Category: Fisheries

  • MIL-OSI Global: Ghana’s poor are the ones who suffer most from corruption: history offers some ideas about fighting back

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Ernest Harsch, Researcher, Institute of African Studies, Columbia University, Columbia University

    It didn’t take long for the new government of John Mahama in Ghana to find a dramatic way to highlight its commitment to combating corruption. On 12 February 2025 his special prosecutor declared the previous finance minister a “wanted fugitive” for going abroad to evade questioning for suspected financial irregularities, before later agreeing to schedule a return.

    In that one move, the government of Mahama’s National Democratic Congress sounded a couple of familiar notes from past campaigns. First, that the widespread graft so many Ghanaians bemoan was largely the fault of the other party, in this case the New Patriotic Party, voted out the previous December. And second, that dishonesty and misconduct are most damaging when they involve high public officials.

    The reality of corruption lived by ordinary Ghanaians is far more complicated than that. Across the past 30 years of electoral democracy, both parties have been tainted by scandal and malfeasance. And over the country’s much longer history, as I detail in a new book, Ghanaians have complained about a wide range of misdeeds by figures in both the public and private realms, in positions high and low.

    Ordinary people have often challenged abuses, misdeeds and outright theft by the wealthy and powerful. They did so well before the territory’s indigenous societies were subjugated by Britain and incorporated into its Gold Coast colony.

    Based on my research into corruption over Ghana’s centuries-long history, it’s clear to me that the effectiveness of any new initiatives depends as much on action from below as from above. Poor people feel the effects of corruption and exploitation more acutely than the better off. And if they are organised they can push the authorities to be more active in rooting out fraud and graft.

    Pre-colonial anticorruption actions

    The strongest precolonial society was Asante, an empire that ruled over a wide area of what is today Ghana. At times, the excesses and injustices of Asante’s monarchs provoked turmoil, fuelled by anger among elites and ordinary people alike.

    One, Kofi Kakari, was dethroned in 1874 after violating established norms by removing gold ornaments from a sacred mausoleum. His successor, Mensa Bonsu, prompted a popular insurgency and was finally overthrown in 1883 by an alliance of junior aristocrats and commoners.

    Meanwhile, the coastal areas populated by Fante developed a more institutionalised method of ensuring chiefly accountability. Commoner-led defence groups, known locally as asafo, which performed a range of civic functions, could depose unpopular chiefs. In some removal ceremonies asafo members seized a chief and bumped his buttocks on the ground three times.

    According to Ghanaian social anthropologist Maxwell Owusu, asafo companies

    had a sacred duty to safeguard the interests of the wider local community against rulers or leaders who misused or abused their power.

    The asafo remained active into the early colonial period. In the 1920s, however, the colonial administration curtailed their powers, to protect chiefs willing to implement colonial orders.

    Echoes of asafo could still be heard many decades later. Following a succession of postcolonial administrations, Ghana erupted in widespread mobilisations against corruption and injustice. The popular outpourings of 1979 and the early 1980s were set off by two lower-rank coups led by Flight Lieutenant Jerry Rawlings. Recalling past traditions of resistance, protesters sang asafo war songs, beat drums, and employed other popular rituals.

    Many of those activists regarded corruption not as a failing of individuals in high office, but as a problem rooted in Ghana’s class-divided society. As one leading figure of the new People’s Defence Committees put it in 1982:

    Corruption … is the product of a social system and enriches a minority of the people whilst having the opposite effect on the majority.

    Soon the Rawlings government moved towards accommodation with both western financial circles and domestic elites. The youth-led defence committees were purged and eventually abolished.

    The multiparty era

    Radical social perspectives persisted into the era of multiparty electoral democracy, though not in the two mainstream parties. Both say they are opposed to corruption. But according to critics like political scientist Kwame Ninsin, they in effect take turns at the helm to “control the state for private accumulation”.

    Most official anticorruption strategies tend to ignore political contention and social distinctions. And the standard international corruption ratings of Transparency International largely rely on external financial and investor assessments.

    Afrobarometer research surveys provide a more comprehensive view. In 2019, for example, Afrobarometer interviewers asked Ghanaians whether corruption had worsened over the previous year. Some 67% of those living in greater poverty said it had, while only 47% of the better off thought so. And although poor respondents also cited misdeeds by high officials, they often stressed more tangible aspects in their daily lives, such as having to pay bribes to local police or to obtain health or education services.

    Some corruption scholars see benefits to “frying big fish”, to publicly demonstrate their seriousness. Ghanaian governments have a long history of doing that, however, and face an increasingly sceptical public. To be more credible, anticorruption campaigns cannot target only the opposing party or just those at the heights of power.

    Strengths and weaknesses

    Ghana now has a range of laws and institutions to combat graft, fraud and other injustices. Some focus on exposure and punishment, both through the regular courts and through institutions such as the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice, which annually hears thousands of citizens’ complaints.

    Some official actions stress prevention. High office-holders have to declare their families’ assets, to make it harder to hide illegal wealth. Mahama made his own declaration of assets public, the first president ever to do so.

    Government anticorruption measures have improved over the years. But they still suffer from bureaucratic inertia and limited commitment. That’s why many activists argue against relying solely on politicians.

    The effectiveness of any new initiatives by Mahama or other officials depends as much on action from below as from above. After all, it’s ordinary Ghanaians who know where corruption pinches them the most.

    Ernest Harsch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Ghana’s poor are the ones who suffer most from corruption: history offers some ideas about fighting back – https://theconversation.com/ghanas-poor-are-the-ones-who-suffer-most-from-corruption-history-offers-some-ideas-about-fighting-back-250821

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Shane Jones has no shame

    Source: Green Party

    Shane Jones’ display on Q&A showed how out of touch he and this Government are with our communities and how in sync they are with companies with little concern for people and planet. 

    “Shane Jones is nothing more than a puppet for private interest, parroting industry talking points while allowing our oceans to be exploited and abused for short-term profit that will come with long-term consequences,” says the Green Party’s spokesperson for Oceans, Teanau Tuiono.

    “Instead of pandering to industry interests, the Minister must wake up to the reality that he has a responsibility to protect our oceans so that future generations can enjoy what we have today.

    “Jones’ cushy relationship with the most exploitative elements of the fishing industry has always been pretty fishy. However, his display on Q&A was a severe case of a Minister being completely captured and controlled by corporate interest, even by his standards. 

    “Shane has no shame. On national television, he was quite happy to defend a company described by a Judge as cavalier and found guilty of bulldozing over ocean protections with repeated bottom trawling. Companies connected to this of course donated to New Zealand First. 

    “Shane also did his very best to make his industry mates proud by saying ‘there’s nothing to see here’ when it comes to the dolphins, albatrosses and other wildlife becoming caught up in the collateral damage of the industry. Despite the shocking scenes and saddening statistics cameras on boats have uncovered, Shane continued to argue against them in a bid to protect the industry from any accountability or transparency. 

    “What is clear here is that Shane Jones is not in charge, neither is the Prime Minister, the worst elements of the fishing industry are in control and the health of our ocean is at risk. 

    “However, we can feel the tide turning against this Government. Many are waking up to the fact that we can do a lot better than a government that is happy to sell out on people and planet to please a few rich mates. We deserve better and we can do better,” says Teanau Tuiono. 

    MIL OSI New Zealand News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Television interview – Sunday Agenda, Sky News

    Source: Minister for Trade

    Andrew Clennell: The Trade Minister, Don Farrell, joins me now from Adelaide. Don Farrell, thanks for your time. You’re due to talk to the US Trade Ambassador tomorrow.

    Minister for Trade: Pleased to be with you.

    Andrew Clennell: And you spoke at two o’clock Friday morning to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. How did your chat with Mr Lutnick go and what are you hoping to achieve with Mr Greer?

    Minister for Trade: Look, Andrew, I did speak with Commerce Secretary Lutnick. That’s the second contact we’ve had with one another since he just recently was appointed to that position. I obviously expressed my disappointment that we had not been able to reach an agreement over the suspension of tariffs on steel and aluminium. But I did say that there’s obviously a further review, and you’ve talked about some of the issues that potentially arise, that the U.S. Government is undertaking by the early part of April. I indicated to him that we want to continue to talk with them. I find that discussion is the best way to resolve these issues. Not retaliatory tariffs, but discussion. What we need to do, Andrew, is find out what it is that the Americans want in terms of this relationship between Australia and the United States and then make President Trump an offer he can’t refuse.

    Andrew Clennell: And did Howard Lutnick give you any indication of what they might be after? Because obviously you offered them some form of critical minerals deal. Did he give any, any ray of light you had a chance? I mean, I think you’ve said that President Trump allowed Australia or the Prime Minister to believe there was a chance when there wasn’t. Has he given you any suggestion there’s a chance, or was he holding the line and saying, look, this is our America First policy, that’s it.

    Minister for Trade: Look, it wasn’t a pessimistic conversation, I’m pleased to say, Andrew. but look, he gave, you know, no assurances about what might happen in the next round of negotiations. Our job is to sit down and continue to talk. I think the important thing here to understand, Andrew, is that when President Trump, in his first iteration, gave Australia an exemption to Prime Minister Turnbull, it was one of over 30 exemptions that the United States gave to a range of countries around the world. So, more than 30 countries, including most of our competitors in the American market, were able to get an exemption. On this occasion, not one country, not one country got an exemption on either steel or aluminium. Now, that’s obviously, we think that’s bad news. We think it’s bad news, obviously, for the companies that trade in Australia with the United States. It’s also bad news for the Americans because what that has done is simply pushed up the price of steel and aluminium in the US market and that has to have an impact both on, on inflation and on jobs. So, part of my job is to continue to put the arguments to the Americans that in fact, this is the wrong policy to adopt. We should actually be doing the opposite. We should be making more free trade, more fair trade, rather than less trade.

    And of course, one of the things that we’ve done in government is diversify our trading relationship. So, we have new agreements with the United Kingdom, we’ve got new agreements with India. I think we’re just about to get another offer from the Indians to even expand our trading relationship with India. We’ve signed a new agreement with the United Arab Emirates. This is like dealing with the Woolies warehouse of the Middle East. If you can get your products into the United Arab Emirates, then you can get it all around the Middle East. On Tuesday night, I spoke with my Korean counterpart, Mr. Ahn, and we’ve got identical problems with the United States. Of course, they sell a lot more steel into the United States than we do. But we are talking about how we can expand our relationship with Korea so that we can sell more product into Korea.

    So, it’s a two-pronged approach. Andrew, we are continuing the discussions with the United States. We’ll continue to discuss. We’re not going down the track of some countries in applying retaliatory tariffs. I don’t think that will work, it hasn’t worked for any other country, why would it work for us? We want to explain our position and we want to get those exemptions for Australian companies because it’s good for prosperity in the United States, but it’s also good for prosperity in Australia.

    Andrew Clennell: Well, I think you’ve got Buckley’s chance of arguing free and fair trade to the Trump administration, to be frank Minister, but what’s the worst-case scenario here? What’s the worst-case scenario? $30 billion, our exports to the U.S. Could we lose it all?

    Minister for Trade: Look, I don’t believe so, Andrew. And just on that first point you made, Buckley’s chance. When I came to this job three years ago, we had $20 billion worth of trade bans in China. People told me, look, you will never, never, ever get that trade back. At the end of last year, the last of the products that had been subject to those trade impediments, namely crayfish, we got back into China. And since then, in the first month of that new trade, we got $188 million of crayfish sold into China. You can reverse these decisions, Andrew, so, don’t give up on us just yet. You can get countries to realise. You can get countries if you keep talking to them and you keep making your arguments, which is exactly what I intend to do. If you keep making your arguments, you can in fact convince countries that the policies that they are adopting are in fact counterproductive, just as they were with China.

    Andrew Clennell: Okay, but what’s the worst-case scenario? What’s the worst-case scenario here?

    Minister for Trade: Look, I wish I could tell you exactly what the American Government is finally going to do. To be honest with you, I suspect they don’t even know themselves right now. They’re conducting this review. They’re conducting the review in respect of every single trade agreement they have. It’s not just Australia, it’s every country. And my job in the discussions that go on in this coming week and in the weeks ahead is to get the best result for Australian producers, and that’s what I intend to do. And it’ll only be by reaching out, by having discussions, by putting our point of view that we’re going to get an acceptable outcome here.

    Andrew Clennell: In any of these discussions, do you talk about the prospect of a phone call between Prime Minister Albanese and President Trump?

    Minister for Trade: Oh, that’s way above my pay grade, I’m afraid, Andrew.

    Andrew Clennell: Is it though? Kevin Rudd asks.

    Minister for Trade: Well, he’s the ambassador, of course he asks, and that’s the job of the ambassador to do that representation on behalf of the Australian Prime Minister.

    Andrew Clennell: How many times has he asked, do you know?

    Minister for Trade: No, I don’t know the answer to that question, Andrew. But you know, we were amongst the first countries to ring President Trump when he was elected and congratulated him. The Prime Minister did that. And we of course got a second phone call with him to express our concerns about the direction that he was taking in respect of tariffs.

    To the best of my knowledge, we were the only country in the world where he said, I’m going to give some consideration to not applying these tariffs to you. Now, I know we didn’t get the exemption in the end, but we were the only country that at least got him to say, look, we’re going to give some consideration to this. Ultimately, the consideration was that they would not do it.

