Protein crops, if we grow them ourselves, can create new business models for farmers. And what I'm happy about is that in this report, also the dietary benefits of eating more plant-based foods is mentioned. And there's some good ideas, such as EU origin proteins, a benchmark for this, a strengthened market observatory, and the need to invest in innovation like precision fermentation.
However, I do think that if we want to be serious also about the dietary changes that we have to move towards eating a bit less meat and a bit more fruits and vegetables, then we need a bigger approach, a whole-of-chain approach, and this is lacking right now. And rightly so, some of the colleagues here said, well, it's not always profitable for farmers to invest in protein crops. Well, that also has to do with the fact that the uptake is not always there. But if we want for people, for consumers, to eat more proteins, plant-based proteins, then we also have to work on education in schools, what is a healthy food, we have to use public procurement, we have to work together with supermarkets, and this is what is lacking. And to put it the other way, what we see happening in this Parliament, this is actively worked against.
We have discussions about meat denominations, novel food is excluded in the Biotech Act in sandboxes, we don't want oat milk in the in the school schemes. So on all these different ways, there's a big push against eating more plant-based food. So I ask the Commission, do you have more concrete ideas about maybe monitor which actions there will be, or do you see other ways to step up the whole production of protein crops within the EU?
Thank you very much. The Left, Luke Flanagan, he is not there. Okay, in this case, ESN, Ivan David is not there too. So okay, let's now move to Catch-the-eye. You have one minute each, and Martin Häusling is the first.
Martin Häusling
Ja, ich kann nur sagen, ewig grüßt das Murmeltier. Wir reden alle paar Jahre über die Eiweißstrategie. Ich habe den ersten Bericht schon in 2011 geschrieben für das Parlament. Viel geändert hat sich wirklich nicht, ja. Unsere Abhängigkeit, vor allem von Soja, ist nicht weniger geworden.
Und ich wundere mich auch immer, weil die Landwirte immer so laut sind und sagen, gleiche Bedingungen, dass aber bei dem Sojaimport es den Bauern anscheinend egal ist, wie viel Gentechnik da eingesetzt wird, wie viel Pestizide eingesetzt werden. Nee, aber es ist billiger. Und da muss man auch mal Landwirtschaft fragen, ob das akzeptabel ist. Ich finde, ja, es sind ein paar gute Ansätze in dem Plan, aber natürlich muss das auch mit Geld hinterlegt werden. Manche Sachen, man kann nicht einfach sagen, ja, das entwickeln wir jetzt in der nächsten Förderperiode.
Ambitioniert ist das auch nicht sonderlich, wenn ich sage von 25 auf 35 Prozent in zehn Jahren. Deshalb brauchen wir ambitioniertere Pläne. Ich greif mal das auf, was Herr Dorfmann gesagt hat. Wir brauchen Eiweißpflanzen in der Kette verpflichtend, in der im Anbau verpflichtend. Wir haben ja mal die Forderung gehabt, zehn Prozent der Fläche sollte mit Leguminosen bestellt werden, und das ist ein wichtiges Ziel, weil Leguminosen ist ja auch wichtig für die Stickstoffversorgung.
Also da hätten wir so zwei Sachen, gute Sachen, die wir gemeinsam angehen können. Und ein Punkt fehlt mir so ein bisschen: Weidehaltung hätten wir ja eigentlich stärker in den Mittelpunkt stellen müssen. Das ist nur mal am Rande erwähnt. Ich finde, dass wir gerade die Weidehaltung von Rindern stärker in den Mittelpunkt stellen müssen. Vielen Dank.
Christine Singer
Thank you, Christine Singer, please.
Ja, vielen Dank. Ich begrüße auch, dass die Kommission mit dem Proteinplan unsere Abhängigkeit von Importen als strategische Frage der Versorgungssicherheit anerkennt. Und wenn heute nur rund ein Viertel der Proteine aus Ölsaaten und Eiweißpflanzen für unsere Futtermittel aus der EU stammt, dann müssen wir eben unsere eigene Produktion stärken. Aber ein Zielwert von 35 Prozent bis 2035 bringt uns noch keine einzige zusätzliche Erbse, Bohne oder Sojabohne auf den Feldern. Entscheidend ist, dass sich der Anbau für unsere Landwirte wirtschaftlich auch lohnt.
Und dafür brauchen wir Verarbeitungskapazitäten, wir brauchen verlässliche Absatzmärkte und regionale Wertschöpfungsketten. Und wir brauchen Anreize statt Vorgaben. Und dabei müssen wir auch die Tierhaltung, das Grünland, die Nebenprodukte mitdenken, denn sie sind Teil funktionierender regionaler Kreisläufe. Und vor allem brauchen wir Kohärenz, denn im Juli hat dieses Parlament die geplante High-ILUC-Einstufung für Soja zu Recht zurückgewiesen, denn wir können nicht heimisches Eiweiß fördern und gleichzeitig die Wirtschaftlichkeit der europäischen Sojaverarbeitung schwächen. Deshalb meine Frage an die Kommission: Wie machen Sie aus dem 35-Prozent-Ziel ein tragfähiges Geschäftsmodell für unsere Landwirte, sodass zusätzliche europäische Produktion und Einkommen für unsere Landwirte möglich sind?
Dankeschön.
Daniel Buda
Thank you very much, Vice-Chair Buda, please.
Da, mulțumesc, doamna președintă. Domnule director, lucrurile sunt foarte simple. Atâta vreme cât fermierii din țările terțe au posibilitatea să cultive plante modificate genetic și soia modificată genetic și noi în Uniunea Europeană n-o putem cultiva, oricât v-ați propune dumneavoastră să creșteți suprafața agricolă cultivată cu plante proteice, nu veți putea face acest lucru. Nici măcar nu este nevoie de bani. Este nevoie de schimbarea legislației și mi se pare, iertați-mă că spun acest lucru la început de sesiune, dar mi se pare că este o ipocrizie în condițiile în care noi în Uniunea Europeană nu putem cultiva plante modificate sau soia modificată genetic care necesită doar două tratamente, cultivăm soia convențională care necesită 14 tratamente, dar o importăm cu grație din țările terțe.
Și vrem ca fermierii din România, mă rog, din Uniunea Europeană să cultive plante proteice. Păi nu pot cultiva, pentru că nu pot face față concurenței. Despre asta vorbim. Înainte să discutăm de resursele financiare care se vor investi în această zonă, trebuie să discutăm la modul serios de ceea ce înseamnă schimbarea legislației.
Importăm din Argentina, din Brazilia, pentru că n-ai, nu poți să faci lapte, carne și ouă, fără nicio fel de discuție, fără aceste plante proteice. De aceea, eu cred că trebuie să schimbăm, repet, legislația, dacă într-adevăr vrem să avem această independență din punct de vedere proteic. Mulțumesc.
Tilly Metz
Thank you. Tilly Metz, please.
Yes. Let me start by saying, like my colleagues also, that we welcome, of course, this plan because it gives us, yes, more food security, strategic autonomy, and resilience. And if we want to reduce our dependence on imported proteins, including for animal feed, we need to strengthen the production of protein crops. And we need also to shift towards more diverse and balanced diets with more plant proteins. I think that is also clear if we listen also to science.
So, the question is really how will the Commission concretely put these recommendations that we have into concrete measures to stimulate both the production and the consumption of sustainable protein sources? We know that the Commission is also aware and was highlighting also Denmark's plant-based action plan as a best practice. So, would the Commission therefore consider developing an EU plant-based action plan with concrete targets and also adequate funding? Because Europe's protein transition will not happen through supply alone. So, we need to create the demand as well, and we need to create the conditions both for the farmers to produce and for the citizens to consume more sustainable proteins.
Cristina Guarda
Thank you. Cristina Guarda, please.
Thank you, Chair. I will speak Italian. Anzitutto vorrei iniziare con una nota positiva: il piano finalmente riconosce di aumentare il consumo e la consapevolezza per le diete diversificate e a base vegetale, e credo che sia la direzione giusta, oltre che la direzione che sta cercando di portare avanti anche nelle riforme dell'OCM per strutturare una filiera europea delle proteine vegetali anche per il consumo umano, dando vantaggio all'agricoltore. Tre osservazioni, però. Il piano individua buoni strumenti: pagamenti per la transizione nella PAC, investimenti per la trasformazione e stoccaggio tramite gli ENRP, che però restano opzionali per gli Stati membri.
Come intende quindi la Commissione garantire la programmazione e il finanziamento adeguato? Il secondo punto: per spingere la domanda, gli appalti pubblici sono fondamentali, ma serve anzitutto definire criteri specifici per il settore agroalimentare, ed è un aspetto fondamentale della riforma a venire su cui avete il nostro sostegno. E la terza osservazione è il piano che riconosce la dipendenza dalle importazioni, ma non tocca assolutamente l'architettura commerciale da cui nasce, ovvero Blair House, che è una delle cause strutturali della dipendenza europea dalla soia importata, peraltro OGM. Ed è un tema su cui non si può tacere, perché se vogliamo davvero ridurre questa dipendenza strutturale, è evidente che bisogna riformarlo. Grazie.
Thomas Waitz
Thank you. Thomas Waitz.
Thank you, Chair. First, a very concrete question to the Commission: have you been looking into the possibility to actually replace soy, as an example, in fodder for pork by planting clover and using milk acid fermentation silage to actually replace soy as a protein for animal fodder? Have you been looking into this and what's your proposal in this direction? I haven't found it in your proposal. And then a few reflections.
Colleague Buda, I mean, with our Danube Soya, and also Romania participates here, I haven't heard anyone asking for GM soy. Why do you think, or what's your data, that genetically modified soy gives more profitability or bigger harvest? There is no data for that, if you ask me. So please come with that data before you do this kind of GMO promotion here. And to colleague Penele, you really have to be careful that you are not finally infected with the green ideology virus, because you have been kind of asking for crop rotation, which I think is a very good idea, and you have been complaining about the losses of French agriculture.
Well, we had the same drought. Welcome to climate crisis. Maybe you finally understand that we need to do something against it and we need to help farmers to adapt to the reality of climate crisis. If you may, welcome to the club.
Herbert Dorfmann
Thank you. Herbert Dorfmann.
Ja, danke. Nein, ich wollte nur eine Rückfrage an Herrn Penelle stellen. Herr Penelle hat gesagt, wir bräuchten einen Zollschutz, also Zölle für den Import von Soja. Nun, die Kunden für Soja in Europa sind die Bäuerinnen und Bauern, das zu 99 Prozent, das sind Futtermittel. Und wenn wir Zölle auf den Import erheben, dann wird werden die Futtermittel teurer, anders kann es ja nicht sein.
Ist das, was Sie, Herr Penelle, möchten? Also möchten Sie den Import von Soja verteuern, damit die Produktion von Milch und Fleisch in Europa verteuern? Und glauben Sie, dass der Konsument an dieser Verteuerung auch mitfinanzieren würde? Ansonsten werden die Zölle letztendlich die Bauern bezahlen.
No, no, no.
Je suis pris à partie.
Mr. Penelle, please.
Veronika Vrecionová
Marlene Mortler has the floor. If you want to take the floor, you can be on the list, but not now.
Maria Noichl
Ganz herzlichen Dank. Natürlich ist der Plan zu begrüßen. Ich möchte aber auch noch mal das Thema Weide ansprechen. Wir sind jetzt momentan im internationalen Jahr der Weide. Und ich bin schon der Meinung, dass wir keinen EU-Proteinplan haben können, ohne den eng mit dem Weideplan zu verschränken.
Diese beiden Dinge gehören absolut zusammen. Es gibt nicht das eine ohne das andere. Und beim Thema Weide muss natürlich immer wieder auch darüber nachgedacht werden, wie gehen wir mit dem Thema flächengebundener Landwirtschaft um? Die Fläche begrenzt normalerweise, wie viele Tiere ein Landwirt gesund halten kann. Die Fläche ist damit auch ein begrenzender Faktor.
Das Thema Tierschutz und Weide gehört klar diskutiert. Und natürlich auch Biodiversität und Weide. Das heißt, ich möchte schon noch mal deutlich machen, dass EU-Proteinsysteme zu fördern, natürlich Anbau, das ist alles gut und schön, aber verstärkt Wiederkäuer auf Weide zu setzen, auf Dauergrünland zu setzen, wäre auf jeden Fall ein wichtiger Punkt. Und ich würde mir schon von der Kommission erwarten, dass es hier wirklich eine enge Verschränkung dieser beiden Themen gibt.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you. Paulo do Nascimento Cabral and he's remotely. So I hope that Paulo, you have the floor if you are online.
Yes.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Okay, yes. Right, okay, please.
Thank you so much, Chair. I'll speak in, I'll switch to Portuguese. Agradecer à Comissão esta importante estratégia para a diversificação proteica e que, como sabemos, é essencial nós garantirmos a autonomia estratégica da União Europeia, a competitividade da agricultura europeia e produzir alimentos é também segurança e defesa europeias, não depender de fontes terceiras, apesar de um dos pilares do plano é exatamente a diversificação de importações. Mas eu destacaria aqui aquilo que são os números que são assustadores: 94% da importação de soja, 25% de proteína bruta, portanto crua, e isto mostra que nós temos aqui um caminho a fazer. E é muito importante que nós tenhamos essa consciência.
Não pode haver aqui uma competição entre produção proteica. Temos aqui uma complementaridade: a produção de proteína animal, vegetal, mas também podemos alargar à questão da proteína de insetos para a alimentação animal, por exemplo, aquacultura e também até de algas. Tudo isto deve ser considerado, como também o que está relacionado com a bioeconomia, os efluentes pecuários também devem ser utilizados, mas também a utilização de proteína para a produção de energia. A agricultura, a produção de alimentos deixa apenas de ser uma uma atividade de subsistência alimentar para ser um ativo ainda mais estratégico da União Europeia e temos que aproveitar este momento dando condições favoráveis aos agricultores para investirem neste setor.
Veronika Vrecionová
Muito obrigado, senhora presidente.
Thank you, Paulo. And just now I have on the list all our colleagues who already spoke. Okay, I give you the floor but really just one minute and I just now want to close the list because in any case we will go round again and again. So, Gilles Penelle, but really one minute and then I stop it.
Gilles Pennelle
Oui, merci madame, c'est effectivement mieux comme ça. Je pense que Monsieur Thomas Waitz n'a pas bien compris ce que j'ai dit, je ne suis pas du tout converti à l'idéologie verte parce que j'ai proposé tout ce qu'il refuse. J'ai proposé qu'on développe le stockage de l'eau, qu'on propose l'irrigation. Voyez, chez moi en Bretagne par exemple, la culture du maïs a été cette année impactée par la sécheresse, mais on n'a pas le droit d'irriguer. Alors, il faut irriguer pour augmenter nos productions quand il y a la sécheresse.
Quant à Monsieur Dorfmann, bien évidemment, lui il veut à la fois réduire notre dépendance mais maintenir les taux à zéro pour cent. Nous, nous voulons baisser les coûts de production aussi et donc alléger nos producteurs des contraintes du Green Deal que Monsieur Dorfmann soutient et que les écologistes soutiennent. Il faut effectivement sortir de cette dépendance, ça passe par un retour de notre production et là je ne vois pas dans ce plan ce qui va dans ce sens.
Jessika van Leeuwen
Thank you, Jessica van Dalen, please Jessica.
Thank you very much. I've heard a lot of comments here and I just wanted to clarify something. Whether in essence we welcome the to reduce our dependency on high protein imports, especially from Brazil, Argentina and USA. But what we do have to realize is that the choices that we make today affect how effective we can produce. Because we will have to somehow accept that our production efficiency will go down.
With whatever we try to replace it with, I've heard different solutions here. I mean, we can do everything, but we'll have to accept that feed conversion rates will not be the same, the production efficiency will not be the same, and that has consequences. There's a reason why we are so dependent on soy, because it's the most efficient that we have to feed our animals with. What I have a question for the Commission is what I have not seen in the protein plan is how we reduce this dependency using animal proteins, reuse animal proteins from slaughterhouses. Thank you.
Martin Häusling
Okay, Martin Häusling, please.
Ich habe nur eine Frage an die Kommission: Gilt das Blair-House-Abkommen eigentlich noch, was uns sehr limitiert im Eiweißanbau, im Sojaanbau?
Daniel Buda
And Vice-Chair Buda.
Dragă Thomas, stimați colegi, ideea este în felul următor: toată soia pe care o importăm din țări terțe este o soia modificată genetic, să fie foarte clar. Și eu combat faptul că discutăm aici de reducerea dependenței, dar în același timp în interiorul Uniunii Europene nu putem cultiva soia modificată genetic. Și întrebarea mea este de ce nu se poate face acest lucru câtă vreme oricum o importăm? Și în condițiile în care această soia modificată genetic nu are nevoie decât de două tratamente pe durata vieții ei productive. Soia convențională despre care tot vorbim noi aici să creștem suprafețele are nevoie de paisprezece tratamente pe an.
Păi nu suntem un pic ipocriți? Iertați-mă.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much and now let's go back to Commission, Mr. Bascou, please, you have just now four minutes for your reaction.
Pierre Bascou
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you very much to the delegates who took the floor with their comments, their appreciation, and the questions. And what I do retain is that there is a broad support for the objectives of this action plan, that is to increase the resilience and the strategic autonomy of the EU by reducing our dependency on imports of protein from third countries. On the modalities, clearly some comments and some concerns have been raised, and I would like to maybe address some of these points. I think the first one is that increasing protein production, and I've been in this house for a very long time, I've been in the Commission, and I've seen a lot of protein action plans, and basically all these action plans didn't really deliver and reduce significantly our dependency for one single reason, is that we tended to focus only on the supply side, only to try to incentivize, to develop the availability of plant protein in the EU without looking at the other aspects. And I think this is one of the key strengths of this action plan, is that we want to reduce the dependency, we want to build our resilience, the competitiveness of the value chain, looking at both the supply side and the demand side, but also to complement that by using and optimizing the potential of new technologies, the potential of circularity, the potential of our capacity to diversify supply chain, and also by bringing closer and a more integrated approach to all the various policies that have an impact on our protein system.
