Speeches

I understand your question and it is extremely important to understand, colleagues, that there is a need for a balanced intervention on what river courses mean, so that they can be regularised in order to prevent floods, on the one hand; on the other hand, these watercourses can be used for what is meant by the development of the irrigation system. However, I repeat, there is a need for balanced approaches on the part of all decision-makers, so that we can coexist, in good harmony, man and nature.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen colleagues, holding your mother until her last breath, trying to save her from the middle of the waters, is just one of the shocking stories in Romania, where at least seven people have lost their lives and many more are missing. Every death has its own story. Every loss leaves families destroyed, homeless, unsafe. In addition to the loss of life, local economies developed along rivers, such as, but not limited to, agricultural holdings, are heavily affected. Unfortunately, such situations have happened in many European countries and we must be aware that such phenomena tend to become a normality. We cannot restore lost lives, but we can offer hope to those who remain. The European Commission, through the Solidarity Fund and the Civil Protection Mechanism, must stand by Romania and every European state hit by the floods, so that essential services are quickly restored and life can return to normality. At the same time, the European Commission will have to develop, together with the Member States, comprehensive plans for the efficient management of watercourses, the regularisation of rivers and the construction of dams in flood-prone areas. However, the Member States alone cannot meet the costs of reconstruction, so I call on the European Commission to identify financial resources for both the increase in the Solidarity Fund and the investments to be made by the Member States.

Mr President, I believe that a balanced approach is needed and farmers are the most important fighters in what it means to protect the environment. Following a structured dialogue, if you will, between environmental activists and farmers, we will surely find the best solutions to guarantee food security at European Union level.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we are faced with a long series of debates on the future of European agriculture, and the document ‘Structured Dialogue for Agriculture’ is welcome and provides a solid basis for discussion. However, solutions need to be carefully considered. In assessing this document, ladies and gentlemen, and future agricultural policies, we must start from a fundamental principle: the need to ensure food security at European Union level. In this context, I would like to send a strong message to the European Commission. Commissioner, direct payments must remain a tool at the disposal of farmers, as they are a safety belt for them, without necessarily being conditional on achieving environmental objectives that are sometimes almost impossible to achieve. Second, any environmental responsibility imposed on farmers must be properly compensated. No farmer should be forced to do more with less. I also reject any subliminal message of stigmatisation of animal products. The European Commission, in my view, should recalibrate its discourse and promote a balanced diet that also includes animal products, not just a plant-based diet. At the same time, importantly, products imported from third countries must meet the same quality standards, because the import of products, foods containing substances prohibited in the European Union, seems to me to be deeply immoral for both farmers and consumers. Commissioner, I know that you are close to the agricultural sector because you were a member of the Committee on Agriculture. The message is very important. The CAP needs adequate funding to be able to put everyday food on the table.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen colleagues, Commissioner, cohesion policy is the cornerstone of the European Union, being the backbone of our collective solidarity and prosperity. The challenges we face today are major. The migration of people from Eastern Europe to the West, from rural to urban, is a reality that cannot be challenged. Only by investing in transport, school, health infrastructure, broadband internet, but above all by creating well-paid jobs, and here I emphasise, well-paid jobs, will we be able to reverse this phenomenon. We need to make every region a place that can be defined at home by every European citizen. Today, more than 80% of the investments made in various Member States are financed by European funds, and it is important to talk to our citizens about these investments so that they are aware of the benefits of belonging to the European Union. At the same time, we call on the Commission to leave the current cohesion policy funds untouched and to adequately finance this policy in the future financial framework. Thus, it seems to me inadmissible that cohesion money should be taken to cover other needs of the European Union. We must understand that we cannot have a strong European Union without strong regions, and this requires a strong cohesion policy.

Madam President, Romania's treasure represents an open wound in the heart of the Romanian people, a painful scar of the past, which reminds us of the injustices committed. It is time to put an end to this dark chapter and make sure that Russia is responsible for this barbaric act. In the middle of World War II, when the national territory was two-thirds occupied, the country's leadership decided to move the treasury to the territory of Russia, an allied state at the time. 108 years have passed since we asked for the return of our treasure, more precisely, the 41 wagons loaded with 91.5 tons of fine gold, but also other objects of inestimable value. This episode in Romania's history is living proof that Russia is anything but an ally, and our trust must be a lesson learned for any state that sees Russia as a possible partner. It is time for the 41 wagons to return home, to recover our damage, and for Russia to pay for all these years of waiting. I congratulate the European Parliament on its involvement in solving this problem.