    As I’ve said on Sky previously, the people around President Trump, particularly Mr. Navarro, I think, were determined that they weren’t going to go down the track that they went down last time. So, I mentioned before over 30 countries got exemptions for steel and aluminium. They were determined, the people around President Trump were determined not to go down that track again. They were going to apply the tariffs, the 25 per cent tariffs, and no country was going to get an exemption. But look, we will continue to talk. As I said, I’ve spoken to Commerce Secretary Lutnick on Friday morning, tomorrow US time, so, Tuesday morning, I think 7:30, I’m going to have my conversation with Jamieson Greer. We’re going to work out firstly what it is that the Americans want out of this arrangement, because it’s still not clear to me what it is that they are seeking. But once we find that out, we’ll work through this issue and we’ll work through it in Australia’s national interest.

    Andrew Clennell: Why haven’t you been to the US, yourself?

    Minister for Trade: Look, can I say this, Andrew, modern communications these days, a telephone call, a video conference, which is what I’ll be doing with Jamieson Greer, Ambassador Greer, on Tuesday, we’re getting our message across. After that first conversation between President Trump and Prime Minister Albanese, we embarked on a course of action which was determined in consultation with the officials in the United States about how best to progress our concerns about the introduction or the reintroduction of tariffs. We followed that. We followed that course of action and we followed it until last Wednesday when it became clear that the Americans were not going to give us an exemption. So, we had a plan. We had a plan for how we deal with this issue. We were hopeful, certainly based on early discussions, that we would get a successful result here. In the event that that didn’t happen. But we’re not giving up. We’re continuing the talks. And in fact, in lots of ways, the talks will be beefed up in the weeks and the months ahead as we try and resolve all of these issues, but these are not easy issues, Andrew.

    Andrew Clennell: No, they’re not. But Peter Dutton says you haven’t got the relationships. He’s pointed the finger at Kevin Rudd. The suggestion is Albanese, the Prime Minister, was seen as too close to Joe Biden. Penny Wong found out from the media that this had occurred. What do you say to all that? I mean, his contention as we go into an election campaign is their government would have better luck with the US Administration. What do you say to that?

    Minister for Trade: Look, Peter Dutton couldn’t go two rounds with a revolving door Andrew. What happened? When we came to government, there were $20 billion worth of tariffs and trade impediments with the Chinese. If Peter Dutton’s so good at building relationships and solving problems, they didn’t get a cent, they didn’t get a cent or a single tariff removed in that previous three years in government. We got the best result or the best response of any country in the world. We got a consideration by the President to review these tariffs. Now ok, it didn’t ultimately result in us getting the tariffs removed and we accept that. We accept that situation. I’d ask your listeners, who do you think is going to be better to negotiate with the United States? Somebody with a proven record of getting results or somebody, when they had the opportunity to get some results, did nothing. Did nothing. They did nothing.

    Andrew Clennell: What would a tariff do to the beef industry?

    Minister for Trade: It would certainly have a clearly a negative impact. The United States I think is, if it’s not the largest export market for our beef industry, it would have a significant impact. We are expanding our beef exports, our beef exports right now thanks to the Albanese Labor Government, are the best that they’ve ever been. We’re exporting more beef than we ever have. The significance, of course to the United States about our beef exports is that most of it goes into McDonald’s hamburgers. And if you push up the price of those beef exports by 25 per cent or 10 per cent or whatever the figure is, then you simply push up the price of hamburgers in the United States. It doesn’t make any sense, Andrew. It doesn’t make any sense at all.

    Andrew Clennell: Sure.

    Minister for Trade: You want to be pushing prices down. You don’t want to be pushing them up.

    Andrew Clennell: Indeed. There’s also speculation the trade war could harm the PBS somehow and cause pharmaceutical prices to go up. How would that occur and what do you make of that speculation?

    Minister for Trade: Well, it simply is speculation. That’s all it is, Andrew. I’ve not heard one comment from any person in the United States that refers to the PBS. We’ve got a terrific health system. We’re continuing to improve all the time. Minister Butler is always coming up with new ideas to improve our health system. The PBS is an essential part of our health system and there will be absolutely nothing that the Americans can do to impact on our health system or the PBS system. And we certainly, we certainly would not contemplate doing anything at any stage that makes our health system more expensive. We want to put downward pressure on the cost of health and we’re going to continue to do that, especially if we get re-elected in a few weeks’ time.

    Andrew Clennell: It’s been reported the deal that Australia put on the table was access to our critical minerals like lithium, manganese, what’s the nature of that deal? Presumably America would still have to pay for the minerals. Would they get the minerals at a cheaper rate? Would they have the first right of refusal on the minerals? What are the minerals to be used for? Making mobile phones, electric cars and the like?

    Minister for Trade: Yeah, look, Australia is very fortunate in the sense that we have either the largest or the second largest reserves of all critical minerals and rare earths in the world. Now, critical minerals are different from other minerals. If you go up to the Pilbara, you can see iron ore as far as the eye can see, Andrew. Critical minerals tend to be in much smaller deposits and they’re much deeper down. Two things about that. They are more expensive to extract and they take longer to dig out of the ground and they don’t last as long so you’ve got to keep finding new resources. What this means for what we were proposing to the Americans was continued and improved investment in getting access to those critical minerals. We’ve got some of the most sophisticated miners in Australia, Andrew. We’ve got a very sophisticated mining operation here, much more sophisticated than the Americans. But the thing we often don’t have is access to capital. So, the offer to the Americans was, look, we’ll work with you. You want these critical minerals, you want them for electric batteries in cars, you’ve mentioned some of the other things, mobile phones, all of these sorts of things. But the process of extraction is expensive, we need capital. We want to work with other countries. We want to particularly work, for instance, with the Europeans. We’ve made them some offers in this regard. It’s not about cheaper prices, it’s not about preferred access. It’s about ensuring that they’ve got a reliable supply chain to ensure that when they need these critical minerals, you’ve got a reliable country like Australia who can provide them.

    Andrew Clennell: So, would that be Australian money or American money? When you talk about increased investment –

    Minister for Trade: Both. Both.

    Andrew Clennell: Okay. So, an Australian financial offer was put on the table?

    Minister for Trade: No, it wasn’t a financial offer in that sense. It was a way forward to try and get support both in Australia and in the United States for extracting these critical minerals. So, if we’re going to go down the track of decarbonising our economies, this is the way we need to go. But it’s going to require investment, significant investment. The Australian Government is already making significant investments in this area. But to get to where we want to get to in terms of that net zero project, then we need more investment and – 

    Andrew Clennell: Do you see the hand of Elon Musk? Do you see the hand of Elon Musk in any of this? The keenness of the Americans for these critical minerals.

    Minister for Trade: Well, look, they didn’t accept our offer. So, if Mr Musk was involved in this, then he doesn’t appear to have influenced the result, if that was what he was after. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Musk was not involved in any of these discussions that I –

    Andrew Clennell: All right, no worries. We’re nearly out of time. Overnight, the PM reiterated in a meeting with European leaders he would consider sending peacekeepers to Ukraine if there was peace. That’ll be controversial with a lot of Australians because it’s not our region. We know Peter Dutton doesn’t support this. Is the PM trying to muscle up here after Peter Dutton has continually called him weak? What’s the motivation to get involved in this conflict?

    Minister for Trade: Andrew, for the last 80 years, in other words, since the end of World War II, Australia has been involved in peacekeeping missions all the way around the world. We’ve come out right from day one, Prime Minister Albanese has been very clear and very strong on this, we support Ukraine. Ukraine’s fight for democracy. Ukraine’s fight for its sovereignty is Australia’s fight. It’s Australia’s fight. We’ve made significant financial contributions to Ukraine to ensure that they can defend themselves from this illegal and immoral monster, Putin, and we’ll continue to do that. And if Prime Minister Starmer says, look, will you contribute to peacekeeping? I think that’s the right thing to do. Look, it’s not all about popularity and so forth, but it’s the right thing to do. We want to see peace around the world. The best thing that Australia can do in terms of any international relationship is to support peace. And if we can make a contribution to that peacekeeping effort, then I think we should. And I think Mr. Dutton is completely on the wrong track here. Australians support the Ukrainian fight. I was on the steps of Parliament House just a couple of weeks ago with Premier Malinauskas. His background is Lithuanian. He knows exactly what happens if you don’t stand up to bullies like Putin. It’s in our interest to defend democracy in Ukraine. It’s in our interest to be part of a peacekeeping force when there’s peace.

    Andrew Clennell: Finally, and briefly, there was something of a blow to the government late last week with the default market offer out, that Australians face price rises of up to 10 per cent on their power bills. Will the government’s electricity subsidy be extended and increased in the budget?

    Minister for Trade: Well, you know the answer to that question, Andrew. You’ll have to ask the Treasurer, and you’ve only got a few more sleeps to find out what’s going to be in the next budget.

    Andrew Clennell: Well, I might ask him on the show next week. Thanks very much, Don Farrell.

    Minister for Trade: Nice talking with you Andrew. 

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI China: China expands marine ranching to boost food security

    Source: China State Council Information Office 2

    With an extensive coastline, China is turning to the vast ocean to bolster food security by building modern marine ranches.
    The construction of marine ranches, dubbed “blue granaries” in the vast blue ocean, highlights the nation’s efforts to diversify food supplies. With more investment and innovative technologies, China’s marine ranching industry is playing a role in strengthening food security.

    This file photo shows a marine ranch with eight giant aquaculture cages located 42 nautical miles off the coast of Yantai in east China’s Shandong Province. [Photo/Xinhua]
    FOOD SECURITY
    Chinese leaders have underscored the importance of utilizing both land and sea resources to enhance food production to feed a population of over 1.4 billion.
    This year’s “No. 1 central document” stresses that work must be done to build a diversified food supply system and adopt an all-encompassing approach to agriculture and food.
    It says that efforts will be made to expand food resources through multiple channels, including promoting the high-quality development of fisheries and supporting the development of deep-sea and far-sea aquaculture and the construction of marine ranches.

    An aerial drone photo taken on March 13, 2025 shows fishers driving boats to the fish farming area at a marine ranch in Rongcheng City, east China’s Shandong Province. [Photo/Xinhua]
    In recent years, marine ranching has gained momentum along China’s coast. In 2024, the city of Shanwei, in the southern province of Guangdong, invested more than 2 billion yuan (about 279 million U.S. dollars) to build eight marine ranches as well as cold chain and sales facilities.
    To date, China has built more than 180 national-level marine ranches. The eastern province of Shandong ranked top with 71 national-level marine ranches, accounting for 38 percent of the country’s total, said Zhang Jiandong, head of the Oceanic Administration of Shandong Province.
    SMART AQUACULTURE
    The technological advances, including automated feeding and underwater imaging systems, have transformed the aquaculture industry.
    As the spring aquatic farming season started recently, Liu Yulei started his work on a marine ranch with eight giant aquaculture cages located 42 nautical miles off the coast of Yantai.

    An aerial drone photo taken on March 13, 2025 shows fishers driving boats to the fish farming area at a marine ranch in Rongcheng City, east China’s Shandong Province. [Photo/Xinhua]
    Each cage, 68 meters long and wide, could enclose 94,000 cubic meters of seawater, providing an optimal environment for 1 million fish with an annual fish catch of 1,000 tonnes.
    “The fish farm is built here with Class I water quality and suitable temperature and salinity,” Liu said. “With strong currents moving at 1.5 meters per second, the water in the cage could be completely refreshed within dozens of seconds, much more frequently than in traditional aquaculture facilities.”
    Modern technology has made fish farming more efficient. “Work on the marine ranch is busy but far easier than traditional fish farming. Only four workers can oversee a cage,” Liu added.
    Each giant cage is equipped with advanced sonar, lidar and binocular vision systems that allow workers to monitor the fish population, distribution and health, equipment, water quality, hydrology, and meteorological conditions in real time.

    This file photo shows a marine ranch with eight giant aquaculture cages located 42 nautical miles off the coast of Yantai in east China’s Shandong Province. [Photo/Xinhua]
    “We used to lack proper feeding knowledge, which led to excessive food waste accumulating on the seabed. Now, with scientific breeding, we have significantly improved both quality and output while also protecting the marine environment,” said Luan Jianguo from another marine ranch off Changdao Island of Yantai.
    A local fishing company purchases juvenile fish of certain sizes from local seafood farmers. The partnership means a faster return on investment, lower financial risks, and a larger seafood production with better quality.
    NEW OPPORTUNITIES
    Marine ranching also creates new business opportunities as some ranches offer travel services to tap into the consumer market better.
    Off the coast of Yantai’s Laishan District, the “Genghai No. 1” ecological marine ranch complex integrates aquaculture and tourism facilities to generate additional revenues.
    On weekends, tourists visit the complex for an immersive marine experience. On the main deck, visitors can engage in interactive activities such as a “deep-sea elevator” simulation using VR and AR devices. They can also participate in recreational fishing and enjoy the sea view.
    “We provide 71 sea-view hotel rooms, and guests can also enjoy freshly caught seafood at our canteen,” said Yan Haidong, deputy general manager of Shandong Ocean Harvest Corporation, which operates the complex.
    Low carbon is also at the core of the complex’s operation. “Our total installed solar and wind power capacity is 426 kW, with power generation of approximately 500,000 kWh annually,” Yan added.

    MIL OSI China News

  • MIL-OSI USA: NASA Data Supports Everglades Restoration

    Source: NASA

    This story is the second installment of a series on NASA’s mission to measure greenhouse gases in Florida’s mangrove ecosystem. Read the first part here.

