Speeches

Since mid-2021, the EU has experienced an increase in energy prices. Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, energy prices have reached record levels. Disruptions in Russian gas supply to the EU confirm that gas is being used as a weapon. Gas prices have a direct impact on electricity prices because part of the electricity is generated from natural gas. Energy prices are the main component of inflation. This is affecting the purchasing power of EU consumers, especially the most vulnerable, as well as SMEs and industries. The European Union is working to reduce its high energy dependence on Russia and tackle rising energy prices. In this sense, the Socialists were the first to demand strong and coordinated measures at European level, to make proposals to tackle high energy prices, ensure supply and protect consumers, especially the most vulnerable. In the face of market disruption, we must limit prices and reverse the unexpected benefits of this crisis on citizens.

Commissioner, you spoke very well. He deserves to be the Socialists' candidate for the next elections. Ladies and gentlemen, the Plant Health Law has been fully applied since 2019. Today we are going to approve a series of technical amendments aimed at speeding up the operation in order to maintain a high level of phytosanitary protection throughout the territory of the European Union. These changes are necessary due to the experience that 2019 has in plant health, plant health, also very important. It is true that we have not agreed with the Commission on the creation of the emergency team which we consider essential, as is the case with animal health. In conclusion, I would just like to say that it is very important that we approve this improvement because everything that results in plant health will be better for our future diet. I therefore ask for everyone's maximum approval and I thank all the political groups for the efforts to carry out this initiative and that we have approved the reform of the CAP as well.

Mr President, Commissioner, representatives of the Council, we are at the end of the parliamentary term and it is good to make an assessment of how one of the most important issues and programmes has gone: the European Green Deal. I think it's good to do that reflection: what has happened and what we have failed at. In some things it has gone better and in others worse. I believe that standing up against the fight against climate change or zero neutrality is a real mistake. We should therefore all support these proposals for the most part. But, perhaps, some issues have not been done properly. For the necessary green transition and the ambitious targets we have set ourselves in the European Union, further work is needed. But we must take the industrial, agricultural and fishing sectors by the hand, and explain to them the need for changes, help them in these changes and, of course, see them as necessary. All of them must be told that this afternoon we have a necessary reform of the CAP. It's simplification. Climate targets are not subtracted. Please, that neither the radical right – with its non-presence – nor the greens – with their radicalism – misrepresent objectives that are a priority for all Europeans, including the agricultural, fisheries and industrial sectors. But you have to go hand in hand.

Mr President, Commissioner Ferreira, I thank you for your participation, but, without despising it, Mrs Kyriakides, who is missing, is certainly missed. We do not even expect Commissioner Wojciechowski because he is not usually in any debate, neither agricultural nor livestock. But, well, we have Mrs. Ferreira, whose work I respect very much. I think it is a timely debate. The only revision that is coming from animal welfare is the one referring to transport and domestic animals, to the transport of dogs and cats. It reaches the very end and therefore will not lead to approval in this legislature and will be pending for the next one. I firmly believe that this whole debate should be carried over to the next parliamentary term because we are not properly obliging the Member States to enforce the current rules. And, therefore, the revision of animal welfare standards is not so urgent or necessary, in my opinion. I agree with harmonisation, how can I not agree? But I'm Spanish and Andalusian. And when it comes to limiting transportation and temperatures, I feel aggrieved. I feel aggrieved. Because, of course, it is not the same to be in one place than to be in another, to be periphery. And my country and my region are periphery in the transport of people and also in the transport of animals. And the temperatures are fine, but also for people. Therefore, in the evaluation of this legislation – to which we will have to go little by little, and I do not deny it at all: I believe that all aspects of welfare, including animal welfare, need to be improved step by step. And the social, economic and environmental impacts must be assessed. And we must also take into account how European livestock and livestock sectors are doing. And they're not well. We have opened a dialogue with them: take advantage of dialogue before making decisions on animal welfare legislation. Let us respect European farmers too and listen to them, because maybe they will give us ideas to improve this situation.