I have to intervene, dear colleagues, because it seems to me that you, a good part of your colleagues in this room, are not aware of what the European Commission's proposal on the Animal Transport Regulation means. Colleague, are you aware that the European Commission has sent to Parliament to discuss and debate the Animal Transport Regulation? Because it seems to me from the debate here that you are not aware of the legislation proposed by the European Commission. Do you know this? We are debating this regulation next week in the AGRI Committee.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen colleagues, animal welfare is on the public agenda at European level, being a major concern for both citizens and political decision-makers. From the outset, I would point out one thing that I have found as rapporteur of the Committee of Inquiry on Animal Transport, namely the failure of Member States to comply with animal welfare legislation. It is a painful truth, but we must recognise it in order to make real progress in this area. In other words, no matter how much legislation we adopt, if it is not respected, we will not be able to achieve our objectives. But possible future legislation must be done in full collaboration with farmers. They are the cornerstone of the entire agricultural system and are the key factor in this area. We need to listen to them and take into account their concerns in order to develop policies that are effective, enforceable and sustainable over time, and not detached from reality, so as to destroy the livestock sector in the European Union. I want to assure all citizens, but also farmers, that their voice is heard and that we are all partners in the process.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen colleagues, first of all, I thank very much Andrey Novakov and Mr Emil Boc, President of COTER, for their contribution to the report on cohesion policy post-2027. Colleagues, cohesion policy is the cornerstone of European solidarity, ensuring that no region is left behind. Cohesion policy investments have had a major impact on regions, cities and rural areas. These investments have shaped infrastructure, stimulated innovation, supported SMEs and promoted research and education. In other words, cohesion policy has reached every locality, but above all – and here I emphasise – every home in the European Union. Cutting red tape and simplifying the absorption process must be at the heart of post-2027 cohesion policy so as to facilitate access to European funds in order to be able to develop projects with real and sustainable impact. Investment at local and regional level remains fundamental and local and regional authorities play a crucial role in managing development funds. One thing is certain, fellow Members and Commissioner: we must be the defenders of cohesion policy and prevent the cutting of any financial resources from cohesion, and the total budget of cohesion policy for the post-2027 period should be at least equivalent to the current one. In an ever-changing Europe, cohesion policy, together with the common agricultural policy, remains an essential tool to guarantee what it means to live a better life in every corner of the European Union, for every European citizen.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, let me first congratulate the rapporteurs on their work. We all want the European Union budget to be spent efficiently and responsibly, aware that changing financial rules often creates uncertainties for beneficiaries. Building on the lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Commission proposes to adapt the financial rules to allow an EU institution to purchase goods and services on behalf of Member States in crisis situations. It is also proposed to update the definition of crisis to include public health emergencies. We welcome the Commission's proposal, which wishes to make a targeted change in order to strike the right balance, focusing on the changes that are really needed, so that our financial instruments are adapted and efficient, but also able to respond to the challenges and at the same time ensure transparency in the spending of European funds. So these proposals are not just technical adjustments, they reflect our shared commitment to solidarity, responsibility and the protection of the interests of European citizens, but also the guarantee that the European Union is ready to face any future challenges.