    Along the southernmost rim of the Florida Peninsula, the arching prop roots of red mangroves line the coast. Where they dip below the water’s surface, fish lay their eggs, using the protection from predators that the trees provide. Among their branches, wading birds like the great blue heron and the roseate spoonbill find rookeries to rear their young. The tangled matrix of roots collects organic matter and ocean-bound sediments, adding little by little to the coastline and shielding inland biology from the erosive force of the sea.
    In these ways, mangroves are equal parts products and engineers of their environment. But their ecological value extends far beyond the coastline. 
    Tropical wetlands absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere with impressive efficiency. Current estimates suggest they sequester carbon dioxide 10 times faster and store up to five times more carbon than old-growth forests. But as part of the ever-changing line between land and sea, coastal wetlands are vulnerable to disturbances like sea level rise, hurricanes, and changes in ocean salinity. As these threats intensify, Florida’s wetlands — and their role as a critical sink for carbon dioxide — face an uncertain future.
    A new data product developed by NASA-funded researchers will help monitor from space the changing relationship between coastal wetlands and atmospheric carbon. It will deliver daily measurements of gaseous flux — the rate at which gas is exchanged between the planet’s surface and atmosphere. The goal is to improve local and global estimates of carbon dioxide levels and help stakeholders evaluate wetland restoration efforts.

    In the Everglades, flux measurements have historically relied on data from a handful of “flux towers.” The first of these towers was erected in June 2003, not far from the edge of Shark River at a research site known as SRS-6. A short walk from the riverbank, across a snaking path of rain-weathered, wooden planks, sits a small platform where the tower is anchored to the forest floor. Nearly 65 feet above the platform, a suite of instruments continuously measures wind velocity, temperature, humidity, and concentrations of atmospheric gases. These measurements are used to quantify the amount of carbon dioxide that wetland vegetation removes from the atmosphere — and the amount of methane released.
    “Hundreds of research papers have come from this site,” said David Lagomasino, a professor of coastal ecology at East Carolina University. The abundance of research born from SRS-6 underscores its scientific value. But the BlueFlux campaign is committed to detailing flux across a much larger area — to fill in the gaps between the towers.

    Part of NASA’s new greenhouse-gas product is a machine-learning model that estimates gaseous flux using observations made by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instruments on NASA’s Aqua and Terra satellites. The MODIS instruments capture images and data of South Florida every one to two days, measuring the wavelength of sunlight reflected by the planet’s surface to produce a dataset called surface spectral reflectance.
    Different surfaces — like water, vegetation, sand, or decaying organic matter — reflect different wavelengths of light. With the help of some advanced statistical algorithms, modelers can use these measurements to generate a grid of real-time flux data.
    To help ensure the satellite-based model is making accurate predictions, researchers compare its outputs to measurements made on the ground. But with only a handful of flux towers in the region, ground-based flux data can be hard to come by.
    To augment existing datasets, NASA researchers use a relatively new airborne technique for measuring flux. Since April 2022, NASA’s airborne science team has conducted 34 flights equipped with a payload known colloquially as “CARAFE,” short for the CARbon Airborne Flux Experiment. The CARAFE instrument measures concentrations of methane, carbon dioxide, and water vapor, generating readings that researchers combine with information about the plane’s speed and orientation to estimate rates of gaseous flux at fixed points along each flight’s path.
    “This is one of the first times an instrument like this has flown over a mangrove forest anywhere in the world,” said Lola Fatoyinbo, a forest ecologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

    Early findings from space-based flux data confirm that, in addition to acting as a sink of carbon dioxide, tropical wetlands are a significant source of methane — a greenhouse gas that traps heat roughly 80 times more efficiently than carbon dioxide. In fact, researchers estimate that Florida’s entire wetland expanse produces enough methane to offset the benefits of wetland carbon removal by about 5%.
    “There are also significant differences in fluxes between healthy mangroves and degraded ones,” Fatoyinbo said. In areas where mangrove forests are suffering, say after a major hurricane, “you end up with more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” As wetland ecology responds to intensifying natural and human pressures, the data product will help researchers precisely monitor the impact of ecological changes on global carbon dioxide and methane levels.

    The Everglades today are roughly half their original size — primarily the result of a century’s worth of uninterrupted land development and wetland drainage projects. It’s difficult to quantify the impact of wetland losses at this scale. Florida’s tropical wetlands aren’t just an important reminder of the beauty and richness of the state’s natural history. They’re also a critical reservoir of atmospheric carbon and a source of drinking water for millions of South Florida residents.
    “We know how valuable the wetlands are, but we need this reliable science to help translate their benefits into something that can reach people and policymakers,” said Steve Davis, chief science officer for the Everglades Foundation, a non-profit organization in Miami-Dade County that provides scientific research and advocacy in an effort to protect and restore the Everglades.
    As new policies and infrastructure are designed to support Everglades restoration, researchers hope NASA’s daily flux product will help local officials evaluate their restoration efforts in real time — and adjust the course as needed.

    The prototype of the product, called Daily Flux Predictions for South Florida, is slated for release this year and will be available through NASA’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC).

    By Nathan Marder
    NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Seabear Company Recalls Smoked Salmon Chowder and Alehouse Clam Chowder Because of Possible Health Risk

    Source: US Department of Health and Human Services – 3

    Summary

    Company Announcement Date:
    March 15, 2025
    FDA Publish Date:
    March 15, 2025
    Product Type:
    Food & Beverages
    Reason for Announcement:

    Recall Reason Description
    Potential contamination with Clostridium botulinum

    Company Name:
    Seabear Company
    Brand Name:

    Brand Name(s)
    Seabear

    Product Description:

    Product Description
    Alehouse Clam Chowder and Smoked Salmon Chowder

    Company Announcement
    SeaBear Company of Anacortes, Washington is recalling two variations of seafood chowder (Smoked Salmon Chowder & Alehouse Clam Chowder), because it has the potential to be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium which can cause life- threatening illness or death. Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does not look or smell spoiled.
    Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation may also be common symptoms. People experiencing these problems should seek immediate medical attention.
    The Smoked Salmon Chowder and Alehouse Clam Chowder were distributed through physical retail stores in Alaska, California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington and direct home delivery via SeaBear’s website (https://seabear.com/) nationwide between 10/1/2024 and 03/14/2025.
    The recalled SeaBear Smokehouse chowder products are shelf stable and packaged in a 12oz dark blue pouch. The impacted lot codes are found on back of pouch.

    Recall Product
    Brand
    UPC
    Impacted Lot Codes

    SeaBear Salmon Chowder Net wt.12oz.
    SeaBear Smokehouse
    0 34507 07001 3

    64242902 SALCH – Enjoy by: 10/2028
    64242912 SALCH – Enjoy by: 10/2028
    64242972 SALCH – Enjoy by: 10/2028
    64242982 SALCH – Enjoy by: 10/2028
    64243042 SALCH – Enjoy by: 10/2028
    64243052 SALCH – Enjoy by: 10/2028
    64243121 SALCH – Enjoy by: 11/2028
    64243131 SALCH – Enjoy by: 11/2028
    64243191 SALCH – Enjoy by: 11/2028
    64243201 SALCH – Enjoy by: 11/2028
    64243651 SALCH – Enjoy by: 12/2028
    64250031 SALCH – Enjoy by: 1/2029
    64250291 SALCH – Enjoy by: 1/2029
    64250301 SALCH – Enjoy by: 1/2029

    Alehouse Clam Chowder Net wt 12oz
    SeaBear Smokehouse
     0 34507 07021 1

    64241641 ALECH – Enjoy by: 6/2028
    64241643 ALECH – Enjoy by: 6/2028
    64241661 ALECH – Enjoy by: 6/2028
    64243251 ALECH – Enjoy by: 11/2028
    64243261 ALECH – Enjoy by: 11/2028
    64250222 ALECH – Enjoy by: 1/2029
    64250241 ALECH – Enjoy by: 1/2029

    No illnesses have been reported to date.
    SeaBear initiated a voluntary recall after they became aware of a pouch seal issue from a customer complaint. Upon further investigation, they identified a mechanical issue with equipment, which caused seals to not fully bond and made some pouches leak.
    Consumers who have purchased SeaBear’s Smoked Salmon Chowder or Alehouse Chowder are urged not to consume products and should contact SeaBear’s customer service team at 1-800- 645-3474 or smokehouse@seabear.com for a full refund. SeaBear’s customer service hours are Monday-Friday 7am-5:30pm PST.
    This recall is being made with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

    Company Contact Information

    Media:
    Brad Pitalo
    800-645-3474

    Product Photos

    Content current as of:
    03/15/2025

    Regulated Product(s)

    Follow FDA

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: “I will not stop asking until I know the whereabouts of my husband”

    Source: Amnesty International –

    Itai Dzamara is a journalist and pro-democracy activist who was forcibly disappeared ten years ago on 9 March 2015 after he criticized the Zimbabwean government about the deteriorating economic conditions in the country. He has not been seen or heard from since and his fate and whereabouts remain unknown. Ten years on, Itai’s wife, Sheffra, has shared her story with Amnesty International


    Everyone knew Itai Dzamara as a journalist and pro-democracy activist who was forcibly disappeared on 9 March 2015 after he criticised the Zimbabwean government.

    Itai was my husband and best friend. He was a great father to our two children Nokutenda and Nenyasha. He was always there for us making sure that we are happy.

    Itai was amazing. He loved to eat sadza (staple food made from white corn) and fish, and would cook it for us on Sundays after church. He used to play soccer on weekends, and he was a big fan of Manchester United. Itai would always wear his Man U jersey whenever they played matches.

    My husband was a kind man. He had people at heart, and that is what led him to write a petition to Zimbabwe’s then-president Robert Mugabe on 17 October 2014, demanding he step down. Following this petition, police arrested Itai and fellow activists and interrogated them for eight hours at Harare Central police station. Itai was fighting for every Zimbabwean regardless of political parties.

    The man who stood against former President Mugabe

    The Constitution of Zimbabwe and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights to which the country is a state party guarantee the right to peaceful assembly. When Itai started these peaceful protests, the Zimbabwe Republic Police would beat and arrest him and his colleagues.

    Their group, Occupy Africa Unity Square, would hold peaceful protests at a public park opposite Zimbabwe’s parliament building. At one protest in November 2014, police beat Itai until he collapsed. Then they kept on beating him while he was unconscious. He was admitted for treatment for his injuries for two weeks.

    9 March 2015, the day Itai was abducted, was a normal day.

    He went to the barbershop at 9am wearing black shorts and his Manchester United jersey. Looking back at that morning, there are so many things I wish I had said to him. As I was preparing his breakfast for when he returned, my brother came running in, and told me that my husband was taken from the barbershop, by men driving a white Isuzu with no registration number.  

    When I heard this, fear engulfed me. I knew that it was an abduction. It was bad, I started shaking and crying. I did not know what to do or who to call, but I wanted to hear the facts directly from the people who witnessed the abduction. I took my daughter and put her on my back – she was two years old then – and went straight to the barbershop. When I arrived, I was still shaking. Even the barber and his colleague were shaking too as they told me what happened.

    “They told me the whole thing was like a movie.”

    It was very fast. Five men walked in and said they were looking for a cattle thief. While Itai was perplexed, the men grabbed him and said they were taking him to the police to be questioned. Itai has not  been seen since then.

    I walked back from the barber like a zombie. I felt the whole world falling down on me. My head was spinning. I was not myself; I was confused and did not know what to do. I was shattered. I wanted to scream and cry but when I looked at my daughter and son, I knew I had to control myself.

    I got home and changed my clothes, not realizing that I was wearing my skirt inside out. That’s how confused I was. I left my kids with my sister, and went with Itai’s brother Patson, and our lawyer to report the case to the police, who promised to investigate.

    When I returned home around 6pm, I was afraid to go through the gate thinking maybe the abductors would come back and abduct  us as well.  I had to be strong for my kids. I did not sleep that night. My heart was pounding so hard. At 4am, I left the house and went to the barbershop hoping, praying that maybe, they would have brought him back, but he was not there.

    The next day, my kids and I were taken to an organization where we stayed for a month for our safety. I lost weight from fasting and praying for my husband to be released from his abductors. I could not eat or sleep. My heart was always beating fast. I would cry at night so that my kids didn’t t see me.

    10 years later and everyone is still asking ‘where is Itai?’

    Life has not been the same since Itai was abducted. The last 10 years have been hard. I am reminded of him every time I look at my kids because both look like their dad. It hurts not to have Itai in my life and to see my kids missing him and growing up without a father who loved them so dearly. I don’t have any answers, but I feel blessed to have my two kids. When I look at them l feel God’s grace.

    The police never came back to give any update. As far as I know, they never even investigated the case. They were not interested in finding Itai. Even the Zimbabwe High Court order could not get the police find my husband or tell us what happened to him.

    As a family we did everything to get answers. For the past 10 years the government of Zimbabwe has ignored my requests and turned a blind eye to the demand for answers by everyone including friends, activists, civil society organizations, media and the international community.

    I will not stop asking until I know the fate and whereabouts of my husband.

    I wish for Itai to one day walk through the front door and hug me and the kids or to wake up to find that this was all a bad dream. If I must live without him, then I need answers, I need to know where he is.

