What Carmen spoke about.

Madam President, antisemitism is a virus that has not been wiped out in time, it has infected the value system on which the European Union is founded. He uses every breach, every event, every means to contaminate the masses. And the statements of some officials, strangely reserved in condemning the October 7 massacre, only spread the disease. But the latest explosion of anti-Semitism has already come on a rise in this scourge. In the pandemic, when the planet was in isolation and worries were different, anti-Semitism was skyrocketing. In 2022 it reached a new peak. In 2024, it reached the highest degree of absurdity, so for too many terrorism has become acceptable, justifiable. From here to the point where any other state can one day be denied the right to defend its sovereignty and integrity, the distance is dangerously short. It is good that we make European legislation that combats anti-Semitism, but without proper education and balanced, responsible officials who understand that the tone is given to them, no legislation will ever succeed in killing this monstrosity.

Madam President, there is an interesting word in the title of today's debate: fair. I would like to ask the committee what it thinks is fair in the following example: in a single year, the value of cereal production in the EU decreased by almost 30%. What is the Commission doing? It comes with a derogation, so-called savior, which obliges farmers to double the area subject to new environmental conditionalities. Thus, farmers say, the losses will double, because, it is known, some of the recommended crops do not survive without pesticides, and others need very, very much water in the summer, in the season with drought. The Commission is still trying to patch up something that was falling apart quickly as the new green legislation shows its failure and the elections are approaching. It is difficult to understand why, even now, it is still not clear that, for farmers, ‘fair’ means that whatever is decided to be settled with them, not over their heads, and that, no matter how absurd it may seem to some in offices, at new ambitions, new money is needed.

Mr President, we are again discussing the water crisis, although the Commission remains suspiciously superficial in its approach. Last proof: the derogation given for fallow land whereby farmers have to set up catch crops. If he had been thoroughly informed, the Commission would have found out that this could not be done. At the time of those crops, that is, in the summer, it does not rain much. In Romania, for example, 30% of the country’s surface is affected by severe drought. In 2023, in some areas, not a single drop of rain fell for 300 days. Where does that secondary culture that needs water so badly come from? From irrigation, the European executive would say. Yes, if Romania, a country with important agricultural production, were recognized not only a third as now, but the entire irrigable area of 2 million hectares of unirrigated arable land. At least for the sake of the savings that would be made on drought compensation. So the water crisis is not only caused by climate change or lack of funds, but also by a lack of political will. It costs nothing, but when it doesn't exist, it costs a lot. You see thousands of farmers taking to the streets across the European Union.

Mr President, in this mandate, much has been said about how harmful fishing is to the environment and far too little about the fact that he and aquaculture are not only the cleanest source of animal protein available to us, but also a powerful weapon in the fight against climate change. In order to use it effectively, however, the sector needs a proper overhaul that gives it the strength to overcome the challenges of the past and the strength to face those of the future. In my country, Romania, for example, the fishing sector is trapped in troubled and dangerous waters. The years of the pandemic kept fishermen ashore. Then came the war in Ukraine, which extended to the Black Sea, mines floating adrift, reached the Romanian exploitation areas, endangering the boats and the lives of the crews. So our fishermen couldn't go out. During this time, not only the economy suffered, but also the bioeconomy as a whole, because if the Russian invasion caused considerable financial losses to fishermen who no longer had access to fish stocks, the Black Sea ecosystem became unbalanced due to the multiplication of predatory species that caused significant damage to aquatic biodiversity. Therefore, the report we are voting on today must in no way be seen as a weapon between what, unfortunately, has become a struggle between the interests of the sector and those of the environment. It must be understood as a proposal to reconcile the two in the new reality, one in which the sector is ageing rapidly, in which safety on board vessels must be urgently improved and in which discriminatory attitudes towards fishing and, obviously, agriculture must disappear. Because both, I repeat, have a fundamental role not only in ensuring our food, but also in protecting and preserving the environment. I therefore ask the Commission to take a realistic and pragmatic approach to the future of the common fisheries policy, as the times require. I thank the rapporteur for the effort and understanding he has shown, and I hope that today's vote will preserve the balance in the compromise reached.

