Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, this is the glyphosate debate. I believe that no herbicide in the world has had so many hours of debate in this chamber or so many hours of study or been so scientifically endorsed. It is the most studied and the most debated in this House. Therefore, when I listen to some people, I see that this question is for them as a dogma, because they speak specifically of this herbicide and not of others. I do not believe in dogmas of faith: I believe in science and I believe in research. That's my basis for decision-making. And we see that the conclusions of the European Food Safety Agency - and we will go wrong if we do not trust it - have not identified critical areas of concern in the assessment of the risks of glyphosate, as an active substance, to human health, animals and the environment. But, as some previous respondents have said, there are also conclusions that indicate that there are some data gaps. Obviously, we are talking about a chemical with important effects. There are some data gaps, which according to the Commission and EFSA itself, can be addressed through risk mitigation measures. I have confidence in the European system of regulation of active phytosanitary substances. I think it is the most secure and strict system in the world and therefore I think the Commission's proposal - which we will see where it is - is reasonable. It is again an authorization, in this case for ten years, but it is reasonable and is protected, above all, in exhaustive studies and, of course, in detailed analysis (and hours of debate and we will not talk). It should also be noted that in sustainable farming systems, such as conservation or regenerative agriculture, the use of glyphosate is essential. But in any case, if there is sufficient scientific clarity, I have confidence in the European institutions and will have confidence in the Commission's proposal.

Mr President, Commissioner McGuinness, I think that, obviously, after the resolution and the debate we already had last year, it is good that the European Commission is moving tab and is really worrying about the current situation. I think the protection of the wolf has been a success. There's strong growth and that's fine. Because of that protection there was a risk. But now some issues need to be corrected. You, the Commission, have asked the States for information on the situation of the wolf. But there are problems with larger carnivores: the bear problem in some parts of Spain and also in Romania. So, don't forget the rest of the other big predators. We are concerned about extensive livestock farming. The wolf undertakes and attacks, especially extensive livestock, which generates more biodiversity, that of small ruminants, sheep and goats. Therefore, something has to be done and it has to be continued. Well is what the Commission is promoting and the option is not to stand idly by. Good co-existence must be achieved, but taking into account the problem of farmers.

Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to recall what we are talking about – I say this because of the speeches that have been heard here so far –: We are fighting and helping Ukraine against the Russian invasion. Question 1. And we give him guns. And, in addition, we need cereals and grain to reach the rest of the world and a part of Europe, including my country, Spain, which also needs that grain. And many other countries. So, let's not forget. I understand that you, in Poland, have elections on October 15. That's not my problem. I am also grateful for the Commissioner's position, which has been clear and transparent, and that is what I ask him to remain in a clear and transparent position. And the important thing is that grain and cereals leave Ukraine and we help them. I do not want to harm farmers, neither Poles, nor Romanians, nor of any kind. And that is why they are the aids and we must continue with the aids. But let's not forget the main purpose: that the grain must leave Ukraine. And we are on the side of the good, not the bad. If Poland has elections, debate it in Poland.

Madam President, greetings to all. This legislation that we have just adopted definitively transposes into European Union law all those agreements of the Atlantic and Mediterranean Bluefin Tuna Commission. It has been paralysed for two years in this House, because, after the trilogue had approved it, Coreper reversed the proposal and the agreement it had reached with us. However, we considered that the sector already deserved this multiannual management plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean after 13 years of recovery. We have fought and we will continue to fight for bluefin tuna distribution quotas to take into account artisanal fishing once and for all. We have not managed to make it binding at this time, but we will continue to work to make it binding. Thank you very much to all the shadow rapporteurs for their work, thank you all. I believe that the sector is waiting for this regulation, but it will certainly continue to hope that we will continue to defend artisanal fishing and the right to have a significant quota in order to survive.

Madam President, we all agree. No one doubts that there is a great drought. I am Spanish and in my country we suffer from drought first hand. We've had big waves of drought. The last one, which is happening now, is the worst. We therefore need this limited and essential resource to be better managed. Better management by the Member States. I criticise the management of my country's watersheds. I don't think there's been proper management. The Commission can also do more. A European water strategy is needed because, as we have all said, water is a limited and essential resource, but one that we need first-hand. Concrete proposals for direct action are needed. Direct action. If not, we'll have a hard time. A culture of water saving among people needs to be fostered. How is it possible that we are not already saying, in my country and in others, that water must be saved and that the tap must be closed so as not to throw water? But agriculture, ladies and gentlemen, also needs water. If there is no water in agriculture, agriculture has no future. Let's give you better savings and future infrastructures.