Madam President, in a TV interview this morning, I was asked what would I change in the decision-making mechanisms of the European institutions? The first thing I would do would be to force all the Brussels bureaucrats dealing with the wolves and bears files to go to the Fagaras Mountains or the French Alps, places that are full of wolves and bears, and to guard a flock of sheep for at least a week. I would also oblige them, dear colleagues, to talk to the 269 people in Romania mutilated for life by the bear and to the families of the 26 people who were killed. And explain to them how much you, the wolves and the bears, like them. The European Court of Auditors, in my opinion, should check whether the financial liability of officials who are waiting and are not paying attention to what the millions of euros paid to farmers for the animals killed mean. It is not possible, dear colleagues, for us to stay and discuss this topic for years, to stay stuck in various bureaucratic procedures and no one to answer. Let's be very clear, dear colleagues, there will have to come a time when someone will respond because of this behavior and because of this institutional immobilism, after all.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen colleagues, first of all, I congratulate all the actors involved in this process, which is an important step towards strengthening the regulation on geographical indications. Colleagues, one thing is certain: Geographical indications are not just labels. They are a promise of quality and originality. Behind each geographical indication are stories of heritage and traditions passed down through generations. This regulation comes at the right time, if we are talking about farmers' protests, in a sector where there is a need for predictability and viable solutions. Geographical indications are essential elements for differentiating our products in a competitive global market and for supporting rural development and leveraging local resources. Farmers or producer groups will be able to strengthen their position in supply chains by having at their disposal the necessary tools to provide consumers with high added value products, especially from well-defined regions. However, I would like to point out that the protection of geographical indications is also essential in order to prevent counterfeiting and imitation of genuine products, which can damage not only the economy but, more seriously, the reputation and trust of consumers. The trilogue negotiations have underlined our collective commitment to protect these values. But our work does not stop there. We need to step up promotion actions to raise awareness of the quality of these products among consumers, and labelling must be done in a manner that is not confusing. Whether we are talking about pălincă, Jidvei wines or prosciutto di Parma, the consumer must have the guarantee of the quality of the products purchased.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, European farmers are on the streets today. We all know their challenges: inflation, drought, the war in Ukraine, and green policies, and I stress, dear colleagues, who are tributaries of these policies, are bringing the sector to its knees. The tears of politicians hypocritically shed on the shoulders of farmers do not keep them from hunger or thirst, as long as we do not change anything that needs to be changed. Commissioner, you gave a derogation on GAEC 8, but that does not solve the problem, because the crops to be established cause damage and not benefit. I also asked you to come up with money to replenish the crisis reserve. You didn't! I ask you in the twelfth hour to come up with the simplification of the rules of the CAP. No European farmer can understand how someone in the sumptuous offices in Brussels can impose on him when to turn his field or when to harvest, but at the same time have MEPs who reject the new genomic techniques. I ask all of you to be honest partners of farmers, not to turn the politician in Brussels into a risk factor for agriculture, as you are today promoting green policies without listening to farmers.

Madam President, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, the border regions of the European Union cover 40% of its territory, 30% of its population and two million cross-border workers. The proposal for a regulation on the European cross-border mechanism was intended to remove administrative and legal obstacles to the implementation of joint projects. The Covid pandemic, but also everyday life, has shown us that the lack of clear regulations in the field of cross-border cooperation creates immeasurable difficulties for European citizens, while at the same time abducting local authorities from effective tools to face these challenges. Unfortunately, despite the vote in the European Parliament, the Council has not been able to move forward on this file. Madam Minister, we are living in complicated times at European level and we cannot afford the immobilism between institutions to generate further losses at European Union level of billions of euros each year and to lose some four million jobs. I therefore call for negotiations to be opened immediately between the Council, the European Commission and Parliament so that the will of European citizens is properly reflected in this regulation.

Madam President, new genomic techniques are an indispensable tool for the work of farmers whom we see on the street shouting their helplessness in the face of the current challenges. Beyond what still divides Member States in the Council, these new genomic techniques open doors to drought-resistant plants that use fewer pesticides and chemical fertilisers, while guaranteeing higher yields. To those who challenge these techniques, I would like to remind you that 37 Nobel laureates and 1 500 scientists from all over the world have asked the European Parliament to legislate on this subject without turning its back on scientific progress. It is deeply immoral and hypocritical to reject this dossier for ideological reasons, but at the same time, dear colleagues, to weep for the pity of farmers. Now is the time to stand by them, to put this tool on the table so that they no longer have to face a profoundly unfair competition generated by products imported from third countries that use such technologies. Moreover, colleagues, today we import into the European Union 98% of the need for protein feed that is genetically modified organisms, because we have no alternatives, and now that we have them, we reject them. Therefore, let's be serious, let's vote for this regulation.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today the agricultural sector in the European Union is affected by inflation, drought, floods, labour shortages and the war in Ukraine, which makes it deeply unpredictable for tomorrow. From Romania to Germany and France, the farmers, whose only weapon remained the protest, left their home, their table and their family, taking to the streets at -10°, to shout their helplessness in the face of the impossibility of being able to continue their activity. I wish, Commissioner, that you had a clearer message in your intervention for those on the streets today. Of course, we must support those who fight for freedom, but let us not forget about European farmers who are struggling for survival and to guarantee our food security. The crisis reserve has proved insufficient, Commissioner. That is why I call on the European Commission to immediately come up with new financial resources to be made available to farmers, to speed up the process of equalising subsidies between farmers in eastern and western Europe, but also to derogate from GAEC 7 and GAEC 8. Commissioner, if you need to amend the basic act, amend it, but you cannot leave this request from farmers in the European Union unresolved. At the same time, I call on extremist parties not to climb on the pain and needs of farmers to make political capital for their own benefit.

