Debate contributions by Cristina GUARDA

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is true that cohesion policy has a problem with the use of funds, but instead of correcting the mistakes made here, within this institution, the bureaucracy has turned it into an ATM for large companies and for making mega infrastructures. And with the excuse of defense from tomorrow you can divert billions destined for less developed regions, or poisoned, for the construction, for example, of a bridge over the Strait: excellent investment, which are also classified as climatic. Or, give an avalanche of public money to a few big defense companies, which is obviously a simpler method of using these funds immediately, rather than giving them to many local small and medium-sized businesses, right? Here's the whole thing, think a little bit, with less transparency. Why do we ever know where and how our funds are actually used and this, I am sorry, is not respecting the foundation of cohesion policy. What will remain to defend ourselves against the climate crisis, to defend our social policies, small and medium-sized enterprises, health, services and rural communities? Orbán thanks you very much, since with this vote he will be able to continue to use the funds while still violating fundamental rights. This is something that we Greens will continue to fight against.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, drought is putting us in trouble, presenting us with the bill: 50 billion in 2022 alone, 5 million agricultural workers on their knees due to lack of water. Crops have collapsed, soils are degrading, biodiversity loss accelerates: This is climate normality in Europe, of which you are complicit today. Those who work the land, taking real care of it, are not valued, they are not recognized. A living soil that retains water, biodiversity necessary to produce food, which is a common good: This is what they do, these are the farmers, true custodians of our future. And as such they must be supported. We will soon discover the strategy of the common agricultural policy of the future. Concrete, stable and accessible tools are needed, and this strategy has a name: agroecology. Commissioner, let us stop pursuing the interests of those who do not want to change and let us finally build an agricultural policy that protects those who protect us.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, when a candidate is forced to escape the blows of a hit man, the alarm for the whole democracy of a country is clear. The attempted murder of Miguel Uribe Turbay reminds us that political violence in Colombia, unfortunately, is not yet a closed chapter. In order to fulfil our role as Europe, it is essential to reject violence from now on and not to exacerbate political fronts and conflicts. Because if the political debate slips into the language of intimidation, then those who want violence win, and the most fragile people pay for it. That is why since this institution we must build relationships of dialogue and not arouse the conflict, already extremely polarized, because this puts at risk the communities that are struggling to defend their rights, starting with that of their own land, and that in Colombia is an extremely complex and risky struggle, in which people also lose their lives. So all this, if we do not behave responsibly, will frustrate the work done to defend the first peace agreement with the FARC and all the efforts carried out by the government, in particular Petro.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank the colleagues with whom I have dealt with this path both in the Committee on Agriculture and in the Committee on Regional Development, because finally there is talk of using cohesion policy to really support rural areas, not only in agriculture, but also to guarantee essential services, opportunities for young people, women, parents, or to invest in the ecological transition to defend small businesses from the climate crisis or projects such as energy communities, which restore power to citizens. Beware of hypocrisy: with one hand we vote for non-legislative texts that celebrate cohesion for rural areas, with the other we support legislative changes that risk diverting those same funds towards defence and large companies. It is a contradiction that is serious, because if it is difficult to find the funds to build a common defence strategy, the solution is not to encourage as many as 27 national ones using the only real funds of European social policy, because weapons do not combat depopulation. Cohesion must help communities, not war industries with record profits. What about regions at risk? Cohesion funds must provide their citizens with social services, medical services and secure facilities. But moving resources from rural areas to military production, perhaps without transparency, is a betrayal of the spirit of cohesion. Let's find more resources. Tomorrow we will vote on a clear proposal for the future of European funds for rural areas. Let us find the courage to be consistent also in the next acts.