Madam President, Commissioner Johansson, I am going to start with something that you have said and on which I very much agree: Food should not be a weapon of war. That's right. I agree with that. Those of us who work on agricultural issues always say: do not use us in trade policy, do not use us as a weapon of war. Therefore, we should not do the same, even if it is Russia, whoever it is. It's an important issue for me. Sanctions on Russia, which we have already imposed on all of them, are fine, and I believe that this is the way forward and that the passage has been twisted as far as possible. The problem is that the war continues, that it is a threat not only in Ukraine, of course, that it is suffering from it, but that it is a threat to everyone. But I do not see so clearly the need to impose sanctions on imports of food and agricultural products. First, I do not think it is right to use the agri-food sector either as a weapon of war or as a weapon of trade policy. And, in addition, exports, for example, of cereals to the European Union account for 3%. My country, Spain – a net importer of cereals – only imports 1%. Most come from Ukraine and not Russia. Therefore, we do not see it. Yes, the second part of the title of the declaration is important in this debate – at least for my political group: ensuring the stability of agricultural production in the Union. That's what's important. So, to finish, I want to ask you something. We agree on sanctions against Russia and on doing everything possible, united, to end this Russian invasion of Ukraine. But let's not use food and let's not use these instruments that would lead us to nothing. And, of course, we must avoid that distortion that Russia wants to make, that food security is not guaranteed. The European Union is the site of the greatest guarantee of food safety. Let us therefore focus on that stability of agricultural production.

Madam President, I join in the complaints about the lack of the Council in this debate. I believe that this is not a respect for this Parliament and I would therefore like to see it conveyed to you that it should be because we want to hear the Council in this debate. The Commission has expressed its action. What I mean here is that, indeed, the high protection of the wolf has had results, and they are good. Well, I heard here they're not that good. That is, the wolf's results are good. Those who are not so good are those of small ruminants. Those aren't that good. I mean the sheep and goats of our livestock. I'm from Spain and, especially in the north, on the Cantabrian ledge, it's a real problem right now. It's a problem. What I don't know is why you don't see, why you don't want to see. Animalists are concerned about some animals, but not others. I therefore defend the position of farmers and believe that the Commission's proposal to lower protection is reasonable. I think it would be an element, of course, that they would welcome well in the livestock sector, which by the way is protesting all these days in the street and something we should listen to.

Mr President, Commissioner McGuinness, first of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague Paolo De Castro, and all the shadow rapporteurs, on the good work that has been done. As he said, it is one of the satisfactions that we can give to the agricultural sector for all the work that has been done, and I believe it too. This regulation modernises the regulation on geographical indications, as last amended two years ago, and with this we achieve a further modernisation of the legal framework. We are talking about the designations of origin, protected geographical indications or traditional specialities guaranteed that are allowing the agri-food sector – not only the producer, but also the industrial sector, the food chain – to produce and market products of recognised quality within and outside the European Union, which is the great value that has been achieved after making it an essential element of each and every trade agreement that is negotiated by the European Union with third countries. Therefore, an exceptional quality recognised inside and outside the European Union. The estimated economic value of these quality specialties is EUR 80 billion, and I am very proud that my country accounts for 10% of that high value. We are talking about an important economic, social and territorial policy. Not only economic, but social and territorial, hence its weight. I also find it very satisfying that EUIPO does not have the weight that some wanted. I think it should be in DG AGRI and I will continue to advocate for this to happen. Finally, for that reason, it seemed to me to be a magnificent result and I think that it should continue to be managed politically through the Directorate-General for Agriculture. So congratulations to all of you. It is a great success for the food chain sector.

Madam President, I would like to mark the opinion of my group, the S&D Group, and tell Mrs Roose that we are not opposed to the debate. We believe that an animal welfare debate may be fine and necessary before the end of the legislature. What we ask is that this be in the month of March. We are therefore opposed to the debate today and ask the representative of the Greens/EFA Group to accept that we will discuss this proposal in March.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President, colleagues, we are facing a crisis situation in agriculture. Farmers and ranchers are on the street and what they are asking is to be heard and to discuss with them properly. They also have a sense that what they bring to society is not sufficiently valued: healthy, safe and quality food, as well as environmental sustainability and territorial cohesion in rural areas. Now let's see what the real problem of farmers is, because we have a real European problem and then there are national problems. The first is the price of Spanish tomato – very good, by the way, despite what some French people say –: for 5 euros per kilo I buy as a consumer. How much do my farmers in Motril charge? 70 cents. That's the problem. That's the problem: the price received by farmers. The problem is high production costs and unfair competition from third-country products. That is the problem, not only the green agenda, which surely has not been adequately explained, which surely needs more debate, but above all there is a lot of responsibility on the part of the whole Commission. The PP mentions Timmermans, Ursula von der Leyen and the commissioner of the extreme right where are they? Look for them and see where they are.