And I mean the CAP, the cohesion policy, the energy policy, the climate, the environment, etc., and also the health policy. So this is by looking at all these different parts and acting on all these different dimensions of the protein system that I think we will manage to build this resilience and reduce our dependency. Some of you considered that this 35% aspirational target is not ambitious enough. I would like to say two points about that. The first one is that we shouldn't forget that the primary source of protein, of plant protein in the EU for our livestock sector, but also for our food consumers, is coming from roughage, is coming from cereals.
And when we talk about this 35%, we only talk about this high protein plant that we import, and primarily soya. And the second element is that Europe is a territory which is limited in size, and already to move from 25 to 35% of high protein plant produced in the EU, I think will be, in our view, is realistic, is feasible, and it also ensures a balance with other use of our agricultural land. I would like also to underline the potential of technologies. And I think one of you talked about precision fermentation, biomass fermentation, etc. There's a real and important source of alternative proteins from these technologies, from the optimization of the use of biomass, whether from the plant or animal origin.
So I think we shouldn't, and I think we should complement the mere production by the agricultural sector with also the development of a circular economy and our capacity to build on that. Regarding the consumption, as I said in my intervention, we would like also to develop and stimulate a diversified diet, and in particular food demand for protein. I mentioned for that that we will act with the origin labeling, we can act also through the development of sustainability criteria for food public procurement, with awareness campaign, etc., etc.
So I think for us, I think, this food demand part, I think, is very important. Regarding the financing, clearly, I think, we intend, I think, to finance the development of this protein and the reduction in this dependence, you know, playing on the different types of policies: CAP, competitiveness fund, research and innovation, but also, you know, cohesion policy for the development of value chain. There's a lot of national action that also which are also taking place. So we need to build, I think, on all these different financing sources in order to address, I think, this need, I think, to strengthen our strategic autonomy. Concerning, you know, Biotech Act, I think, to promote, I know and understand, I think, the adoption is foreseen, I think, for the next few months towards, I think, the end of the year, beginning of next year.
One word, I'm sorry, I'm a bit late, five minutes, because there was a lot of questions, sorry. I think concerning the monitoring, yes, we intend to strengthen our capacity to monitor the production and the demand, I think, for protein through the improvement of our feed protein, you know, balance sheets, through the development of protein dialogue, I think, with Member States, through our, you know, exchange and discussion and collaboration with stakeholders. So we are starting and this is, I think, the different action which are put in the annex of this action plan. We are starting to implement, I think, the different action which are foreseen in order to address, I think, the need to build, I think, this resilience, competitiveness and strategic autonomy regarding our protein system. So once again, and I would like to underline that, I think, it's not only by incentivizing and developing the supply side that we will achieve, I think, the overall objective.
It's by, you know, acting on all different parts: circularity, supply, demand, climate policy, environmental policy, bioeconomy policy. So all these different leverage. And the last point I would like to recall is that in the context of the future CMO, I think, the Commission has made a proposal in order to facilitate and develop the organization, I think, of the protein value chain and also through the development, I think, of the marketing standards for protein. So all these different element will all concur to address, I think, the need to develop our protein system and improve our protein system in the EU. Thank you and apologies for being a bit long.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. And let's move just now to the next issue. Together with the EU protein action plan, which we have just discussed, the Commission presented also livestock strategy on the beginning of July this year, along the line of our related own-initiative report on the future of livestock adopted by the Parliament in April. It seeks to provide a roadmap to strengthen and resilience, competitiveness and sustainability of the sector.
This strategy, the first of its kind, sets out actions to help livestock farmers address economic, envy and market challenges and comes, I think, at a very timely moment. As high input cost, market volatility and exposure to price fluctuations in feed and energy continue to compress margins, the EU livestock sector is facing a profitability challenge. These challenges call for relevant policy response and I would like ask again Mr. Pasco from DG AGRI for and I give you floor now for eight minutes, please.
Pierre Bascou
Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to move from an important issue, which is the protein, to I think the EU livestock strategy that I think the Commission has adopted in the beginning of July, which is also another very important issue and topic. And I will use also some slides in order to support and illustrate I think my intervention. So this strategy starts I think from a core statement is that livestock matters I think for Europe. It matters for food security.
It matters for rural jobs. It matters I think for territorial cohesion, for biodiversity management in many regions, and for the economic vitality of large parts of the EU. Livestock farming, a few figures, livestock farming represent around 40% of EU agricultural value added. It generates some 400 billion euro in annual turnover, support 7 million jobs and relies on 4 million farms I think across Europe. And in many regions, mountain, island, outermost, northern or border region, I think livestock is not just an activity, an activity among others, it is often I think the backbone of rural life.
But at the same time, I think you know the livestock sector is facing very serious pressure: weak profitability, high input costs, market volatility, animal disease outbreaks, climate impact, labor shortage, rising societal challenges, in particular and expectation, sorry, in particular on animal welfare and in relation to environmental performance. So the livestock strategy aims at providing long-term perspective for the livestock sector and aims at ensuring that it remains strong, it remains competitive and resilient. And this livestock strategy built around five mutually reinforcing priorities, which are there to address I think these key challenges I was just mentioning. First priority relates I think to resilience. We need a livestock sector that can better withstand crisis.
This means stronger risk management, improved access to insurance and mutual funds, better disease prevention and more effective early warning systems. The Commission will work with financial institutions, including the European Investment Bank, to explore a dedicated post-2027 risk management financial schemes covering climate-related risk, but also animal disease. We will also review whether the current disease categorization system remains fit for purpose and assess whether vaccination rules should be updated to support a wider science-based use of preventive vaccination. The second priority relates I think to the competitiveness. If we want livestock farming in Europe, you know, tomorrow, we must restore condition for investment today.
Livestock farming has an important financial gap and in some sectors the investment required for the transition are very substantial. There are some figures quoted in the communication, they are quite telling. The Commission will consider a potential dedicated financial instrument for livestock and explore preferential access to loans for farmers engaged in transition, such as you know cage-free systems. We will also continue working on simplification, including permitting hygiene flexibility where this is appropriate and better condition for the circular use of byproduct. Competitiveness also means fairness I think for farmers.
And farmers need to have a stronger position in the food chain, better you know remuneration for their work and protection against unfair trading practices. And competitiveness must be fair externally as well. And high EU standards must not be undermined I think by imports produced at lower standard.
And this is why the strategy confirms what has been announced already in the vision, that our intention to pursue equivalent animal welfare requirements for imported products in line with WTO rules and, of course, I think, to enforce food safety standards strictly. Third priority, it relates to sustainability. The strategy is clear: sustainability is necessary, but it must be workable and fair. And we recognize both, I think, the environmental challenges linked to livestock and also its positive roles, especially in extensive grazing systems, in landscape management and biodiversity. So our approach is targeted, science-based and adapted, I think, to the different systems of livestock production.
On animal welfare, the Commission intends by the end of 2026, so by the end of this year, to present a targeted revision for laying hens and broilers, focusing on the phasing out of cages, on the development of on-farm welfare indicators, on the ending of the systematic culling of male chicks and also on equivalent import requirements, what I've just mentioned. By the second quarter of 2027, we intend to present a similar targeted revision of animal welfare legislation for pigs, including the transition from crates to pen systems. On climate, I think we will work in fine-tuning the methodology for livestock greenhouse gas emissions, you know, registration at farm level in order to make sure that farmers are assessed on the basis of tools that properly reflect, I think, the real practices and the improvements that have taken place, I think, on the ground. We will also support innovation in feeding, in breeding, in manure management, biogas, biomethane and also precision livestock farming. On nutrient management, I think the strategy proposes concrete follow-up, including, you know, best practice exchange, including simplification potential in implementing the Nitrates Directive.
There will be a first assessment by the third quarter of 2026, so basically now, on extending the RENURE Act for certain liquid digestates and a roadmap for more efficient nutrient circulation across the EU. Fourth priority relates, I think, to the to the need to ensure territorial balance. The strategy explicitly recognizes that Europe's livestock systems are deeply linked to the territory. In many vulnerable regions, as I mentioned before, livestock is essential to avoid land abandonment and avoid, I think, depopulation. Therefore, I think the Commission will work with Member States on a plan addressing the needs of regions at risk of abandonment, including in eastern border regions.
We will also develop a roadmap on slaughterhouses, including, I think, on low-capacity and mobile solutions that can strengthen, you know, local value chains and reduce, I think, long-distance transport, I think, for animals. Finally, I think our fifth priority relates, I think, to what we call excellence, excellence in livestock production. It is clear for us that Europe should not compete on the basis of the lowest cost alone. Our strength lies in the quality, lies in the trust, in the sustainability, in safety and in high animal welfare. And we therefore want to better valorize what distinguishes European livestock production from production in third countries.
And the strategy foresees stronger EU origin communication, work on what we call optional reserved terms under the CMO regulation, I think, for developing European excellence and a better recognition, I think, of quality attributes by consumers and also support through the EU promotion programs, including for territorially embedded livestock systems.
So to conclude I would like to again I think underline that this is a strategy I think for a sector that must thrive and not only survive. It is also a strategy that is based on dialogue and we have been discussing with all the stakeholders including public authorities you know in the livestock workstreams. It is also a strategy that does not ignore the challenges but put them you know it aims I think at addressing them. It doesn't overlook the economic constraint for farmers but it put them at the core I think of this of the strategy. And my last point it does not impose and this is very important you know one size fits all solution for for farmers it builds on the diversity of production systems of livestock sectors and value chain I think across I think the EU.
So we are very much looking forward to work with the committee with the Parliament with Member States but also and I will say very importantly I think with the stakeholders because like for the protein action plan I think this is you know a development this strategy will need to be implemented I think bringing you know all the endeavor and the efforts and the contribution I think by all the different actors at all different level of the EU. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you and now again follow round of coordinators Herbert Dorfmann EPP first you have two minutes please.
Herbert Dorfmann
Ja danke danke der Kommission Herr Bascou und der Kommission für die Vorstellung dieses Berichts und und auch für die Präsentation dieses Berichts. Dieser Bericht folgt ja einem Initiativbericht den wir auch hier im Haus im Ausschuss gemacht haben und viele Punkte die wir in unserem Initiativbericht gefordert haben finde ich jetzt auch in diesem Strategiepapier der Kommission wieder und das glaube ich ist sehr positiv. Die Stimmung hat sich auch gewandt wenn ich dran denke wie wir in diesem Haus noch vor wenigen Jahren über tierische Produktion gesprochen haben und wenn ich diese Strategie jetzt dann schaue dann scheint doch etwas mehr Vernunft wieder Einzug zu halten. Die Nachfrage nach tierischen Proteinen vor allem Milchproteinen ist nämlich nach wie vor hoch in Europa auch bei jungen Menschen hoch und ich glaube wir sollten alles tun damit wir diese Versorgung auch in Europa sicherstellen. Wir haben in letzten zwei Jahren ja auch erlebt wie sensibel das Gleichgewicht am Markt ist.
Das heißt wir haben erlebt wie Preise durch die Decke gehen wenn zu wenig Produktion da ist wie wir es bei Rindfleisch und zum Teil auch Milch in den letzten zwei Jahren über Monate erlebt haben. Aber natürlich ist nicht alles perfekt was wir haben. Ich denke dass wenn Tierproduktion seinem Ziel nachkommen soll zur Kreislaufwirtschaft in der Landwirtschaft beizutragen dann müssen die Tiere auch so gut als möglich über den Kontinent verteilt sein. Was sonst kommt es zu Konzentrationen an manchen Flächen mit allen Problemen die mit Tierhaltung auch verbunden sein können wenn zu viele dort sind und in anderen Teilen des Kontinents fehlen die Tiere die es zu einer vernünftigen Kreislaufwirtschaft braucht. Und hier möchte ich vor allem den Punkt vier den Herr Bascou aufgezeigt hat ansprechen.
Es gibt Flächen in Europa und es sind vor allem auch die Berge und die extensiven Gebiete wo es schlichtweg keine Alternative zu zu Tieren gibt. Wenn ich eine alpine Weide mir anschaue was soll ich dort produzieren außer Tiere oder außer Milch und Fleisch. Das heißt entweder ich habe Tiere und sonst wird diese Futterfläche schlichtweg unsinnig oder oder ohne Nutzen. Und deswegen ich glaube wir haben alles dafür zu tun dass Tierhaltung auch in der Fläche bleibt vor allem in solchen Flächen bleibt wo eben es keine Alternative gibt und wo wir Futterflächen und damit landwirtschaftliche Flächen verlieren würden wenn wir die Tierhaltung nicht erhalten. Herzlichen Dank.
Cristina Maestre
Muchas gracias señora presidenta buenos días gracias señor Bascou esta estrategia de ganadería debe traducirse realmente en soluciones concretas para las explotaciones y los territorios rurales.
Primero la sanidad animal. Las enfermedades animales suponen pérdidas económicas, restricciones comerciales y una enorme incertidumbre para los ganaderos. Necesitamos más prevención. Necesitamos bioseguridad financiable, vigilancia temprana, vacunación y servicio veterinario suficiente en las zonas rurales. En este contexto queremos hacer un paréntesis para valorar la la suspensión de las importaciones de carne de vacuno y aves de corral procedentes de Brasil.
Creemos que es una medida de control y una muestra o un botón de ejemplo que refleja cuando cómo el control de fronteras funciona, las garantías de cláusulas espejo y de firmeza con respecto a importadores funciona. Así que queremos valorarla positivamente. Siguiendo con las demandas o solicitudes, pensamos que es muy importante reforzar la autonomía de la alimentación animal. Por ejemplo el plan de proteínas de la Comisión, que debe producirse traducirse en un apoyo real a las leguminosas, los cultivos proteicos y los pastos. Necesitamos reducir la dependencia de las importaciones y de esto ya estamos hablando hoy largo y tendido.
Tercero, la gestión de residuos, estiércoles y y de cómo se tratan. El tratamiento, el transporte, la valoración y la verdadera estrategia para trasladar nutrientes desde unas zonas excedentarias hasta las deficitarias. Y por último quiero resaltar una cosa que es importante y que y que está contenida dentro de la estrategia, que es la reducción del metano. Nosotros pedimos que se haga con rigor y que se haga también con equilibrio territorial. El biogás y el biometano pueden aportar soluciones, sin duda nadie lo pone en cuestión, lo defendemos de hecho, pero no puede imponerse en determinados territorios mediante instalaciones sobredimensionadas o desconectadas del entorno.
Debemos reducir las emisiones sin deteriorar la calidad de vida de los pueblos, protegiendo el agua, el suelo, el aire, el paisaje y la convivencia social. Nada más y muchas gracias.
Thank you. Patriots Csaba Dömötör.
Csaba Dömötör
Köszönöm elnök asszony. A mostani nyár az aszály miatt egészen tragikusan alakult az állattartók számára. Az európai aszálymegfigyelő adatai szerint az EU területének felét érintette az aszály és 9 százalékán a területeknek riasztási fokozat volt érvényben. Európa jelentős részén veszélybe került a takarmányellátás, mivel drasztikusan csökkent a legelők hozama.
Veronika Vrecionová
Yes, you can. No translation still. Okay, can you speak English or or we have wait? Now it's okay. Everybody's translate okay, please.
Csaba Dömötör
Thank you and apologies. Tehát a mostani nyár az aszály miatt egészen tragikusan alakult az állattartók számára. Az európai aszálymegfigyelő adatai szerint az EU területének felét érintette az aszály, 9 százalékán riasztási fokozat volt érvényben. Európa jelentős részén veszélybe került a takarmányellátás, mivel drasztikusan csökkent a legelők hozama. Magyarországon is az történt, hogy a szarvasmarhák jelentős részét már augusztusban vissza kellett hajtani az istállókba, mert a legelőkön egész egyszerű egész egyszerűen éhen haltak volna.
Az én hazámban 1901 óta ez volt a legforróbb nyár, egész nyáron csupán 66 milliméter csapadék hullott az átlagos 203 helyett. Ez tragikus következményeket jelent az egész ágazatban. A problémák egyik gócpontja, hogy elszabadulnak a takarmányárak, de ezt nem követik a felvásárlási árak. A tejtermelők és a sertéstenyésztők már hónapok óta önköltség alatti árakkal szembesülnek, és félő, hogyha ezek után elkezdődnek a kényszervágások, akkor még tovább csökkennek majd a felvásárlási árak. Az Európai Bizottság reakciója erre a helyzetre mindössze egy közlemény, amely mellé nem rendelnek több pénzt.
És ezt nem csak én mondom, hanem az európai gazdaszervezet, a COPA-COGECA is. Ők azt mondják, hogy a stratégia nagy része puszta szándéknyilatkozat. Nekünk, patriótáknak volt egy kezdeményezésünk, például az, hogy emeljék meg a válségalap összegét 450 millió euróról 900 millió euróra, azon válségalapét, amely mindig kiürül, miközben a válságok egyre számosabbak. Tegnap kellett erről itt szavazni ebben a bizottságban. A néppárti-baloldali nagykoalíció ezt leszavazta, ma meg nyilván majd előadják az aggódó felszólalásaikat.
Ez a leszavazás illeszkedik abba a folyamatba, amely az agrárpolitika leépítéséről szól. A következő hétéves költségvetésben 20 százalékkal akarják megvágni a támogatásokat, hogy költsék másra, például hadialapokra. Mindez egyet jelent: hiába súlyosbodik a helyzet, az európai gazdák a Bizottságra és az azt támogató nagykoalícióra egyáltalán nem számíthatnak. Köszönöm.
