Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Union is taking concrete action which will first of all create de facto solidarity between the various Member States, as Robert Schuman taught us just over 73 years ago. It was exactly this motto that guided all our action during the discussion with the different political groups and the analysis of the four opinions of the Committees on Budgets, Employment and Social Affairs, Agriculture and Rural Development and Transport and Tourism, whose work we thank and which culminated in the presentation of this report. Let me thank all the shadow rapporteurs, their teams, our political group advisers and, of course, our secretariat, for their positive and constructive attitude. A word of thanks also to the Committee of the Regions and the Conference of Presidents of the Outermost Regions who have followed this whole process very closely. We have always had the outermost regions and their populations in mind, which has facilitated the achievement of relevant, positive and appropriate commitments for the sustainable development and growth of these regions. That is why there is unanimous support from left to right in the Committee on Regional Development. Our first objective was to complement the work of the European Commission with objectivity, listing concrete measures for concrete problems, and we therefore call, first of all, for an action plan that should have specific and adequate financial allocations and take into account the characteristics, strengths and challenges of each outermost region, defining an individual action plan if they so request. I believe that this is the only way we can ensure that this strategy is no longer a role, another admirable expression of intent, without any kind of impact on these regions and their population. Ladies and gentlemen, coming here, I am in a position to say that the partnership between the European Union and the outermost regions is a partnership that adds value. Strengthening it means, on the one hand, creating targeted policies to mitigate the impact of their natural and permanent constraints in strict compliance with Article 349 of the Treaty, which gives them their own status, and, on the other hand, creating policies that realise their full potential, all the contribution they can make to making the European project bigger. And here the range is wide, first of all because of the strategic maritime dimension that they give to the Union, because they host about 80% of its biodiversity, the potential for developing pilot projects in the areas of marine research, ocean protection, renewable energy, sustainable tourism. For maintaining a responsible fishing sector, respectful of the marine environment and an agricultural sector that privileges animal welfare, sustainable practices, producing products of excellence with a seal of safety and quality. They have historical links with a number of other regions and third countries, allowing the Union to expand and strengthen its sphere of influence, and the installed capacity for the development of space activities. And it could go on. The European Union must ensure that they overcome the effects of the recent crises and are properly supported in the urgent and triple transition they have to implement: digital, energy and environmental. It is important to strengthen and further support the empowerment of their human resources, as well as to support policies and strategies to combat brain drain and to retain professionals in these regions. As for their permanent constraints, the combination of the specificities of these regions results in a huge dependence on air and maritime transport that wants to be safe, regular and affordable, in order to guarantee the free and fair movement of people, services and goods, respecting the principle of territorial cohesion. This is the greatest challenge for the outermost regions, a good transport policy, and we are therefore in favour of a specific European transport programme, POSEI. Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, to conclude, and as a Portuguese and representative of the two ORs – the Azores and Madeira – I am extremely pleased with the work achieved, which I hope you will be able to validate with your approval tomorrow and which the Commission will be able to welcome and convert into concrete policies for our outermost regions. Finally, the Member States with the outermost regions should use it in a positive way in order to fulfil their responsibilities towards these regions more effectively.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the proposal for a regulation that we are discussing today was the result of negotiations which presented difficulties in the light of the specificities and legitimate interests at stake, both of the producers of the groups, of the suppliers and, of course, of the views here and there different from the various Member States. But it is this report that we will certainly see adopted tomorrow and that was adopted unanimously in the Committee on Agriculture. This says exactly how it was possible, and let me say that, of course, with everyone's work, otherwise there would not have been such unanimity, without false modesty, with my contribution, from my political group, from the EPP, we managed to reconcile these different points of view, for example in the particular case of wine, which had had so much discussion. And here, referring to the work that my political group has done, which I myself have done as shadow rapporteur, I obviously cannot forget the work that all my colleagues have also done and, of course, in the person of the rapporteur, our