Mr President, Commissioner, we are debating a report on food safety in which a little bit of everything is discussed. What I would like to move from here is that I think it is a reasonable report. I support Mrs Mortler's report. I would also like to highlight the great work of my colleague Camilla Laureti. Is that quite the report I'd like? No, but I think it's a good report that works for us. I want to make it clear that I do not like the political or partisan use of agriculture. We have to achieve goals. I believe in the European Green Deal, but I also believe that some things have not been done well. This environmental sustainability must be explained to farmers and accompanied in this regard. The Commissioner has said one thing I would like to reiterate: This is the most important reform of the CAP. This is the first year and yet they are absorbing it. It also exists with a lack of generational renewal. Let's not use farmers. Let's explain things to them and they will surely agree with us.

Madam President, Commissioner, dear Paolo, I would like to congratulate our colleague, Paolo De Castro, on the work he has done, as well as the shadow rapporteurs. I think a great job has been done. It is true that this is a very important regulation. Most of the rules on geographical indications are unified here – not all of them, there is a part of the wine that remains in the single CMO. But I think the agreement is good, above all, because we are reinforcing a system that not only aims to reinforce a brand, it is not a commercial brand, we all know it: is culture, tradition, heritage, rural areas, our villages. This is what this Regulation means; It's very, very important. I am therefore proud of the work that has been done by everyone. I know that the Commissioner said that he did not like the place of the EUIPO. We believe that the EUIPO can help, but not play a leading role. DG AGRI has a role to play. That is the view of this Parliament and I think we should all congratulate ourselves. And finally, I would like to add that we have not only strengthened the system: This is the basis of the system and the basis of rural areas. Let us therefore continue to support these geographical indications which are clearly a mark of European quality.

Mr President, first of all, I would like to show my solidarity with the European fishing industry and with the strike that happened on the 9th, Europe Day by chance. We need to understand what's going on. Commissioner, you said: We take responsibility for taking care of our seas and our oceans. Who can be against that? Obviously, we assume that responsibility. We have had a common fisheries policy since 2013 – for ten years – which has very important environmental and sustainability characteristics, and which has been mandatory throughout the European fisheries sector. I would therefore like to make one thing clear: This action plan is a political document, not a normative one. Let's not confuse the sector. It is a political document, of intentions, of the Commission. And I do not agree with that intention which is clearly manifested against dragging. Not all trawling is the same and artisanal trawling must be protected. Therefore, Commissioner, we will not agree on the measures to end drag now as a political compromise.

Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I would like to congratulate those who have carried out this initiative. Any initiative means citizen participation and that is good for European democracy. Now, I think she's wrong in the shot. We are in a society, in Europe, where we have a regulation that prohibits the removal of shark fins. I therefore believe that the European Union is advanced in this respect. And I want to deny some things, because here a Member comes and says - and stays so fresh - that the practice of finning is taking place in the European Union. It is prohibited in the European Union. If it is done, it is done illegally, but it is prohibited. Or it is said that the shark is a species that is not consumed in the European Union. False. In my country the shark has always been eaten and the whole pieces are captured. Therefore, the fin trade cannot be prohibited when a whole species is caught. What could we do to prevent this practice of removal? For there the Commission can do something with which I agree: Why does it not defend in RFMOs that all other countries prohibit it? It's a good mechanism. And another mechanism: we carry out proper traceability of the products and we will put an end to this situation. Let's work on it and on the RFMOs. The European fleet does things well.

Madam President, Commissioner, Madam Minister, the unfortunate invasion of Ukraine - and it is the main objective of this whole House, of all of us, to put an end to it - has indeed brought side effects with these imports. There are five countries affected by the massive inflow of grain, but that is not why we must prevent traditional importers, such as my country, Spain, which usually already had an open market with Ukraine on cereals, from continuing to import. I have to tell you that in a year of drought the situation is even more serious, with 26% less production. Therefore, imports to the European market from Ukraine are important for Spain. I do want to finally express my support for the objective of ending the invasion of Ukraine. Yes to solidarity with the Member States concerned and not to unilateral measures taken by some countries, which must be withdrawn now, immediately.