Madam President, we have been informed, Members, that we can intervene in the catch-the-eye procedure. First of all, I would like to welcome the European Commission's proposal and to thank colleague Alexander Bernhuber for the way he handled this file. Through the work done in the European Parliament, we managed to set some lines of action, starting from the undeniable reality highlighted by the European control structures. Thus, almost half of the honey imported into Europe is adulterated and 74% of Chinese honey is non-compliant with European standards. European consumers need a guarantee of product quality. At the same time, the beekeeping sector in the European Union is subject to profoundly unfair competition and non-compliant honey generates unbearable profit losses. That is why we need mandatory labelling with the country of origin and the corresponding percentage (and here I emphasise, Commissioner, the corresponding percentage), but also the identification of mechanisms and procedures for honey adulteration so that they can be effectively combated. Colleagues, it is our responsibility, as representatives of citizens' interests, to ensure that legislation and regulations respect consumers and protect farmers.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, war is a reality that cannot be challenged. Famine is causing migration and food prices are already hard to reach for consumers. Today's discussions cannot be detached from these realities. Responsible use of pesticides must become a target for all Member States, but especially for those that consume well above the EU average. We have states with a consumption of over 8 000 grams per hectare, but we have states that have understood the need for their responsible use, such as, for example, Romania, which has a consumption of only 640 grams per hectare. If I look in the room, the most vocal MEPs are coming from the states with the highest pesticide consumption per hectare. Wouldn't it be useful for you to talk in your own countries, to reduce your pesticide consumption? For requiring a percentage reduction would not only be deeply immoral, but would punish those states that have already been responsible and would seriously and irretrievably bring the European agricultural sector to its knees. The consequence would be its bankruptcy, the closure of farms, and the European Union would be dependent on food imports from third countries. Do not forget that today 33 million European citizens do not ... (The Chair withdrew the floor of the speaker)

Domnule președinte, doar 26 % din populație trăiește în spațiul rural, iar tinerii fermieri reprezintă doar șase la sută. Between 2005 and 2020, more than 37% of farms disappeared and the decline will continue unless we come up with viable solutions. Agricultura este percepută adesea ca o activitate dificilă, nesigură și puțin profitabilă, ceea ce face ca tinerii să se îndrepte către alte activități. Policies in this area must ensure primarily an increase in income, which today is far below the average in other sectors, while facilitating access to land without which you can not do agriculture. At the same time, rural areas must be able to provide adequate living conditions. Investment in broadband internet, water services, road connectivity and healthcare and education is indispensable. Colleagues, we must be aware that only when the urban-rural divide, in all its aspects, is closed, will we really be able to talk about generational exchange, and this means having adequate funding, first and foremost for young farmers.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, proteins, like water, are indispensable for all of us, but the European Union cannot meet its domestic protein needs, as it has to import from third countries, and we are talking here above all about genetically modified soybean meal. This creates deeply unfair competition for our farmers, who are subject to much stricter rules compared to those in third countries. Protein production needs to start with European farmers, but they need to be better supported financially. The use of set-aside agricultural land and new genomic techniques, as well as cutting red tape, can guarantee consistent protein production across the European Union. At the same time, I would like to send a clear message of rejection of the use of insects, but above all I strongly reject the use of artificial meat in human food. Cellular food or lab meat has no place in Europe. I firmly believe that European farmers can guarantee food security at European Union level by practising conventional farming.