colleague Paolo de Castro, who was also able to understand and welcome many of the points of view that we had. It is a good example – and I hope the European Commission is particularly attentive – of how legislation can be produced that reconciles the various interests involved. The unanimous vote we had in the Committee on Agriculture is a good lesson in how in politics it is always more important to defend the interests of the recipients of public policies than ideology alone. for wine: Obviously, with different views, we managed to ensure that, in fact, the specificity of a product that is so important for the agricultural economy, and so important for several Member States, would remain in the Common Agricultural Policy in its substantial part. I am therefore very pleased to see this position of the Committee on Agriculture and I hope that we will be able to maintain it in tomorrow's votes.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, rural areas and all the regions listed in Article 174 of the Treaty need a specific strategic development framework that does not ignore the characteristics of each and their vulnerabilities. They need a European legal environment conducive to their economic, social and even environmental development. In the case of regions with different characteristics, this legal framework must provide for exceptional situations, as we speak for different realities, which require different responses. We have many strategies, which need to get off paper quickly. We recently adopted our position on the Long-term Vision for Rural Areas and, in REGI, we adopted our first position on the Strategy for the Outermost Regions, on which I had the honour of working as draftsman of the opinion and final report. In both files I have advocated cohesion, and that is what the issue under discussion here today is all about: cohesion, social justice and the road to convergence. We must put aside the unfounded threats to the internal market when we all know that state aid in these regions has an essentially local impact, although it is extremely important for the development of these territories. It is also necessary to consider the need to ensure additional provisions for the outermost regions, as provided for in Article 349 of the Treaty, in particular in the revision of the rules de minimis on-going, with a fair increase in the maximum allowable aid ceilings. And I will end by calling on the governments of our Member States (and/or our regions) to use this aid, because without their action they will simply be a real “hand full of nothing”. And that is what we want to avoid, in the name of cohesion!

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it has already been said, and we all know it, that over the last few years fertilisers have increased by between 230 % and 250 % compared to 2019. The situation differs from one Member State to another. For example, fertilisers of around EUR 200 and EUR 300 per tonne in my country, in Portugal, cost between EUR 600 and EUR 900. But what about farmers in the so-called cross-border countries in that border area? There were cases of farmers sowing without the addition of bottom fertilizer last year, which resulted in very high productivity losses. Commissioner, at this time, when we are at war, when we are asking for more to be produced, when we are talking about food security and sovereignty, when we all want green architectures, when we all want to look at better solutions, I ask you – and as the chairman of the committee, Norbert Lins, has rightly said, and as I have so often said – if it is not time to act rather than react? Isn't it time we didn't go after the damage, as they say in my country? But this loss is a major financial loss for farmers. And we cannot ask farmers to produce more, because that ultimately fights inflation. This ultimately helps producers, but it also helps consumers. Commissioner, the Commission has put forward measures, but they are not enough. For these reasons, you should also look at Parliament's proposals. Four final notes: – Facilitate the rules for the use of organic fertilisers as an alternative to mineral fertilisers, but never forget that a combination of the two is necessary for good agricultural production; – Extend the temporary suspension of import duties to all mineral fertilisers, except those of Russian or Belarusian origin; – Take advantage of the crisis reserve; – But to look for alternative sources of funding, outside the Common Agricultural Policy, to develop measures to ensure the affordability and availability of fertilisers in the European Union. This is the solidarity to which we are all bound and so is the European Commission.

Mr President, Commissioner, we already know what has been said here, namely that the increase in farmers' incomes is not accompanied, to the same extent, by the increase in food. And the Commissioner agrees. Analyzed and agreed. That agreement is already important, but the point, on which I accompany many of my fellow Members, is that I wanted the Commissioner to say in an objective way: The Commission has already done this in order to solve this deficit. What the Commissioner has been telling us is contained in only two things: the CAP and strategic plans, the CAP and Member States’ policies. Commissioner, I am sorry, but that is not enough, because what we want to hear here is: in view of this reality, which is damaging farmers' incomes, the Commission has an extraordinary measure to make this compensation a reality. The CAP was not designed to combat inflation, so it is not fair, in defending farmers, to protect ourselves in the CAP and the CAPCPs.