    Amnesty International has made multiple recommendations to the government of Zimbabwe to uphold human rights and enable a safe environment for human rights defenders, activists and civil society to do their work without fear of reprisals. In the past decade, Amnesty International has campaigned and called for an independent  commission of inquiry to thoroughly, impartially, transparently and effectively  investigate the alleged enforced disappearance of Itai Dzamara, establish his fate or whereabouts and bring to justice those suspected of criminal responsibility in fair trials.

    MIL OSI NGO

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Experts of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Commend Palau on Project for Accessible Homes, Raise Questions on Accessible Public Transport and Persons with Disabilities in Emergency Situations

    Source: United Nations – Geneva

    The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities today concluded its review of the initial report of Palau, with Committee Experts commending the State on a project focused on making homes for the elderly more accessible, while raising questions on the accessibility of public transport, and how persons with disabilities were included in the response to emergency situations.

    A Committee Expert welcomed the financial measures and information provided on the project which aimed to make homes for the elderly accessible in Palau. 

    Another Committee Expert congratulated Palau for its commitment to the area of accessibility and desire to create a more inclusive society.  However, concerns persisted, including the lack of accessible public transport. What measures had been taken to ensure free access to information for different types of disability?  An Expert asked what steps were being taken to facilitate the transportation and movement of persons with disabilities?  Another Expert asked if accessibility requirements were included throughout the purchase of public infrastructure? 

    Gerel Dondovdorj, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Taskforce for Palau, asked if the State party had reviewed national legislation related to the situation of risk and humanitarian emergency, including the national disaster risk framework, to include the safety and protection of persons with disabilities?  Could information on mechanisms of early warning for persons with disabilities be provided?  Did the State party have existing mechanisms to ensure the participation of persons with disabilities in the planning, designing and implementation of activities relating to emergency situations? 

    The delegation said unfortunately, public transport in general was underdeveloped in Palau, and had only begun around two years ago, with a small number of buses with a limited route. Unfortunately, the buses being used were currently not accessible to persons with disabilities, and it was up to the families to take care of the transport of their family members and children with special needs.  The State had purchased vehicles, including a van that was disability equipped, which currently was only available by request.  The question was whether all public transport needed to be accessible, or due to numbers should it just be a specific programme with enough equipment catered to the needs of the population? 

    The delegation said at this time, the Government had not currently conducted a review of the national disaster risk framework legislation.  However, there were regular reviews, post-disaster, to determine gaps in emergency preparedness and disaster reduction.  Palau had the National Emergency Management Office, governed by the National Emergency Committee, comprised of all government agencies and civil society, including the Palau Red Cross.  All emergency preparedness and disaster response were coordinated through the Committee. 

    Being a small community, Palau could identify people individually and had a database on people’s specific needs. This knowledge was incorporated into exercises and drills.  Community health workers assisted during disasters to ensure everyone had equal access to shelters. 

    Introducing the report, Jeffrey Antol, Director, Bureau of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry of State of Palau and head of the delegation, said while Palau faced unique challenges, from geographical and resource limitations to the increasing impact of climate change, these only reinforced the determination to advance the rights of persons with disabilities and build a more inclusive society.  One of Palau’s most significant milestones was the enactment of RPPL 11-36 in September 2024, a landmark piece of legislation that established a Coordinating Committee on Persons with Disabilities and an Office of Persons with Disabilities. 

    In closing remarks, Mr. Antol extended appreciation to the Committee and all those who had contributed to the dialogue. Palau firmly believed that inclusion was not merely a policy goal, but a fundamental human right.  The enactment of the persons with disabilities act and the development of the national disability inclusive policy marked significant milestones in the journey towards full alignment with the Convention. 

    Gertrude Oforiwa Fefoame, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member for Palau, thanked the members of the delegation of Palau for their presence and the open dialogue with the Committee. The State was commended for its commitment in working towards the implementation of the Convention.  From the goodwill expressed by the delegation, it was expected that the State would proactively ensure the implementation of the Committee’s recommendations.   

    The delegation of Palau was comprised of representatives from the Ministry of State; the Ministry of Health and Human Services; the Office of the President; and the Permanent Mission of Palau to the United Nations Office at Geneva. 

    Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here. The programme of work of the Committee’s thirty-second session and other documents related to the session can be found here.

    The Committee will next meet in public at 10. a.m. on Thursday, 20 March, to hold a day of general discussion on article 29 of the Convention on participation in political and public life. 

    Report

    The Committee has before it the initial report of Palau (CRPD/C/PLW/1).

    Presentation of Report

    GAAFAR J. UHERBELAU, Special Advisor to the President of Palau, introduced the delegation of Palau. 

     

    JEFFREY ANTOL, Director, Bureau of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry of State of Palau and head of the delegation, said while Palau faced unique challenges, from geographical and resource limitations to the increasing impact of climate change, these only reinforced the determination to advance the rights of persons with disabilities and build a more inclusive society. 

    One of Palau’s most significant milestones was the enactment of RPPL 11-36 in September 2024, a landmark piece of legislation that established a Coordinating Committee on Persons with Disabilities and an Office of Persons with Disabilities.  This legislation addressed critical gaps in disability governance, with key provisions that included the development of a new national policy on persons with disabilities; the establishment of sustainable funding mechanisms through the allocation of annual tax revenues from alcohol, cigarettes, and tobacco products to support disability programmes and services; and a multi-stakeholder governance structure, ensuring the active participation of government agencies, civil society organizations, the private sector, and persons with disabilities. 

    Palau had taken major steps towards accessibility in recent years, including conducting access audits for schools, public buildings, and parks, leading to infrastructure improvements, including accessible ramps and parking.  The Ngermalk Accessibility Ramp and Airai Accessibility Ramp project set new standards for inclusive design, enabling inclusive access to the sea waters and leisure. RPPL No. 11-11, enacted in September 2021, established the Palau severely disabled assistance fund and child raising subsidy, now supporting 186 children and elderly persons with disabilities. The child raising subsidy provided financial assistance to parents and legal guardians for the costs of raising a Palauan citizen child under the age of 18 who resided full-time with the applicant in Palau.  The meal programme provided nutritious meals to support Palauan citizens aged 55 and older, homebound individuals, and adults with special healthcare needs residing in Palau. 

    To enhance inclusive education, 22 teachers had been trained in assistive technologies to support students with disabilities.  Access to individualised education programmes was expanded to provide tailored learning support. 

    However, the State needed to do more to bridge the gap in specialised learning resources, inclusive curricula, and teacher training.  Palau’s workforce innovation and opportunity act trained persons with disabilities, including women with disabilities, and empowered them to access the job market. Entrepreneurship programmes were being expanded to provide persons with disabilities with opportunities to create and manage their businesses.

    Women and girls with disabilities experienced two to three times the level of gender-based violence compared to those without disabilities.  To address this, the revised national gender mainstreaming policy would integrate disability-specific protections, including targeted legal amendments, training law enforcement and service providers, and expanding access to shelters and psychosocial support services.  Palau’s national gender mainstreaming policy was undergoing revision to fully integrate disability perspectives. 

    As a climate-vulnerable nation, Palau understood the critical importance of disability-inclusive disaster risk reduction.  In September 2024, the guidelines on disability inclusive disaster risk reduction were launched, ensuring accessible emergency shelters with ramps, assistive devices, and trained staff; early warning systems adapted for persons with sensory disabilities; and community engagement programmes to ensure that persons with disabilities were active participants in disaster preparedness planning.

    While Palau had made significant progress, challenges remained.  Data collection efforts were being expanded to disaggregate statistics by gender and disability, ensuring targeted interventions that addressed the unique vulnerabilities of women, girls, and children with disabilities.  Palau was also working towards accessible voting procedures, ensuring that persons with disabilities could exercise their right to vote independently.  It was also promoting representation in Government advisory bodies.  Mr. Antol reaffirmed Palau’s commitment to working closely with development partners, United Nations agencies, civil society organizations, the private sector, and persons with disabilities and their representative organizations, to address these challenges head-on.

    Questions by Committee Experts

    GEREL DONDOVDORJ, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Taskforce for Palau, thanked the State party for the comprehensive initial report.  Ms. Dondovdorj appreciated the quality of alternative reports of organizations of persons with disabilities provided to the Committee.  Palau had made some progress in implementing the Convention, which would be addressed later in the dialogue.  Although some legislative measures had been taken by the State party, some of these were not fully compliant with the Convention, including the disabled persons anti-discrimination act, which could not fully respond to the challenges faced by women with disabilities. 

    Concerns persisted about the lack of progress made to abolish the guardianship regime and implement the supported decision-making system in Palau.  It was essential to ensure the meaningful participation of women with disabilities in decision-making.  The Government of Palau was encouraged to pay attention to this issue. 

    GERTRUDE OFORIWA FEFOAME, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member for Palau, said the enactment of RPPL 11-36 outlined the State’s commitment to advancing the rights of persons with disabilities.  What steps were being taken for the State to appeal and amend legislation which was not in line with the Convention?  What would be the process and timeline for harmonising definitions?  What steps were in place to address the lack of timelines of the implementation of the decisions of the Coordinating Committee of the Office of Persons with Disabilities?  How were organizations of persons with disabilities being involved in the formulation of programmes and policies? 

    Currently Palau did not have a law on reasonable accommodation.  What specific steps were being taken to amend relevant legislation to include disability as a prohibited ground of discrimination?  What were the timelines to ensure the disabled person anti-discrimination act encompassed all forms of disability-based discrimination, including the denial of reasonable accommodation?  What mechanism would be put in place to track the progress of the anti-discrimination policies under discussion?  How would it be ensured they were well implemented and monitored? What was in place to eliminate multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination? 

    How did Palau plan to strengthen gender mainstreaming to ensure women and girls with disabilities were included in all relevant policies and programmes?  Did it include amending the family protection act?  What steps were being taken to ensure the voices of women and girls with disabilities were heard?  What steps were being taken to ensure their participation?   How was the participation of children being monitored? What measures was the State taking to prevent negative stereotypes of persons with disabilities, particularly in rural communities?  What plans were in place to ensure training and awareness raising about persons with disabilities at all levels?

    What steps was the Government taking to identify existing barriers to accessibility in the public and private sector, and provide the necessary resources to remove these barriers?  What measures would be taken to bridge the digital divide? 

    It was commendable that the Washington Group’s short questions on disability had been used and integrated into the census.  What steps was the State adopting to promote inclusivity and improve disability data collection?  What processes were in place to collect the issues around access to justice? 

    Could more information be provided about the newly established Coordinating Committee on Persons with Disabilities, including its members, mandate and budget?  How were representatives of persons with disabilities represented on this Committee?  What steps were taken to involve persons with disabilities into international cooperation?

    There was no national human rights institution established in line with the Paris Principles in Palau.  Had there been any progress on this?  Was there a mechanism to oversee the implementation and monitoring of the Convention? 

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said harmonising legislation had been a challenge in Palau.  Through the new legislative process, one of the first tasks would be to have a full assessment and legislative review of relevant laws which needed to be revised, to ensure no discrimination was implied by language used in legislation moving forward.  It was expected that Palau could work with lawmakers and the National Congress to undertake a comprehensive legal review and carry out the changes.  It was hoped this could be achieved within 12 to 24 months. 

    The Coordinating Committee on Persons with Disabilities was working on a disability policy with representatives of organizations of persons with disabilities.  There were practices at the national level to provide reasonable accommodation in employment, as well as access to voting.  Palau understood there was a need to improve measures in this regard.

    The State was excited about the new legislation, which would create a new body with the task to mainstream any data, enabling the State to look at specific needs.  The Government would ensure the new body was sufficiently resourced to undertake its tasks.  It would examine Convention articles and look at how Palau could do better in this regard.

    There were currently gaps in the implementation of the family act, including a lack of training of law enforcement officials on the act itself.  The State would examine the gaps in the next six to 12 months. 

    Palau had a gender office within the Ministry of State.  Many programmes required the representation of women and the parents of children with disabilities.  Aside from the Ministries and civil society organizations for women and children with disabilities, a lot of data was non-existent outside of those agencies. Palau had made efforts to reorganise ministries to ensure the family protection act was housed in the department of health and public services.  Data collection methods and tools would be streamlined to ensure a more comprehensive data set, used to assist women and girls with disabilities. 

    There was currently no strategy for awareness raising.  The State had an upcoming project which would train Government stakeholders on disabilities and persons with disabilities.  There was a need for a legislative review in this regard. 

    Persons with disabilities in Palau accounted for between three to four per cent of the population, meaning it was easy for the general public to ignore, such as in the case of disability parking spots.  The Government needed to change the culture and attitude, including towards the overall concept of disability.  The newly established Coordinating Committee on Persons with Disabilities would ensure that every programme planned would welcome the input of women and children with disabilities. 

    There were many gaps in data collection in Palau with regards to persons with disabilities, and this varied between sectors.  The State was in the process of consolidating data sets, streamlining collection and ensuring information was credible, relevant and secure for sharing.  The work of the new established committee would supplement and enhance this work. 

    Regarding the newly established Coordinating Committee on Persons with Disabilities, the members included several Ministers, including the Minister of Justice, Finance and Health.  There would also be representatives from an organization representing persons with disabilities, governors, and a religious and state-based organization.  The Committee was the first time that Palau was forced by law to have representation. The work of the Committee would also reach policy makers directly, which often did not happen.  It held the State accountable to ensure specific resources would be directly available to the Committee.  Currently, only one organization of persons with disabilities was represented on the Committee, as well as a civil society organization. The Committee and the policy were under a strict timeline to be developed by the end of June. 