Madam President, this debate is also a tribute to people who are fearless, generous and rarely ask for anything for themselves. People on whom in the new climate reality our lives will depend, as in the pandemic it depended on health professionals. People who rekindle a sense of solidarity when the rest of us forget. This year, for example, Romanian firefighters have divided their missions between countries with catastrophic earthquakes, countries with devastating floods, countries with fires of historical proportions and their own country to very dangerous interventions. Dozens were injured on duty. It is our turn to make our duty to them and their colleagues across the European Union exemplary. I therefore welcome the start of this debate and hope that the Committee on Labour and this Parliament will soon lay the foundations for a new future for Europe's firefighters: recognise their risks, provide them with decontamination facilities, regular medical check-ups, voluntary regulations, money for equipment and a European strategy to give them due respect and safety. Europe must also stand in solidarity with its heroes.

Madam President, a brown bear walks freely for a month on the streets of a city of two hundred thousand people. Locals call him Rambo and follow the adventures with interest until the bear is caught. It happened in August, near the capital Bucharest, where, if he wanted, Rambo could arrive in just two days' walk. Romania holds the European record for the number of bears. Their interaction with humans has already cost us 300 wounded, 24 dead, 7 million euros in damage and a lot of fear. The bears have reached the crowded roads, where they are sometimes killed by cars, in people's yards they are, at school gates and in shops, where they break a refrigerator looking for food. It is good to talk about the 19 000 wolves in the EU, but let us not ignore the almost 9 000 bears in a single Member State. It is time to re-discuss a directive outdated by reality and to devise a European strategy for the relocation of animals or any other humane method of control for species that have multiplied and become dangerous to humans.

Madam President, a few dates. For a year and a half, Ukraine has been losing ground in its traditional markets in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, because Ukrainian grain is being bought massively in Europe. Russia is gradually and aggressively occupying these markets, this year announcing a record grain export of 48 million tons. Meanwhile, the situation of Romanian farmers is as follows: 45% no longer have money to pay their debts to suppliers. Their grain stays for weeks in trucks or a month in train cars or at the port entrance. The price of transportation has doubled. Their partners lose confidence because they no longer receive contracted merchandise, but one of different quality, from Ukraine, and the nervousness is so great that large associations threaten to block Constanta Port. Conclusion: the Commission’s measures appear to have been quite profitable for the Russians. More effective support for Ukraine and endangered Eastern European farmers would be to streamline grain transit to traditional destinations and prolong the import ban and cross-compliance derogations in the five affected states.

Madam President, Commissioner, I want to welcome the outcome of the interinstitutional negotiations, mainly because it gives flexibility to Member States in adapting the energy mix to national needs, and I refer in particular to woody biomass, which in a country with important resources of this kind, such as Romania, my country, for example, must find its place in a sustainable energy mix, aligned with all Green Deal strategies. Without the balance between the role of wood as a highly carbon-absorbing building material and that of wood as a renewable energy resource, the forestry sector could not have reached its full potential and Europe could not have achieved its objectives. On the other hand, to exclude biomass from the national mix would have deepened energy poverty for some communities that simply have no other way to ensure a decent living. The outcome of these negotiations therefore shows that we can defend the environment and biodiversity in a balanced way, including through measures that also take into account the current needs and realities of all Member States in a Union seeking energy independence.

Systematically, the European Commission tells us how important it is to ensure the Union's food security. And also systematically, the Commission makes proposals and communications that defy logic and put this security at risk. For example, in the recent 227-page supplement to the Impact Assessment of the Pesticides Regulation, the Commission dismantles all studies from academia or associations on the actual cumulative impact of new EU legislation on food production. Or the Nature Restoration Regulation, which, despite warnings, obliges Member States to choose between the environment and billions of investments already made, and the agricultural sector to wonder whether it is worthwhile to continue producing food. Layers over layers of measures that either overlap or contradict the previous legislation baffle farmers. Growing and unrealistic ambitions are thrown into the market with certainty value, while the people who know best are completely ignored. How long will we treat balance as undesirable and reason as uncommon?