Carlo Fidanza
Sì, grazie Presidente, ringrazio anch'io il dottor Bascou per la sua relazione. È una strategia quella promossa dalla Commissione che riprende molte delle questioni che abbiamo sollevato con il rapporto di iniziativa di cui ho avuto l'onore di essere relatore sulla competitività e il futuro dell'allevamento europeo. Molte delle questioni che abbiamo posto in quel report sono state recepite e tracciano una rotta nuova e diversa: riconoscere la zootecnia come un settore strategico per la sicurezza alimentare europea, per le nostre economie rurali e per la resilienza della nostra agricoltura. Per questo è importante parlare di sostegno al reddito, di giovani, di aziende familiari, di sanità animale, di rafforzamento della posizione degli allevatori nella filiera. Vorrei sottolineare tre punti.
Il primo che è citato nella strategia è il tema del digestato, su cui come sapete ci siamo più volte espressi in questa commissione. Credo che si debba andare avanti con ancora più decisione. Vedo ancora una discrepanza di posizioni tra la DG AGRI e la DG ENVI, a mio avviso per insufficiente conoscenza da parte di quest'ultima dell'oggetto di queste proposte, che non è un generico digestato ma digestato zootecnico prodotto dalla digestione anaerobica che quindi diventa fonte di nutrienti da riportare nei terreni e appunto, come veniva detto, anche in una logica di economia circolare anche fonte di biogas e biometano. Quindi importante andare avanti rapidamente su questo punto. In secondo luogo credo importante anche superare, noi ci abbiamo lavorato nel report di iniziativa, questa distinzione contrapposizione ideologica tra gli allevamenti estensivi e gli allevamenti intensivi.
Gli allevamenti intensivi moderni, efficienti, sostenibili sono anch'essi parte della soluzione e non devono essere demonizzati. Infine importante, e lo si è accennato anche questo anche in relazione alle ultime misure sul Brasile, andare avanti sulla strada della reciprocità assicurando i controlli e gli stessi standard produttivi ai nostri che i nostri produttori rispettano alle importazioni che portiamo in Europa dai mercati esterni.
Elsi Katainen
Thank you chair and thank you commission. There is an urgent need to make livestock sector more competitive and attractive for younger generations. Like Hans mentioned in the strategy, regionally this sector plays a crucial role for the local economy in some parts of Europe. There is some good proposals in the strategy, for example the importance to increase the consumer information on the benefits of European production as their expectations are high for the production, but unfortunately too often the products ending up to the shopping carts is not produced in the Europe as the main driver of the choice is price after all. In this light we should support the promotion policy in both internally but also externally.
So it is very worrying that commission plans to cut from this funding. In addition the review of the current legislation is under development and commission will start already during this year with the first proposal. In this work it is important to evaluate how these changes can be done economically feasible and take in account also the development what frontrunner countries have already done. The exchange of best practices is more than welcome. I'd like to ask how commission will take these into account on the preparation of the animal welfare legislation, that those member states and farmers who has already done actions will also benefit for that.
Thank you.
Thomas Waitz
Thank you chair and thank you Mr. Bascou for presenting this strategy here. We are talking about the livestock sector but it's not one and the same sector if you ask me. There's huge differences in the way of production and huge differences in the quality of products that result from that. My, my, I would say main support goes to grazing, grazing in all forms. First of all in remote areas, in areas of natural constraint as colleague Dorfmann already elaborated.
This is the only way to actually make use and produce food for citizens. And it's also the form of animal husbandry that has the highest animal welfare standards, that guarantees highest biodiversity, that sustains good quality soils, that stores a lot of CO2. So we need to look into our common agriculture policy schemes that we support this form of animal husbandry that delivers maximum public goods and the highest quality of products. Milk from that kind of production has a higher quality and more omega-3 fatty acids and so on than other milk products. Then we have a second, I would say second category which is production based on land where at least I would say we must see 70% of fodder production on your own land.
So real farmers, really producing on their own land, feeding their animals from this, having also an amount of animals in the stable that kind of reflects the amount of land. And for these we should still provide even investment funds for stables. What I think we should phase out is giving taxpayers money to pure business cases. Buying soy from Brazil, stuffing it into pork which we then sell to China. This is a business model, very often with hardly any land or even no land, only a stable.
This is not agriculture, this is international business cases. Well fine, but we shouldn't support it with taxpayers money. So no more incentives, no more funds for investments in that area. And colleague De Meuter, I mean we had the same problems in Austria, in Hungary, we have the same drought. It's called climate crisis.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Thank you very much and a very important topic and very, very much connected to the last topic on protein. It's good to hear positive things said about extensive production methods and the multiple benefits to both the rural economy and the environment over other production methods. And that is a change because in the recent past, the Commission, along with the government in Ireland, actually encouraged the reduction in suckler beef production through the BEAM scheme. And taxpayers' money was used to get people to reduce in this area while the dairy industry was allowed to expand. Now, the reality is the funding could have been used to promote that sector, but it actually wasn't.
In fact, that option was never even told to the Irish people or Irish farmers by our department. But it's good to see a change in direction. There seems to be a change of direction because if there are things that need to be phased out and maybe to make a little bit more room and maybe look at the idea that certain production methods and the amount of it that we do are not sustainable. And the biggest lever that we have is CAP in the European Union to guide and encourage and prod people in a direction that is more sustainable and to make it more financially sustainable for them to go in that direction. So in the last CAP, and a lot of people criticize it, but if you actually look at the details of it, where I come from anyway, convergence and CRISS were a massive benefit to people who were working on a more extensive level, suckler farmers on smaller farms.
In this CAP, while it could be positive, depending on how it's going to be interpreted by national governments, most in need is really how long is a piece of string on steroids, pardon the pun. Like, what will most in need mean? What will, from the point of view of a sustainable sector, what will this mean? And the cut in budget, never so much have we had to make big decisions on who is most in need. And if we're serious about promoting extensive production and production that ultimately will not compete on a volume level with systems in Brazil and around the world, we're going to have to support it financially.
And on that, you talk about controls on imports. Can you please talk about the suspension of imports from Brazil? They should never have been coming in in the first place. Can you tell us what's happened about something we warned you about?
Ivan David
Thank you. Ivan David, prosím.
Já si myslím, že se stále více přesvědčujeme o tom, že sociální inženýrství Evropské unie nefunguje, že prostě ta zelená snaha převést obyvatelstvo na rostlinnou potravu, jak nám tady bylo doporučováno, dneska už to nikdo raději nepřipomíná, je to podobné jako se zákazem spalovacích motorů. Prostě tady jsou zbytky demokracie, které vedou k tomu, že diktatura, která se tady snaží uplatnit, nemá takovou sílu, což je myslím velmi pozitivní. Rozhodně podporuji rozvoj chovu zvířat z celé řady důvodů, ty argumenty tady zazněly, jenom si myslím, že je potřeba zdůraznit rozdíl mezi chovem mléčného skotu a hovězího dobytka na maso, masného skotu, protože ty podmínky jsou zásadně jiné.
Ta argumentace, která se týká produkce metanu, je směšná, když vidíme, v jakém obrovském rozsahu taje permafrost, ze kterého se uvolňují obrovské množství metanu a prostě ty vědecké důvody pro omezení chovu skotu jsou prostě směšné. Je to podobné, jako že s oteplováním moří se uvolňuje kysličník uhličitý, kterému prostě ty snahy zelené dohody nemohou vůbec konkurovat. Je to bohužel pozitivní zpětná vazba, kterou musíme brát v úvahu a přizpůsobit se jí, abychom přežili. Stejně živočišná výroba je daleko náročnější na lidskou práci, zejména pokud se jedná o mléčný skot a je tam daleko větší, daleko větší tlak na koncentraci výroby. Jinak, jinak tedy zcela vážně je třeba brát ohrožení spodních vod.
Já jsem v Rakousku viděl, jak ze stáje přímo do potoka teče, teče močůvka, takže to jsou věci, které je potřeba brát velmi vážně na rozdíl od těch řečí o nebezpečnosti metanu ze skotu. Děkuji za pozornost.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay, thank you very much. And we are in the end of coordinators and now catch the eye. You have one minute each. At the beginning, I just would like to remark that really I have here a very long list of speakers, so I will really strictly take care that you have maximal one minute. First, Maria Walsh, and she's remotely.
I hope that she is online.
Maria Walsh
Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that. Thank you. I wish to highlight some of the developments that have happened over the past two months that directly impact the Irish livestock sector and many of my colleagues would also agree. We've experienced one of the driest growing seasons in decades.
In parts of the country, grass growth fell to about 10 to 20% of normal levels during July and August, in particular the south and the southeast of this country. And the consequences are now becoming very clear. Farmers are already eating into their winter fodder and supplementary feed months earlier than normal, adding significant costs and putting pressures on farm incomes. 77% of farmers of Tirlán, one of the major Irish dairy co-operatives, are facing fodder crisis and some farmers are also bracing for potato and root crop losses in what could be one of the poorest harvests on record. So my question to the Commission is very straightforward, but also a call to action.
Farmers are facing exceptional fodder and income pressure as a result of this drought and what measures will be in place that the Commission will mobilize along with support of ourselves and of course Council as a matter of urgency to support them. It's not good enough to continue to debate into Q1 of next year or even Q4 of this year. It needs to happen within the next weeks. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. Please really take care that you speak only one minute. Vice-Chair Buda, please, one minute.
Daniel Buda
Domnule director, foarte scurt legat de strategia de vaccinare a efectivelor de animale de la nivelul Uniunii Europene. Pot înțelege că nu aveți vaccin pentru pesta africană, dar pentru pesta micilor rumegătoare aveți vaccin. Am o întrebare și cunoscând faptul că România, Bulgaria, Cipru se confruntă cu această boală, de ce nu permiteți acestor state membre să vaccineze, în condițiile în care avem state terțe care și-au manifestat în scris disponibilitatea de a importa aceste animale din aceste țări dacă sunt vaccinate?
Nu înțeleg care este rațiunea Comisiei Europene de a bloca aceste exporturi către statele terțe, câtă vreme, repet, avem aceste acorduri comerciale din partea acestor state. Mai departe, nu pot să înțeleg de ce nu se pot exporta timp de doi ani de zile carcase de la aceste animale, câtă vreme medicii veterinari ne spun că nu este niciun fel de pericol pentru carcasele care sunt folosite în consumul uman. Nu înțeleg aceste rațiuni pentru că, uitați-vă ce se întâmplă în astfel de situații când România este lovită de secetă, avem milioane de animale pe care fermierii le au în ferme și nu au ce face cu ele.
Ciaran Mullooly
Thank you, Chair. I welcome the Commission's new livestock strategy. We're finally moving from policies that too often penalize livestock farmers to recognizing their vital contribution to the rural economy and indeed food security and the environment. And the change is urgently needed because across the EU, bovine numbers have fallen, as you know, to 71.6 million, almost 10% lower than a decade ago. In Ireland, cattle numbers have fallen from 7.36 million in 2021 to 6.9 million now in 2025, a decline of over 450,000 animals.
So I say we must reverse this decline. And livestock is not the enemy of biodiversity. Look at the Burren in County Clare, where traditional grazing declined, the scrub encroached on valuable habitats, and bringing farmers and cattle back into their management became part of the solution. So Europe cannot talk about food security and strategic autonomy while allowing its capacity to produce food to decline. And today more than any day, Chair, as we ban Brazilian beef, we need science-based policy on this issue as well, and targeted actions to address the livestock sector.
Europe needs livestock. We need farmers, and Europe must retain the capacity to feed itself. Thank you.
Gilles Pennelle
Okay, thank you. Please really try to be brief because if you speak quicker, the interpreters are not able to translate it. Mr. Penelle, Gilles Penelle, please.
Merci. Nous avons beaucoup entendu ici et ailleurs des discours qui stigmatisaient l'élevage. Donc ça fait plaisir d'entendre des discours beaucoup plus positifs, à part quelques formations politiques de plus en plus marginales, tout le monde reconnaît aujourd'hui l'importance de l'élevage dans l'agriculture. Cependant, il y a de nombreuses contradictions dans le discours de la Commission. Comment peut-elle prétendre avoir une stratégie pour maintenir, pour provoquer la résilience de l'élevage, alors que dans le même temps, elle continue de par ses politiques d'augmenter les coûts de production de nos éleveurs, les conduisant à des salaires parfois de misère ?
Et comment peut-elle prétendre défendre l'élevage européen alors qu'elle signe et qu'elle veut ces traités de libre-échange comme le Mercosur qui les met en concurrence nos éleveurs avec de la viande et des produits agricoles venus d'ailleurs ? Alors beaucoup de cohérence serait attendue. On pourrait par exemple retirer le texte, le nouveau texte sur le transport des animaux. Laissons vivre nos éleveurs et permettons-leur de gagner leur vie.
Christine Singer
Ja, vielen Dank. Ich begrüße auch, dass die Kommission mit dieser Strategie die Bedeutung der Tierhaltung für unsere Ernährungssicherheit, für die ländlichen Räume und für regionale Wertschöpfung anerkennt. Was die Strategie aber alleine verändert noch nichts auf den Betrieben. Entscheidend wird sein, ob sich diese Leitlinie jetzt auch konsequent in den kommenden Gesetzesvorschlägen und in der Finanzierung widerspiegeln. Die Kommission selbst beziffert die Finanzierungslücke im Tierhaltungssektor auf über 18 Milliarden Euro.
Und gleichzeitig stehen wir mit der angekündigten Überarbeitung der Tierwohlvorschriften weitere erhebliche Investitionen für unsere Betriebe bevor.
Und wer höhere Standards verlangt, der muss deshalb auch dafür sorgen, dass die Betriebe diese wirtschaftlich tragen können. Wir dürfen unsere europäischen Tierhalter nicht zu höheren Standards verpflichten und gleichzeitig Produkte importieren, die unter deutlich niedrigeren Anforderungen erzeugt wurden. Die Kommission spricht von Buy European, machen wir doch daraus Eat European. Sorgen wir dafür, dass europäische Qualität, Herkunft und Standards für die Verbraucher sichtbar sind und dass sie sich für unsere Landwirte auch wirtschaftlich auszahlen. Was halten Sie davon?
Danke schön.
Marion Walsmann
Mich beschäftigt die Schafhaltung in Europa, vor allem der Umgang mit Wolle. Wir haben einen fraktionsübergreifenden Konsens, dass Wolle alles andere als Abfall ist. Ich begrüße sehr, dass der Wert der Wolle und die vielfältigen Anwendungsmöglichkeiten in der Livestock Strategy explizit genannt werden. Dennoch habe ich vernommen, dass Kommissar Wojciechowski die Verordnung über tierische Nebenprodukte, kurz Animal By-products Regulation, nicht anpassen möchte. Stichwort Wolle als Kategorie-3-Produkt auf einer Stufe mit Blut oder Tierhäuten, das kann so nicht bleiben.
Wie also plant die Kommission, um endlich nachhaltige Wertschöpfungsketten mit Wolle zu ermöglichen, auch das Einkommen daraus zu ermöglichen? Und wie arbeiten Sie hierzu mit der EFSA zusammen, der Europäischen Behörde für Lebensmittelsicherheit? Und für unsere Schafhaltung brauchen wir dringend auch eine schnelle Veränderung der Situation.
Jessika van Leeuwen
Thank you very much, Chair, and I would like to congratulate colleague Vidanța on the great common sense science-based INI report that we delivered, and I'm happy to see the Commission took over many of our recommendations. I do have a question, though, because where the INI report focuses on improving efficiency and using innovation to reach environmental performance and not by reducing livestock numbers, and the Commission communicates to follow this line without proposing EU-wide livestock reduction targets in its official commission, but the staff working document of the Commission still says efficiency and technology are central, but lower livestock density and reduced meat dairy consumption remain explicitly identified as alternative environmental pathways. So I would like the Commission to explain the discrepancy between those two and how we should interpret it, because if we have livestock reduction as one of the tools in the toolbox of the Commission, I'm still very worried with the declining animal numbers that we have. Thank you.
Tilly Metz
Thank you very much. Let me first of all react on something. I think we cannot allow that anything is said in this house that should guarantee democracy and freedom of expression. When the colleague David speaks about plant-based dictatorship, dear Chair, I think you should have intervened that dictatorship is maybe not the right word to express here. Let me speak about the strategy.
I welcome the Commission's ambition for 2040. It's a step forward, certainly. But ambition is also not enough. So we need a predictable roadmap. There are still major gaps in our EU animal welfare legislation.
Cattle, rabbits, several poultry species and farmed fish, millions of animals are still not properly covered by EU-specific welfare rules. The strategy gives timeline for laying hens, broilers and pigs, but it remains unclear when the Commission will act on the other species, including, as I said, calves, rabbits, ducks and geese. The lack of clarity is also a problem for farmers. They need to know, they need to plan for their long-term investment. And then another thing that is mentioned is the export to third countries for slaughter and the possible alternative.
So can the Commission give or clarify on these alternatives of export and if we move away from live animals and rather transport of meat instead? Please. Thank you.
Luis-Vicențiu Lazarus
Mulțumesc, doamnă președintă. Dragi colegi, nu există Uniune Europeană, nu există Comisie Europeană, nu există nicio comisie, nicio instituție europeană atâta timp cât toate aceste instituții nu fac orice este omenește posibil să apere până la urmă fermierii. Dacă discutăm de doi ani în această comisie de faptul că încercăm să găsim cele mai bune soluții pentru fermieri, iată că mereu ne iese invers. Și ne iese invers pentru că peste noi vine Comisia Europeană și ia tot felul de decizii năstrușnice cum ar fi de pildă și tratatul Mercosur. În aceste condiții aș solicita să ieșim din acest teatru de păpuși cu marionete animate de fel de fel de interese și să ne apucăm de treabă serios să reprezentăm oamenii care ne-au trimis aici.