    Persons with disabilities had been represented in different committees, subcommittees and bodies.  Palau worked collaboratively with the Government of Australia and representatives of organizations of persons with disabilities were consulted in the process across certain projects. 

    Funding constraints were the number one barrier to establishing a national human rights institution in Palau. The State understood the value and purpose, but funding was the constraining factor.  Palau recognised the need for a robust data system, which could be used as a tool to guide policy development.  Palau would rely on the newly established Coordinating Committee on Persons with Disabilities to monitor all aspects of the implementation of the Convention. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    A Committee Expert congratulated Palau for its commitment to the area of accessibility and desire to create a more inclusive society.  However, concerns persisted, including the lack of accessible public transport. What measures had been taken to ensure free access to information for different types of disability?

    Another Expert asked how many girls and women with disabilities had been provided with training on small and medium sized enterprises.  The Committee was delighted to hear that the State was analysing the many limitations faced by women with disabilities, particularly those facing violence.  The Committee would like to ensure that the State was addressing the correct data in this regard.

    An Expert asked what steps were being taken to facilitate the access of persons with disabilities to technologies? What steps were being taken to facilitate the transportation and movement of persons with disabilities? How could organizations representing children with disabilities be supported? 

    Another Committee Expert asked if accessibility requirements were included throughout the purchase of public infrastructure?  It was very good that there was good access to the internet for persons with disabilities. Were accessibility standards being taken into account when web content was created?

    An Expert asked about the political environment when discussing issues related to persons with disabilities? Was the Congress willing to make important changes in legislation and approve specific legislation to incorporate Convention principles?  How could the international community support Palau to bring about these changes sooner rather than later?

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said unfortunately, public transport in general was underdeveloped in Palau, and had only begun around two years ago, with a small number of buses with a limited route. Unfortunately, the buses being used were currently not accessible to persons with disabilities, and it was up to the families to take care of the transport of their family members and children with special needs.  The State had purchased vehicles, including a van that was disability equipped, which currently was only available by request.  Being an island, it was also important for the State to purchase boats which were disability accessible.  Palau’s citizens had access to relatively cheap internet, but the issue was devices.  The State had not taken further steps to identify specific technologies that persons with disabilities might need.  Therefore, those with visual impairments would have to source their digital devices out of Palau.  The State would look at the data and determine if this was something which required additional investment. 

    A majority of those who had received training were women, and some percentage would be women with disabilities. Data specific to violence against women and girls with disabilities needed to be disaggregated in the State’s data set. 

    The question was whether all public transport needed to be accessible, or due to numbers should it just be a specific programme with enough equipment catered to the needs of the population? There were one or two vans which could respond to requests currently.  Would this be enough, or would there be a growing need for accessibility vehicles?  Currently, more equipment was required.  It would make sense that all equipment should be accessible, but that had more costs. The State was looking at this with a phased approach.  For small countries like Palau, things were only addressed when there was a visible need, as opposed to putting in place standards to address things beforehand, and this applied to access to information. However, it did not take away from the need for the State to think holistically. 

    The political will to ratify the treaties was there, but there were challenges when it came to prioritising budget allocation.  The onus was on the delegation to return to Palau and continue raising awareness. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    GEREL DONDOVDORJ, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Taskforce for Palau, asked if the State party had reviewed national legislation related to the situation of risk and humanitarian emergency, including the national disaster risk framework, to include the safety and protection of persons with disabilities?  If not, what were the plans to review and amend the legislation?  Could information on mechanisms of early warning for persons with disabilities be provided?  How accessible were these systems to persons with diverse disabilities, including those who were blind and deaf?  Did the State party have existing mechanisms to ensure the participation of persons with disabilities in the planning, designing and implementation of activities relating to emergency situations?  What measures had the State party taken to ensure adequate budget allocation for this purpose? 

    Palau still promoted the guardianship regime, which meant a person’s legal capacity could be restricted, based on a court declaration.  Were there specific plans to end the guardianship regime, and implement supported decision-making for persons with disabilities?  Could data on the number of persons with disabilities under guardianship be provided?  How many people had repealed these decisions?

    GERTRUDE OFORIWA FEFOAME, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member for Palau, said information had been received about barriers in accessing justice for persons with disabilities, due to a lack of reasonable accommodation, particularly those with psychosocial disabilities.  What measures would be taken to review all legislation, including criminal laws, to ensure compliance with the Convention?  What measures were being taken to ensure age appropriate and gender sensitive accommodation in judicial and administrative proceedings for all persons with disabilities?  Was information provided in an accessible format, and how was the accessibility of court buildings ensured?  How was information communicated, for example through sign language? 

    Had regular monitoring been conducted to ensure persons with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities were not subjected to arbitrary or forced treatment, including confinement? What was the most recent monitoring result, and efforts taken to improve the situation?  Was there disaggregated data on persons with disabilities deprived of their liberty in Palau? 

    GEREL DONDOVDORJ, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Taskforce for Palau, asked about services provided by the Victims of Crime Office, reopened in 2022, including access to shelters? Was sign-language interpretation provided and reasonable accommodation ensured?  Was information about existing services disseminated to persons with disabilities through accessible formats?  Did the State party have any targeted measures to ensure all persons with disabilities, including women with disabilities, were free from all types of violation and exploitation?  Were there any specific targeted policies and strategies targeting women with disabilities? 

    Information had been received on the tragic case of a blind woman who was sterilised without consent, but with the consent of her family members.  What legislation was in place to protect persons with disabilities from being subjected to treatment without their free and informed consent, including forced sterilisation and abortion?  Did a monitoring mechanism exist in this regard?

    How many persons with disabilities had been placed in institutions, including mental health hospitals?  Were there any plans or strategies to promote the independence of persons with disabilities at the community level? What were the plans to implement the deinstitutionalisation plan, to ensure everyone was given the opportunity to live in the community?

    What measures were in place to ensure that persons with disabilities in Palau could access high-quality and affordable assistive devices?  Were these exempt from import taxes?  What measures were being taken to eliminate physical restraints in all settings, including prisons and institutions?  Did Palau have any plans to ratify the Convention against Torture?  Had any monitoring of cases of torture being undertaken?  Could information be provided about the State’s existing complaints mechanism? 

    Responses by the Delegation 

    The delegation said at this time, the Government had not currently conducted a review of the national disaster risk framework legislation.  However, there were regular reviews, post-disaster, to determine gaps in emergency preparedness and disaster reduction.  Based on existing legislation, there was no need to change too much.  Palau had the National Emergency Management Office, governed by the National Emergency Committee, comprised of all government agencies and civil society, including the Palau Red Cross.  All emergency preparedness and disaster response were coordinated through the Committee.  Once the President declared a national emergency, this gave the Government access to all resources and the authority to commandeer accommodation such as shelters for the response.  The Government would conduct a legislative review to see if there was anything missing in the law which should be amended in relation to persons with disabilities. 

    The State had working relationships with civil society, including the Red Cross, which was actively involved in drills and exercises in response to disasters.  Being a small community, Palau could identify people individually and had a database on people’s specific needs.  This knowledge was incorporated into exercises and drills. Community health workers assisted during disasters to ensure everyone had equal access to shelters. 

    A health care coalition, enacted through an executive order of the President, represented persons with disabilities and parents’ organizations, bringing them together to plan activities. A month was dedicated to preparedness awareness each year, during which simulation exercises were held, as they were last year.  At this point, Palau did not see the need to have too many members, including from the Government, in the National Emergency Committee during an emergency.  It was more important to capture feedback, participation and input from non-governmental organizations during the planning, training and exercises phases, to execute the best response. The delegation would investigate if there was a need to expand the Committee to include persons with disabilities.  At this point, the State prioritised local revenue for the response; there were no external funding sources. 

    The State party understood the guardianship act was not in line with the Convention.  However, efforts were being made to consult persons with disabilities before they were held in institutions.  The various ministries coordinated together to ensure the Convention was not being violated.  The guardianship act would be considered for the upcoming legislative review.  The delegation would also debrief on this upon their return.  At present, data on those under the guardianship law was not available.  This was noted as a priority task and this data would be collected in the future. 

    The full and systematic review of legislation to ensure compliance with the Convention was long overdue.  This would be conducted once the delegation returned to Palau.  It was expected the review would take 12 to 24 months; draft amendments would then be proposed for enactment. 

    The family protection act was a landmark milestone for Palau, allowing for a more uniform and standardised procedure for all people who experienced gender-based or domestic violence, while also allowing the State to assess the gaps in the process.  There were currently no courtrooms in Palau which were accessible.  This needed to be changed immediately and would be enacted when the delegation returned to Palau.  The recommendation would also focus on better equipping the courtrooms with audio visual aids.     

    In Palau, if persons with psychosocial conditions in prison were required to be confined, this would take place after an assessment with a psychiatrist, and they would be held outside of the general prison.  This would also be reviewed to ensure the protocols were being adhered to.  Every case received was monitored; however, monitoring ceased once the individual left the facility.  This was something that should be tracked and that was something the State planned to accomplish. 

    Palau maintained a strong belief in cultural values, which was a source of solutions and issues.  Often families were still expected to care for the elderly and family members with disabilities.  The line was often blurred on where the Government should step in. A transition centre had been built for those who did not have accommodation to return to.  It had taken years to build as many community members felt that under Palau culture, family members had the obligation to care for their family members. 

    The Victims of Crime Office provided services, including counselling and temporary housing for victims, in partnership with non-governmental organizations.  The State aimed to introduce training programmes with neighbouring jurisdictions, but this was dependent on costs.  In the few cases received where victims required sign-language communication, this had been done virtually with ad-hoc partners.  But there was a need to formalise a mechanism for whenever that was needed. 

    A member of the delegation said she had been a victim of exploitation, and this had been a call for the ministries to come together and strengthen the family protection act, and to take account for specific provisions for protecting women and girls with disabilities. This act would also be reviewed during the legislative review. 

    The number of cases of forced sterilisation was extremely low, but these situations did happen. There was no legislation which specifically addressed this.  The State was cautious to enact legislation which contradicted and caused tension between culture, and the more Western doctrine of rights and laws. Abortion was mostly illegal in Palau, unless the physician determined there was a threat to the life of the mother or the child.  Forced treatment and sterilisation was something consulted with the patient, their family and the healthcare provider.  It needed to be determined if legislation was really the avenue to address this, or if was more important to have more clarity on those blurred lines between cultural expectation and family consent and the healthcare needs of the patient.  This would be added to the list for the legislative review. 

    A project had been launched during the COVID-19 pandemic to assess certain households for accessibility, to be redesigned for independent living.  The findings of the project would be utilised this year to promote more independent living.  There was only one mental health facility in Palau, and confinement was only for mental health issues.  There had been no cases where persons with other types of disabilities had been confined or admitted without any mental health issues.  The plan would be rolled out nationwide and expanded in the future to ensure persons with disabilities could independently live in their own homes, rather than be confined to an institution. 

    At present, due to cost, Palau dealt with needs for assistive technologies on a case-by-case basis.  At present, there was no tax exemption for such equipment unless it was donated.  Maintenance and a lack of parts were an ongoing issue.  The newly created Office on Persons with Disabilities would undertake a review in this regard. 

    Palau did not have the need to develop specific measures for the protection of persons with disabilities from ill-treatment.  Palau’s culture did not require laws in this regard.  Tomorrow, the delegation of Palau would meet with relevant United Nations representatives to further discuss the process of the ratification of the Convention against Torture.  There was no active monitoring of case reviews, but the State party undertook case reviews to determine if there were instances of torture.  The State had a school health screening programme, where the provider looked for indications of ill-treatment, as well as the victims of crimes assistance programme.  Part of the awareness strategy included promoting reporting within the community, which was currently a challenge.

    Questions by Committee Experts

    A Committee Expert asked if there were any plans to strengthen the mechanisms and legal safeguards for persons with disabilities, including those with psychosocial disabilities and migrants with disabilities, to ensure they were provided with reasonable accommodation under the 72-hour detention act?  What measures were taken to ensure stateless children, including those with disabilities, were granted citizenship?  Was there a plan to amend legislation to allow stateless individuals, including those raised in Palau, to apply for citizenship? 

    Another Expert welcomed the financial measures and information provided on the project which aimed to make homes for the elderly accessible.  What measures were being undertaken to improve the disability inclusiveness of mainstream services, such as retail, health, education and housing?   

    One Expert asked who had trained prison officers in appropriate care?  What evaluation had there been for this training?  Had the State party implemented the guidelines on deinstitutionalisation?

    A Committee Expert asked if there was any follow-up strategy in relation to article 19, enabling persons with disabilities to manage themselves? 

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said the 72 hours was not always adhered to exactly, despite legislation, and was typically handled on a case-by-case basis.  This would be included in the legislative review to see if this timeline was still applicable. 

    A bill had been introduced in the National Congress to examine the possibility of issuing stateless persons with a national identification.  While this did not guarantee citizenship, it would enable them to have an identity and hopefully be expanded to include means to travel.  Migrants were afforded access to public services like citizens; it was a matter of different costs.  The population of Palau was 18,000, and therefore transport could be provided by the Government for those who requested it.  This allowed persons with disabilities to access mainstream services.  There were ongoing efforts to work with the national health insurance to see if beneficiary coverage could be expanded to include the cost of assistive technologies. 