Madam President, two days ago we were talking here about food security. Today we are talking about the main element that ensures this security, water. However, the European water crisis is not only driven by climate change and lack of investment, but also, at times, by the strange arithmetic of the European Commission. For example, my country, Romania, has the sixth largest utilised agricultural area in the EU, almost 15 million hectares. Of these, more than 2 million need investment in secondary irrigation systems and sustainable water management. However, despite repeated attempts by Romania, the Commission accepts to finance only one third of this area. I therefore ask the representatives of the Commission to tell us, not necessarily on the basis of which calculations they decided to deprive of water three quarters of the area that can be irrigated, but when they plan to reconsider the situation, to restore the arithmetic and to give Romania and its farmers a right that they deserve, that of producing sustainable food at the true potential for tens of millions of people.

Madam President, Commissioner, we cannot demand the same level of ambitions, but to endlessly fuel a two-speed Europe, where farmers had and still have different starting points. We cannot use the word solidarity in every debate in plenary, but we ignore the rights and requirements of farmers in Member States such as Romania, my country, and Poland, your country, Commissioner, when they, the farmers, are perhaps most in need now of European solidarity and its concrete manifestation: increasing subsidies and releasing compensation from the crisis reserve. We cannot talk about fair competition in a single market, where identical targets are imposed, but financial support is different. Food security is the same for everyone, from east to west and from north to south. So is our need and desire to live in stable, prosperous and resilient countries. Commissioner, I ask you directly, in your opinion, how likely is it to accelerate the convergence process in the context of the upcoming review of the EU budget?

Madam President, the pandemic and the war in Ukraine seemed to have put solidarity back on the European and global agenda. But I note that in the case of the European Union it was only a phase, because, although externally it shows solidarity towards partners, inside it continues to be crushed by attitudes that prove the opposite, such as: the Commission's inability to unlock the money due to Eastern European farmers hit hard by imports of Ukrainian grain or the inability to convince the government in Vienna to comply with European law after cancelling the right of millions of Romanians and Bulgarians to join the Schengen area, also fuelling toxic Euroscepticism or the indifference with which it treats Romania's farmers, who are vainly demanding the equalisation of subsidies in the Union. Solidarity is not just a word without cover. It must be the ultimate asset in an increasingly turbulent world, agitated by external enemies, hostile and aggressive. That is why I hope that all my colleagues will show solidarity in this plenary session and support the amendment that I tabled to increase the payments of Romanian farmers, which, as in the case of Schengen, is a guaranteed right, but not yet respected.

Madam President, Mr Vice-President, it is astounding to me that, while humanity in general, and Europeans in particular, have reached such a high level of development and sophistication in all respects of life, we are only here now debating the question of the barbarism underlying the killing of day-old chicks in breeders. We, who talk about rights and sentient beings and create increasingly harsh legislation for animal welfare, have not found the way to stop these cruel practices that lead to suffering for birds and financial losses for producers. This topic should not even be about legislation. It is simply a matter of morality and adaptation to new realities. It is inconceivable to discuss techniques of synthetic meat production or plant breeding, but to constantly neglect this aspect of the unnecessary and barbaric sacrifice of day-old chicks. It must be clear: European poultry farmers are the last to want this suffering in their business. They are constantly looking for solutions, but they cannot find them, and then they need help from the European Commission to be able to access the latest technologies, so that they no longer end up killing hundreds of millions of offspring every year. Study of alternative methods of determining sex in ovo must be stepped up and properly financed with European money. The widespread deployment of this technology also needs adequate subsidisation for at least a few years. A horizontal and cross-sectoral dialogue group must be set up to find markets for eggs before they hatch. Possibly the vaccine industry could use them for noble purposes. Something else is needed, Mr Vice-President, namely political ownership, if we really want to solve this problem. The Common Agricultural Policy pocket must not be the only solution, and funding must be announced before legislative measures for predictability. Otherwise, we risk hitting again a sector that is already facing great difficulties due to outbreaks of avian influenza and large quantities of meat imported from third countries.