În concluzie vreau să vă anunț, să vă notific de faptul că pe data de 15 septembrie în România va avea loc cel mai mare miting al fermierilor și ciobanilor care s-au săturat să lucreze cu cea mai scumpă energie din Europa și cu fără subvenții la motorină și acum peste ei au apărut și aceste restricții privind exportul. De asemenea, ei nu au nicio piață de desfacere și mai mult decât atât sunt puși în postura să vândă sub prețul de producție. Ori ăsta este spectrul falimentului, doamnă președintă. Nu putem tolera la infinit o asemenea situație. Am înțeles.
Mulțumesc.
Martin Häusling
Ja, ich frage mich eigentlich, wo ist unser Kommissar eigentlich? Wir haben eine fundamentale Krise durch die Dürre. Wir haben eine Preiskrise. Im Milchbereich gibt's noch 40 Cent für die Milch. Wir haben massive, massive Verluste an Arbeitsplätzen.
Wir haben insgesamt in den letzten 20 Jahren 57 Prozent der Milchviehhalter in Deutschland verloren. Und das geht jetzt akut noch schneller, dass wir immer mehr verlieren. Und wir finden hier eine Menge schöne Worte, was wir alles besser machen wollen, aber wir müssen über Preise reden. Wir müssen darüber reden, dass wir eine immer größere Konzentration in immer wenigen Betrieben haben. Und wir können uns dann über Haltungsbedingungen nicht beschweren, wenn wir sozusagen die ganzen kleinen und mittelbäuerlichen Betriebe verlieren und immer mehr Tierhaltung in Großbetrieben abwandert.
Darüber müssen wir uns unterhalten. Und die Klimakrise zeigt doch sehr deutlich, dass wir gerade die Betriebe, die wir brauchen, die Weidewirtschaft betreiben, am ärgsten betroffen sind. Und dass hier kein Kommissar erscheint und wirklich mal darüber redet, in wie vielen Ländern wirklich eine Katastrophe sich anbahnt, das finde ich wirklich erschreckend.
Ton Diepeveen
Dank u, voorzitter. Als het om de veehouderij gaat, zet de Europese Unie in op concurrentiekracht, weerbaarheid en technologische innovatie. Dat is mooi, ware het niet dat steeds meer veehouders, inmiddels al meer dan 280 in Nederland alleen al, te maken krijgen met zwerfstroom. Ik heb hierop al meerdere keren gewezen, maar een enkele collega in dit huis heeft dat met ondersteuning van een links lid van het parlement als een broodje aap bestempeld. Onzin dus.
Zwerfstroom veroorzaakt door omvormers, zonnepanelen, windmolens en batterijopslag bij windparken. Melkvee vertoont hierdoor gedragsverandering, worden ziek en geven minder melk. Dit is een directe aanleiding voor de Universiteit van Twente in Nederland om daar nader onderzoek naar te doen, maar ook in België, voorzitter, hebben veehouders te maken met dit fenomeen en heeft de rechter in Wallonië daarover al een voorlopige uitspraak gedaan. In september heb ik over dit onderwerp schriftelijke vragen gesteld vorig jaar. Het antwoord: markttoezicht heeft geen meldingen ontvangen.
Natuurlijk niet, er wordt niet door de overheid gemeten. En in maart van dit jaar schreef commissaris Hahn hierover met ondersteuning van vijf hoogleraren uit Nederland en België. Het antwoord in april: de fondsen voor onderzoek zitten vol tot 2027. Mijn vraag aan de Commissie: wanneer vindt er nu een onafhankelijk onderzoek plaats? Dank u wel.
Benoit Cassart
Madame la Présidente, ce 3 septembre doit être marqué d'une pierre blanche. D'une part, nous avons enregistré une avancée majeure en matière de réciprocité puisque l'Europe a décidé de bloquer des viandes brésiliennes qui ne répondent pas à nos normes en matière d'utilisation d'antibiotiques. D'autre part, avec sa stratégie pour l'élevage, la Commission semble enfin changer de registre en assumant sa volonté d'arrêter la décapitalisation du cheptel européen. Merci au commissaire Hansen pour ces deux avancées majeures. On attend maintenant que la réciprocité dans les accords commerciaux s'étende à toutes nos normes de durabilité et de bien-être animal.
Sans cela, notre élevage ne sera jamais compétitif. J'apprécie également les annonces faites en matière de santé animale avec notamment la volonté de poursuivre la recherche et le développement des vaccins DIVA. La révision de la loi de santé animale est donc très attendue avec la création d'un statut indemne avec vaccination. Merci.
Thank you, Marlene Mortler, please.
Maria Noichl
Ganz herzlichen Dank. Ich möchte mich auch für die Vorstellung der Tierhaltungsstrategie bedanken und möchte mich vor allen Dingen bedanken, dass an mehreren Stellen bei der Vorstellung das Thema Käfighaltung von der Kommission in den Mund genommen wurde. Und dazu hätte ich eine ganz konkrete Frage, nämlich das Thema End of Cage Age. Es ist für mich die Frage, wie es mit den Übergangsfristen ausschaut. Sollen Übergangsfristen langfristig konzipiert werden oder, und das würde ich bevorzugen, dass man wirklich nur Übergangsfristen von drei bis fünf Jahre in Betracht zieht, damit die Verbesserung des Tierwohls nicht unnötig verzögert wird und vor allen Dingen auch, dass die Betriebe, und diese Betriebe gibt es ja in vielen Mengen, dass die Betriebe, die bereits in höhere Tierschutzstandards investiert haben, nicht benachteiligt werden.
Mich würde der Übergangskorridor für End of Cage Age in Jahren interessieren. Ganz herzlichen Dank.
Thank you, do Nascimento Gabriel remote, please.
Thank you, chair, I'll switch to Portuguese. Agradecer então à Comissão esta importante apresentação, estratégia. De facto, o que nós temos aqui é exatamente a consubstanciação da importância da pecuária, da produção de carne, da produção de leite para aquilo que é o essencial da autonomia estratégica da União Europeia. Durante alguns anos nós diabolizámos aquilo que era a produção de leite, a produção de carne e agora percebemos que são fundamentais. Temos de destacar aquilo que também já foi referido.
A pecuária é talvez a única atividade possível em algumas das regiões da nossa União Europeia, desde logo nas regiões ultraperiféricas que possam ter alguma escala. E é portanto tão importante nós possamos protegê-la. Ao mesmo tempo também estamos muito preocupados com o aumento dos custos de produção, desde logo os combustíveis e os fertilizantes que têm limitado muito os rendimentos dos agricultores e também levado aqui à ponderação se devem ou não abandonar esta atividade. E obviamente que nós temos de também garantir estabilidade e previsibilidade. Não podemos estar constantemente a alterar moléculas e substâncias nem legislação porque os agricultores precisam desta estabilidade para poderem continuar a sua atividade.
Saúdo portanto também aquilo que é a relação com o Banco Europeu de Investimentos e acrescento a importância de nós criarmos então um mecanismo de resseguro agrícola europeu também com o BEI para garantirmos aqui aos nossos agricultores rendimentos mais estáveis. E termino com esta por o princípio da reciprocidade. Nós temos de ter condições de concorrência leais entre quem chega de fora e quem produz na União Europeia. Muito obrigado, senhora presidente.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Sí, muchas gracias, presidente. Durante años Bruselas nos dijo que había demasiadas vacas. Ahora por fin se da cuenta de que lo que sobran son burócratas. Un poco tarde, eso sí, porque Europa ya ha perdido un 12% de
Mireia Borrás Pabón
Sí, muchas gracias, presidente. Durante años Bruselas nos dijo que había demasiadas vacas. Ahora por fin se da cuenta de que lo que sobran son burócratas. Un poco tarde, eso sí, porque Europa ya ha perdido un 12% de su cabaña ganadera desde 2009. Esta estrategia efectivamente corrige parte de aquel enfoque.
Reconoce el carácter estratégico de la ganadería, refuerza la sanidad animal, reduce las dependencias de la proteína animal importada y habla por fin de reciprocidad. Ahora hacen falta hechos. Hoy Brasil ha quedado fuera de determinadas exportaciones precisamente por no cumplir con nuestras normas, pero ya habían entrado 63 toneladas de carne con una hormona prohibida aquí en Europa desde hace años. Eso no es un éxito, como han dicho aquí los socialistas. Es una prueba de lo que advertimos que iba a pasar con Mercosur.
Según sus informes de la propia Comisión, si se analiza un 7% del total de la carne importada, ¿qué estimación hace la Comisión de cuántos productos que incumplen nuestras normas y ponen en riesgo la salud de los consumidores pueden estar entrando sin ser detectados? Muchas gracias.
Ana Miranda Paz
Moito obrigada, presidenta. Eu son unha deputada da Galiza. Galiza é un dos principais países produtores de carne e estamos moi preocupados por ese impacto do acordo Mercosur e tamén o impacto que poida haber no sector da apicultura e tamén no sector avícola. É evidente que queremos producir. Tamén é evidente que os nosos produtores están a sufrir un impacto moi grande polo aumento dos prezos dos combustibles e tamén polo aumento de toda a falla de apoio europeo.
Estamos nun momento crucial para a supervivencia dos nosos produtores e a eles a quen me quero dirixir, porque é tempo que a Comisión Europea escoite directamente ás nacións que producimos e que alimentamos ao resto de Europa. Moito obrigada.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much. And I would like to ask now Pierre Bascou again and you have four minutes.
Pierre Bascou
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I would like also to thanks, I think, the all the members, I think, that took the floor. What I gather, I think, from all the interventions is a broad support, I think, to this EU livestock strategy and also by the fact that, I think, the strategy explicitly recognizes the livestock sector as a strategic sector for food security, for rural vitality, for territorial cohesion in the EU and also for our competitiveness of our agri-food supply chain and overall, I think, EU economy. And I want to be clear here, I think, the objective is not about, you know, reducing livestock as I've heard, I think, in different interventions, but it's about, you know, strengthening the resilience of the livestock value chain. It's about, you know, ensuring, I think, the viability, the profitability and the sustainability of this livestock value chain in the in the future.
I think clearly, I think, the actions which have been set and explicited, I think, in this in this strategy, you know, are tailored to reflect the different types of, you know, species, production systems and practices which exist, I think, in the in the EU.
Clearly, I think in certain regions we do not have sufficient livestock population in order to keep land in good condition or to prevent land abandonment. And by contrast, in others, there is a concentration of livestock that has an impact on the environment. And the value added of the strategy is very much I think to address I think these two situations is to aim at strengthening the sustainability, the resilience, the competitiveness of all these different I think production systems with solutions I think for all the different cases. And clearly I think the transition towards this resilience, towards this sustainability lies I think in the first I think the the support of various incentives. I mentioned I think the CAP.
I mentioned the possibility I think of, you know, introducing, you know, additional financial support, our cooperation with the European Investment Bank. It lies also in a better visibility and rewarding I think by consumers of these higher standards that exist I think in the EU. And here I would like to refer to the work that we are going to launch concerning I think the development of this European excellence, you know, optional reserve terms so that, you know, consumers can really pay and reward I think farmers I think for all their work. I think this transition towards this resilience, sustainability and competitiveness lies also very much in the adoption of innovation, of new techniques, I think for breeding, for using I think digital tools, I think for the management of manure, for the valorization I think of biomass, for all the different technologies that can improve the environmental performance, the climate performance I think of the of livestock and also that can ensure I think the competitiveness and the profitability I think for farmers. So these elements which are extremely important, clearly as I mentioned in my intervention, there will be some new development, new regulatory development.
And I mentioned the announcement concerning the animal welfare. We do not yet, you know, clear parameters I think for the introduction of these higher animal welfare, you know, standards. And this is very much, you know, examined now and reviewed in the context of the impact assessment. So there was a question regarding the transition, how long will it take? All this I think is based on our analysis.
We are looking at evidence and I'm sure in the proposal that the Commission will put forward by the end of the year or beginning of next year for the pig sector, I think the the parameters I think of this transition, the implementation of these new standards I think will take will take a due account I think of the evidence and the feasibility I think for farmers to introduce I think all these different of these different standards. I would like to say one word regarding I think the the short-term short-term issues and in particular the impact of the drought and the the heat waves I think in the EU. This has been raised I think by by some some of you. I think clearly I think this is a reminder I think of the climate risk that I think the farm sector at large, not only the livestock sector, is facing. And in this context, it is absolutely crucial that all the available policy tools are used, you know, proactively, both I think for addressing the short-term needs and I think very often I think the cash flow needs I think of farmers, but also in order over the long term to build and strengthen I think the resilience and adaptation of this farm sector and the livestock sector in this case I think to the to the climate change and to the to the climate risk.
And I have to say I think the Commissioner and the Commission services are very closely in contact I think with stakeholders, with also national public authorities. So I think in this endeavor, we need to mobilize all the policy instruments at the EU level, at national level. We need also to mobilize I think the private sector, the food supply chain. And we can see in many Member States private actors also the industry, of course the farmers, but the industry and the retail sector are also very active in order to address and mitigate the impact of these extreme weather conditions that I think farmers have suffered from in the in the summer. I realize I'm a bit too long, Madam Chair, so I will stop I will stop there.
But I'm sure that I think we will continue to be in contact I think with this committee, with the public authorities and the stakeholders in the implementation. In the annex I think of this communication of this strategy, there are more than 30 actions which have been proposed to be implemented in order to build all that.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you very much. And we have immediately go the next item. The current legislative framework of the CAP entered into force on the 1st of January 23, introduced several new features, including a focus on performance-based implementation, monitoring and control. Member States submit their performance reports covering the implementation of their respective CAP strategic plans during the previous financial year, and in so doing report their process in achieving the goals of the set indicators.
Today we have here Director General Elisabeth Werner of DG AGRI, and I would like to ask her for her presentation. Please, Madam, you have eight minutes now for your introductory remarks.
Elisabeth Werner
Thank you very much for the opportunity to also show the progress and the state of play of implementation of the current CAP strategic plans. We are now, as you said, well past halfway in the programming period. We also had 155 amendments to the existing plans, so they're very much up to date. And of course, while our attention is shifting towards the future, the next CAP, there's still plenty of resources to be used here and now. Pierre was just talking about the possibilities to also address crises such as the current drought here within the plans.
But also, and that's an important message, much remains to be delivered under the current plans. In my intervention, I will touch on all the policy objectives of the current CAP, focusing on the key aspects. The slides have more information than what I will say in these eight minutes. They are available to you, of course, and there are some lessons to be learned from this stocktaking of the implementation, also as we discuss the future of the policy. Sorry, I was too quick.
Here we go. First to look at the economic targets. So over 90% of the agricultural land in the EU is covered by practices meeting the conditions for receiving support of the CAP. 43% of EU agricultural land benefited from additional aid thanks to redistributive income support, and small and medium farmers receive 7% more support than the baseline. We had something like 343,000 small farmers receiving support through the lump sum scheme that we have been offering.
Important for us as we speak about targeting the aid. The second slide here is about the value chain and the sectoral support. Although the number of producer organizations is increasing, it is overall still low in terms of improving this supply chain organization and the bargaining power of the farmers. The number of holdings benefiting has doubled, but you see we're at about 3% even with the doubling. Sectoral targeted support I want to emphasize is instrumental for for these negotiations.
Last year about 1 billion was spent on this, mainly in the wine, fruit and vegetable sectors.
My next slide... Sorry. My next slide is about the risk management and the farm modernization, so investments. Here we see that more efforts are needed on farm modernization and investments and on risk management. The uptake that we see here is lower than what we had expected.
This is disappointing in particular for the risk management. We're all witnessing the increasingly recurrent extreme weather events damaging farmers, the crops, the livestock, and it's so important to implement the measures. That's also why we have proposed as a Commission in the proposal for the future to make these measures mandatory for the member states to offer the risk management tools, hoping that the CAP could help more than it does today. But on the positive side, with the simplification Omnibus, we have made these measures more flexible and therefore we hope also that there will be an acceleration and a higher pickup from 2026 onwards. As for the modernization, some member states have started the investment support only after they completed the old rural development plans.
So that's one possible explanation why also this one is a bit behind the schedule and the implementation is picking up now compared to what we saw in 2024. I'm clicking carefully not to jump, but to move it. Environment and climate action. The picture here is positive. We are overall well on track with the implementations.
Eco-schemes have been widely adopted, covering now around 60% of the farmland in line with the targets. Support for agri-environmental climate practices under the rural development fund is also looking more specific challenges for 12% of the farmland, much higher level in some member states. Together this is protecting the soil and enhancing carbon sequestration. We have looked specifically also at the nutrient management practices because of all the discussions that we needed to have around the fertilizer prices. This stands out quite well, covers 16% of the farmland.
Of course more can be done here as well and we have provided further guidance in spring as part of our fertilizer action plan. On the downsides a little bit, I mention biodiversity conservation and restoration actions, but also organic farming, they're somewhat below the planned milestones at this moment in time. Farmers here we think needed to familiarize with the conditions of the biodiversity measures in particular and adapt their systems. Information actions have been set up to improve the uptake and on the organic farming, probably it was due to market challenges including lower demand and some economic pressures. So this conversion path forecast by several member states has not been met.
Finally, I would like to highlight a positive impact of the CAP funding on improving animal welfare, which you also just discussed in the previous point. We are covering transition costs for over 24 million livestock units as part of the plans.
Next slide is on knowledge, innovation and digitalization. Overall, 2 million people have benefited from advice, training, knowledge exchange. That's fully meeting the planned milestone. Today we have, and that's the graph, around 1,100 EIP-AGRI operational groups, a bit unbalanced among the Member States. We hope that this will get better here.
The CAP strategic plans have supported over 50,000 advisors. And the digitalization is also positive and in line with the targets. 300,000 farmers have received support to adopt digital technologies, and that is even exceeding the milestone. On, no, on, so what happened here? On, yeah, rural areas and generational renewal.