    At present, there was no training for law enforcement in mental health first aid.  The Government was working to ensure the relevant training was provided. Currently, the Government would call in specialised professionals, including psychiatrists, but it was important to train first responders as they were typically the first to arrive on the scene.  Palau was so small they could assign a specific health care professional to assist persons with disabilities when they came in for medical services.  The transition centre was intended only to be a temporary situation, while the State looked at longer term solutions for independent living.

    Questions by Committee Experts

    CHRISTOPHER NWANORO, Committee Vice-Chairperson and Taskforce Member for Palau, said persons with disabilities in Palau faced major barriers in accessing information.  How was the Government ensuring that freedom of speech and access to information, including the mass media, was available to persons with disabilities in Palau?  What efforts was the Government making to enable deaf persons to access information in the State party?

    Persons with disabilities in Palau did not have equal access to education; what was the Government doing to provide an enabling environment for education for persons with disabilities, including for deaf and blind persons?  The Government should provide an enabling environment for everyone to enjoy education equally. 

    How accessible was the medical environment for persons with disabilities?  Could blind people communicate with medical staff via braille? How was it ensured that all persons with disabilities could enjoy medical facilities in the hospitals?

    What efforts was the Government of Palau making to ensure equal opportunities were provided when it came to employment for persons with disabilities?  For those working, what was being done to provide them with an enabling environment?  Were ramps and elevators available to allow them to navigate their workplaces?  What training was given to employers in this regard? 

    Palau’s law said persons with mental and intellectual disabilities were not allowed to participate in elections, including voting.  Was there any percentage within the law mandating persons with disabilities to be elected to government positions?  If persons with disabilities wanted to vote, how accessible was the environment?  Were there ramps and sign language?  What was the Government doing to ensure that persons with disabilities were given a fair chance to participate in politics? 

    What was Palau doing to ensure people with disabilities could access cultural life and leisure, including sports? Were people with disabilities in Palau participating in sports?  What efforts was the Government making to encourage their participation?

    GERTRUDE OFORIWA FEFOAME, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member for Palau, asked how information on medical records, such as from institutions and mental health systems, was protected? How would data protection for persons with disabilities be strengthened, particularly for those with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities?

    What specific initiatives were in place to strengthen awareness raising regarding persons with disabilities, particularly regarding the rights to family and parenthood?  How would it be ensured that persons with disabilities could start their own families or adopt children if they chose?

    GEREL DONDOVDORJ, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Taskforce for Palau, asked if there were plans to undertake an analysis of rehabilitation services, and ensure they were in line with the Convention?  Were there plans to develop a comprehensive strategy and policy around assistive devices and technologies? 

    GERTRUDE OFORIWA FEFOAME, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member for Palau, said the majority of social protection actions in Palau happened at home.  What mechanisms were in place to support social protection and families and the disability-related expenses of individuals?  How would the Government address the lower level of disability pensions? What was being done to raise the disability pension?  Did persons with disabilities who worked in Palau still receive the disability allowance? 

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said sign language and audio-visual equipment in schools and classrooms were among the State’s weak points.  Palau did provide equal opportunities for persons with disabilities to express themselves through the media, but the lack of sign language was an issue.  Work was being done with the Ministry of Education to equip teachers and schools, and then this would be branched out to the media. There had been two cases in Palau where youth with disabilities had graduated from high school and college through vocational studies.  Palau’s Ministry of Education received some funding from the United States Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which was a starting point to train teachers. 

    At present, Palau did not have training for doctors and teachers, but this was something the State was working on. Most clinics in the hospitals were designed to be accessible, but the main challenge was sign language.  Women and children with disabilities had free access to information, and a healthcare provider was assigned to every person with disability who came in.  The State recognised there was more to be done and was working to enhance this area. 

    Legislation obligated the Government to ensure persons with disabilities had ramps in the places where they were hired and working.  This legislation just covered the public sector currently and was yet to cover the private sector, which was a shortfall.  There were around 33 persons with disabilities working in Palau’s Government, which was an impressive number considering the country’s population. Due to cultural beliefs in Palau, families of persons with disabilities sometimes did not encourage them to work due to fear of stigma and bullying, which was a challenge. 

    Palau election personnel were not equipped to provide braille. Currently, if a person with a disability wished to vote, an election official had to vote for them which meant the voting was no longer private; the State was working to address this.  Palau would work to change the law on voting for persons with intellectual disabilities, as this was an outdated law.  Nothing barred persons with disabilities for running for public office.  There were no quotas in place for persons with disabilities to run for office in Palau. There were no political parties in Palau, everyone ran individually.  No one was barred from running for Government.

    Discussions had been underway to join the Paralympics.  Palau would be hosting Pacific mini games, and there would be considerations for persons with disabilities to join such events.  Family members presented a challenge; they sometimes felt their family members with disabilities would be a source of shame to the family and prohibited them from participating publicly, particularly when it came to sports. The Government was working to help families feel confident in allowing their family members with disabilities to participate in the public view. 

    Patient records and confidential information was closely safeguarded in the Ministry of Health and in clinics. This applied to all patient records, including for persons with disabilities.  It was expected the medical privacy act would be enacted in one to two years. 

    Palau had an inclusive culture; there were no cultural barriers preventing persons with disabilities from getting married or raising children.  There were persons with disabilities in Palau who had birthed and raised children and enjoyed the fruits of a full family life, with community support. 

    There were efforts to create an appropriate list of assistive products from the World Health Organization list, to ensure they were appropriate for the Pacific region.  Rehabilitation was still regarded as a medical or clinical service, which was a challenge.  A rehabilitation department was now going out to the community to train caregivers and family members to assist those with specific needs. 

    Palau had the Severely Disabled Assistance Fund which had been increased in the past year, to ensure persons with disabilities could afford the cost of living.  There was a newly established child raising subsidy, provided to all Palau children under the age of 18.  The pension and social security amounts were always a hotly debated issue in Palau’s Congress.  The State would continue to push for an increase in funds for beneficiaries.  The Assistance Fund did not include deaf people, which was something which needed to be amended.  Palau was looking to increase the minimum wage this year, which would benefit persons with disabilities who were employed. 

    Questions by Committee Experts

    A Committee Expert asked how many persons with disabilities participated in tertiary education in Palau?  What kind of reasonable accommodations were provided to these students?  The Committee frowned upon the continued use of sheltered workshops to stimulate employment of persons with disabilities.  What was the extent of sheltered workshops in Palau and what was being done to remove them from the labour market?

    Another Expert asked about the Government actions to ensure access to education for persons with disabilities. How were these being implemented? Were there any incentives for persons with disabilities to run for public office?  The Expert congratulated Palau’s involvement in the Paralympics. It was hoped this would be the first of many. 

    An Expert asked if persons with disabilities were given the same wages as the rest of the population? 

    One Committee Expert asked what Palau was doing to raise awareness in the population, so no one was left behind or neglected?  What was being done to put an end to discrimination against persons with disabilities? 

    A Committee Expert asked if Palau had any experiences with accessible tourism, and if it was using this as a tool for economic growth?  Had Palau requested technical cooperation to increase the flow of tourists with disabilities?  Was Palau considering job creation and entrepreneurship for persons with disabilities? Had the State thought about establishing a national centre for arts and crafts which could showcase the products made by persons with disabilities? 

    GERTRUDE OFORIWA FEFOAME, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member for Palau, asked if people working in Palau still received the disability allowance? 

    GEREL DONDOVDORJ, Committee Expert and Coordinator of the Taskforce for Palau, asked if there were any plans to address policy areas regarding the right to vote for persons with intellectual disabilities? 

    Responses by the Delegation

    The delegation said Palau only had one community college which provided a two-year associate degree.  However, persons with disabilities did attend college, including one individual who graduated from a mechanics course.  The college was not entirely equipped, but did make accommodation for the specific needs of students. 

    There were no agencies, companies or businesses which only employed persons with disabilities in Palau. Palau had a law which required all students to attend kindergarten to grade 12, including children with disabilities. Minimum wage laws in Palau applied to everyone, including persons with disabilities who received the same wage and tax refund benefits which applied to a certain band of salary earners. Overall, Palauan culture was very accepting.  Non-governmental organizations in Palau helped the Government to raise awareness in the community, ensuring inclusiveness in all events and policies. There was no specific budget for sports activities for persons with disabilities, but this was something the Government would look into.

    Palau was regarded as a good tourism destination.  However, it was expensive to get there, and there were rarely tourists who were persons with disabilities.  The Government aimed to ensure their own citizens with disabilities were taken care of before tourists.  There were workshops with local crafts and a giftshop, where persons with disabilities could sell their artwork.  There was also a national museum and it could be a good idea to hold a special exhibition there for persons with disabilities. 

    The Palau Severely Disabled Fund was for those who had no employment, and if they were gainfully employed, they lost this eligibility.  There were only two main non-governmental organizations in Palau working to represent persons with disabilities, but the population was small.  They were given the right to decide who they employed and who they allowed to represent them.  The Government did not want to overstep and dictate in this regard. 

    Closing Remarks

    JEFFREY ANTOL, Director, Bureau of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry of State of Palau and head of the delegation, extended appreciation to the Committee and all those who had contributed to the dialogue.  Palau firmly believed that inclusion was not merely a policy goal, but a fundamental human right.  The enactment of the persons with disabilities act and the development of the national disability inclusive policy marked significant milestones in the journey towards full alignment with the Convention.  Palau was more convinced than ever of the urgent need to undertake legislative review and the importance of data and reporting, and would take steps to facilitate these actions.  The country remained steadfast in ensuring that no one was left behind.

    GERTRUDE OFORIWA FEFOAME, Committee Expert and Taskforce Member for Palau, thanked the members of the delegation of Palau for their presence and the open dialogue with the Committee.  The State was commended for its commitment in working towards the implementation of the Convention.  The Committee acknowledged with interest the establishment of the Committee of Persons with Disabilities and looked forward to its action as planned.  There was a need for the State to strengthen systems and ensure effective and meaningful participation of persons with disabilities. The absence of a national human rights institution was a concern; the Committee urged Palau to consider its establishment in line with the Paris Principles.  From the goodwill expressed by the delegation, it was expected that the State would proactively ensure the implementation of the Committee’s recommendations.

     

     

     

    Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media; 
    not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.

     

    CRPD25.007E

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Arkansas Delegation to European Commission: Fix Unworkable Deforestation Rules

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Arkansas Tom Cotton

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    Contact: Caroline Tabler or Patrick McCann (202) 224-2353
    March 14, 2025

    Arkansas Delegation to European Commission: Fix Unworkable Deforestation Rules

    Washington, D.C. — Senators Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), John Boozman (R-Arkansas), and Congressmen Rick Crawford (Arkansas-01), French Hill (Arkansas-02), Steve Womack (Arkansas-03), and Bruce Westerman (Arkansas-04) today sent a letter to the European Union raising major concerns with the proposed European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). This impractical regulation will impose an unfair and unnecessary burden on American businesses while failing to effectively combat deforestation.

    In part, the lawmakers wrote

    “This regulation is unworkable for the forest products industry in the United States and would jeopardize more than $3.5 billion worth of paper and wood products shipping into the EU market for essential products like timber or pulp for baby diapers.”

    Full text of the letter may be found here and below. 

    March 14, 2025

    Valdis Dombrovskis, European Commissioner for Economy and Productivity

    Jessica Roswall, European Commissioner for Environment

    Marcos Sefcovic, Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security 

    Dear Commissioners,

    We write to you today to share our significant concerns with the European Union deforestation-free supply chains regulation (Regulation (EU) No 2023/1115) and to share our perspective on the impact this will have on the more than 900,000 forest products workers throughout the United States and the over 23,000 men and women in Arkansas who are employed by this industry.  This regulation is unworkable for the forest products industry in the United States and would jeopardize more than $3.5 billion worth of paper and wood products shipping into the EU market for essential products like timber or pulp for baby diapers. 

    The U.S. Forest products industry is a strong proponent of international efforts to suppress deforestation and forest degradation. As such, the United States has excellent ratings in this regard and no evidence of deforestation. Unfortunately, as written, this regulation presents severe compliance challenges that constitute technical barriers to trade for the U.S. Forest products industry. The United States is not a source of the EU’s deforestation concerns and the burden this regulation puts on U.S. pulp, paper, and packaging manufacturers will not achieve the EU’s stated policy goal. Furthermore, the U.S. is widely recognized for its sustainable forestry practices, with negligible deforestation risk, as confirmed by the EU Observatory on deforestation and forest degradation.

    The unprecedented and over-prescriptive reporting requirements of the regulation are a one-size-fits-all approach that does not recognize commodity-specific challenges or country differences. The U.S. Forest products sector operates with deep visibility into their supply chains, with clear management rules and strict controls of forestry practices. These practices and performance measures not only deliver the intended goals of EUDR but go beyond the narrow objectives of regulation.

    We are asking you and the European Commission to work with the United States to ensure the United States is recognized as the lowest possible risk for deforestation and to ensure the geolocation traceability requirements in place are proportional to the level of risk for a particular country. These obligations should be simplified, more proportional and with greater distinction among the risk categories. The geospatial coordinate mapping requirement for every individual plot of land should be removed for supply chains that have already achieved deforestation risk status as low risk, negligible, or insignificant. Secondary materials should be exempt from geolocation because traceability is virtually impossible. Unless these key problems are addressed, I am extremely concerned that the EU may lose their trading relationship with the U.S. Forest products industry, which they rely upon every day. 