Mr President, Commissioner, I welcome the communication on the algae sector and the timetable proposed by the Commission for its development. Perhaps we should have had this debate many years ago, so that today we can already see the concrete results. With a war on the EU's border, a real threat to food security and a race to decarbonise, algae exploitation has become a real and immediate necessity, because it is not just an opportunity for the fishing and aquaculture sector: this new European business will provide a source of protein for animal feed, a valuable resource for biofuel production and a way to reduce pressure on agricultural land. For my country, it also means the possibility to sustainably exploit the 10 thousand tons of algae that annually suffocate the Black Sea coast. I therefore call on the European Commission, in addition to stimulating innovation and financing pilot projects, to persuade the Member States to prepare legislation and simplify bureaucracy in order to start the production process. The changes we are going through do not allow us a day's delay.

Mr President, Commissioner, as you can see, as it is conceived, the strategy to protect and restore the marine ecosystem raises a lot of concern in some Member States, Romania included, because the Commission is telling us that the recommendations in the action plan could become legislation, and for my country this could mean the end of fishing. Due to the war, the amount of fish harvested in the Black Sea has been reduced by 80%. Fishermen either do not go out because of mines and military activities, or they fish, but crammed into a narrow perimeter, where they feel more secure. An extension of protected areas, however negligently drawn in Romania, would unfortunately further hamper economic activity and lead to overexploitation of stocks in certain areas. Prohibiting trawling would hit both fishermen and the environment hard. The only species of interest in the area, apart from turbot and sprat, are rapaña and vongola, harvested by trawling. Without them, some fishermen would go bankrupt, and rapacious, invasive species would expand uncontrollably. I therefore ask you, Commissioner, to take these particularities into account when analysing the measures proposed by my country.

Madam President, Commissioner, I appreciate the Commission's measures, which allow Eastern European farmers affected by massive imports of Ukrainian grain to take a month's breath. Of course, it would have been even better if the strategy had been designed from the outset so as not to unbalance the single market and to help both Ukrainian producers and producers in Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Now none of them are satisfied. The price of grain has collapsed. The EU has been plagued by protests and Russia is reportedly continuing to export products, including food, to some Member States. I therefore call on the Commission, once the agreement with Ukraine is renewed, also to prepare the extension of the import ban to the Member States affected, because the situation is not resolved. Romania has big problems, being a unique case. It has maritime, river, and road connections with Ukraine. The port of Constanta is overwhelmed by the wave of goods in the conflict zone and the blockage does not help anyone. Strict monitoring of Ukrainian products, including flour, honey, sugar and oil, as well as a mechanism to prevent possible circumvention of exceptions will also be needed.