Mr President, welcome to this debate on European agriculture. It is certainly a good time to recognise the strategic and essential role of farmers with this priority debate. But, ladies and gentlemen, it is not right to use this debate for electoral strategies or electoral slogans. Gentlemen of the EPP, it's not right. I know you believe in farmers, but using them as a slogan doesn't look good. The Greens' constant criticism of the unsustainability of European agriculture is also inadequate. It's not that either. Farmers have been working with important cross-compliance and environmental sustainability for 20 years. Twenty years. With conditionality and greening. Therefore, they do not start from scratch. Now, what's going on? Well, we have just finished a reform of the CAP, which took us five years, we have had a pandemic, we have a war with Ukraine and in the Commission - the Commissioner is absent, but fortunately we have Mrs McGuinness with us, the best face of the Commission - I remind you that we have a Commissioner who is from the extreme right. And the President of the EPP. From the EPP. We therefore need to address the situation that we now have ten legislative procedures and we have nine months left. And that creates uncertainty. And we do not need to pass on an election banner, ladies and gentlemen of the EPP, we need incentives for farmers, support instruments, innovation, legal certainty and reciprocity in imports. Tall and clear we say it. Let's leave the propaganda of one extreme and the other extreme.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs from the different political groups for the good cooperation with this own-initiative report, as everything has been to improve the report from the minute after I submitted it. So, thank you very much to everyone. Ladies and gentlemen, the CFP Regulation indicates that the management of this common fisheries policy should be guided by the principles of good governance and stresses that decision-making should be based on the best available scientific knowledge. We always put a lot of emphasis on this, with particular emphasis on broad stakeholder participation and a long-term perspective. This involvement, to which fisheries policy attaches so much importance, needs to be greatly improved, as its results are not seen in practice. Ladies and gentlemen, the fisheries sector does not understand or share many of the measures that are imposed from Brussels and this is because it does not participate sufficiently or the decision-making process is not explained to it. And these decisions affect your life, your work and your well-being. With co-management we turn the tortilla around and make the fisheries sector precisely the protagonist of its destiny and participate fully in the decision-making of co-management and fisheries management. The co-management system assigns a large part of the management responsibility to those who directly exploit fisheries resources – shipowners, fishermen, their professional or trade union organisations or NGOs –, considers the social aspects of the stakeholders and ensures their direct and conscious co-participation with the State administration or regional administrations in the responsibility for shared management, including surveillance. All stakeholders should be part of the co-management groups, as we stated in the report. Today there are several examples of successful implementation of co-management. That's the way it is in my country. For example, in Catalonia there has been a decree for more than five years. Also in Galicia and other areas such as Andalusia. But also in Portugal, with a European regulation, in France, Sweden, the Netherlands, Italy... Co-management, being a participatory and co-responsibility model, is more transparent and proactive and contributes to generating educational synergies in relation to the management of resources based on a culture of responsibility, establishing networks of trust and contributing to reducing conflicts and overcoming reluctance in order to be able to apply innovations to fisheries management. So, what's missing, ladies and gentlemen? So that this regulation that is being developed in the European regions and in some countries is included at European level. We need a European fisheries co-management regulation in order to be able to harmonise and promote this project. And we also need it to be collected so that it can be subsidised by the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund, which so far has its difficulties. I therefore firmly believe in co-management and responsibility. I believe in the fisheries sector, in society, in its participation with the administrations to better manage fisheries resources, which are becoming scarcer and more difficult. The sector is responsible. We already have those examples. They're clearly working. We therefore need to make the leap and I hope that we will soon have a European regulation that will boost this fisheries co-management.

Mr President, first of all, I would like to congratulate Carmen Avram and the other rapporteurs on the good work they have done. I believe that we must first of all acknowledge the great importance and the very positive impact that this programme has had. It has been working for years, but now more than ever, with the Farm to Fork Strategy, with the importance of adequate nutrition, now more than ever we must strengthen this programme. Therefore, an increase in the budget is called for as it is absolutely insufficient. Educational work, not just trade, should also be increased. And that educational work must be very important from childhood. That is why 10% should be devoted to it. But I think it is very important to highlight other issues: the importance of distributing organic products, conventional products, of course conventional agriculture, proximity, seasonal and even geographical indications, if possible. They are products with their characteristics, which is good that they are known since childhood. And, of course, processed products, sugars and fats are excluded.

Madam President, as it could not be otherwise, we share the ambition to have a toxic-free environment. No one can wish otherwise. No one can want the opposite. Firstly, it is necessary to comply with the current regulations, which are not being complied with. I agree with the change in the rules of the REACH Regulation, but it is necessary that compliance is already required, which is not being complied with now. And that's an important thing, because if there were greater compliance we probably wouldn't be where we are. In addition, for all this, to eliminate these plastics, it is also necessary to make changes in the regulations, but also in our habits and in our society. It is also necessary, of course, to forge alliances to ensure that we have a healthier and healthier environment and water, of course, but we need a budget for that too. This is very important, but very difficult to address; It is science that weighs and measures all these measures. It is very important to always keep in mind what science tells us.