    We also believe the EUDR fits within President Trump’s “America First Trade Policy” executive order that was signed on January 20th, 2025, and requires key members of his cabinet to identify examples around the world where the United States is being disadvantaged by policies in place from governments that could be considered a technical barrier to trade and submit reports to President Trump by April 1st, 2025. Already, key members of the President’s cabinet, like Mr. Howard Lutnick, the Secretary of Commerce, have identified the EUDR as a potential technical barrier to trade and it will be more important than ever that you and your team address the concerns we have identified here. 

    We look forward to your response. 

    Sincerely,

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Lee Introduces Stop CARB Act for 119th Congress

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Utah Mike Lee

    Legislation would reduce California’s control over national emissions standards

    WASHINGTON – Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) has introduced the Stop California from Advancing Regulatory Burden Act, or Stop CARB Act, to rein in California’s outsized influence over national emissions standards. For decades, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has used federal waivers under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to set unreasonably stringent emissions standards, forcing businesses and consumers nationwide to comply with California’s radical environmental agenda. The bill is co-sponsored by Senators Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Roger Marshall (R-KS), Steve Daines (R-MT), James Risch (R-ID), Rick Scott (R-FL), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Jim Justice (R-WV), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), and Ted Cruz (R-TX). Congressman Troy E. Nehls (R-TX) has introduced the companion bill in the House of Representatives.  

    “California has abused the Clean Air Act’s waiver provision for years, essentially imposing ridiculous emission standards on the other 49 states,” said Senator Lee. “Fortunately, the rest of the country isn’t governed by far-left extremists like California, and we shouldn’t have to answer to them. By putting an end to this overreach, our legislation will keep costs lower for hardworking American families, increase consumer choice, and restore economic freedom.”

    “The radical liberal state of California should never be able to govern for our great state of Texas,” said Congressman Nehls“California should not be legislating for the rest of the country. My bill will ensure that California only governs California, not hard-working patriots in my district, by repealing California’s waiver.” 

    In 1970, Congress passed the Clean Air Act, granting California the ability to apply for waivers that allow the state to set emissions standards higher than federal levels. Currently, California holds over 100 active waivers, imposing stringent requirements that affect industries ranging from automotive manufacturing to farming and construction. Other states can adopt these burdensome standards without modification, and 17 states plus the District of Columbia have done so, subjecting nearly half the nation’s new vehicle registrations to California’s draconian rules.

    The Stop CARB Act will:

    • Repeal California’s waiver exemption in Section 209 of the Clean Air Act;
    • Repeal Section 177 of the Clean Air Act, which allows other states to adopt California’s emissions standards; and
    • Nullify any active or pending waivers granted to California.

     The legislation is endorsed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), American Petroleum Institute (API), American Trucking Associations (ATA) and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM).

    “California should not be setting what can amount to national emission standards for new motor vehicles and nonroad engines. Yet this is exactly what can happen. If the EPA gets rid of its de facto EV mandate, that’s not the end of the war on gas-powered cars. Among other threats, California has a rule that would kill off gas-powered cars, banning the sale of new gas cars by 2035. There’s nothing de facto about it. The Biden EPA just gave the green light for California to move forward with this car-killing rule. Other states can then adopt the same requirements and even if they don’t, manufacturers may simply adopt the stringent California standards to have a single set of requirements. CEI commends Senator Lee for introducing legislation that would put an end to this attack on our cars and defend consumer freedom. It would do so by finally repealing the special and unjustified treatment California gets under the Clean Air Act. As a result, the extreme and harmful vehicle emission policies of California could no longer set national policy.”  -Daren Bakst, Director, Competitive Enterprise Institute

    “Congress must take the keys away from California regulators whose unachievable EV mandates are undermining our supply chains and derailing the tremendous progress we have made to reduce emissions.  We are grateful for Senator Lee and Representative Nehls’ leadership to restore common sense to our environmental regulations and stopping California from exporting its bad ideas to other states.  We look forward to working with Congress and the Trump Administration to develop realistic, technology-neutral federal emissions standards that will benefit our environment, preserve and create jobs, and set our industry up for success,” -Henry Hanscom, Senior Vice President of Legislative Affairs for the American Trucking Associations.  

    Stop CARB Act: One-pager | Bill text

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Africa: New fleet to aid Nelson Mandela Bay waste collection efforts 

    Source: South Africa News Agency

    In a move to enhance waste management services, the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality has unveiled seven advanced waste collection trucks, which is an investment in the city’s public health infrastructure and an improvement in service delivery efficiency.

    Member of the Mayoral Committee (MMC) for Public Health, Thsonono Buyeye, commended the arrival of the new fleet, describing it as a crucial financial boost that will ease the financial pressures faced by the municipality’s waste management department.
    The municipality is located in the Eastern Cape. 

    Speaking at the unveiling ceremony held on Wednesday, Buyeye said the introduction of the state-of-the-art waste collection compactor trucks serves as a significant step forward poised at improving waste management services.

    “This investment demonstrates our unwavering commitment to providing efficient and effective services, thus underscoring the department’s dedication to maintaining a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment [for all residents],” Buyeye said.

    The MMC explained that, as part of the city’s strategy to reduce its reliance on outsourced waste collection services, the municipality has implemented a three-year fleet recapitalisation plan, which allocates R30 million annually starting this year.

    “This acquisition will significantly alleviate financial pressures on the municipality, which previously spent substantial amounts outsourcing waste management collection trucks, compromising its ability to deliver other essential public health services,” the MMC said.

    He added that the arrival of the trucks will significantly reduce the city’s financial burden previously placed on the municipality, due to outsourcing waste management.

    The new trucks are equipped with cutting-edge technology and enhanced capacity, enabling them to manage larger volumes of waste with greater speed and efficiency. The advanced lifting gear of the trucks allows them to effortlessly collect a wider range of waste types, ultimately enhancing the waste collection and management process.

    “As a municipality, we are thrilled, considering that the arrival of these trucks will significantly enhance our service delivery. Unfortunately, vandalism of municipal fleet, including waste collection fleet has been a great challenge.

    “However, we are positive that together with law enforcement, and the community, we can protect these valuable waste compactor trucks, as our goal is to ensure that public health services reach every corner of our city,” Buyeye said.

    Measures to prevent vandalism and theft

    To address the persistent issue of vandalism, the MMC said the municipality has implemented a comprehensive security strategy to protect the new waste management fleet.

    He said the municipality is also investigating recent incidents of vandalism that have affected the city’s existing waste collection vehicles.

    He said a robust security strategy has been put in place to safeguard against vandalism and theft, ensuring its longevity and effectiveness.

    The municipality also urged residents to work with the municipality, and law enforcement to protect and safeguard municipal assets that service all residents.

    “This collective effort is crucial in preventing vandalism and theft, which severely impacts the delivery of essential waste management services, particularly in high-crime areas,” Buyeye said. – SAnews.gov.za
     

    MIL OSI Africa

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Secretary-General’s press encounter on the Rohingya Refugees

    Source: United Nations secretary general

    This is my yearly Ramadan visit, this time in solidarity with the Rohingya refugees and with the Bangladeshi people [who] so generously host them. 

    And in this visit, I’ve already heard two clear messages.  First, Rohingyas want to go back to Myanmar.  It is essential that the international community does everything to make sure that peace is reestablished in Myanmar and that the rights of the Rohingyas are respected, that discrimination and persecution like the one we have witnessed in the past, will end. 

    And second, they want better conditions in the camp.  Unfortunately, recently, dramatic cuts in humanitarian aid were announced by the United States and by several other countries, mainly in Europe, and because of that, we are at risk to cut the food rations in this camp. 

    I can promise that we will do everything to avoid it and I will be talking to all countries in the world that can support us in order to make sure that funds are made available to avoid a situation in which people would suffer even more and that some people would even die. 

    We cannot accept that the international community forgets about the Rohingyas and my voice will speak loud to the international community saying we need urgently, more support because this population badly needs that support to be able to live in dignity here in Bangladesh. 

    Thank you very much. 
     

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Youth Must Have Leadership Role in Dismantling Patriarchal Norms, Financing Gender Equality, Women’s Commission Hears as It Concludes First Week

    Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council

    Gender Justice Cannot Be Achieved without Ending Discrimination against Indigenous Women, Girls, Those with Disabilities, Speakers Stress

    The Commission on the Status of Women wrapped up its first week today, with a dialogue among youth representatives who stressed the need to include the next generation of leaders not only in conversations about women and girls’ empowerment but in leadership roles that fight for disability inclusion, finance gender equality, dismantle patriarchal norms and defend Indigenous voices. 

    The United Nations kicked off the sixty-ninth session of the Commission this week, focusing on accelerating the adoption of the Platform for Action adopted at the 1995 Beijing Conference on Women.  Leaders gathered in Beijing 30 years ago to pledge to achieve gender equality and uphold women’s rights.  Discussions this session also focused on contributing to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 

    Kateryna Levchenko, Government Commissioner for Gender Equality Policy of Ukraine and Chair of the meeting, said that 30 years after its adoption, the Beijing Platform for Action still mobilizes Member States, the United Nations, feminist movements, civil society organizations, young people and other stakeholders.  “It continues to be an unprecedented consensus on the actions needed to advance gender equality and women’s and girls’ human rights and their empowerment,” she said.

    However, 30 years after the 1995 World Conference on Women, no country has fully achieved gender equality.  That’s why Member States must recommit to its full implementation, she stressed, and identify synergies with other global commitments, working in partnership with civil society, young people, the UN and the private sector.  With just five years until the 2030 target date for achieving the SDGs, the Platform holds the key to unblock bottlenecks and accelerate much needed progress.

    Fenna Timsi, UN Youth Representative for Human Rights and Security of the Netherlands, said that today’s youth representatives represent large networks who have been on the frontlines of fighting for women and girls rights.  “They will reflect on the progress made since the adoption of the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action, sharing insights, voicing challenges and proposing solutions to persistent issues such as gender-based violence, access to education and economic empowerment,” she noted.  The 2024 review and appraisal of the Beijing process with more than 150 States reporting on their actions is a “a clear testament” to the pact’s continued relevance and power. 

    30 Years after Landmark Women’s Conference in Beijing, Gender Equality an Unfulfilled Promise

    Sima Sami Bahous, Executive Director of the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN-Women), delivering opening remarks, commended the young representatives for their activism and “for your constant reminder to us all to do more, to do better, to be better”. Thirty years on, gender equality remains an unfulfilled promise.  “But one thing is clear, you, young people, are not waiting,” she emphasized.  “Each of your contributions has spoken to a truth that we cannot ignore,” she said, stressing:  “Progress cannot be partial.  Change must be transformative and inclusive.”

    The Beijing Platform for Action remains the most powerful framework for gender equality, she went on.  “Since its adoption, we have seen strides — more women in politics, stronger laws against gender-based violence, greater access to education,” she described.  But progress has been too slow and too uneven.  Women still hold only 27 per cent of parliamentary seats, which, while up from 11 per cent in 1995, is not enough.  One in three women globally continues to face physical or sexual violence, “a crisis we cannot accept as inevitable”.  In the face of climate crisis, economic inequalities and humanitarian disasters, it is young women and adolescent girls who bear the brunt, are displaced, denied education, and made more vulnerable to violence. 

    World Not Designed for Women with Disabilities to Thrive

    Eva Chisom Chukwunelo, Amputee Peer Counselor at the Mobility Clinic Limited in Nigeria, said that all women, no matter where they come from, should have the right to education, healthcare and leadership.  But as a young woman with a disability, she wondered, “did that promise include me?”  At 17, she said she stood at the crossroads, between two versions of her life. “One moment, I was a teenage girl with dreams, and the next, I was a girl with a disability, unsure of what my future held,” she added.  “That was when I realized the world is not designed for women with disabilities to thrive, and if we do not demand justice, it never will be,” she said.  Gender justice is incomplete if it does not include women and girls with disabilities. 

    How many girls with disabilities are missing from classrooms, not because they lack intelligence, but because inclusion is seen as too expensive, she asked.  How many women with disabilities are absent from decision-making spaces, not because they lack vision, but because the world refuses to see their potential, she also wondered.  “If you are not counted, then you do not count,” she said, urging countries to disaggregate data by gender, disability and age.  Governments must actively engage young women with disabilities in policy creation and leadership.  Schools must be built for all learners, healthcare systems must train providers to respect and serve women with disabilities, and leadership spaces must be welcoming, “not just in words, but in action”. 

    Meaningful Youth Engagement Key to Shaping Policy

    “Meaningful youth engagement in the Beijing processes is crucial to shape policies that address our concerns, reflect our aspirations and make us part of the leadership, rather than just part of the conversation,” said Ema Mecaj, member of the Beijing+30 Youth Steering Committee.  Over the past few days, the voice of young people has been clear.  “We should not take this progress for granted, but we need to speak up for the challenges and voice the untold stories of many women and girls who daily face the impacts of misogyny and gender stereotypes,” she said. 

    She noted that, according to the World Bank, 712 million people live in extreme poverty, with women and girls being disproportionately affected by the adverse impacts of the climate crisis and displacement.  Globally in 2023, 51,000 women and girls were killed by their intimate partners or other family members. “These statistics are unacceptable and unfortunately reflect the broken reality,” she said.  As a medical student, she said that prevention strategies are needed to eradicate poverty, especially the feminization of poverty, and respond to technology facilitated gender-based violence.  

