Speeches

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.

Madam President, Commissioner Valean, replacing Commissioner Sinkevicius, ladies and gentlemen: firstly, I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs from all the political groups for their good cooperation, because sometimes it has not been easy, but with this report we have reached a good agreement, which I think is balanced. Ladies and gentlemen, despite advances in the aquaculture sector and funding from the European Union, our aquaculture sector is far from reaching its full growth potential and meeting the growing demand for marine food products. The Union imports more than 70% of the seafood it consumes and I have to tell you something, ladies and gentlemen: I would like these foods to come from Member States of the European Union, where we apply the highest food safety and quality standards in the world. To achieve this, we call on the Member States and the Commission to resolutely address the main problems facing the sector, which are often discussed but not sufficiently addressed. We propose solutions both in the short and medium term, including measures on organic aquaculture, but also on other aquaculture models that are equally sustainable and that should play a key role in the sector's expected growth in line with the transition towards a more sustainable food system in Europe. First of all, I would like to highlight the need for a predictable, streamlined and business-friendly legal framework in Europe, taking into account the three pillars of sustainability: economic, social and environmental. This is the only way to develop the growth potential of the sector and is essential to be able to offer sustainable and quality food, reduce our dependence on aquatic food imports and create more jobs in the European Union, especially in coastal regions. In addition, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the aquaculture sector can contribute to providing ecosystem services to society, and that the farming of algae, for example, or other aquatic products, can contribute to the decarbonisation of the European Union economy and to mitigating the fight against climate change. Freshwater aquaculture is very important in many rural regions of Europe. I would therefore also like to stress that, in relation to this aspect, we should be working more on traceability, ecological business models and fish welfare, which are also important factors. Multiannual national strategic plans should take into account the main obstacles to the development of the sector's potential and recognise the need to allocate more space to aquaculture. Coordination with national, regional and local public administrations with competences in the development of aquaculture is very necessary to streamline national legislation and develop guidelines in the legal framework that are useful to the sector. Another problem that I would like to draw attention to is the availability of sustainable food ingredients for EU aquaculture. This is one of the key elements where the sector can fully contribute to the objectives of the Green Deal. I conclude, Honourable Members: There are many elements. One of them is the situation that cormorants are generating. The only thing I say to you here, in relation to this paragraph - and it is well reflected in the report - is that it is a problem and we must be courageous. We must engage it in the debate and seek solutions. I hope there will be broad support for the report.

Mr. President, I want to join the public recognition of firefighters, public forces and people who have helped us throughout this summer to alleviate the effects of the fires, to end these fires. Ladies and gentlemen, since February, in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I have been calling for a genuine debate on drought. We are now in it, unfortunately, when it is affecting the whole of Europe; Not to the south of Europe, not to Spain alone, to the Mediterranean countries, but, unfortunately, to the whole of Europe. In a report prepared by the Commission, it says that 47% of the territory is on drought alert and 17% on alert. Therefore, we have almost two thirds in a regrettable situation in the face of drought, which is also the cause of fires, but, Commissioner, we have regulatory action in the European Green Deal, but direct action is needed now, immediately, to start the fires as early as next summer. I would like to call on all groups to join forces in a joint, far-sighted, non-partisan resolution and to resolve the situation together. And, ladies and gentlemen, farmers are not the enemy, they have to work with us to solve these situations.

Mr President, with this proposal we Europeans are no longer complicit in the destruction of forests: accomplices unknowingly, with our consumption. This proposal for a regulation seeks to curb the effect of consumption of certain products in the EU on global deforestation; To this end, the imposition of requirements on these products for their introduction and sale on the European market is an important and necessary measure. Extending protection to other ecosystems must be a priority, as well as obtaining an adequate definition of "forest degradation" that serves to better protect our planet's forests. The Commission's proposal contains six important raw materials, but we need to extend this proposal to other ecosystems and new raw materials as soon as possible. Transparency in supply chains, the obligation of due diligence, is also very important for this, although we must avoid duplication of obligations and reduce administrative burdens.