Madam President, Commissioner McGuinness, I would first like to congratulate the authors of this citizens' initiative, because it reflects the critical spirit of this initiative and, above all, it reflects an eagerness to improve the living conditions of all of us. Therefore, my respect and congratulations to the authors. This citizens' initiative aims at phasing out synthetic pesticides, restoring biodiversity and supporting farmers in this transition. I don't think there's anyone against these three things. However, – I will be clear on this point – to consider the complete phase-out of such pesticides by 2035 I do not know if this is a realistic – realistic – possibility. We need to go hand in hand with farmers and offer them alternatives. Plant health must be guaranteed at all times, as must human health; also the plant is important, food security, the affordability of food products, which we remember more in times of inflation. I therefore believe that it is a good initiative, as long as I do not forget, from the first sentence to the last, that farmers should receive support with agronomically possible possibilities. We must also avoid abandoning farms. I therefore agree with all this. But sometimes I hear words here that only partially maintain balance. Who will be against maintaining biodiversity? But to make this possible, farmers must also be clearly supported; If not, it's just fiction.

Mr President, Commissioner, the availability of fertilisers is essential to provide us with food. It must be said loud and clear. Therefore, we need fertilizers. Do we want to replace them with others? Yes, but we need fertilisers right now – in addition, at a time when there is severe inflation in Europe. It also has a lot to do with the shortage of the shopping basket in that inflation. Therefore, it plays an important role. Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has led to an unprecedented increase in the price of nitrogen fertilisers. We're looking at it. On the other hand, much of the European Union industry has been shrinking, its production capacity has decreased and therefore there is less availability. To this we must add, Commissioner, that many European farmers - many farmers! - are now faced with having to decide to what extent they can risk their planting decisions, taking into account the current situation of fertiliser and input prices. Farmers must therefore be helped. I want to cry out here for farmers in countries bordering Ukraine, such as Romania and Bulgaria - your country. They need exceptional help. With regard to this, I join the petition. I would like to tell you that communication is not enough. We need a genuine fertiliser strategy that looks to the future, that develops a European industry with new fertilisers not dependent on third countries, that ensures availability for farmers, including with support. My country has helped farmers with €300 million. Not all countries can afford it at all times. Aid must be European, otherwise it is discriminatory. The CAP is not enough for everything, especially when it has been frozen in current prices since 2000. We therefore need funds and we need a European strategy that will lead us to exchange those mineral fertilisers, which we do not want, for others. But mainly: Either we help farmers or we will have no future and, in addition, we will have problems in European food.

Mr President, Madam Vice-President, Madam Minister, we have the right to celebrate the successes of the single market. We don't have to have complexes in front of that celebration. I believe that the single market has been a great success, that the next minute we had to work – keep working – to improve and further consolidate this European Union. One of the important pillars of European integration is undoubtedly the single market. This single market has had a good result, but we need to continue to address elements that go against this single market: fragmentation, protectionism and anti-Europeanism. We have seen here how anti-Europeans are those who do not like the single market. These must be combated: That's what we have to fight. And the rest of us can take pride in continuing to work. Therefore, we have lived through difficult times: the pandemic, the Brexit y ahora la guerra. But, without a doubt, unity and common work will make us bigger.

Madam President, first of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague Isabel Carvalhais and all the shadow rapporteurs on the excellent work they have done. The proof is that there is not a single amendment, because a great deal of effort and work has been done. Congratulations, Isabel. Now we need compromises. There are the agreements, there is this brilliant report, and now we need compromises. We need a strong commitment from the European Union to curb the generation gap, the digital divide and the gender gap in Europe's rural areas. Ladies and gentlemen, 83% of the territory is occupied by only 30% of the population. Although we have been making development policies for rural areas for more than three decades, these have not had the expected result. Therefore, despite these more than 30 years, new measures must be taken and a comprehensive approach must be taken to policies at European Union level. Farms have also decreased by 35% in the last two decades, and this has also had an impact. There is growing discontent among the rural population over politics. Because you don't take this policy seriously. It is sometimes done with an overly sectoral view, from agriculture. Rural areas need a holistic and horizontal view, not a sectoral one. And therefore, as long as this is not clear to us, we will not address what these rural areas need: equal access to services and guarantee of living conditions. People want to choose where they live, but with the same conditions in urban or rural areas. I would also like to congratulate the groups that have participated in the LEADER initiative, which have done a magnificent job in these 30 years. Commissioner, it's time to take action. Let's all add up and make a comprehensive policy to avoid this rural depopulation.