Support is growing steadily. We had around 300,000 jobs created, that's 6% above the target. We have 16,000 new businesses created also in rural areas. And we see strong support for young farmers with 311,000 helped to set up and have received additional income support. However, we also see a persistent gender gap requiring more efforts here.
And then I also would like to mention LEADER remains strong, traditionally strong. 2,700 local development strategies in place and 120,000 partners involved across the EU shows you how strong this is anchored here. My next slide is a bit about the budget implementation, interesting when you discuss the future of the MFF. Okay, today we have the two funds, the EAGF and the EAFRD. 83% of the CAP strategic plans expenditure has been spent to support farmers' income through mostly the direct payments, but also the eco-schemes, etc.
And then the agri-environmental climate commitments account for around half of the rural development fund. So this is a bit the proportions of the current spending in the optic of the new concept of income support. I have one more summary slide and then a little bit of an outlook. So in conclusion for us, the overall picture for implementation based on the performance targets is rather positive, but of course much remains to be done. Most milestones were reached, sometimes exceeded.
Building on the progress, we now would see more effort needed especially on investments and on risk management. One factor for sure was the finalization of the rural development programs 2014 to 22, and we now expect an acceleration of implementation of the current CAP strategic plans. As of 2024, we now have the simplified legislation and procedures reducing administrative burden. We also think this will improve the results. And then in the coming months, we will finalize our mid-term evaluation of the CAP strategic plans, while of course the next performance report will be delivered next year to you.
And our efforts are continuing on the advancing the negotiations for the future framework. And I take this opportunity, do I wait or do I click again?
Click again. Click again. I struggle, sorry about this. So, in terms of monitoring, I just wanted to tell you there will be a broad continuity in how the performance is being tracked in the next period. Three new results indicators are proposed that will help measures on the greenhouse gas emissions, on the protection of soil organic carbon and on ammonia emissions.
But most of all, I think simplification will translate in a consolidated reporting with somewhat fewer indicators and you are of course discussing this as well as part of the performance. Thank you very much and I look forward to the discussion.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much and let's start with coordinators, you have two minutes each. Herbert Dorfmann, please.
Herbert Dorfmann
Thank you, chair. Ja, herzlichen Dank, Frau Generaldirektor. Ich finde die Zahlen sehr interessant und ich denke, wir sollten wirklich, wenn wir jetzt über die Zukunft der GAP über das Jahr 2028 hinaus denken, dann sollten wir uns diese Zahlen genauer anschauen. Ich glaube, sie sind einfach wichtig. Ich hätte eigentlich nur zwei, drei Fragen.
Ich glaube, dass ja grundsätzlich, wenn man eben Zukunft plant, man sich auch anschauen sollte, okay, was funktioniert heute und was nicht. Frau Generaldirektor, Sie haben gesagt, dass die das heutige Umverteilungssystem, das wir haben, die Verpflichtung für die Mitgliedstaaten in den Strategieplänen von den großen auf die kleinen Betriebe mindestens 10 % Umverteilung zu machen, letztendlich zu einer Umverteilung von 7 % geführt hat. Ich finde das sehr positiv. Und meine Frage ist, wieso wurde genau diese Umverteilung, die ja funktioniert, wieso wurde die im Vorschlag für die neue GAP dann nicht mehr eingebaut? Sie würde ja hat ja offensichtlich deutlich mehr gebracht als Obergrenzen, also Capping und so weiter.
Was für mich sehr ernüchternd ist, und das haben Sie auch unterstrichen, ist das Risikomanagement. Wir haben heute und gestern hier im Ausschuss viele Kollegen haben auf den sehr, sehr schwierigen Sommer hingewiesen, die multiplen Krisen, die wir hatten, Trockenheit, Brände. Und dann höre ich, dass 2,5 % der landwirtschaftlichen Fläche in Europa versichert sind. Da sind wir also weit, weit entfernt von einer Risikoabsicherung, vernünftigen Risikoabsicherung der Landwirtschaft. Und ich denke, die Hoffnung, die manchmal auch Bäuerinnen und Bauern haben, dass schon jemand bezahlen wird, wenn etwas passiert, das wird halt nicht mehr so sein, das wird nicht mehr finanzierbar sein.
Dazu bräuchte es Krisenfonds, die weit das übersteigen, was wir haben. Und ich denke, wir brauchen vernünftige Risikomanagementangebote für die Bäuerinnen und Bauern und die müssen es dann aber auch nutzen. Und ich sehe, dass das halt so sehr oft auch nicht genutzt wird. Und letzter Satz noch, auch bei den Agrarumweltprogrammen, wir sind jetzt bei 12 % der Fläche und ich denke auch da gibt es deutlich Luft nach oben. Und ich hoffe, dass das System, das wir jetzt umsetzen wollen in der neuen GAP, da auch dazu führt, dass wir doch mehr Flächen in diese Agrarumweltprogramme hineinbekommen.
Herzlichen Dank.
Maria Noichl
Ganz herzlichen Dank an die Vertreterin der EU-Kommission, sehr geehrte Präsidentin. Die nationalen Strategiepläne haben gezeigt, dass mehr Flexibilität auf der einen Seite ganz gut funktionieren kann, aber natürlich nur dann, wenn die gemeinsamen europäischen Ziele den Mitgliedstaaten erhalten bleiben. Ich glaube, das hat man jetzt bei dieser Ausführung sehr genau gemerkt. Flexibilität und klare Ziele, beides miteinander wäre gut. Für die nächste GAP sollte deswegen nicht einfach nur über noch mehr Flexibilität und noch mehr Flexibilität gesprochen werden, sondern vielleicht konkreter noch mal, und was ist der gemeinsame Rahmen?
Welche Maßnahmen verbessern tatsächlich das Einkommen der Landwirte? Welche stärken tatsächlich die Widerstandsfähigkeit gegenüber dem Klimawandel und so weiter und so fort? Und wo sind wirklich messbare Leistungen? Ich habe ganz konkrete Fragen. Wo hat die größte nationale Flexibilität zu sinnvollen Lösungen geführt und wo hat die große nationale Flexibilität zu Race to the Bottom geführt?
Zweite Frage: Welche Auswirkungen erwarten Sie, wenn die Eco-Schemes, die ja in vielen Gegenden Europas wirklich als Erfolgsmodell gesehen werden, wie jetzt von der Kommission geplant wird, abgeschafft werden? Also genau das, was zielführend war, wird abgeschafft. Dritte Frage: Wie können wir zukünftig Biodiversitätsmaßnahmen besser mit wirtschaftlichen Interessen der Betriebe verbinden? Und meine letzte Frage: Denken Sie, dass die Strategiepläne der Mitgliedstaaten ausreichend Klimaadaptierung und Hitzeprävention beiträgt? Gibt es dazu einen Austausch mit den Mitgliedstaaten?
Ich möchte noch mal betonen, es ist ungut, eine Reform zu begutachten, zu merken, was war gut und was war schlecht, aber die nächste Reform auf dieser Begutachtung nicht aufzubauen. Und das ist momentan, steht momentan im Raum. Ganz herzlichen Dank.
Thank you. Patriot Tomáš Kubín, prosím, máte slovo.
Tomáš Kubín
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will speak in Czech language. Ta čísla, která jsme tady viděli, a děkuji za ně, jsou nová, neznámá a nemohu na ně reagovat, ale i tak bych chtěl hovořit spíš o metodologii a procesu toho hodnocení. A budu vycházet z posledního dokumentu Komise, který mám k dispozici, což je zpráva z ledna 2024. Ukazuje se, že to hodnocení skutečné výkonnosti zůstává problematické.
Myslím, že moje předřečnice to také zmínila. První přezkum zjistil u všech plánů mimochodem odchylku vyšší než 35 % alespoň u jednoho výsledkového ukazatele. Komise v reakci na to přijala vysvětlení členských států, nevyžádala si ale žádná nápravná opatření. Čekala, že zpoždění bude v následujících letech dohnáno. A jestli ta čísla, která mám k dispozici, jsou správná, tak do září 2023 bylo předloženo 93 změn strategických plánů.
Každý plán byl změněn dvakrát až pětkrát. Upraveno bylo 34 % cílových hodnot. A ty úpravy plánů jsou samozřejmě nutné, legitimní, to je v pořádku. Měli bychom znát ale, které cíle byly měněny, jakým směrem a z jakých důvodů, právě proto, aby ten proces hodnocení zůstal koherentní v průběhu celého časového období. To podstatné je, že Komise přiznává, že současné výsledkové ukazatele měří převážně rozsah podporovaných opatření, protože přímé dopady politiky se obtížně vyhodnocují.
To je něco, co se tady ozývá v tomto sále nebo v tomto výboru docela často a je to předmětem někdy opatrné, někdy velké kritiky. Počet hektarů, příjemců nebo vyplacených prostředků ještě neříká, zda se zvýšily příjmy zemědělců, jejich konkurenceschopnost, odolnost nebo jestli se zlepšila generační obměna. Ale nechceme kvůli tomu lepšímu, a doufejme, že lepšímu hodnocení další formuláře a kontroly na farmách. Ta odpovědnost za kvalitní vyhodnocení, tu má Komise a ta musí využívat údaje, které už má k dispozici. A proto ta moje otázka: Na základě jakých konkrétních výsledků Komise tvrdí, že provádění strategických plánů je v uvozovkách on track, když ve zprávě přiznává, že současné ukazatele převážně neměří skutečné dopady?
Ptám se na výsledky týkající se příjmů, konkurenceschopnosti, ne na počty hektarů, příjemců a vyplacených eur. Děkuji.
Claudiu-Richard Târziu
Mulțumesc, doamnă președintă. Stimați colegi, implementarea planurilor strategice naționale reprezintă, evident, o ocazie importantă pentru a analiza rezultatele de până acum, dar și pentru a evidenția dificultățile întâmpinate de fermieri în aplicarea actualei PAC.
În ceea ce privește condiționalitatea socială, susținem pe deplin obiectivul de a asigura condiții de muncă decente în agricultură. Totuși, aplicarea acestui mecanism nu trebuie să genereze sancțiuni disproporționate pentru fermieri. De exemplu, în România, condiționalitatea socială se aplică doar din 2025, iar sistemul național de sancțiuni a fost adoptat în 2026. Fermierii riscă astfel să fie sancționați prin neplata subvențiilor PAC. Prin urmare, acest mecanism trebuie eliminat.
În al doilea rând, ar trebui actualizate perioadele de referință. Pentru ajutorul național tranzitoriu pentru bovine, perioada de referință prevăzută de normele europene a rămas în anul 2018. Aceasta nu corespunde întotdeauna situației actuale din ferme. Aceeași problemă o întâlnim în cazul suprafețelor eligibile. În România, utilizarea anului de referință 2016 a însemnat o diferență de aproximativ 400.000 de hectare față de situația din 2021, cu efect direct asupra sprijinului acordat fermierilor.
De aceea, solicităm utilizarea unei perioade de referință mai recente. Așadar, voi adresa două întrebări. 1. Cum intenționează Comisia să folosească rezultatele acestei evaluări pentru a îmbunătăți viitoarea PAC? Și 2. Cum va evita Comisia ca, în viitoarea PAC, utilizarea unor perioade de referință depășite să afecteze nivelul sprijinului acordat fermierilor? Vă mulțumesc.
Elsi Katainen
Okay. Thank you. Elsi Katainen, please.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the Director-General. The evaluation of the performance is very interesting and needed currently while we are negotiating and shaping the NRP plans as well, where the performance will be even more central part of the legislation. It is encouraging to see that the investments for the environmental and biodiversity actions are meeting the annual milestones. This shows that farmers have desire and and interests towards these actions and policy framework push our production to the correct direction, more sustainable. We should still keep these supported and welcomed programs part of the common agri-policy, if these are success stories, while keeping in mind reasonable targets, which can be reached with workable tools.
I find it important that farmers will be better supported and rewarded for sustainably efforts and attention should be paid to the environment and animal welfare investments that farmers make in this very challenging profitability situation. It is positive also to see that aid for young farmers is stronger than expected. Commission's proposal brings this part of the CAP proposal and I hope that we all can support the importance of the dedicated support for the generation renewals in the becoming CAP legislation. Lastly, on the rural development, which has been significant part of the common agri-policy, it is positive to see such a strong commitment for the current system and I wish that we will have also strong support for the rural development as well. Rural areas are facing already now lot of challenges and we must remember that that they are not only about farming.
We must have well-functioning social, digital or other public services for people living there and this all also supporting our our farmers. How will Commission secure that this will happen also in the future? Thank you.
Thomas Waitz
Thank you, Chair, and herzlichen Dank an Frau Generaldirektorin Werner für Ihre Präsentation und dass Sie heute mit uns diskutieren.
Ich habe einige ganz konkrete Fragen. Sie haben ja ausgeführt, dass gerade die Risikomanagement-Tools nicht ausreichend ausgeschöpft werden. Wir haben ja in manchen Ländern bereits Versicherungen, die zum Teil staatlich subventioniert sind. Haben wir hier ein Problem mit Doppelfinanzierung, dass also die europäischen Mittel nicht verwendet werden können, weil schon nationale Mittel in die Unterstützung von Versicherungen gehen? Und auf der anderen Seite, liegt es auch daran, dass es in vielen Ländern der Europäischen Union so etwas wie eine Hagelversicherung oder Gleichwertiges noch nicht gibt und noch nicht entwickelt ist und deshalb diese Gelder nicht aufgegriffen werden können?
Können die auch für Prävention und Adaption verwendet werden oder sind wir hier nur im Versicherungsbereich? Was sehen Sie hier für Lösungen? Eine zweite Frage ist: Sehen Sie eine Verlangsamung des Verlustes an Betrieben durch die erfolgreiche Umverteilung? Ist das sichtbar, dass das einen Effekt hat? Dritte Frage: Die soziale Konditionalität.
Es sind ja die überwiegende Mehrheit unserer landwirtschaftlichen Betriebe arbeiten korrekt, bezahlen auch ihre Mitarbeiter, Mitarbeiterinnen korrekt und sehen sich aber einer unfairen Konkurrenz ausgesetzt durch andere Betriebe in anderen Teilen Europas, wo das so nicht ganz so korrekt gemacht wird und damit eine unfaire Konkurrenz entsteht. Sehen Sie schon einen positiven Effekt dahingehend, dass eben Mitarbeitende in landwirtschaftlichen Betrieben jetzt häufiger korrekt angestellt werden? Und eine ganz letzte Frage noch: Wir haben ja eine enorm starke Nachfrage nach Eco-Schemes, zumindest in den Ländern, die ich stärker beobachte. Sehen Sie das über die ganze Europäische Union hinweg und was bedeutet das für unsere nächste GAP? Ich danke herzlichst für Ihre Ausführungen.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Thank you, Luke Flanagan.
Thank you for the work you've done on this. I think it's I don't think you could overestimate the importance of doing studies like this, and in particular for people like us, because we get paid an awful lot of money to sit down here, analyze what works well, what doesn't work well, and to put together legislation. And in my case, I'm actually responsible for this because I worked on it the last time, and I voted for it, and I supported it. And the first thing that comes to mind is why the hell are we getting rid of something before we've actually even driven it a minimum distance? I get that there were protests, I get that there were people who were unhappy with it, but I'd have to ask the question: Are many of the people who were unhappy with it misled about how it works, how well it could work, how it could be improved?
And I'd also have to ask the question, given that this is the forum and the opportunity to have a look at how our work works, to use a phrase, and how we can improve it, where are all the people who got elected here to actually make these decisions? Because this is our opportunity to fine-tune our previous work. But yet again, and if I was in the Commission, I'd be thinking to myself, who is holding me accountable at this stage? So in relation to what did work, CRISS seemed to work, the complementary redistributive income support mechanism, and the question was asked, why isn't it in the current proposals? And given that it was a minimum of 10%, maybe it's because there are other figures included here, why in the graph is only 8% spent on complementary redistributable income?
And it must be a nightmare if you're wiped out because of climate change and because of this weather. But you'd have to ask how sustainable is a system where you put money into a system to pay someone for a risk that isn't just going to be a risk it's just going to become standard. And should we be putting limited public money into adaptation and mitigation in order that in the future you won't need some mythical magical insurance that'll pay you money every year for your crop not surviving because that is not sustainable.
Ivan David
Já bych chtěl především poděkovat za tu podrobnou zprávu. Přiznám se že jsem ji úplně dokonale neprostudoval. Budu se k tomu muset vrátit. Ale chtěl bych konstatovat že a já chápu jaksi postoj úředníků že je poměrně relativně pohodlné a dostupné udělat přehled o výdajích o utrácení o o tom jak se daří čerpat dotace. Ale já si myslím že bychom se měli věnovat daleko více tomu jak se to promítá do efektů těch dotací jestli tedy ty peníze skutečně byly účelně vynaloženy.
A tady ačkoliv se to někomu nemusí zdát adekvátní bych se rád vrátil vůbec ke smyslu dotací a jejich vzniku. Ty dotace vznikly v době kdy evropské koloniální velmoci přišly o kolonie a bylo potřeba podpořit zemědělství tak aby bylo možno nahradit tyto ztráty zdrojů. A je otázka jestli už nemělo dojít ke kompenzaci za ta dlouhá léta jestli tedy můžeme do budoucna prostě počítat s tím že ten tlak na snižování dotací bude narůstat až tedy dotace vymizí a přitom vidíme že zemědělství není ve stále se zlepšující kondici ale spíše naopak. A já mám takový pocit a srovnal bych to s tím co se v době socialismu někdy v padesátých šedesátých letech nazývalo zbytkovým rezortem. Prostě něco na co se vydávaly prostředky až když byly naplněny jiné priority.