Mr President, in 2019, the President of the Commission was announcing the new Green Deal. Aim of the strategy: noble, the objectives: Including farmers. Four years later, however, we see a weakened European agricultural sector. Under the cumulative impact of conditions and events, farmers find that they have to bear much of the burden of transformation and that, although weakened and constantly looking for solutions, they have also reached the service suspects when it comes to blaming someone wholesale for all environmental problems. In addition, their voices are seldom listened to and sometimes become unwilling and weaponized in sterile political wars. Perhaps we should be aware, however, that the world of 2019 no longer exists; that our ambitions, while valid, should be rationally recalibrated in some places; that there is still a double standard in Europe for subsidies to Eastern Europeans and imports from third countries flooding the market, although it does not respect the principles of Green Deal, that the sector must be listened to and that, instead of making a weapon out of the farmer, we would better give the farmer weapons to be able to carry out his mission in Green Deal.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as rapporteur, I am addressing today in the plenary of the European Parliament not only the 76 million pupils of the European Union, their families and teachers, but above all the authorities in the Union, to whom I am asking for even more attention and more responsibility in spending the budget of almost one and a half billion euros allocated to one of the oldest European programmes, that of distributing food in schools. I say attention, because it is vital in this period of transformation in which Europe's children are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of a balanced diet and sustainable diet. We have to secure both. I say responsibility because today, because of multiple crises, this program is in danger. The data shows us this: in the 2019-2020 school year, food distributed through European money reached only 19 million pupils, i.e. a quarter of those entitled to it. A year later, due to the pandemic, this number dropped by 3 million and the decline continues. For example, in my country, Romania, half a million students do not benefit from milk and dairy products distributed in schools. In Greece, the programme was completely discontinued due to cumbersome procedures. Problems arise everywhere because of the low-priced procurement contracts imposed by the authorities, the very high production costs caused by the energy crisis and the hardships in the agricultural sector. Some milk producers are taking to the streets again, as was the case in the 1970s. Responsibility was also the premise from which I started when, together with my colleagues, shadow rapporteurs, we built this compromise which contains a set of urgent measures to overcome the deadlock. We call on the European Commission and the Member States to: 1. Increase the budget allocated to the distribution of fruit, vegetables, milk and milk products in schools. Inflation has made the Commission's proposal of €1.3 billion over six years simply unrealistic. It also affects European producers, who will sell at a loss, and students who will be deprived of a nutritious and healthy snack. When it comes to children, the next generation of Europeans, there is no room to save money. 2. Deletion of the ‘lowest price’ criterion when awarding contracts for the supply of school supplies. It is a harmful principle, as children need fresh and quality food, and local producers, especially small farmers, need an incentive to participate in this programme. However, if they cannot cover their production costs, they are hesitant to get involved. So we can't discount the quality of the products just because it's low price. 3. Cutting red tape and simplifying procurement procedures. Busy documentation and cumbersome procedures scare schools and producers alike, especially small farmers. It is unacceptable for a kilogram of product distributed in schools to produce a kilogram of documents, as is the case today in some cases. Finally, the losers are the pupils, because they will not benefit from the food they are entitled to by European legislation. 4. We call on the Commission, the Council and colleagues in Parliament who will vote on this report to put an end to the exclusion of children with intolerances, allergies and food restrictions. 24% of students surveyed in the European Commission study do not have access to the programme due to illnesses and lack of alternatives. The compromise does not concern the introduction of a plant-based diet, but our obligation to supplement the budget in order to create alternatives from the list of products already accepted. No diagnosis should invalidate a student's entitlement to this European programme. 5. Together with the shadow rapporteurs, I draw attention to the importance of the educational measures that need to be implemented in schools and the greater budget that they need to benefit from. I therefore call on the Commission to take into account the recommendations of the European Parliament. I thank the shadow rapporteurs for the constructive negotiations and my fellow Romanian MEPs for their valuable contributions.

Mr President, if the representatives of the Commission have followed the recent news about the turbulence in the European agricultural sector, I hope they understand that it is time to decide. Do they still want European food and strong farmers, or do they want to eliminate both to put on our menu imported food that violates most of the rules set by Brussels in the last 60 years? The cacophony of the Commission's decisions is difficult to understand. He calls for support for exports from Ukraine, the border countries comply, but when it comes to helping their farmers for their losses, he throws them into mockery, small change. He says he wants the prosperity of agriculture in Green Deal, but without consulting the sector and without impact assessments, it takes decisions that risk drastically reducing Europeans’ productivity and, consequently, their food. It is preparing to eliminate a vital pesticide for beet plantations as it opens the piggy bank to compensate those who have already complied with the ban. So European farmers are waiting for you to enlighten them on their intentions. Unless you've already decided to get rid of them.