Madam President, I support this important initiative and, of course, I congratulate Mrs Pelletier on the report. I would also like to ask, on behalf of all, as my colleagues have done well, for the updating of the Equal Treatment Directive. This Directive is not prohibiting discrimination against such persons. It's unbelievable. In the Europe of the welfare state, in the Europe of rights, which we so often boast about, these people do not have those rights. Sometimes they cannot even vote, as has been well collected here. It is absolutely unheard of in the European Union. The right to decide is very important. Accessibility must be a priority objective, a priority for all. The European Union shows that it is not up to the task if it does not put this on the agenda of the priorities of both the Commission and the Council, which is not even present, and of this European Parliament. I conclude by saying that these people, my colleague said, do not want to be tombolas. They want rights. And in our ambition as politicians is to change things to improve people's lives. Let's do it now.

Mr President, welcome is this debate on behalf of European farmers and welcome is a joint resolution of six political groups. Because that shows unity and strength to defend the necessary coexistence of livestock - which is experiencing a difficult coexistence, as farmers have been denouncing - in this protection of large carnivores and their increase. Undoubtedly they are carnivores and that has an impact on livestock, on livestock farming such as extensive, which is the one that protects the European Green Deal. And, therefore, that is the main one harmed. Therefore, from my group, we defend peaceful coexistence. But the loss of livestock farmers cannot be tolerated. That is to say, measures must therefore be articulated. And this debate had to be held. The farmers deserve it. This debate had to be held and tomorrow, I ask all the groups to support the resolution and none of the amendments tabled, because I believe that the strength lies in the common union. What hasn't been brought out at a negotiating table... You do not have to try to get a party strategy. Out of respect for livestock, let us support the resolution of the six political groups.

Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to thank you for bringing this communication. I think it was a demand that we had requested in this House and I thank you for the effort you have made to bring a proposal here today. I and my group believe that it is important that fertilisers are available. It is very important, not only for farmers; it is important to be able to have food, if possible at affordable prices, for all citizens. That's important. As it is important to achieve strategic autonomy and overcome dependence on Russia, especially as regards nitrogen fertilisers, to boost the use of biostimulants to optimise the use of fertilisers through better use of nutrients or to facilitate the use of organic fertilisers in transport. I would like you to answer this specific question: Are we going to be able to use organic fertilisers and is there going to be a change in the directive that allows it? Because so far it is not possible. And I want to congratulate you, because I think the proposal is interesting. I don't know if enough, but it's very interesting.

Mr Omarjee, you normally have very sensible interventions; It is not that he did not have it today, but I am surprised that he accuses governments such as that of his country, France, or that of Spain, that what they are doing is defending the interests of the fishing sector and they are also very concerned about the environment. But here are things that the Commission has not done well and that is what we denounce. Therefore, I do not know what you are relying on to say that there is an underground pressure when what is being asked, in the case of the Spanish Government, is that the data be updated to take the appropriate measures. What is the basis for accusing governments, especially in my country? If you don't care about French, neither do I, but especially that of Spain is taking a lot of care. Give me your opinion.

