Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, around 8.8 million hectares of forest land are lost every year in the world. We must adopt policies for the good management and protection of forests that are also shared and recognized by non-EU countries, in order to reduce deforestation and forest degradation. It is equally important that the objectives of this Regulation are pursued by minimising impacts on businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, and on local communities. That is why we would have preferred a transition period of 24 months to comply with the new rules. Similarly, we cannot accept the demonisation of certain sectors: This is the case for leather, hides and skins, which must be excluded from the regulation as they do not cause direct deforestation. Let's remember that any ban imposed involves the diversion of the same products to other markets, such as China and India, creating disparities between producers. Rather, we focus on building partnerships, sustainable development of local communities and farming methods.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, after a year and a half of negotiations, we have come to an end. I have never concealed my concerns about this committee of inquiry, because from the outset animal welfare has been addressed with an ideological approach, aimed at demonising a cutting-edge production sector rather than really protecting animal welfare. In Europe we have among the highest standards of animal welfare in the world and they are contained in Regulation (EC) No 1/2005, a regulation that must not be distorted, but properly implemented and strictly respected by all Member States, so as to reduce violations and infringements. This is why we asked for strict and punctual checks, especially at departure, and perhaps made faster thanks to a centralized data collection system that can be easily consulted by the authorities, in order to monitor, reduce delays and reduce bureaucracy. As a group, we have also proposed specific funds to modernise vehicles in terms of structure, technology and safety, so as to ensure better transport conditions: from ventilation systems to loading and unloading systems, because there is no point in hoping for improvements if we do not give the sector the appropriate tools to put them into practice. And it is certainly not by prohibiting travel or limiting its duration that the problem is solved and it is not even solved by asking to replace the transport of live animals with the transport of meat, carcasses or genetic material, because it is not possible: the markets are different, as are the skills and figures employed. It is good to reduce transport where possible, especially when dealing with third countries that do not meet our own standards, but it is not good to talk about "replacing" live transport and even wanting to finance it with the CAP, subtracting funds from our farmers. Just as it is not right to support only a plant-based diet, abandoning meat, milk and eggs that are part of our culinary culture and the Mediterranean diet. A note of merit goes to the request for greater commitment to the protection of species not adequately covered by the Regulation, including dogs and cats: We all hope that the regulation will be supplemented by provisions that guarantee the well-being of our four-legged friends who are transported for commercial purposes. Attention to more vulnerable animals, such as the unweaned, pregnant females and late-career animals, was also positive. For them, it is necessary to be able to rely on scientific assessments and to link the transport authorisation to the veterinary opinion, in order to reduce their stress and adequately protect them. As always, balance is needed and some of these recommendations falter and do not fully satisfy us. We had an important opportunity: to contribute with concrete and common sense proposals to lay the foundations for the forthcoming legislation on animal welfare, a missed opportunity. Too bad.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, rare diseases affect 30 million European citizens. To date, medical skills and knowledge are not up to par. Health care offers are inadequate and investment in research is limited. We even think that the last general policy of the European Union on these diseases dates back to 2009. These indications would be enough to encourage, as soon as possible, a European plan against rare diseases, to protect all those orphan patients of the national health systems, who too often do not guarantee them accurate diagnoses and adequate treatments. It is crucial that the new plan is structured on the basis of coordination with the new European strategy for long-term healthcare, planned for the second half of 2022. The key words are inclusion and accessibility, but they lose their meaning if there is no strong shared strategy based on real patient involvement, which can and must contribute to the best of this process. They are the first to know the real needs and current shortcomings. And we must not forget the indispensable role of patient caregivers, the Care Givers, key figures who are too often not legally protected or recognised. In short, the comparison must be with patients and not on patients, and all that funding to support the fight against rare diseases should not be directed only to institutes and structures, but must support processes that help people with rare diseases and disabilities to become autonomous. The attention is high, but more concreteness is needed. Today the goal is still far away.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, 10% of households in Europe live in energy poverty; 2.7 million workers cannot afford heating at home. This is an alarming social and health emergency, which risks worsening due to rising bills and the still present COVID crisis. That is why we need to act now, with emergency measures at European level, perhaps investments and facilitations in the field of residential construction. We are a long way from the ecological transition that the European Union has in mind, which sets unrealistic goals and completely forgets about energy poverty. We cannot ask the states of the European Union to give up natural gas and then attach ourselves to the technology and raw materials of third countries such as China, which certainly contributes much more to global pollution than Europe. We are not there and we decide to stay by the side of all those families and businesses that risk being left behind, sacrificed in the name of a bla bla bla far from that social dimension of which Europe is so full of mouth.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the natural disasters of summer 2021 are just the tip of the iceberg, because we have been receiving alarming signals all over Europe for some time now. Italy has been hit by a series of fires that will cost about a billion euros, in addition to the incalculable impact on the entire ecosystem and on the lives of citizens. Do you think that my region, Veneto, is systematically among the most economically affected by natural disasters: heavy hailstorms destroy crops and frequent floods and floods negatively impact our producers. The spectre of another Vaia storm, which devastated Veneto in 2018, scares us all. If it is true that recent phenomena represent a systemic problem, then we have a duty to equip companies with adequate support and response tools, but above all to prevent such phenomena. That is why solidarity and the Union Civil Protection Mechanism need to be strengthened. And then we need to make our small and medium-sized enterprises resilient and less vulnerable to climate change, through a gradual accompaniment path, which does not add burdens and costs to businesses. The key words are gradualness and adaptation: Only in this way will it be possible to cope with adverse climatic events and allow our companies to be ready to react.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we did it. After years of negotiations, we can finally deliver a new European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund to our fishermen and fish farmers. The new 2021-2027 programming will rely on measures that move towards sustainability in all its three pillars. It has not been easy, but also thanks to the constructive action of my group, we have achieved a certain balance between the environmental and social and economic issues, especially of small operators and small and medium-sized enterprises. I am referring, for example, to the doubling of support for temporary cessation up to 12 months; support for young people; targeted support to aquaculture; facilitated access to credit and insurance instruments in the event of exceptional events which, alas, are becoming increasingly frequent. Also good is the possibility of modernising fishing vessels and increasing gross tonnage to improve safety and living conditions on board and the possibility of financing the construction of ports to facilitate small-scale fishing. Unfortunately, the budget has been reduced, but overall this new EMFAF represents a first step towards a new paradigm of European policy to truly protect our fisheries and aquaculture, all while safeguarding our coastal communities, marine biodiversity and food security. I would therefore like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Mato, Mr Millán Mon and all the shadow rapporteurs for their work together. Now the ball passes to the Member States and regions.