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank the colleagues with whom I have dealt with this path both in the Committee on Agriculture and in the Committee on Regional Development, because finally there is talk of using cohesion policy to really support rural areas, not only in agriculture, but also to guarantee essential services, opportunities for young people, women, parents, or to invest in the ecological transition to defend small businesses from the climate crisis or projects such as energy communities, which restore power to citizens. Beware of hypocrisy: with one hand we vote for non-legislative texts that celebrate cohesion for rural areas, with the other we support legislative changes that risk diverting those same funds towards defence and large companies. It is a contradiction that is serious, because if it is difficult to find the funds to build a common defence strategy, the solution is not to encourage as many as 27 national ones using the only real funds of European social policy, because weapons do not combat depopulation. Cohesion must help communities, not war industries with record profits. What about regions at risk? Cohesion funds must provide their citizens with social services, medical services and secure facilities. But moving resources from rural areas to military production, perhaps without transparency, is a betrayal of the spirit of cohesion. Let's find more resources. Tomorrow we will vote on a clear proposal for the future of European funds for rural areas. Let us find the courage to be consistent also in the next acts.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I come from one of the territories in Europe most contaminated by PFAS and I am also a farmer, so you can also imagine how important water resilience is to me, how important the protection of this resource is. That is why, rereading the words of this own-initiative report, I admit that it was a great disappointment to see that we focus almost exclusively on great engineering solutions, but inconsistent, and rely on reiterating false promises of an exclusively technological nature to solve instead a need, that of agriculture, that of the drinking system, which is to use the best solutions for capacity and economy, drawing on the knowledge of the past, and the best research that guarantees us to reduce the use of resources. You do not know how difficult it really was to read that there are still reticences in banning PFAS definitively, in accompanying the entire production system, not just some sectors, to ban the use of PFAS and to find alternative strategic solutions. Health is protected and natural resources are protected without compromise.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we cannot make Europe's poorest and most at-risk citizens pay for their weapons. Cohesion policy is at the heart of the Union: It serves to innovate, to give future to mountain and rural communities, to give to the lands affected by the climate crisis a hope, and solutions to those who live in polluted areas, isolated or without opportunities. Instead, they want to empty it to finance military spending. What common defense is this, if in the meantime we leave behind those who need support, networks, services? The mid-term review should strengthen and simplify cohesion, not reduce it in view of the next budget, sacrificing millions of people to favour a few players in the war industry. President von der Leyen shows little interest in social policies. I therefore appeal to you, Vice-President Fitto: Defend cohesion, defend your mandate. Do not confuse cards, hiding weapons behind words such as decent housing and water resilience. Our strength lies in the ability to build not 27, but a just, fair and united European future.

(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is indeed a great 'wow', because competitiveness in agriculture is back at its core. I fear, however, that in your vision, Commissioner, competitiveness depends, for the most part, on the weight of agriculture in global trade and on the ability to guarantee healthy food for Europeans. So, ladies and gentlemen, together we must lead European agriculture to regain its autonomy, to no longer be held hostage by the oligopolies of the multinationals that control the markets, the genetics of our seeds, chemistry and now also the transition to organic and agroecology, wanting to control and distort them more and more. For example, in your vision, Commissioner, the central ecosystem services, generated by farmers working in symbiosis with agriculture, want to deliver them to the market without protection. So, this time again, instead of being an income opportunity for farmers, the market will have control. The same market that today leaves only 7% of the price paid by consumers in the pockets of farmers. Commissioner, working for a fair wage is also a right for us farmers. Give us back control of this.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the negotiations between the Italian Government and Elon Musk on Starlink are a strategic issue for the sovereignty and security of the Union. Meloni wants to cede government and military communications to Trump's key man, Musk himself, who supports the German far right with the aim of destabilizing European institutions. What other interferences and how many others do we want to accept? Do we really want our classified information networks to be operated by a non-European company? Remember what happened when Musk cut off access to Starlink in Ukraine? Hurrying is not worth the expense. European right-wingers go to Trump's knees and he thanked us by taxing our strategic industries. But now we want to sell others too? It is unacceptable that Prime Minister Meloni continues to want to bring the enemy into the house, and with Starlink she does so. An alternative European project to Starlink is: is IRIS2. Let's support him. The European Union must develop an autonomous infrastructure, to avoid geopolitical blackmail and to ensure our security.