Tak to myslím se k zemědělství přistupuje. A já si myslím že je potřeba tento trend obrátit protože my se musíme snažit o maximální soběstačnost a potravinovou bezpečnost. To by mělo být cílem a já bych rád viděl jak je tento cíl naplňován. Obávám se že moc ne.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you. And now GUE/NGL and we start with Maria Walsh who is again remotely.
Maria Walsh
Thank you very much again Chair. Tonight for colleagues in the Midlands of Ireland in Tullamore County Offaly I'll meet with women across Ireland and share the realities of what is being discussed today. Only a small number of member states are putting real measures behind their commitments to women in agriculture. I'll share Spain as an example has integrated gender equality across its agricultural policy and Portugal which has increased income support for young farmers particularly female farmers by 15%.
But in too many of our member states, support for women remains voluntary, limited, or largely about measuring participation rather than proper support. And if we're truly to be ambitious about generation renewal and the future of our rural areas, the political needs to change drastically. So my question to the Commission is, how do we ensure that the lessons from the current CAP strategic plans, which has worked and what hasn't worked, are properly reflected in the next CAP? And most importantly, how do we make sure that the next CAP provides effective and measurable supports for women? Because I think it's very fair to say women need less of this tokenistic language and actual policy and money to deliver food on our tables.
Thank you very much.
Gilles Pennelle
La Commission présente la mise en œuvre des plans stratégiques nationaux comme une réussite. Mais sur quels critères fonde-t-elle ce satisfecit ? Le fait que des crédits aient été distribués, que des millions d'hectares aient été inscrits dans différents dispositifs ne suffit pas à démontrer que la PAC est efficace. Cela mesure avant tout la consommation administrative des crédits, pas l'amélioration réelle de la situation agricole. La véritable performance de la PAC doit être appréciée à partir de critères concrets : revenus des agriculteurs, capacité à vivre dignement de son travail, renouvellement des générations, maintien du nombre d'exploitations, modernisation des outils de production.
Votre optimisme est d'autant plus contestable que chacun des plans stratégiques nationaux présente un ou plusieurs écarts supérieurs à 35 % par rapport aux valeurs intermédiaires fixées. Ces retards concernent notamment les investissements, la modernisation des exploitations, la formation, l'innovation et l'organisation des filières. Comment pouvez-vous affirmer que tous les plans sont en bonne voie alors que tous présentent des écarts aussi importants ? Il faut mesurer la performance de la PAC pour les agriculteurs et pas seulement la capacité des administrations à consommer les crédits et à remplir des indicateurs.
Daniel Buda
Doamnă directoare, două probleme pe care aș dori să le ridic și unde cred că suntem într-o zonă de eșec, să spun așa. Legat de birocrație, fermierii din România, dar nu numai, ne spun mai departe că timp de două zile pe săptămână sunt nevoiți să și le piardă cu elementele birocratice pentru a putea obține resursele financiare necesare supraviețuirii fermelor lor, ceea ce mi se pare inadmisibil. Cum este posibil să stea două zile un fermier blocat în hârțoage, câtă vreme el ar trebui să stea în fermă? Doi, legat de managementul riscului. Am avut o vară foarte fierbinte și fermierii din România, Germania, Franța deja își consumă resursele furajere pentru iarnă.
Se pune întrebarea ce putem să facem pentru aceștia, pentru că avem resurse financiare pe care nu le putem folosi deoarece firmele de asigurări refuză să asigure pentru secetă. Chiar dacă am folosi bani europeni sau bani proprii, nu au posibilitatea de a-și face aceste asigurări. Mi se pare inadmisibil ca noi să investim bani în sectorul agricol și să avem această verigă lipsă care până la urmă duce la ceea ce înseamnă pierderea oricărui euro investit în agricultură. Mulțumesc.
Willemien Koning
Ja, dank u. Ik zal in het Nederlands spreken. U gaf aan dat er een grote genderkloof nog steeds is, maar mijn vraag is, zien we wel verbetering en staan vrouwen wel goed geregistreerd? In Nederland heb je bijvoorbeeld veel man-vrouw maatschappen waar beide het bedrijf leiden, maar bij het GLB mag je maar één naam opgeven als bedrijfshoofd en dat moet zijn degene die het meeste werkt of degene die het oudste is. En dat is dan heel vaak de man, ook als de vrouw net zoveel op het bedrijf doet en eigenaar is.
Hoe krijgen we die vrouwen beter in beeld? Kunnen we het omdraaien dat de jongste moet worden aangemeld?
Ik voorspel u dat we dan veel meer vrouwen in beeld krijgen en dat we de leeftijd van de agrarische sector duidelijk naar beneden zien gaan in de statistieken. Dus kunnen we vrouwen stimuleren en kunnen we de statistieken aanpassen?
Ana Miranda Paz
Muchas gracias, presidenta. En relación con los indicadores, he notado una ausencia en la cuestión de los indicadores sociales y el impacto en la agricultura. De hecho, en la Comisión de Política Regional hemos presentado precisamente en la evaluación de los documentos de la performance muchos elementos y muchos indicadores que han sido aprobados por unanimidad en esa comisión el pasado martes relacionados con el tema rural. En concreto, con el impacto que pueda tener los programas de desarrollo rural y su posible desaparición. En segundo lugar, también en relación con el papel de las mujeres en el sector rural y, por supuesto, con el tema de la gestión de las crisis, que ha sido un verdadero desastre en estos años, por lo menos en lo que concierne a mi nación agrogandera, que es Galicia.
En relación con este tema, también hemos introducido indicadores relacionados con el impacto en los productos alimentarios y las exportaciones, con lo cual creo que ese trabajo realizado en otras comisiones y que pasará a la Comisión de Presupuesto va a tener también una incidencia, ya que la propia Comisión de Política Regional en relación también con la Comisión de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural acabaremos todas en la Comisión de Budget a decidir y creo que era interesante que sean revisados por la Comisión. Gracias.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you. And Paulo do Nascimento Cabral remotely, please, Paulo.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you, Chair. Now I'll speak in Portuguese. Agradecer à Comissão a apresentação deste importante estudo, mas também destacar aquilo que foi uma das conclusões, em que mais de 60% dos fundos e dos Estados-Membros utilizaram para a estabilização do rendimento dos agricultores. Ora, não podemos esquecer ou ignorar que esta política agrícola comum foi marcada por uma pandemia COVID-19, é marcada por uma guerra na Ucrânia, é marcada por uma crise no Médio Oriente, e é óbvio que nós temos que utilizar as verbas para estabilizar o rendimento dos agricultores e, ao mesmo tempo, também, como referiu a Comissão, há uma diminuição, ou pelo menos falta aqui a parte do investimento. E é isso também que temos que compreender: quais são os agricultores, ou quem é que estará interessado em investir neste contexto de incerteza global, mas também naquilo que não se sabe o que será a próxima política agrícola comum ou o próximo quadro financeiro plurianual.
Portanto, é muito importante termos isso em consideração quando fazemos a nossa análise. Em segundo lugar, quando falamos dos indicadores, não podemos também ignorar que é preciso incluir novos indicadores, como o rendimento dos agricultores, o seu contributo para aquilo que é a autonomia estratégica para a produção alimentar da União Europeia, ou mesmo também para aquilo que tem a ver com a própria segurança alimentar e a produção de alimentos. Portanto, esses indicadores também devem fazer parte deste relatório. Por último, sobre a questão dos mecanismos de gestão de risco, penso que é essencial garantirmos também aqui uma maior consciencialização dos direitos dos agricultores. Um mecanismo de resseguro agrícola europeu é essencial, mas também informar os agricultores destas possibilidades que existem, que muitos deles às vezes não sabem que há aqui soluções ótimas para as suas situações de crise.
E, por último, também dar um elogio ao governo português para aquilo que fez no apoio aos jovens agricultores. Muito obrigado, senhor presidente.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you. Thank you very much. And now I would like to ask Elizabeth for her replies. You have five minutes, please.
Elisabeth Werner
Thank you very much, and I'm glad that you see that looking at the current implementation, we can try to draw some lessons for the future financial framework. Of course, what we showed you here was a picture at one moment in time, in Q3, third quarter 2023.
It does not show you the full picture. We have indicators that tell us, compared to the plans, where do we stand today, and that also explains why some percentages are still below what should be finally achieved, obviously because there is a time lag. So this time lag is perhaps lesson number one. It has been a bit slow to start, notably because the overlapping period with the rural development. So a fast start is important.
Preparations have to start, otherwise you're halfway in the next period when things finally start rolling. So what functions well, including the flexibilities, I think we can see it's environment and climate measures. They're very successful, even though many of the designs were new, they have been picked up very well, they're locally adapted, and they have shown a good statistics here. What functioned less well is the investments, and of course investments often go beyond just the farm gate. This is where you need to work in the whole rural area, you need to work across several municipalities to get this going.
So also questions about getting permits, etc., that that is something that we would like to see accelerating. And then the risk management, which I underlined very clearly, where only 14 member states are picking up. Risk management is not only about insurance, you can of course do other measures here. On the insurance, nevertheless, it's very unequal across the EU, even where there are certain obligatory or compulsory insurance. Overall, we see only about 20 to 30% of the farmers being insured.
It's much easier to get an insurance against hail than to get an insurance against drought or heat damage. So clearly here it's going to be an area that we need to do more. Much more, I think it's clear that we need to work on adaptation. Adaptation is really the number one thing where we also need the farmers to become actors and not only waiting for something to happen and see how this can then be resolved or mitigated. I wanted to say as well on the social conditionality, this is relatively new still.
We are working on the report as was agreed for next year. It's really the implementation that is key here. A word also on Mr. Dorfmann's question about the redistribution. Yes, I mean, you can see the numbers, the redistribution is working, but it redistributes within the same hectare-based support schemes. What the Commission has proposed with the capping and degressivity is that you can redistribute also into other measures, that you can redistribute away from the hectare-based support into the agri-environmental, into the support for the young farmers, into the support for certain sectors, if that is where the focus should be.
So it's a different kind of redistribution. Perhaps I conclude also with a word on the gender. This is now in the new period proposed to be a horizontal priority, also from the performance regulation side. We expect member states to put more focus across the whole plans on this. There will have to be scoring individual measures, and we also invited member states to target women with our area-based support system.
To finish off, I think I would just like to say again this idea that it's important to be able to have predictability, so not to drag on also the uncertainty about what the future period will bring, including also when it comes to support in the current crisis. A lot of measures are possible. Advance payments is one that we are pushing particularly the Member States to take up. It depends in the end on national administrations, but as we say in German, schnelle Hilfe ist doppelte Hilfe, if you can help fast, it is a double, twice as important in terms of the help that you can provide. Thank you.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much, Elizabeth, and thank you for your views and explanation. And now I would like to go on again in our program of today. This summer, we have all had to witness a number of wildfires across all Europe, each of them a tragedy for people and nature. On 25th of March this year, the Commission published a communication on integrated wildfire risk management. It reflects the fact that in four of the last five years, the EU's recorded burn area has been above average, and the size and intensity of wildfires are increasing.
Integrated wildfire risk management brings together various tools and policies to address these challenges in a systematic and coordinated approach across the EU. Given their role as stewards of land and forests, European farmers play a key role in this process. The European Economic and Social Committee adopted its opinion on the 15th of July together with the linked opinion on the sustainable livestock strategy. The Committee welcomes the Commission communication, but nevertheless has some proposals on how to better address structural prevention and implementation. So we have pleasure to welcome here EESC's rapporteur, Luís Mira, here today.
He is also Secretary General of CAP, the Portuguese Farmers Confederation, and he will present this opinion. So please, you have now seven minutes for your presentation.
Luís Mira
Thank you, President. I go speak in Portuguese. Senhor Presidente, senhoras e senhores deputados, permitam-me começar por agradecer à Comissão da Agricultura e do Desenvolvimento Rural, aos seus coordenadores e, muito em particular, ao senhor deputado Paulo Nascimento Cabral, que aproveito para felicitar porque foi pai esta semana, por ter proposto e apoiado a discussão desta importante questão no Parlamento Europeu. Gostaria de começar por uma constatação que me parece fundamental para compreendermos a urgência deste debate. Os incêndios florestais são hoje um problema europeu e já não são um problema exclusivamente do sul da Europa.
Durante décadas, quando falávamos de incêndios florestais, pensávamos sobretudo em Portugal, Espanha, França, Itália ou Grécia.
Mas a Europa está perante uma nova realidade. Em 2026, vimos incêndios e situações de emergência também no centro e no norte da Europa. Os Países Baixos, a Chéquia, a Áustria já tinham ativado o mecanismo de proteção civil da União em abril. Em agosto, foi a vez da Bélgica, que recebeu aeronaves e helicópteros europeus para combater incêndios que já tinham afetado milhares de hectares e que foram uma verdadeira catástrofe. As previsões europeias para o início de setembro mostram ainda condições de perigo extremo numa vasta faixa da Europa Central e dos Balcãs, chegando mesmo ao norte da Finlândia.
Isto significa que temos de deixar de falar de um problema regional e começar a tratá-lo como um problema verdadeiramente europeu. E os números confirmam esta realidade. Em 27 de agosto, segundo os dados do sistema europeu de informação sobre incêndios rurais, já tinham ardido mais de 634 mil hectares na União Europeia. Este valor representa mais do dobro da média dos últimos 20 anos para a mesma altura do ano. E devemos recordar que isto acontece depois de 2025 ter sido já um ano absolutamente excecional em matéria de incêndios na Europa.
Portanto, não estamos perante uma sucessão de episódios isolados. Estamos perante uma mudança estrutural do risco. E é precisamente esta mudança que está na origem deste parecer. O CESE considera que os incêndios florestais deixaram de ser um fenómeno exclusivamente sazonal para assumirem uma dimensão estrutural diretamente relacionada com as alterações climáticas, com a gestão do território e com a crescente vulnerabilidade das zonas rurais. Senhoras e senhores deputados, quando falamos de incêndios florestais, não podemos pensar apenas na floresta.
Temos de pensar no território rural como um todo. Um incêndio destrói florestas, mas também destrói culturas agrícolas, pastagens, explorações pecuárias, equipamentos, infraestruturas, habitações e meios de subsistência. Destrói sumidouros naturais de carbono, destrói habitats e biodiversidade e liberta grandes quantidades de emissões de gases com efeito de estufa. E, sobretudo, pode destruir em poucas horas o trabalho e o património acumulado por gerações de agricultores e produtores florestais. O parecer do CESE chama precisamente a atenção para esta dimensão económica, ambiental, social e territorial dos incêndios, que afetam de forma particularmente grave as zonas rurais, o emprego, a atividade agrícola e florestal e a coesão territorial.
Por isso, a nossa primeira mensagem é muito clara: a prevenção tem de passar para o centro da política europeia de incêndios. Temos de mudar o paradigma. Durante demasiado tempo, a nossa atenção esteve concentrada na capacidade de combater o incêndio depois de ele começar. É evidente que precisamos de aviões, helicópteros, bombeiros, equipamentos e capacidade operacional. Mas a prevenção começa muito antes da primeira chama.
Começa na gestão ativa do território, na redução da carga de combustível, na manutenção das áreas agrícolas e florestais, no pastoreio extensivo, na silvicultura ativa. Começa na criação de mosaicos de paisagem que reduzam a continuidade da vegetação e dificultem a propagação do fogo. Começa também no fogo controlado e noutras técnicas de gestão preventiva adaptadas às condições locais. E começa, sobretudo, na manutenção de pessoas e de atividade no território. Porque existe uma relação muito direta entre o abandono agrícola e florestal e o aumento do risco de incêndio.
Quando uma exploração deixa de ser economicamente viável, quando o pastoreio desaparece, quando as terras deixam de ser cultivadas e quando a gestão florestal deixa de existir, aumenta a acumulação de material combustível e desta forma o território torna-se mais vulnerável. Não podemos continuar a pedir aos nossos bombeiros que enfrentem esta nova realidade com modelos de formação e equipamentos concebidos para uma realidade diferente. Precisamos de reforçar a formação especializada dos bombeiros, de desenvolver treino conjunto entre Estados-Membros e de promover o conhecimento científico sobre o comportamento do fogo. Precisamos de profissionais especializados em incêndios rurais e florestais. Precisamos de maior capacidade de comando e de coordenação.
Precisamos de interoperabilidade entre equipamentos, comunicações e estruturas de emergência. Reconhecemos o papel fundamental que o voluntariado desempenha em muitos dos nossos Estados-Membros, mas o voluntariado tem de ser complementar e não de substituir profissionais devidamente formados e capacitados. É também esta a posição expressa no parecer do CESE. A terceira prioridade é igualmente fundamental: a coordenação europeia. O incêndio não conhece fronteiras e quando vários Estados-Membros enfrentam simultaneamente situações extremas, torna-se evidente que nenhum país pode garantir sozinho todos os meios de que necessita.
É por isso que temos de reforçar o mecanismo de proteção civil da União Europeia e do rescEU. A experiência deste verão demonstra que estes mecanismos são fundamentais. Quando a Bélgica necessitou de apoio, a Europa respondeu. Quando outros Estados-Membros enfrentaram incêndios de grandes dimensões, foram mobilizados meios europeus. Isto é solidariedade europeia em ação.
Mas temos de ir mais longe. Precisamos de maior capacidade permanente, de maior interoperabilidade, de mais exercícios conjuntos, de mais pré-posicionamento de meios nas regiões de maior risco. Precisamos de sistemas europeus de alerta precoce cada vez mais eficazes. Precisamos de partilha de informação em tempo real e precisamos de uma coordenação europeia que permita antecipar as necessidades em vez de simplesmente reagir quando a emergência já atingiu grandes proporções. A Europa já possui instrumentos importantes.