Mr President, Commissioner, the water crisis and drought in the European Union is not something new. Over the past three decades, 30% of the European Union's population has been affected by water scarcity. 30% of the whole of Europe. The situation is only getting worse. Ladies and gentlemen, each person needs two litres of water to meet his or her vital needs and 3,000 litres of water to feed himself or herself. That's the reality. Irrigation is therefore essential in agriculture and I claim it. I am from the south of Spain, from Andalusia, where it is having a great incidence. Irrigation is necessary, but perhaps with another model of water circularity. Spain is one of the most affected countries. The scarcity of water resources threatens not only agriculture, but the energy sector. We already need a fundamental change in policies. Commissioner, you announced this water resilience strategy to us in March. We need immediate action now for the next few years. We cannot give up farming in my country.

Madam President, Commissioner, it is a pity that the Belgian Presidency is not present. Maybe he doesn't have much interest in this topic. I do. These new genomic techniques are innovative tools that will make it possible to more effectively develop improved plant varieties that can be climate-resilient and pest-resistant, which will require fewer fertilisers and pesticides and/or ensure higher yields. This proposal only concerns plants produced by targeted mutagenesis and cisgenesis and their food and feed products. In no case are they transgenic, although advertising wants to match them. With these production techniques, farmers will benefit from an increased availability of plants adapted to the needs of the sector in terms of climate resilience. Therefore, we need a new specific regulation that distinguishes these new genomic techniques. There are two proposed categories: category 1, equivalent to conventional production, and category 2, for which the Commission itself sets stricter requirements adapted to the specificity. On the application of organic production, I respect the decision of the majority represented in the organizations of the sector. I respect her, I don't share her, but I respect her. I therefore agree with the exclusion of organic production from this regulation. I agree with the Commission's prudent and conservative proposal and with most of the proposals of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, with the exception of Amendment No 84, on which I invite you to vote against. I also agree with the proposals of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. Innovation for sustainability at the disposal of our European farmers is therefore what we should all want, and it is what I want.

Mr President, with this report we are transposing the recommendations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, known as ICCAT, into European legislation, thanks to a great consensus with the Council and with all the groups in this Parliament. We have updated the rules as much as possible, so that the EU fishing fleet will have the same conditions and measures that apply to the fleet of third countries operating in this area. We have included, among others, new rules for improving data collection and restrictions and prohibitions for recreational fisheries, together with rules for the carry-over of bluefin tuna quotas. Ladies and gentlemen, the fisheries sector has been in a difficult situation since the pandemic, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine and now with the widespread rise in food prices in Europe. I would like to call for clear support for this sector, which is facing harsh conditions, as are farmers, in order to be able to make food of the highest quality available to us. Fish is also the animal protein with the lowest carbon footprint, which meets the highest standards of health and environmental protection. I want, from here, to recognize this hard profession, which brings so much to all of us and which is rarely given visibility. Thank you to all European fishermen for all your efforts on behalf of this Parliament.

Mr President, Commissioner, this regulation on the common organisation of the markets (CMO) in fishery and aquaculture products introduced some fundamental changes in 2013, which were very important. I would like to congratulate Mrs Bilbao on the work that all the groups have been able to do with her and on the result obtained. What is the purpose of this report? This report aims to improve the implementation of some aspects of the 2013 Regulation; especially, for example, with a greater effort to ensure information to consumers. You said it, Commissioner, we need to improve that information, including traceability, which I hope the new Fisheries Control Regulation will help a lot, more transparency in the market and promotion campaigns. Finally, I would like to refer to the crisis reserve included in the proposal. You have said that we have already observed the crisis and I want you to observe it and have instruments - that is the proposal - to act in times of crisis. The CAP includes the crisis reserve. Study it for the future of this reform.

Mr President, Commissioner, I have to tell you that on this European Union Action Plan your whole presentation has been very unfortunate, and the sector has not understood the Plan. I do not say that it is a bad Plan, in general terms, although it has aspects that I do not like. I believe that, when an action plan is presented, since we are talking about a political document, not a normative one, which seeks some momentous changes, beyond the common fisheries policy, it must be explained very well and the sector has to understand it, because otherwise it will be very difficult to implement. An effort must therefore be made to explain these issues. This has become a pimpampum against trawling, which is bad. I am not against everything related to trawling, because not everything is the same, and those trawling systems are also being corrected. Therefore, it cannot be equalized and cannot be attacked with that belligerence. These are the regrettable aspects of this Action Plan, which I believe will remain in nothing because of the unfortunateness of its presentation and its transfer to the media and society.