Madam President, Commissioner, you have taken up this issue, but I would, of course, like to join in the hopes that Commissioner Sinkevičius will recover soon and be with all of us in these and other future debates. Of course, it's my best wishes to him. I want to convey here, like the rest of my colleagues, especially the Spanish ones, the voice of the Spanish fishing sector, for which there is no single strategy of any group here, but we want the voice to be heard here, in plenary, just as we have had this debate in the Committee on Fisheries. I want to say loud and clear that we do not question – I do not question – the Deep Water Regulation. I am not questioning that regulation at any time. But it is true that there are certain anomalies in the whole process of implementing vulnerable coastal zones and protection. The industry has felt this and so have we, many of us in this House. That is why it was important to bring the debate here and for the fisheries sector to feel identified with the debates we are having in the European Parliament. What happened six years later? But do you know the worst, Commissioner? I know that you are not the one who carries the matter: States have been blamed for not giving the data on time, and it is false. I say it again: it is false that the States have not given the data in time. That's not the justification for why this has been brought in six years later. And, moreover, my colleague Mato said it well: Why right now? Knowing that there is going to be a study - I think on 16 December, the Commission announces - why not wait, since we are going to have an updated study? The data collected are from 2011 and are not up-to-date. That study is likely to require, at best, expanding areas – or not, or removing areas. Therefore, what was the need to force this regulation to enter into force on 9 October? There's no need. There are no socio-economic impact studies. And of these regulations, socio-economic impact studies must be carried out. That's a serious cause. That is why the sector, between that and other things, has resorted. The Spanish Government, and you know it, is going to appeal this implementing act, because there are reasons to appeal it and go against this implementing act. And let me – it sounds like a joke already –: said the Commissioner, on behalf of Commissioner Sinkevičius, that this can be alleviated by Member States with EMFAF support. Man, I do the damage and now that the Member States pay and, moreover, I blame them if they don't. Surely the Government of Spain will compensate or help the sector, as it always does, but the joke that "well, that the Member States already help you with the EMFAF and that is it", that is not. That in politics is not the right thing to do. Therefore, the Spanish Government will be up to par, the fisheries sector knows, but the Commission has not been.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the price of gas in Europe, as you all know, has increased by 800 % compared to March last year. The accumulated causes in terms of the price of fertilizers not only derive from the war, but predate it: the post-COVID-19 situation, low reserves, rising gas prices, high international demand – and, of course, the war in Ukraine. Since the beginning of the war, the price of gas has doubled. This situation is having a serious impact on the viability of fertiliser production plants, in particular those producing nitrogen fertilisers, due to their dependence on gas. These factors have forced some European companies to close several production plants, reducing fertiliser production by around 70% in the last year. A cut in the supply of fertilisers that adds to the decrease in imports from Russia. 60% of the nutrients that are applied to our soil come from mineral fertilizers. If action is not taken in time, there can be very negative consequences, both for businesses and for the sector and the entire value chain, as the drastic reduction in fertiliser production in Europe has direct consequences on the global food system and on global food security. Economic forecasts suggest that this problem will worsen in the coming months. Therefore, the measures are not only applicable at this point in time, but should be maintained for a certain period of time, taking into account further cost increases for farmers in the midst of high inflation. To avoid inflationary pressures, a strategy that gives confidence to market security is needed immediately. A not-so-short-term strategy, not for this year, perhaps by the end of 2024. The suspension of customs duties on imports of ammonia and urea used for the production of nitrogen fertilisers should probably last until the end of next year. It is necessary to facilitate the use of organic fertilisers and manure and the transport from surplus regions to the most deficient ones, and it is necessary to ensure that the advances in science aimed at this type of fertiliser offer all the guarantees. There is a need for a nutrient management plan, Commissioner, announced by the Commission, but which emphasizes increasing efficiency in their use of nutrients, rather than linear reduction without taking into account the needs of each crop. Finally, I call for this strategy to allow us the independence of a powerful European industry in this sector, but, above all, to make available to farmers reasonable and affordable prices for fertilisers, because their impact on food prices and inflation is very important, and food security is at risk.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I would like to thank the Commission for its sensitivity in recognising aspects that are now real obstacles: access to space and procedures. The Commission's work will therefore contribute to improving these issues. I would also like to acknowledge that administrative obstacles are a real problem for this sector. Clearly, not the obstacles of the Commission, but those of all the entities involved (national, regional and local institutions). I therefore welcome these aspects and this campaign, which I hope will also promote sustainable aquaculture products, because it is really worth it. I would like to point out that, when we talk about the fact that the European Regulation on Organic Production is not enough, it is because, right now, with that Regulation, which we have approved and which has entered into force this year - it is very recent, of course - it is only possible to certify mollusc farming as organic, under very strict conditions. Only. Nothing else. Nothing else is possible. Why is it like that? Because the European Regulation on Organic Production has not looked at this sector at all, but has ignored it. He has covered his eyes, and therefore now the rules are not applicable. It is true that it is a new regulation, but it will have to be improved over time, of course. Here we have seen both those who believe that aquaculture is an element of the future and those who do not. And to those who do not believe it, we are not going to ask for many contributions, because they want to destroy it. I want it to be competitive, to be more sustainable. Also in relation to food and feed, of course. I want that 70% that we now buy in Thailand and Vietnam to be bought in the European Union, because Europe's standards are never going to be those of these third countries. And with cormorants, let's not fool ourselves: The Birds Directive is very good, but everything is discussed here, and everything can be improved. Let's not make certain regulations untouchable. Let us open our minds and see that there is a problem here and that solutions must be sought. That is the only thing we ask of the Commission: solutions to the problem of cormorants.