O que precisamos é de os reforçar e adaptar à nova dimensão do risco. Isto leva-nos ao quarto elemento que considero essencial: o financiamento. Podemos ter estratégias, podemos criar sistemas de alerta, podemos reforçar a cooperação, mas sem financiamento adequado estas medidas não terão a dimensão necessária. É por isso que o CESE apresenta uma proposta muito clara: a criação no próximo quadro financeiro plurianual de um fundo europeu específico para a prevenção e combate de incêndios florestais, autónomo e rigorosamente separado do orçamento da política agrícola comum. A prevenção e o combate aos incêndios necessitam de ter uma ferramenta financeira europeia própria.
Um fundo que permita financiar a prevenção estrutural, equipamentos, formação, profissionalização, meios aéreos, sistemas de monitorização e alerta, infraestruturas de emergência e cooperação entre Estados-Membros. Não podemos continuar a discutir este problema todos os anos durante o verão, quando as imagens dos incêndios chegam às nossas televisões. Não podemos continuar a reagir depois da tragédia. Temos de agir a nível europeu porque o que estamos a observar em 2026 é um aviso muito sério. Os incêndios estão a chegar a novas regiões da Europa e se nada fizermos corremos o risco de entrar num ciclo particularmente perigoso.
Precisamos de uma verdadeira estratégia europeia integrada para os incêndios rurais e florestais. Uma estratégia assente em quatro pilares. Primeiro, prevenção e gestão ativa do território. Segundo, formação e profissionalização do combate aos incêndios. Terceiro, uma coordenação europeia mais forte através do mecanismo de proteção civil e do rescEU.
E quarto, um financiamento europeu específico, autónomo e fora do orçamento da PAC dedicado à prevenção e combate dos incêndios. Mas há uma quinta palavra que deve estar na base de todas as medidas. Urgência. E por isso peço aqui ao Parlamento Europeu que aproveite esta oportunidade para transformar esta preocupação numa ação política concreta. O nosso objetivo deve ser muito concreto: que no próximo ano os Estados-Membros tenham mais meios, mais formação, melhor coordenação e maior capacidade para prevenir e combater os incêndios florestais.
Senhoras e senhores deputados, o próximo grande incêndio não pode ser a razão para a Europa decidir agora. Os incêndios que já enfrentámos em 2026 são razão suficiente para agir já. Muito obrigado.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. Thank you. Now let's go immediately to coordinators, Paulo do Nascimento Cabral, EPP, remotely. Two minutes.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you, Chair. Let me first to thank Luís Mira for his kind words, and it is us who has to thank him for this initiative, and it's quite important for us as the EPP Group to give the voice to the European Social Committee and also Economic and Social Committee and also for good proposals like we just heard right now from Luís Mira. So thank you so much, Luís Mira. I would like, of course, to thank again for bringing this urgent and fundamental issue to our discussion. Wildfires are no longer exceptional or confined to Southern Europe.
The problem is becoming more acute every year and requires an integrated European solution from prevention and preparedness to response and recovery. According to European Forest Fire Information System, by the 31st of August 26, 642,000 hectares had burned in the European Union since the beginning of the year. In 2025, 993,000 hectares burned by the same date, the worst year on record. We are facing an immense loss. Only Malta and Luxembourg show no burned area in Joint Research Centre's mapped fire data.
In Belgium, the August wildfire affected more than 3,000 hectares, becoming the country's largest recorded. No Member State is immune. I strongly support the opinion's call to place prevention at the center of European policy. We need targeted investment, measurable objectives, and a dedicated wildfire prevention fund in the next multiannual financial framework, entirely independent of the CAP budget. So thank you so much, Luís Mira, for this excellent proposal.
Farmers and foresters must be recognized as active land managers and critical partners in prevention. When grazing and forestry are not economically viable, land is abandoned, biomass accumulates, and fires become more intense. We need to support our rural communities and finance concrete measures such as extensive grazing, active forest management, or more diverse and resilient landscapes. We need to act before the flames begin. Prevention is not a cost, it is an investment in lives, rural communities, and biodiversity.
And allow me, Chair, just to express my solidarity for all the communities and populations affected by the wildfires of this summer. Thank you so much.
Sakis Arnaoutoglou
Okay, thank you very much. S&D, Koli Arvanitoglou, please.
Κυρίες και κύριοι, η Ευρώπη συζητά δικαιολογημένα για περισσότερα αεροσκάφη, περισσότερο προσωπικό και ισχυρότερο rescEU.
Γι' αυτό θεωρώ ιδιαίτερα σημαντική τη θέση της Ευρωπαϊκής Οικονομικής και Κοινωνικής Επιτροπής ότι πρέπει στην ουσία να μεταφέρουμε πολύ μεγαλύτερο βάρος στην πρόληψη, όπως έχει φυσικά χιλιοειπωθεί. Θα ήθελα όμως να σας ζητήσω να πάμε ένα βήμα λίγο παραπέρα. Πώς πρέπει να μοιάζει στην πράξη ένα σύγχρονο ολοκληρωμένο ευρωπαϊκό σύστημα αντιμετώπισης των δασικών πυρκαγιών; Σήμερα διαθέτουμε τεχνολογίες που πριν από λίγα χρόνια δεν υπήρχαν καθόλου. Τεχνητή νοημοσύνη που μπορεί να συνδυάσει μετεωρολογικές συνθήκες, υγρασία της βλάστησης, τοπογραφία και ιστορικά δεδομένα και να εντοπίζει πού μπορεί να εκδηλωθεί ή να εξαπλωθεί ταχύτερα μια πυρκαγιά.
Δορυφόρους, θερμικές κάμερες, επίγειους αισθητήρες και drones που μπορούν να εντοπίσουν μια εστία πολύ νωρίτερα και να παρακολουθούν το μέτωπο ακόμη και τη νύχτα. Ψηφιακά μοντέλα που μπορούν να βοηθήσουν σε πραγματικό χρόνο στην τοποθέτηση δυνάμεων και στην εκκένωση οικισμών. Αλλά η τεχνολογία από μόνη της δεν είναι αρκετή. Χρειαζόμαστε διαχείριση της καύσιμης ύλης, ενεργά και ανθεκτικά δάση, εκπαιδευμένες τοπικές δυνάμεις, αγρότες και κτηνοτρόφους που παραμένουν στην ύπαιθρο και δήμους με πραγματικούς πόρους και αρμοδιότητες. Βλέπω τα δάση της χώρας μου, της Ελλάδας, να παραμένουν χωρίς διαχείριση και απορώ πότε θα λάβουμε δράση.
Γι' αυτό θα ήθελα και από την ΕΟΚΕ πιο συγκεκριμένες προτάσεις. Πώς μπορούμε να συνδέσουμε την τεχνολογία, την πρόληψη και την τοπική οικονομία σε ένα ενιαίο ευρωπαϊκό μοντέλο; Και θα πρότεινα ακόμη και τη δημιουργία ευρωπαϊκών περιοχών επίδειξης, όπου αυτές οι τεχνολογίες και οι νέες πρακτικές πρόληψης θα δοκιμάζονται μαζί σε πραγματικές συνθήκες υψηλού κινδύνου. Οι καλές πρακτικές από κάθε κράτος μέλος πρέπει επιτέλους να εφαρμοστούν στο σύνολο της Ευρώπης. Η Ευρώπη χρειάζεται όχι απλώς περισσότερα μέσα πυρόσβεσης, αλλά ένα νέο οικοσύστημα πρόληψης και διαχείρισης του κινδύνου πυρκαγιάς.
Σας ευχαριστώ.
Tomáš Kubín
Velice výboru děkuji za toto věcné stanovisko. Souhlasím s jeho základní diagnózou. Ta evropská politika je stále příliš zaměřena na hašení, zatímco skutečná odolnost vzniká ještě před požárem. Ale nejde jen o stanovisko výboru EESC. I doporučení Rady o integrovaném řízení rizika přírodních požárů, které bylo přijato v létě 29. června, propojuje prevenci, připravenost, zásah i obnovu do jednoho balíčku.
Zdůrazňuje taky stejně jako ta zpráva výboru aktivní hospodaření s půdou a lesy, kvalitnější riziková data, včasné varování, přeshraniční spolupráci, čili to není nic nového. Musíme taky ale vzít vážně zvláštní zprávu Evropského účetního dvora, té číslo 16 z roku 2025. Ta zjistila, že evropské prostředky v této oblasti nebyly vždy směrovány do míst s největším rizikem. Některé ty projekty vycházely ze zastaralých rizikových map. Často nebylo zajištěno jejich dlouhodobé financování ani měření skutečných výsledků.
To zásadní, podporujeme opravdu návrh samostatného fondu pro prevenci požárů, který bude striktně oddělen od rozpočtu společné zemědělské politiky. To je určitě naprosto klíčová věc, protože zemědělci tuto evropskou prioritu nemohou financovat ze zdrojů určených na produkci například potravin. Ten nový fond musí podporovat víceleté programy, jejich pravidelnou údržbu, ne jen jednorázové projekty bez měřitelného výsledku. Jsem moc rád, že to stanovisko výboru taky správně pojmenovává význam životaschopného venkova. Pastva, v tomto případě dokonce cílená pastva, obdělávání půdy, aktivní lesní hospodaření nejsou pouhými hospodářskými činnostmi.
Pomáhají vytvářet pestrou krajinnou mozaiku a přerušovat souvislé pásy hořlavé vegetace. Ta doporučení bychom měli ještě odborně zpřesnit, přizpůsobení místním podmínkám a tak dále a tak dále.
Samotný protipožární pás nebo jeho plány ani další letadlo extrémní požáry nezastaví. A moje otázka na závěr není jenom na výbor, to není ani otázka, je to spíš zamyšlení pro všechny spolutvůrce legislativy, jaká by měla být ta správná kritéria pro sestavení toho doporučovaného vyhrazeného rozpočtu tak, aby to zajistilo dlouhodobou údržbu a měřitelné výsledky.
Emmanouil Fragkos
Σας ευχαριστώ. Όλοι μιλούν για πρόληψη των πυρκαγιών, στην πράξη όμως τι συμβαίνει; Στο Πόρτο Γερμενό, μέσα στην έκταση που κατέκαψε η πυρκαγιά του φετινού καλοκαιριού, σχεδιάζονται έξι νέες ανεμογεννήτριες. Δεν μιλάμε για θεωρητικά σχέδια, έχουν ήδη εκδοθεί άδειες, ακόμη και περιβαλλοντική έγκριση. Ακόμη σοβαρότερα, στην ίδια περιοχή λειτουργούν ήδη αιολικά πάρκα και η πρόσφατη πυρκαγιά φέρεται να ξεκίνησε από ηλεκτρικό δίκτυο που εξυπηρετεί την υφιστάμενη αιολική εγκατάσταση.
Δεν μπορεί η Ευρώπη να μιλά για πρόληψη και αποκατάσταση των δασών και μόλις ένα δάσος καεί να ανοίγει ο δρόμος για νέες βιομηχανικές εγκαταστάσεις. Οι καμένες εκτάσεις δεν είναι επενδυτικά οικόπεδα, χρειάζονται αναδάσωση, προστασία και αποκατάσταση. Ζητούμε λοιπόν να μην επιτραπεί η τοποθέτηση καμίας ανεμογεννήτριας σε καμένες εκτάσεις. Σας ευχαριστώ πολύ.
Elsi Katainen
Thank you Chair and thank you Secretary General for your presentation. Unfortunately, we have once again witnessed devastating wildfires across the Union this summer. We in the North have had a more peaceful summer, but if we have learned anything from recent years, situations like this are likely to become more frequent, even in North in the future, and to affect new areas. We must therefore acknowledge the need for preventive actions, as we have heard, as well as sharing best practices and knowledge in the coordinated manner to support local actors in their firefighting efforts. I strongly agree with you that the decline in agricultural activity and the lack of active and sustainable forest management increase the risk and intensity of fires, as there is more combustible material available.
This is why we should invest and encourage forest and land owners to engage in active land management. In Finland, we have a good example of an infrastructure measure that helps combat forest fires: the extensive forest road network. It enables firefighting equipment to reach affected areas more easily and in some cases also helps prevent the spread of forest fires. And in this light, I'd like to ask what actions the Commission will take to better coordinate efforts and facilitate the sharing of knowledge and best practices in combating wildfires? In addition, does the Commission recognize active and sustainable forest management as a crucial part of preventive action against forest fires and as a means of reducing the risk?
Thomas Waitz
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for your presentation. First of all, I want to thank every country in the European Union that has shown solidarity with their neighbors and also highlight that the rescEU concept is working and we need to accelerate and further invest into that concept. I mean, this was an excellent example of European solidarity and I also want to thank everybody, volunteer firefighters, professional firefighters, farmers, citizens that helped together to contain these fires. I'm a bit feeling ashamed how few members are here now in this room while fires have destroyed livelihoods, they have destroyed villages, farms, they have killed animals. I mean, this was one of the worst summers we've ever seen in the European Union and I want to thank every single member that is here and present today in this debate.
Yes, we see certain, well, effects that we have been known, that have been known that they accelerate the danger. Well, I mean, forest fires are, or let's say the forests that are most endangered are conifer monocultures. Well, it is the old system of clear-cuts and replanting monoculture conifers that accelerates the danger for fires. Should we maybe use our European satellites to have some kind of surveillance across the European Union? Should we maybe invest in something called, let me name it, maybe forest monitoring law or so?
Do we change our opinion now that this would be something useful maybe to have? And also, shall we not change our forestry model towards resilient, close-to-nature forestry? You see, I mean, there's no 100% guarantee, but you see that the more resilient forests are the mixed-age, mixed-species, constant-cover forests. This is creating resilience. Should we not maybe invest into further developing our forestry strategies and, especially in the south, there is old concepts of breaking forest fires by meadows, by grazing?
This kind of grazing, this kind of agricultural activity is not paying itself. It is serving a public good and we need to support that with public money so that we have areas that stop the fire in between. We know how prevention works, let's please do it.
Luke Ming Flanagan
Welcome to our committee and thanks for your presentation. One thing that definitely stuck out in what you said was the situation where you have fires breaking out on land owned by people who live nowhere near these areas. And we have big problems in counties and areas like Leitrim in Ireland where massive areas of land are bought up by investors, local people have to leave and people who want to move there have nowhere to move to. We have a situation where even though the regulations in theory prohibit it, we have forestry planted close up to people's dwelling houses and people's lives are in danger. And you think to yourself, I don't know do you know much about Ireland, but maybe you know one thing, it rains an awful lot there.
And there was talk about how wildfires are spreading north. Well, I live in an area where every road you go out there's a wetland. And last year we had horrific scenes of roads on the way into houses burning, luckily no houses were burnt, 5,000 hectares of land in Ireland was burnt last year. And rather than trying to stop it when it happens, we need to put together strategies to make sure it never happens in the first place.
And one of the ways to do that as far as I'm concerned is to put more money into agroforestry, put more money into investing in local people investing in forestry rather than massive funds, international funds, because to me that's not the way to go with it. And from the importance of how important, how important is this topic? It's already been said, this summer was a horror show. And the really scary thing about it is that this is going to become the norm unless we change the way we act as humanity. And one way that we can do that is in how we formulate our policies.
And we're putting together a new common agricultural policy and within the Commission's proposals there's no mention of paying for public goods. I put in an amendment to pay for public goods because there are certain things that need to be done that would prevent a lot of these wildfires if people were paid to produce public goods and paid to produce farming products in a way that actually prevented this happening. But I'll apologize again on behalf of the people of Europe that there is very few MEPs here. You come here and there's no one here and we want to have a look at our own bloody productivity, wouldn't we?
Ivan David
Já se domnívám, že všechno podstatné tady již bylo řečeno. Já bych jenom zdůraznil ta technicko-organizační opatření, která jsou zásadní, včetně toho, že je potřeba měnit strukturu lesů. To samozřejmě záležitost na generace, tak zhruba nějakých sedmdesát osmdesát let, aby se ty tradiční uměle vysázené lesy nahrazovaly lesy smíšenými a místo holosečí takzvaných se provádělo výběrové kácení a dostali jsme se prostě do stavu, jaký býval před staletími, kdy tady byly původní lesy smíšené ve střední Evropě, například bukojedlové. Takže to jsou podmínky, které rozhodně hrají podstatnou roli. Dále je to potřeba včas tedy monitorovat a včas identifikovat lesy.
A otázka obnovy, důležitá je taky ta skutečnost, že přece jenom někde v těch tradičních oblastech letních požárů na jihu Evropy dochází k požárům daleko častěji, na severu jsou sporadické, to neznamená, že by byly méně ničivé. Takže to je opravdu oblast, ve které se, ve které má značný význam celoevropská koordinace a solidarita. A na závěr bych chtěl položit zásadní otázku, když tady bylo hovořeno o tom, že má být zřízen fond zvláště tedy oddělený od SZP, tak jsem nepochopil, zda to má být v rámci SZP, ale vyčleněný fond a nebo mimo SZP, protože ta hasičská aktivita je organizována v rámci integrovaného záchranného systému ministerstvem vnitra a tady hrozí nesmyslná dvoukolejnost.
Veronika Vrecionová
Děkuji. And now catch the eye, first Vice-Chair Sergio Cofferati and you have one minute please.
Eric Sargiacomo
Merci Madame la Présidente. Les feux de forêt ont ravagé le continent européen dans des proportions inédites cet été. En France, plus de 120 000 hectares qui sont partis en fumée, l'équivalent de 171 000 terrains de football. Ma région, la Nouvelle-Aquitaine, et en particulier le massif des Landes, a été particulièrement touchée par ces incendies. Je tiens à saluer le rôle des pompiers volontaires mais aussi professionnels, les agriculteurs, les chasseurs qui ont permis les solidarités et éviter de nombreux drames.