Mr President, I think this is a good report and I would like to congratulate Mr Mato, Mrs Avram and the other shadow rapporteurs on this, in order to reflect on the need for a reform of the common fisheries policy in some respects. For example, I think one of the aspects is that environmental policy and all environmental aspects, but not social and economic aspects, have developed significantly - and I agree - and we cannot leave them behind. The three pillars are fundamental; the fleet needs to be modernised, the energy transition needs to be addressed and the CFP also needs to be prepared for this. But I also believe that there is a need for a better definition of small-scale fishing. We are not right in our support for small-scale fishing; Among other things, because we need a more concrete and more effective definition than we have right now. Nor has it helped us to strengthen aquaculture. It is true that it falls within the competence of the Member States, but we can do more. I believe that this reform is necessary.

Mr President, I want, above all, in these first words, to thank all civil society, especially Galician, for the effort it is making to collect and dispose of waste on the beaches of Galicia. Galician civil society is proving to be up to the task, well above even this debate. Ladies and gentlemen, let us leave the Galician fishing industry alone. It is a professional sector that does its job well. Let's not mix one thing with another. Let us hope, Commissioner, and you have said it well, that this new environmental disaster will serve to take effective European prevention measures to prevent further discharges and the environmental damage caused by these microplastics. Let us learn the lesson of this tremendous situation. But first of all we must act. And that is where the Galician Government is being measured, which is demonstrating great negligence. Environmental impact must be avoided. It is essential to take action and clean up and then seek responsibilities. And, ladies and gentlemen, let me say that it is unheard of that the Spanish, European PP and the extreme right, which has long since left, are concerned that we bring this debate here because there are elections. If they bring all the garbage they generate in Spain to do the debates here and criticize Pedro Sánchez... What a tough face. Gentlemen climate change deniers, the best example: the Spanish PP. They don't have credit.

Mr President, first of all I wanted to highlight the important role of farmers in guaranteeing us all healthy and quality food. The European agricultural sector – that is why this debate is taking place – is considered to be undervalued and underprotected despite the CAP, which is constantly under review, is constantly questioned and has an increasingly low budget as inflation is not taken into account. So the agricultural sector is considered undervalued and sometimes attacked. Therefore, the CAP does not adequately or sufficiently protect, even if it is functioning. But it is, I say, in permanent review. In addition, there are imports from third countries, drought and all these issues... We see how food prices are getting higher, but they do not affect the price that farmers perceive. And we are not explaining our green policies well, we must make a consensus effort with farmers if we want to carry them out. They are essential in the fight against climate change, but not in front of farmers. And that neither the right nor the greens use them, who are using them strategically to attack them and use them in the next elections.

Mr President, we are certainly in a very important debate. We all share the reduction targets. This is essential, and in this Europe must be at the forefront. But we must reconcile the ambition of very ambitious objectives with the reality of those European companies that, for years, have been investing in innovation and research, betting on recycling. This can't be a penalty now. That is, now the objectives are identified with reuse, but recycling in a high percentage must also be valued. Another important issue for the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development: let us seek consensus and support some improvements that this report brings to the food chain – which are essential – through the amendments tabled. What are these amendments looking for? Reducing packaging waste while maintaining food safety; traceability of products by knowing their origin and provenance; and the prevention of food waste. Sometimes packaging helps us do this.

Madam President, Commissioner, trade policy undoubtedly had to change in the European Union, also because of the demands of the Farm to Fork Strategy. This agreement with New Zealand is a good example of how trade policy, which now requires compliance with social and environmental standards, is changing. New Zealand is a similar country with rules similar to those of the European Union. But I do not want to fail to mention - even if I support this agreement - very sensitive agricultural sectors, such as sheepmeat. Interestingly, there is an increase of 40 000 tonnes in sheepmeat when it is one of the most sensitive and endangered sectors in the European Union. In addition, it is an extensive livestock necessary for rural areas and to take care of the environment. Sometimes a sector is small and this is ignored. Even if we agree with the change in trade policy, let us not ignore small productions and sheepmeat farmers. I wanted to be your voice here today.

Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to thank all the rapporteurs of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the technical teams for all the work done in our Committee. We have just heard from the ENVI rapporteur, Mrs Wiener, and I recognise that the report that has come to this plenary today is not the one that you presented, as it hardened and raised the European Commission's proposal. However, in my opinion, the proposal we are debating here today remains a problem for European agriculture – as the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has stated – if it were the one that received the majority support. I have said it repeatedly and I will repeat it for the equivocations: Of course I agree with the reduction of chemical plant protection products over time, but this step cannot be taken without offering agronomically effective alternatives and thus being able to combat pests and plant health, an essential element in food safety. That is why we have tabled Amendment 685, signed by Members from four political groups, which calls for 2035 to be set as the date of application, as time must be allowed for these new alternatives to arrive and be authorised. On the other hand, I would like to tell you that the Commission, in its proposal for calculating the reduction per Member State, raises many problems - and you know that. We therefore propose in Amendment No 686 to set a mandatory minimum rate of 35% per Member State. Of course, it is also very important to respect the use of phytosanitary products in sensitive areas, but it must be considered according to the area in question. Amendment 687 therefore divides these areas and, above all, says that, in Natura 2000 sites, where there are large agricultural areas in most Member States, categories one and two, organic farming and biocontrol, must be allowed. On the other hand, and I finish: funding. The CAP cannot do anything, especially after a drastic reform. It cannot be used as an instrument for all the regulations that come out. That is why we have removed Article 43 from the proposal. Finally, we have to guarantee the supply of food, and with this proposal it is not guaranteed. I encourage you to support this amendment.

Mr President, there is no doubt that the replacement and ageing of our farmers is a verifiable fact - we have analysed it on many occasions - and this has an obvious consequence in the depopulation of rural areas. Therefore, we must be concerned. The situation is not the same in all Member States. In my country it is worrying: there is no adequate generational renewal. But it is uneven across Member States. The demographic challenge is most pronounced in rural areas. We have before us a good report from the Committee on Agriculture, whose rapporteur, Isabel Carvalhais, has done a great job together with the other shadow rapporteurs. I think it is a great opportunity to take advantage of this report, together with the long-term vision of the Commission and the European Rural Pact, to address this closely linked issue, of course. The report recognizes the main barriers associated with access to agricultural activity. First, access to land. It is absolutely impossible and I know it well in my country for a young man to access land unless his father is already a farmer and has land, if not, it is absolutely impossible. So, here's a good chance. The initiative of a farmland observatory can become a great opportunity. Also, access to finance, much more difficult for young people. They must be given easier access to markets and also benefit from and promote cooperativism. Or access to information and fair remuneration in agriculture. We must recognize the complex nature of this very complex activity. It is not easy, you know, Commissioner - you said it - but we need to improve and the CAP has contributed in part. But aspects of the CAP need to be improved. Definitely. Farm-related subsidies are making us subsidise many people who are pensioners with the CAP. And, if pensions are low in some countries, this is not the window, that of agricultural policy. Therefore, important changes need to be made and we need political action so that young people, and especially women, can join agriculture. And it is not a sectoral policy, it is a horizontal policy.

Madam President, Commissioner, Parliament has repeatedly called for a European strategy to promote the production of protein and legumes in the European Union. We are deficient in the production of vegetable protein, especially, and we have dragged for decades this deficit that forces us to import from third countries, probably even products that we do not want to import. I would like to congratulate the rapporteur for the report adopted by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and all the shadow rapporteurs, in particular Maria Noichl, for the work that has been done. I think the report is good and complete. It is not exactly, perhaps, what I would like, but I do think it is a good report that we can adopt here today to address and take into account plant and animal proteins, which are important in my opinion, and thus recognize the complementary role of both origins: the vegetable and the animal. For me, both origins are important. In addition, as already announced, the Commission is planning a review. It was urgent. Well is what ends well. Probably, the debate will already take place in the next legislature, because in the next quarter it will not give us time, but, well, that's fine. For the development of plant proteins, the report also invites Member States to develop these specific regimes. We talk a lot about extensive livestock farming, but we don't support it enough. We therefore need greater support. Finally, we also need to amend the Regulation on feed additives. For me, it's important to have regulation for NGTs.

Mr President, Commissioner, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, I, who come from a country like Spain, and from an autonomous community like Andalusia, where drought cycles are not new - they are certainly much shorter now, of course, because climate change is no joke - know very well where there are some important mistakes that should be corrected. I think the Commission's rules are fine, but they are insufficient, Commissioner. We have to be braver. Of course, measures that are already in the European Green Deal need to be taken. But a European water strategy needs to be defined. It requires globality at European level, and Member States can do much more. Prioritizing investments in water is essential. We've done a lot of AVE, we've built schools, we've built a lot of public facilities. But we need to make more public contributions to water infrastructure. Not enough has been done there. Some changes need to be made. Now is the time.