Madam President, Commissioner, thank you to the rapporteurs, Mrs Katainen and especially Carmen Avram, from my political group, for the work done. We have to welcome the proposal for a European Union Forest Strategy for 2030: I consider it a very important strategic instrument to achieve our commitments related to climate change mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity conservation and restoration, and the promotion of the circular bioeconomy and support for rural development. The importance given to the multifunctionality of forests in this strategy is important, although they will only be achieved if economic and social aspects are integrated into them. I would also like to stress that there is no mention of environmental issues of major relevance to Europe, such as desertification or abandonment of forest land, in addition to issues such as forest fires or pests. They should have had more attention and concreteness. This is an ambitious forestry strategy in many respects and action is now needed to ensure that these objectives are actually achieved. Finally, it is necessary to strike a balance between the environmental, social and economic aspects of forest management, maintaining and respecting the diversity of forests and forest management practices of the Member States of the European Union, while ensuring a coordinated and harmonised approximation of the European Union.

Madam President, as everyone has repeated, most of us have a moral and ethical obligation to ensure food security worldwide, not just in Europe. But we are seeing that this war in Ukraine is bringing a lot of problems, especially for those productions to arrive. The change in transport routes, especially the blockade of ports, is bringing with it that this great production obviously does not arrive. Therefore, welcome are the solidarity runners. Let's see if these solidarity corridors work well. We have already seen a good result in June, when there has been a 25% increase in Ukrainian production, but they are not enough, because they cannot stay in Europe, they cannot stay in Poland, in Romania, they have to leave. We need these products to reach Africa and those countries so that they do not suffer the great famine that everyone announces to us. But we have to improve too. Customs in Poland and Romania are bringing a delay in transport of eight days of logistics. Therefore, let us fix that situation and, above all, let us also protect and help European farmers.

Madam President, I wanted to congratulate Mrs Roose, Pietro Bartolo and the other rapporteurs on this Article 17 report, because I think they have done a great job. What is said in that report is reality. In other words, it is not known what criteria the Member States have for determining the allocation of quotas. And a very clear example is the bluefin tuna recovery plan in my country: the distribution of quotas during that recovery plan meant that, in the end, smaller fishing, small-scale fishing, was adversely affected, especially small-scale gear. It is therefore necessary to add transparency to the system. It cannot be that every year in December a TAC is made, that it is distributed to the States and that we do not know what the criteria are. Therefore, we need a much more transparent system that benefits artisanal fishing clearly, not just speeches.

Madam President, Commissioner, in order for there to be responsibility and for the reduction in the percentage you want to reach 50% to be real, viable and feasible alternatives must be made available to farmers from the moment the reduction occurs. Why not advance the new regulations on new cultivation techniques, which would be a good way out, along with pesticides or other alternatives? Take that initiative forward or take other initiatives, but, while carrying out the reduction, they have to make other products available.

Madam President, Commissioner Kyriakides, welcome to Question Time. The Commission has announced that we will soon have a regulation ─ I thought it would be a directive, but apparently it is a regulation ─ on a more sustainable use of pesticides, that is, on their reduction, as promised in the European Green Deal. This is a demand from society, no doubt, but, from the outset, I do have to tell you that we are concerned, because the problem for farmers is not the reduction of pesticides, but the lack of alternatives to be able to carry it out. I would therefore like it to be clear here today, in this speech or in my colleagues' next speech, what the percentage reduction of pesticides is going to be and what alternatives the Commission is going to make available to farmers so that plant health is not harmed.

Madam President, Commissioner, I believe that this is a very interesting report, with 93 points, all of which are of great interest. I would like to stress that the most important thing in today's debate is to put the islands at the centre. We need a European pact for islands because, if not, there are no specific policies. The only one there was the POSEI, and we saw in the reform how it wanted to cut its budget. Coming soon, in 2027, I don't know what's going to happen: whether it will be a policy within the CAP or a state policy. The islands have characteristics and a situation that require specific support, whether the outermost islands or not. I am from Spain, with the Balearic Islands and the Canary Islands, outermost, and require specific measures. Let us also be sensitive to tomorrow's Objective 55 package, which is not at all sensitive, by the way, to these islands.

Mr President, the blue economy represents a large segment of our economy, it affects industries and sectors. I think that this view made by my colleague Isabel Carvalhais is very timely, and I would like to congratulate her on it, because it completes the part of the Commission communication where little was said about fisheries and aquaculture. I think it's important, and over the last decade we've seen significant steps taken to modernize and diversify these sectors, including the more traditional ones. But, without a doubt, it is important to understand that, within this broad segment of the blue economy, some sectors can sometimes cause conflicts with others, and it must be corrected. I therefore believe that there are many opportunities in this own-initiative report to analyse a more sustainable blue economy. I regret that on social media the media has only talked about trawling. This report is much broader, much more comprehensive, and I do not want it to be clouded by a fight against trawling. I think it's a big mistake.