La solidarité européenne a été exemplaire et je remercie encore le mécanisme RescEU d'avoir été efficace. Nous avons même eu des pompiers venant d'Ukraine nous aider. Les feux de forêt sont malheureusement une réalité pour toute l'Union européenne. Nous devons renforcer nos coopérations pour faire ensemble. Je regrette que nous ayons perdu une occasion avec le règlement Forest Monitoring qui a été sabordé par la droite et l'extrême droite, parce qu'il faut le dire, pour ne pas aboutir.
Va-t-on enfin regarder l'avenir en face ? Les feux de forêt, c'est aujourd'hui et c'est notre avenir. Nous devons prendre des moyens. Nous avons besoin de solidarité, de compréhension et des moyens de coordination. Alors j'espère que la Commission remettra un texte en matière de surveillance des forêts dans les prochains mois.
Merci.
Gilles Pennelle
Les incendies de forêts sont des drames considérables, mais nous ne devons pas réduire ce phénomène à la seule question climatique. Le CESE à juste titre a souligné le rôle de l'abandon des terres, du dépeuplement rural, du recul des activités agricoles, pastorales et forestières. On pourrait aussi ajouter, pour des raisons idéologiques, le refus des pare-feux et du stockage de l'eau. Nos agriculteurs ne sont pas le problème, ils sont une partie essentielle de la solution. Une vigne, un champ cultivé, une prairie entretenue ou un troupeau qui pâture permettent de rompre la continuité de la végétation combustible et de ralentir la propagation des incendies.
J'attire votre attention, on va arracher chez moi en France 40 000 hectares de vignes. Par quoi va-t-on la remplacer ? Bien souvent par de la garrigue qui va brûler. Nous soutenons donc le développement, nous, du sylvopastoralisme, des coupe-feux, du débroussaillement, des brûlages dirigés et une gestion réellement active des forêts et le stockage de l'eau. Encore faut-il supprimer les réglementations qui empêchent ces pratiques, les règles relatives à Natura 2000, à la restauration de la nature qui veulent chasser l'homme de la forêt, c'est une folie.
Je terminerai en disant que le CESE a eu le courage de souligner également que la surabondance des prédateurs, notamment les loups et les ours, constitue davantage un problème qu'une solution. On ne peut pas prétendre défendre le pastoralisme tout en laissant les éleveurs seuls face à la prédation.
Daniel Buda
Thank you, vice-chair Buda please.
În primul rând aș dori să mulțumesc pompierilor din România care au fost prezenți în toate statele membre ale Uniunii Europene în această vară, din Franța, Cipru, Bulgaria, Belgia, riscându-și viața. Era și normal să facă acest lucru, însă în același timp, stimați colegi, suntem obligați ca noi să luăm măsuri urgente pentru a putea gestiona eficient această situație. Și Thomas, într-adevăr ai dreptate, trebuie să evaluăm această chestiune a mixării, să spun așa, pădurilor pentru a putea preveni aceste incendii atât cât se poate. Însă, stimați colegi, trebuie să avem în vedere o chestiune foarte importantă legată de ceea ce înseamnă faptul de a avea acces la apă. Pentru că în momentul de față marea problemă pe care o avem la nivelul întregii Uniuni Europene este accesul la apă.
De foarte multe ori, în foarte multe situații, chiar dacă pompierii erau prezenți, nu aveau acces la apă și erau nevoiți să se deplaseze kilometri întregi pentru a putea lua apă cu care să stingă incendiile. Și în acest context cred că Comisia Europeană trebuie să vină cu un plan european de regularizare a râurilor și de a gestiona în mod eficient aceste rezerve de apă și stocarea acestora în așa fel încât ele să fie disponibile atunci când este nevoie. Mulțumesc.
Ana Miranda Paz
Moito obrigada. Agradezo moito o Comité Económico e Social Europeo polo relatorio que coincide plenamente co que nós vimos defendendo na Galiza e no Parlamento Europeo. Vulnerabilidade das zonas rurais, territorios rurais abandonados e a necesidade de políticas forestais en apoio á multifuncionalidade. Evitar monocultivos como o eucalipto, unha gran desgraza que arde moito rápido. Aumento da biodiversidade, dos mosaicos de paisaxes e restaurar, o restauro das zonas queimadas, que é moito necesario e que no meu país non se realizou polo goberno do Partido Popular.
Tamén ter en conta as alteracións climáticas que si están a ter unha influencia porque este verán na Galiza, o meu país, que é un país onde chove, houbo un calor equivalente ao de calquera país do sul con máis temperaturas. Un cambio radical na prevención, na vixilancia e na detección. E por suposto, nós apoiamos a creación dese fondo para a prevención de lumes, de fogos, de incendios forestais, que é unha desgraza e un problema europeo. Moito obrigada.
Mireia Borrás Pabón
Sí, gracias, presidente. Este verano España ha vuelto a arder destruyendo la vida de miles de familias, pero Pedro Sánchez y la izquierda en bloque ya tenía preparada la excusa perfecta antes de que se apagaran las llamas y es el cambio climático. Qué cómodo, ¿verdad? Así nadie va a responder por décadas de abandono y de mala gestión. Por cierto, decirle a la diputada gallega que el país es España, no Galicia.
Más de 250.000 hectáreas forestales han sido quemadas, abrasadas y hasta 42 incendios se han registrado solo antes de terminar agosto. Y sí, es cierto que el fuego necesita calor, pero ¿saben lo que necesita también? Combustible. Y el propio CESE ha reconocido en su dictamen que la falta de rentabilidad del pastoreo, de la agricultura y de la actividad forestal provoca abandono, acumulación de biomasa y aumenta el riesgo y la intensidad de los incendios. Esto es exactamente lo que llevamos años denunciando desde Vox.
Y es que mientras el Pacto Verde multiplica restricciones y burocracia sobre quienes gestionan el territorio, desaparecen agricultores y ganaderos que son nuestros mejores cortafuegos. Es decir, Europa ha desequilibrado su política hacia la extinción en lugar de hacia la prevención. Por eso yo quiero preguntar si cree el CESE que la Comisión Europea está haciendo lo suficiente para corregir este desequilibrio y apoyar de verdad el pastoreo, la gestión forestal y a quienes mantienen vivo el territorio. Muchas gracias.
Katarína Roth Neveďalová
Okey, so, kolegyně Roth Neveďalová.
Ďakujem vám pekne, pani predsedníčka. Ja považujem za dôležité spomenúť ešte jeden element, ktorý tu nezaznel, že časť požiarov, ktoré nás zasiahli v Európe toto leto, boli úmyselne založené požiare, ako napríklad tie okolo Zadaru v Chorvátsku. Ja som sa bola pozrieť aj... Prosím trošku spomaliť kvôli tlmočeniu. Okey, prepáčte.
Že časť požiarov bola naozaj úmyselne založená a ja by som chcela vyzvať, aby sme takéto trestné činy postihovali oveľa prísnejšie, pretože nejde len o postih na materiáli alebo škody na materiáli, ale takisto je ohrozený aj ľudský život. Čo môžeme robiť, je určite lepšia medzinárodná spolupráca. Ja si myslím, že my v Európskej únii máme tú spoluprácu pre hasičov veľmi dobre vytvorenú. Ja som hrdá, že aj slovenskí hasiči chodia pomáhať pri požiaroch a takisto určite viac podporiť vodozádržné opatrenia, ktoré sa môžu vytvárať v oblastiach, kde sú lesy, pretože možno nemôžeme dnes vyklčovať olivové háje v Chorvátsku alebo v Grécku, ale vieme podporiť vytvorenie nejakých umelých jazier alebo rôznych iných opatrení, ktoré môžu pomôcť práve pri sanácii takýchto požiarov.
Ďakujem.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you. And Madam Miranda asked again, but really very briefly.
Ana Miranda Paz
Muy rápido, señora presidenta, por alusión a mi persona y sobre todo al partido político que represento en este Parlamento, que es el Bloque Nacionalista Galego, un partido que tiene su base en Galicia. Yo soy una eurodiputada gallega. Gracias.
Veronika Vrecionová
Y española. Please, please stop. Okay. Thank you. So, let's go back now to the rapporteur of the committee, the region, Mr. Mira, please, you have just now four minutes, please, just really four minutes.
Luís Mira
Muito obrigado, senhora presidente. Queria agradecer as questões e os comentários que os deputados fizeram e queria, enfim, congratular-me primeiro com a unanimidade que é necessário criar um mecanismo europeu para um apoio à prevenção. Foi unânime nas intervenções, como também foi unânime que esse apoio tem que ter um fundo financeiro independente para a prevenção dos fogos. Isto é muito importante e eu pedia ao Parlamento Europeu que, dentro das suas funções, levasse por diante estes dois princípios junto da Comissão e para que no próximo ano fosse uma realidade, no próximo quadro, este mecanismo. Depois, algumas das questões que foram aqui colocadas, que eu vou tentar responder.
O problema dos fogos e da sua dimensão reside naquilo que já aqui referiram, na matéria combustível, nas temperaturas, mas também na rápida deteção e no rápido combate. É que se o fogo quando se inicia é muito fácil de terminar, mas quando um fogo tem quilómetros de extensão, depois ele já é praticamente impossível de combater, por muitos meios aéreos que haja, e ele acaba por só se extinguir quando as condições climatéricas se alteram. E, portanto, este investimento na prevenção tem também que ser coincidente com uma preocupação na deteção e na ação rápida. Outra das questões que foi aqui colocada tem a ver com as ações que poderiam coordenar melhor a nível europeu. Já existe.
Eu, neste relatório, constatei que a Comissão tem muita informação técnica e científica sobre os fogos, através do Copernicus e de unidades especiais que têm. Por vezes são os países que não conseguem absorver essa informação ou não conseguem tratar essa informação de uma forma rápida e ágil. É preciso profissionalizar o combate ao fogo. Há muitos países, incluindo Portugal, que não têm unidades especializadas para combater o fogo. Ele é feito com base nos voluntários, que todos reconhecemos o seu papel, mas muitas vezes a estratégia é salvaguardar as casas e as pessoas e o fogo vai aumentando a sua dimensão porque ele não se combate, tenta-se só proteger os bens.
Este, esta forma de combater os fogos tem que ser alterada e queria aqui também deixar muito claro que os, as características que os fogos têm hoje, a temperatura a que eles são realizados, a velocidade com que avançam devido às alterações climáticas e aos fenómenos climatéricos que a Europa não tinha, mas tem hoje, são verdadeiramente diferentes daquilo que existia há 15 ou 20 anos. Penso que em muitos casos já nem o mosaico florestal nem as, os métodos que usámos até aqui são suficientes para parar este tipo de novos fenómenos ligados aos fogos com intensidades nunca vistas e com velocidades de avanço nunca vistas. Isto já se está a viver com estas características no sul da Europa, mas vai também chegar às restantes zonas. Não são incêndios como sempre conhecemos, são incêndios muito mais fortes e muito mais rápidos. Para terminar, queria só dizer que esta ação na floresta que também foi aqui muito referida e também como foi referida demora anos.
E em muitos países a maioria da floresta ou praticamente toda é privada, não é pública, o que dificulta ainda mais toda esta atuação e portanto fica aqui uma, uma área que em que é difícil atuar. O agricultor e a atividade agrícola são determinantes e eu acho que isso também foi uma conclusão de todas as intervenções. Muito obrigado.
Veronika Vrecionová
Thank you very much and I would like to ask also Mr. Schultes from DG AGRI, you have also four minutes.
Gijs Schilthuis
Thank you very much. First of all, thank you to the European Economic and Social Committee rapporteur, Mr. Mira, thank you for your interesting report and contribution and thanks for scheduling this debate right at this moment when climate change and droughts are increasing both in frequency and severity the wildfires in Europe. In 2022, over 1 million hectares burned in the EU, worst year on record and this year, as many of you have referred, we have a very severe situation with more than 600,000 hectares already burned, over twice the 20-year average. And I'd like to express also solidarity with all those affected but also with all those working to fight these fires. The Commission's recent communication on integrated wildfire risk management highlights the role of farmers, foresters and also the common agricultural policy in reducing wildfire risk through sustainable land management.
The EU acts before, during and after the wildfires. The before part, we support prevention and preparedness through more than 20 billion in CAP, cohesion policy and recovery and resilience facility funding for disaster risk management, landscape resilience, nature restoration and community protection. And I'd like to underline also in line of the debate this morning the multifunctional role of this funding, economic of course, but also social, environmental and contributing to wildfire risk management. When the fire occur, fires occur, the Commission can reinforce the national response through the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. Commissioner Lahbib was in the Environment Committee earlier this week and also discussed this very topic.
Satellite maps providing viable data. After fires, EU instruments support recovery, repair, and restoration, including through the EU Solidarity Fund, the Common Agricultural Policy, and where available, cohesion policy support. The CAP funds restoration of agricultural and forestry production potential after disasters, and also I'd like to mention the role that the Nature Restoration Regulation provides in providing a framework for restoration and planning needs. I think it's important to respond specifically here to the question of Ms. Katainen on the work that is being done on improving coordination and communication. I think it's important to highlight that many actions in this area are listed in our communication of earlier this year, including improving further the EU Forest Fire Information System, exchanges of firefighters across Europe, and promoting of collaboration between stakeholders, twinning activities, all that to ensure better education and training, also something that you referred to, Mr. Mira, in your response just now.
And also, of course, one of the actions is the establishment of a firefighting hub in Cyprus. I'd like to highlight the role of the CAP to reduce wildfire risk through land management measures. I think it's very important to underline that these multifunctional role of land management measures, grazing to control vegetation, mosaic landscapes, agroforestry, also mentioned this morning, permanent crops, firebreaks, forest restoration, and forest roads for prevention and emergency access. Around 1 billion for forest prevention and restoration, 4.2 for forest management are already what we note from the expenditure and the planning. Finally, if you allow me, I would like to just briefly respond to some of the elements in the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee.
We welcome the support for the integrated wildfire risk management that the committee calls for, as well as for ensuring it's properly sourced and resourced. Wildfires cause all these damages that we really need to help prevent, and that is why the Commission supports the Member States in strengthening their national wildfire risk management activities and welcomes also the recent Council recommendation on this issue. I think specifically on the proposal for a separate wildfire prevention fund outside the Common Agricultural Policy, as you know, we have tried to reduce the number of funds and the different funding schemes in the future MFF proposal. So therefore, we consider that prevention funding can and should be strengthened through the new national and regional partnership plans, including, of course, CAP support for prevention and restoration. We agree that rural depopulation, land abandonment, and low profitability in farming and forestry increase wildfire risk, and therefore underline also the role of the CAP in the prevention activities also in the future, and would also like to highlight bioeconomy strategy activities that also have a very important role in ensuring active land management.
Finally, I'd like to recall that EU rules do not prevent necessary prevention and risk reduction measures in fire-prone areas. In fact, the Commission's recent Natura 2000 guidance supports tools such as grazing, prescribed burning, and thinning in line with conservation objectives. And with that, thank you very much for your attention.
Veronika Vrecionová
So, I would like in the end thanks really a lot to rapporteur Mira and also Mr. Schultze, and of course all our members for this very important discussion, and I'm afraid that we will continue in some in future. So, and let's go now to the our last item of today meeting, and it's my reporting back on the mission to Azores Island from 20 to 22 July.
I had pleasure to chairing the AGRI mission to Portugal, precisely to São Miguel Island and Terceira Island. Nine members participated in the mission, two of them were local members. Thanks to excellent organization of our Portuguese colleague, whom I would like to thanks really a lot, we had the opportunity to visit local farms and plantations to learn about the region's high standard of animal welfare, pasture-based production and sustainable cultivation method, and also met with the authorities of the region of government of the Azores Island and other political representatives as well as with the farmers' organizations and academics. Discussion focused on the importance of agriculture to the Azorean economy as well as on the higher production costs resulting from the island's insularity and remoteness. MEPs and local representatives agreed that tailored European policies and funding, such as the EU program like for example POSEI, continue to play a vital role in the island's economy.
Our visit underscored the European Parliament's commitment to listening directly to farmers and regional stakeholders and to developing policies that strengthen food security and sustainable rural development across all regions of the EU. Europe's strength lies in its diversity and the Azores are an integral part of our Union that deserve our continued support. We will reflect this commitment in our negotiation of the future MFF and CAP as well. For me, the mission was really success, not only it gave a valuable opportunity to see European agriculture in practice in a unique island setting, but also to gain a better understanding of how the design of the future agriculture policy in the EU budget will affect the outermost regions, which operate under very different conditions from agriculture on the mainland and face a distinct set of challenges when it comes to sustainability, competitiveness and resilience. I would like once again express my thanks to our two Portuguese colleague, Paulo do Nascimento Cabral and André Rodrigues.
And I would like also to really thanks a lot to our secretariat and of course all interpreters and technical staff who help to organize this mission. And now I would like to give the floor to Paulo do Nascimento Cabral, who is remotely with us today.
Paulo do Nascimento Cabral
Thank you, Chair, very brief intervention, just to thank you a lot, your words and your amazing conclusion. I think it's a really accurate evaluation of this mission. I want also to add that we had this major reference to the program, POSEI program, that is essential for our outermost regions.
And also the good spirit that we had on this mission. And when we speak about the outermost regions on the committee, I think it was a good opportunity for all the colleagues to understand in practice what we mean and what we refer. And finally, just add my voice to yours, President, to thank all the organizers, our teams of our cabinets, but also especially to Mauro and the secretariat for the excellent work and excellent organization. I think it went very, very well. And at the end, POSEI program, the constraints of the outermost regions were very clear and very exposed, very easily exposed to all the members that participated in the mission.
So thank you a lot for participating, you, all the other colleagues, but also for your conclusions. Thank you so much.
Veronika Vrecionová
Okay. Thank you, Paulo. Thank you and lot of regards to Azores island. So, we are really at the end and just would like to ask, I have last item is any other business. I don't see anybody and I just at the end would like to inform you that our next meeting will be 28th September here in Brussels.
Have a nice day. Thank you. Thank you very much. That's yours now.