Madam President, today is World Food Day. It is an important day and - I think in everyone's spirit - I would like to emphasise that the fisheries and aquaculture sector is strategic for the European Union. On this day, I want to acknowledge on behalf of all your daily work and effort to offer us fresh and healthy fishery and aquaculture products. I repeat, I thank all the rapporteurs, because everyone, although it seems that some do not, has contributed at some point to improving this agreement. Without everyone's effort it would not have been possible. Of course, thanks also to the technical teams of the groups and to Parliament. But I have to recognize very especially two people who have worked directly with me: Rogério Ribeiro and Marisa Sevilla. Without his work, it wouldn't have been possible. I thank the Slovak, French, Czech and Swedish Presidencies for their work. And, of course, to the European Commission. And I want to say one thing: there are no ID representatives, who have been very critical – including Mr Pimenta – of cameras or remote surveillance systems. I mean that this will only be mandatory for the fleet of 18 metres in length or more, which in Italy – they are not present here – accounts for 3%. These systems will focus only on where fishing is extracted; They are not going to be, obviously, so that all the activity that is carried out on a boat can be monitored. Let us not deceive the sector, because if they hear this from MEPs - Italians, Swedish or Greeks - they would be worried. So let's not fool people. Thank you all very much. And, although some groups do not recognize it, of course we have shown a special sensitivity with artisanal fishing.

Madam President, Commissioner Hahn, it took five years and more than 600 hours of interinstitutional negotiations to reach this fisheries control agreement, but I believe that we have reached the best possible agreement, an agreement that is balanced and that will succeed in meeting the objectives that this reform had set. The new system is simpler and more effective and ensures compliance with the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy in a harmonised way. I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs from all the political groups because they have all contributed positively to reaching these agreements. The reform of EU fisheries control amends six regulations. We start with five regulations: the Fisheries Control Regulation, the Regulation on the European Fisheries Control Agency, the Regulation on the Community system to eliminate illegal fishing, the Regulation on the multiannual plan for cod stocks in the Baltic Sea and the Regulation on management measures for the sustainable exploitation of fishery resources in the Mediterranean Sea. The Regulation on the sustainable management of fishing fleets has been added – six regulations in one. I would like to highlight some significant aspects of the agreements. With this regulation, the entire fishing sector will be incorporated into digitalization. All documentation related to fishery and aquaculture products must be available digitally. Another important agreement is that the fisheries sector will have four years from the entry into force to incorporate all the technological innovations that this reform will carry out. Some of these changes involve very important changes, but they are necessary. Traceability is a very essential element. In this area, I would like to recall and highlight in particular the work of Mrs Bilbao because, nevertheless, we have achieved, perhaps not immediacy, but traceability for all fishery and aquaculture products: fresh and frozen fish, and also processed fish. Although this has a period of five years for entry into force. The fight against illegal fishing is also a very important issue for the European Union. Improvements such as the harmonisation of import controls have been incorporated to reduce the possibilities of fraudulent imports, also alleviating the administrative burden. At least that is the will of the Member States. As for the cameras on board, it is, without a doubt, the most mediatic and probably the most controversial issue of this reform, the most collected in the media. I believe that the agreement reached is balanced. Initially, something much larger was proposed, but the obligation will affect only those vessels over 18 metres in length that may pose a high risk of non-compliance. These vessels shall have these on-board remote electronic surveillance systems, including closed-circuit television. Of course, the use of it is very limited and with all the safeguards that data protection requires. There will also be positive discrimination for small-scale or artisanal fisheries. More flexibility shall be given to vessels of less than 18 metres in length in each and every section. Such positive discrimination was in high demand from all groups. The margin of tolerance is in the total quantity recorded, not by species; It remains at 10%. The general character is maintained. There are some exceptions that I think are fair in pelagics, in industrial fishing or in tropical tuna, but they are exceptions. We have introduced, although not as much as we would like, recreational fishing, which will have an obligation to record and report catches. For the first time, the control of commercial fishing without a vessel is regulated at European level. All catches must be reported electronically. Although there will be an exception: the Galician exception, for which so much was fought too. I would also like to highlight and thank the work done by Francisco José Millán Mon and other Members. I insist that it is an agreement that has cost a lot, but I believe that it is fair, balanced and will be effective.