Madam President, it has become a tradition for almost every plenary to discuss something about the Schengen area, which can be understandable in the current context of migration. It is incomprehensible, however, to keep Romania and Bulgaria out of it, given that Romania has managed more than 5 million migrants and more than 60% of grain transit from Ukraine alone, preventing global hunger. It is also boundless hypocrisy to speak of the unity of the European Union, just as it is impossible to speak of strong European institutions that apply the double measure for Romania and Bulgaria. Dear colleagues, it is cynical for the Romanian and Bulgarian people to accept Austria's explanations that they cannot enter the Schengen area due to illegal migration. But at the same time, there were more than 54,000 illegal migrants in Croatia, which was admitted at the time. Dear Roberta, dear Ursula and Mr Charles Michel, we thank you for your declarative support on various occasions, but today we need facts, not words, and this means Romania in the Schengen area. Otherwise, we will have to deal with an increase in extremism at the level of the European Union.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen colleagues, I welcome the European Commission's proposal to extend the authorisation for the use of glyphosate. The challengers of this decision must understand that today there is no study showing a direct causal link between the use of this substance and risks to human, animal health or the environment. Or should I understand that we no longer trust the judgment of the European institutions? However, we ask the Commission to allocate funds to further research alternative methods to the use not only of glyphosate, but also of other chemicals in agriculture. Globally, farmers are already losing 30-40% of their crops to weeds, pests and diseases. Without glyphosate, farmers in the European Union would, for example, lose 24 million tonnes of wheat alone, or €10.5 billion annually. At the same time, it would mean a decrease in agricultural production, a reduced income for farmers, but, remember, dear colleagues, a very important thing: This means, in particular, rising food prices for consumers. Do we want this? I don't think so. According to the latest data provided by the Commission, unfortunately, 36 million Europeans, or 8.3% of the population of the European Union, cannot afford a hot meal every two days. At the same time, we must be aware that the world's population will grow from 7.6 billion people to 9.8 billion in 2050. This means that farmers will have to produce 70% more to meet food demand. Given the current geopolitical context generated by the war in Ukraine, inflation, climate change, the European Union must continue to be a guarantor of food security.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Habitats Directive, adopted 30 years ago, has achieved its objectives. Populations of bears, wolves or other large predators have reached a significant number. At this point, not only is their existence no longer threatened, but their numbers, in relation to the size of the habitats they have at their disposal, create problems with immeasurable consequences for all of us. The time has come, dear colleagues, now to protect people, as 30 years ago we began to defend the great predators. Romania today has more than half of the bear population of the European Union, over 10 000 individuals, and in the last four years 264 people have been mutilated for life, 25 people have been killed and millions of euros have been spent on compensation to farmers. Thousands of bears have invaded not only cities and villages in hilly or mountainous areas, but today we also have bears on the Black Sea. Unfortunately, in the vicinity of the schools, instead of the happy voice of the children, the cries of the bears are heard, much to the desperation of the parents who run to save their children. The pastures, which until yesterday were full of entire herds of animals, today are left fallow for fear of wolves or bears, and in many tourist areas you get to drink your morning coffee with the bear on the terrace. That is why I welcome the Commission's action in assessing the populations of large predators and I urge the relevant actors to be actively involved in this endeavour, and I urge the European Commission to take the necessary measures to achieve an indispensable balance, a quality of life, regardless of the regions in which we live.

Mr President, Romania has been and will be in solidarity with Ukraine, but Russia's withdrawal from the Black Sea grain transit agreement still creates a problem for European farmers. In this context, the European Commission must take responsibility for guaranteeing a transit of grain from Ukraine to areas where it is really needed, either in African states, where today people are starving, or in European countries where, due to drought, there is a shortage of grain. Remaining these cereals in countries close to the border with Ukraine creates serious market disturbances with immeasurable consequences for farmers. Today, in Romania, farmers cannot capitalize on their cereal productions at prices that cover their production costs. At the same time, transport and storage logistics are oversaturated and compensation from the crisis reserve does not even cover two percent of income losses. In this context, I strongly request the extension of the export ban from Ukraine to Romania and the rest of the states near the border with Ukraine after September 15, at least until the end of the year.