Commissioner, we have discussed this a great deal, nor can I agree more with you and with the sensitivity that we recognise for you. But, look, both in Europe and perhaps in each of the Member States – and we are talking about our own, which we know well – is it true what the Commissioner said that the important poles, close to the big capitals, do not eventually develop, because big capital attracts, and the other large patches of territory, in the specific case of low-density regions? That is where there really is a lack of poles of attraction, so I think that cohesion policies should also be very targeted and very clear to these poles, precisely because it helps to balance each of the Member States.

Mr President, Commissioner, in this question, which is called 'Combating depopulation through a cohesion policy instrument', we all know that depopulation, ageing and rural abandonment are certainly among the main policy objectives of the Commission and the Member States. It is certainly a European priority, but how do we do it? We involve the people of the regions, the living forces, the municipalities, we need to create jobs – we all know this – public services, access to very high-speed internet networks, innovate in mobility, preserve the landscape, biodiversity, promote economic activities. The transition to the future must be digital – we all know this – it must be green, but it must also be demographic. And indeed – and this is the question – why should we, Commissioner, not pre-assess the demographic impact of all European policies, especially in the area of cohesion and rural development? Because if we don't, we're always putting money in, but the results aren't what we expect.

Mr President, Commissioner, this debate here in the European Parliament today is a tribute to all the firefighters and all the mayors who fought and fought in adverse conditions. But it is also to say that if natural disasters increase in intensity and severity, Europe and many of the Member States must act more and more effectively. You say that it is important to have such consultation and I would also like to encourage you to do so. Three very important notes: first, a strategy for integrated water management with appropriate instruments. We have to enjoy the waters that flow, many of which are wasted. Second, a strategy for forest fires, but mainly prevention, prevention, prevention, prevention. Many Member States, and I am talking about my own country, do not use this very important mechanism, but also, of course, of concerted combat. Third: solidarity. This is the time for Europe also to show its solidarity so that we cannot stand idly by when, for example, and I give the example of my country, a natural park burns, a large part of a natural park that is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, as happened in Serra da Estrela in Portugal.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Vice-President of the Commission, we are in fact currently experiencing the worst drought on record in some parts of Europe, particularly southern Europe. A recently published study points to a frequency of dry winters in the Iberian Peninsula of 1 every 4 years. In Portugal, the effects of climate change are clear. Average annual rainfall has reduced by 20 millimeters per decade and there has been an increase in the frequency of heat waves, waves that power large fires. Today, in my country, we have 96.3% of the territory in extreme and severe drought. In view of this situation, Commissioner, it is imperative to think about structural solutions. I would therefore like the European Commission to look to the future and define a European strategy for increasing surface water storage capacity. A strategy that allows Member States to finance outside the Common Agricultural Policy to complete and modernise existing irrigation and promote infrastructure such as dams, it must be said, and links between reservoirs capable of increasing the resilience of the system. Commissioner, we are forced to do so by nature and the climate, but also by agriculture and animal production.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it should not be for the sake of this absurd war, but for the sake of justice for farmers, who are men and women who want to produce in accordance with good environmental practice. But the truth is that agriculture, food security and food sovereignty have come on the political agenda for those reasons that shouldn't exist. There are also reasons why today we can face reality and stop ideologies and ideological struggles that make no sense. The EPP, of course, must defend European farmers. We have to produce more because Europe has to feed more. And Madam President, Commissioner, exceptional situations require exceptional measures. That is why I propose to you: the Commission should review the targets and timelines of the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity Strategies. Review deadlines, don't finish. Suspend legislative procedures. Finally, Commissioner, increase support for farmers as a matter of urgency, but do so as a matter of urgency.