Mr President, I welcome this citizens' initiative and the over one million signatories alarmed by the disappearance of pollinators, and I think it is the perfect time to talk about the incoherence of the European executive. For example, it proposes nature restoration legislation to combat the decline of pollinators, even as it prepares the ratification, at all costs, of the largest trade agreement in the history of the Union with South America. Does the Commission know that Argentina is among the countries with the highest rates of bee population destruction? Or are we negotiating legislation to reduce pesticides without alternative substances for farmers? Does the Commission know that the amount of pesticides in agriculture has doubled in Brazil? Romanian farmers know that without bees there is no agriculture, which is why they use the least pesticide per hectare in the European Union. Meanwhile, they have among the lowest subsidies and three million tons of unsold grain in the last year, for which they will apparently receive, in mockery, small change in the form of compensation. I therefore ask the Commission: Do we still need farmers, healthy and affordable food? If so, a little coherence would be very good to save both bees and the agricultural sector.

Mr. President, the situation in the Republic of Moldova is worrying. I saw the mark of evil recently, when I was in Chisinau, and I see it more and more often on the news. Our partner urgently needs substantial support from Brussels. The seed of conflict is sown in Moldova according to the well-known pattern: destabilizing actions are increasing, pro-Russian groups are reactivating, the scenes in Transnistria are becoming more and more obvious. The Kremlin is in a hurry. We have to be faster than him. But Moldova must also be helped to find its internal political balance. Respect for European values does not and cannot have a political colour. At crucial times, when you need all allies, to divide, blaming undeservedly and ostracizing a part of the genuine pro-European electorate just because it comes from the opposition, from the left of the political spectrum, is counterproductive and can become destructive. Only if you keep your friends close can you drive out your enemies in irrelevance. For Moldova, the solidarity of the European Union, energy, money, reforms and tolerance are vital now. Together they will ensure the survival of democracy and the European integration they want.

Mr President, we have reached the moment of balance and we realize that we have made a mistake, creating a dangerous dependence on only a few fertiliser producers. Today we do not have much choice to get out of the crisis quickly, because we have sanctioned the producers on which we rely exclusively, Russia and Belarus, and we are in the hands of others, who have intentionally reduced their exports: China. And we never worried about European fertiliser producers, letting them perish in a non-competitive market and then giving them the final blow, in an energy crisis that we were unable to stop in time. That's how we hit a vital sector, food security. The Commission's proposal for an immediate response to the fertiliser crisis is necessary but not sufficient. Our food can only be guaranteed under two conditions: whether Europe will find long-term solutions to ensure its self-sufficiency in soil fertilisers and nutrients and whether it will solve the double standard problem, which discourages and even annihilates a substantial part of the agricultural sector, Eastern Europe and the Baltics. I thank the rapporteurs that my amendment on completing the process of external convergence is part of the resolution that we are going to vote on today, but it also requires the intervention of the Commission, in order to convince at political level those states that stubbornly oppose the equalisation of subsidies from East and West. This long-promised and never-respected desideratum has become a kind of agricultural Schengen, and I believe that discrimination against reliable partners must stop once and for all.

Madam President, traditional fishing in the Black Sea is also threatened with extinction. On the Romanian coast, as in the Danube Delta, only a few fishermen still use ancient techniques today, trying to keep this activity alive and ensure the livelihood of their families and communities. But this way of survival in perfect harmony with the environment is becoming more and more complicated. It is a victim of the development of coastal areas, the fierce and unfair competition of fishing fleets from neighbouring countries and, more recently, of the war in Ukraine, which has made small-scale fishermen stop their activity. In the Black Sea, the danger is deadly due to the floating mines and the enormous Russian arsenal in the vicinity of Romania. Our fishermen need help. Today's report has solutions to this crisis such as easy access to European and national funding, the creation of local supply chains, better promotion of fisheries products, attracting young people and women to the sector and improving working conditions for fishermen. But these measures really need to be implemented and they need to be implemented quickly if we want to be able to talk about traditional fishing in the Black Sea in the near future.