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the drought in Portugal and Spain is extremely serious. We are getting closer and closer to a situation similar to the largest drought we have ever seen in Portugal and which occurred in 2005. For 17 years, there have not been so many areas of Portugal in severe drought at this time of year, which causes enormous damage to various sectors of our economy, the environment, such as tourism, and particularly agriculture. As for the latter, Commissioner, farmers are desperate and many are already thinking of abandoning farming. They see the fall-winter crops practically lost. In Portugal, dams are at very low levels for this time of year because it has hardly rained. The situation in many regions of Spain is also dramatic, with water supply cuts and limitations, especially in Extremadura, Andalusia, Murcia and Castilla La Mancha. This is in addition to the increase in production costs that farmers have suffered in the last year. Drought, reduction of herds and abandonment of the activity are terrible and will lead to another problem that is the anticipation of the fire season, unfortunately. And it is for all these reasons, listening to the Commissioner and calling for joint efforts between the governments of the Member States and the Commission, which I welcome, but which I welcome, Commissioner, not only on the structural issue. It is indeed a structural issue, of planning in the long term, it is true, but the truth is that we are also at a critical moment. In the short term, it was important for the Commission to launch financial support measures, but outside the common agricultural policy, because these are already support that, in law, belongs to farmers. A reduction in electricity and fuel taxes for agricultural producers. And in the long term, that is, to promote a strategy for the countries, in particular the countries of southern Europe, which are affected by droughts, and which aims to increase the abstraction, retention and storage of surface waters. For example, in Portugal, only 20% of all water inflows we have can be stored. It is, in fact, very little. So we have a lot of room to grow. And let me also make a request for my country: the Commission should encourage the Government of Portugal to create extraordinary specific support for these most affected regions, not forgetting immediate cash-flow issues to avoid abandoning the activity itself; trigger a crisis measure to support the purchase of compound feed due to lack of pasture; facilitate access to water for drinking livestock and crop survival rules through support for water storage; a credit line for new boreholes and ponds; temporary exemption from payments to Social Security, namely the Single Social Tax; effectively implement the green electricity legislation, a support of at least 30% of the bill, and reactivate seasonal electricity contracts for agriculture. Commissioner, let us help farmers, because agriculture is life.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this is a reform agreement and not an agreement for some kind of break-up. It is reform in the right sense. It continues to look at agriculture from an economic point of view, supports investment and supports income, but also looks at it from a social and environmental point of view. It is an agreement that encourages young farmers and points them to new practices. The CAP, the common agricultural policy, must remain an important cohesion policy between the countryside and the city. It cannot fail to look at farmers as the real agents of this change. But, Commissioner, what a greeting, now in 2022 will be a key year for us to see whether the secondary legislation that is coming, which is very important, does not throw out the window what has already entered through the door for farmers. We must be very attentive to this. The Commission cannot have such temptations and Member States must have great ambition in their strategic plans so that farmers can continue to have hope. And that is the ambition of the Member States, that is the ambition that I also expect from the next government in my country, in Portugal.

Madam President, Commissioner, I would just like to make this note: Perhaps we could be on the way to making a historic mistake in this Parliament. A good strategy cannot have against farmers, it is not the lobbyists, it is those who apply it. A good strategy cannot ignore science, however hidden it may have been. You're doomed to failure. A good strategy, which we all want, because we who believe in environmental practices, this is not ideological, it is not from the left or the right, we all want it, the farmers want it, but it must be based on science, it must have its agents to be able to use it. This report ignores science, ignores application, ignores impact studies. So we are going to adopt a report and then we are going to ask the Commission to present the impact studies to us? In any Member State, if a government were to present this in a parliament, of course the parliament would say to it: No, go home, rethink the strategy and then we're here to discuss it. That is what I would suggest to you, Commissioner. Tell your colleagues, Mr Timmermans and the Commissioner for Agriculture to rethink the strategy and we will be here for [...]. (The speaker does not finish the sentence.)