    Role of Boys and Men in Tackling Patriarchal Masculinities

     “We must stop placing the burden on women to endure and navigate the toxicity of patriarchal systems and instead confront patriarchal masculinities as the root cause of their oppression,” said Ahdithya Visweswaran, Governance Coordinator at Young Diplomats of Canada.  It is essential to tackle the ideological roots of patriarchal norms that perpetuate inequality and violence.  Young men and boys must see themselves not as inherent opponents, but as natural allies and co-beneficiaries of the gender equality agenda.  “Men and boys must no longer be seen as peripheral participants, but as indispensable stakeholders in this broader struggle for justice and equality,” he said. 

    But transformation cannot be simply achieved through narratives, it requires institutionalization, and the active participation of families, schools, communities and Governments, he stressed.  For far too long, efforts to engage men and boys have been limited to pilot programmes, often disconnected from the broader systems and the broader work that’s being done.  The socialization of boys is one of the most powerful yet underutilized tools for advancing gender equality.  “We’re shaped by the environments in which we are raised,” he said, adding that positive role models can cultivate a new generation of men who embrace equity, reject violence, and build healthier masculinities.  

    Systemic and Structural Discrimination against Indigenous Women

    Laura Huertas, Founder of ANYAR (Indigenous youth organization), said that many of the Beijing commitments have still not been fulfilled, particularly in rural areas, Indigenous areas, and in other marginal sectors of Latin America and the Caribbean.  There and in other regions of the Global South, socioeconomic and political inequalities persist, despite progress in terms of access to education, health, and political participation of women. 

    “Being an Indigenous woman in Latin America is not easy, because we face the forced displacement within our territories, systematic discrimination, and structural discrimination,” she said.  “In my territory alone, 76.9 per cent of people live in multidimensional poverty, and more than 62 per cent have to live outside their ancestral lands,” she said.  Beijing+30 is “a cry of resistance”, she said, adding that “we don’t want just hollow roundtables”. 

    Financial Freedom and Justice Key to Advance Women’s Agency

    Sanjana Chhantyal, Manager at the Criterion Institute, said that financial system was not designed for women and undervalues women’s care work.  “It decides what is valuable, and by extension, who is valuable,” she said.  Systemic barriers have prevented women from building wealth and acquiring financial assets such as land and property; yet financial institutions traditionally look for the presence of financial assets or collateral to decide who gets access to finance. 

    “Let us call it what it is, a poverty trap,” she said.  Gender equality cannot be achieved without financial freedom and financial justice for all women and girls.  “Financial independence supports our agency and our ability to advocate for our rights, step away from abusive situations and make choices about our health, education and careers,” she said.  Empowered women empower other women and their communities.  “Justice is not only about the absence of barriers, but also presence of opportunities,” she stressed. 

    __________

    *     The 9th & 10th meetings were not covered.

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: The Future of Family Planning Convening Keynote Address by UNFPA Executive Director Dr. Natalia Kanem

    Source: United Nations Population Fund

    Excellencies, 
    Esteemed partners, 
    Dear friends, 
    Dear young people,

    I greet you in Peace, the noble purpose of the United Nations and the fervent wish of the women and girls UNFPA serves in over 150 countries around the world. 

    Thank goodness for the forward-looking initiatives of the William H. Gates Sr. Institute for Population and Reproductive Health. Thanks to the cohosts for bringing us together, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and FP2030.

    As you and I look to the future of family planning, we need a time frame. That outlook could span 10 years from now – which is basically tomorrow – or all the way to the end of the century. 

    For instance, I’m currently leading the Lancet Commission on 21st Century Threats to Global Health, established with co-chair Christopher Murray of IHME.  

    We need a longer-term perspective because the effects of threats like to health like pollution, climate change, antimicrobial resistance, or an inverted population pyramid will take decades to alter future trajectories. 

    Modeling at the future through the lens of our Lancet Commission, we’ve made bold to peek through the magnifying glass to discern what just might happen by the year 2100. 

    That’s why standing here with you, I have no qualms to make bold and posit what will be the features of family planning in an intermediate era, say maybe 20 to 30 years. 

    From the outset, the future of family planning is built upon the bedrock of human rights. That future we envision is one of equality for all. 

    The future of family planning will be characterized by self-agency, especially on the part of young people — who expect innovation and demand the modernization of our field. They’re impatient for safe, effective, convenient, reversible and affordable methods. On top of that, the contraceptive offerings should be products that are pleasurable, that incorporate fun.

    Let’s pose a fundamental question. Will we continue the expectation that it’s the woman with the womb who should bear eternal responsibility for planning the shape and the contours of the family of the future? 

    Which leads to another question: When will men step up and take their responsibilities? When will men be availed of reliable, quality commodities that are emblematic of sharing the burden as well as the triumphs of good family planning? 

    Second, in the future the clamor is for ready access. 

    I hope that this comes with the understanding that the risk proposition of hormonal or barrier methods will become so improved, that access will be through self-care. Through autonomous decision-making by fully empowered users of contraception who need no arbiter. Who need no permission from the husband, the significant other, the mother-in-law, the father, or any authoritative figure nominated by patriarchy. No doctor. No nurse. No gatekeeper’s intervention. 

    And of course, the means and methods to monitor and course correct must be there, if and when side effects would appear. Bodily autonomy demands just that. 

    Mind you, right now, nearly half of women lack the power to make their own decisions about their sexual and reproductive health. This must change – and we can change it – if we stand strong and stand together in upholding, protecting and advancing this fundamental human right for everyone – no exceptions, no exclusions. 

    As we contemplate the future, let’s take a look at how far we’ve come: from Bucharest in 1974, to the all-important rights-based 1994 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development (the ICPD), which put women and girls squarely at the center of development. 

    Jump to the London Summit on Family Planning in 2012, after which our collaborative efforts yielded remarkable results: 

    92 million more women in low and middle-income countries using modern contraception. 

    Since 2000, adolescent birth rates declined; maternal mortality fell by more than one-third; and globally, deaths of children under-5, halved. 

    Mothers are safer, babies are healthier, more women and couples can decide freely whether or when to have children, and more girls can stay in school and out of marriage. 

    Unfortunately, recently such progress has stalled, and in some places is actually going backwards.

    Therefore, another feature of the future of family planning is that it will support demographic resilience. 

    Voluntary, rights-based family planning is fundamental to building societies that can adapt to shifting population dynamics. 

    Did you know that two-thirds of people now live in countries where fertility rates are trending, at or below replacement level? And people are living longer, populations are aging and catering for that is of increasing concern. 

    In response, some governments are attempting to reverse universal access to contraception and instead, introducing pro-natalist incentives, telling women it’s their patriotic duty to bear more babies, even banning postpartum contraception in health facilities.  

    Such directives threaten women’s hard-won rights and choices. Furthermore, there is an abundance of evidence that shows that without child care and elder care and paid leave and social support, these types  of pro-natalist monetary incentives just won’t work. 

    Women, in all their sexual diversities, have inherent rights. These aren’t contingent on the demographic context. The solutions lie in expanding human rights, not in their constraint. 

    Next, I will also note that the future of contraception will cater for women in the direst of humanitarian circumstances. 

    Record levels of displacement are driving hardship and humanitarian need, with conflicts and climate induced disasters escalating seemingly everywhere you turn. 

    Family planning programmes must be able to continue to function during humanitarian emergencies, allowing women to make safer choices during uncertain times. 

    Consider Cecília, a mother of two daughters who UNFPA assists in Mozambique. She faced impossible choices when a cyclone destroyed her rural home and cut off essential services. Unable to access to family planning, she’s unexpectedly pregnant again, jeopardizing her ability to rebuild and get back on her feet, and she’s worried about her girls’ future. 

    The impact of humanitarian crisis is not gender-neutral. As livelihoods collapse and stress escalates, gender based violence explodes and child marriages surge.  Cecília said she dreads the nightfall, fearing for her girls’ safety in the darkness as they sleep on mats under a tree.  

    Climate change brings its own unique consequences to reproductive and maternal health. Extreme heat increases miscarriages and stillbirths, and food insecurity endangers maternal and newborn health outcomes. 

    Family planning considerations of the future should be part and parcel of humanitarian resilience and response efforts, right from the start of a crisis — and not an afterthought. 

    Dear colleagues, dear friends, 

    Ours is a time of unprecedented challenges and uncertainty. Should I repeat that? 

    Rampant opposition is undermining progress on gender equality and compromising the rights and choices of women and girls all around the globe.  

    Within the halls of the United Nations, longstanding agreed language on gender, diversity, and sexual and reproductive health and rights is increasingly coming under attack. The hostility is organized, very well funded, careless and relentless. 

    Uncertainties about donor investment – notably the recent abrupt terminations of funding for major global health and humanitarian work – pose a grave threat to the well-being of millions, particularly people marginalized and already furthest behind. 

    Despite it all, lastly, I’m happy to tell you my crystal ball reveals that the future of family planning is well-resourced. 

    Despite all the turmoil, we will remain focused, and united. The opposition may be rampaging, yet our commitment to upholding women’s rights is fiercer. Our understanding of community needs is deeper. Our intellectual heft is stronger. Our willingness to defend the rights and choices of people in all their sexual diversities is steadfast. 

    And our commitment to science, to data and evidence for good planning, means we’re unconquerable.  

    UNFPA and this community have weathered many a storm before, and we will not waver in standing with women and girls, with families and communities, and with all our partners in the SRHR sector. 

    The backsliding in global funding is not just about dollars and cents. It’s about a woman walking for hours to a rural clinic, and turned away because the shelves are bare. It’s about a desperate adolescent girl, coerced into early marriage because contraception was out of her reach. Long-term sustainable financing for family planning is crucial.  It’s lifesaving.  

    The UNFPA Supplies Partnership has pioneered successful approaches through financing innovations — mechanisms like Country Compacts, Matching Funds, and Bridge Funds— with the important added benefit of accelerating country-led domestic financing.  

    I applaud the wisdom of low and middle-income countries’ unprecedented investments to safeguard their family planning supplies, and to strengthen the supply systems.  

    I urge you to work where you are and where you have influence — in academia, in government, civil society, foundations, financial and private sector institutions, religious and traditional communities.  Work to close the financing gap, to end stigma and to turn our dream of well-resourced family planning into reality! 

    So then, 30 years after Cairo and Beijing and with scarcely five years to go until 2030:  

    What is the future of family planning? 

    We’ve made significant gains, yet formidable challenges threaten future progress—pandemics, climate change, conflict, declining donor investment, and then — the systematic attacks on women’s rights and bodily autonomy.  

    Our response must match the scale of these threats. This calls for intergenerational partnerships, that transcend geographic and sectoral boundaries and that leverage diverse expertise, resources and influence. 

    It will take an estimated $60 billion in new funding annually to end the unmet need for family planning in 120 priority countries by the year 2030. There ‘is’ no better return on investment—as much as $120 for  every $1 spent, and countless lives are transformed  for the better. 

    Let me assert that the future of family planning will be determined by the choices we make today – together, unapologetically, and with the fierce urgency that this moment demands. 

    Change starts with us and leads to a future where every woman and girl can exercise her reproductive rights and choices with dignity, security, and freedom. 

    Our UNFPA vision of the future?  

    Contraceptive technology and research will significantly advance, reaching the ideal of full effectiveness and free access without limitations or boundaries.  

    Countries of the global South will lead, streamlining access to contraceptive services and information, institutionalizing policies that integrate SRHR into essential healthcare. Finally, family planning becomes part of integrated women’s health services and education. 

    Every individual, every couple, regardless of location, socioeconomic status, or background, will know where to easily turn for a full range of high-quality, affordable contraceptive offerings seamlessly integrated into maternal health, HIV, and routine wellness care and checkups. 

    In the future, family planning is recognized and acknowledged as an accelerator of gender equality, family wealth building, and of real development for people in their own home villages and urban landscapes. 

    After centuries of all-too familiar barrier methods and over a hundred years of tried and true hormonal methods, the future cries out for innovation; let’s have much more research and development of solutions designed with women and with adolescents.  

    Now that’s a bright future. Now that’s a future we can all get behind.

    Dear friends, 

    It is said that: It’s only in winter that we know which trees are evergreen. 

    Thank you for being an astute and evergreen friend to women, to adolescents and to families.  

    The threads that bind this community are strong.  They are unbreakable. We’re in this for the long haul, together, and together we shall win.

    MIL OSI United Nations News

  • MIL-OSI Australia: Australian Human Rights Commission observes International Day to Combat Islamophobia

    Source: Australian Human Rights Commission

    This International Day to Combat Islamophobia, President of the Australian Human Rights Commission Hugh de Kretser, Race Discrimination Commissioner Giridharan Sivaraman and Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay marked the importance of combating Islamophobia and reaffirm our commitment to tackling racism and discrimination.

    The International Day to Combat Islamophobia is observed on 15 March. It is the United Nations’ call for the promotion of a culture of tolerance and peace, based on respect for human rights and for the diversity of religions and belief across the globe. It also falls on the anniversary of the mass shootings at two mosques in Christchurch New Zealand, where 51 Muslims were tragically killed while praying, in 2019.

    “From the early connections between Indonesian fisherman and Aboriginal people in Northern Australia, Muslim people have made significant contributions to Australian society over several centuries. Today there are over 800,000 Muslim people in Australia. Yet prejudice against Muslim people is widespread and growing,” President Hugh de Kretser said.  

    “Islamophobia harms and dehumanises people. It corrodes our society. Left unchecked it leads to violence. We must ensure our nation is a safe place for people from all religions and races, where dignity and respect for everyone is valued and upheld.”

    “Islamophobia has no place in our society. Every Australian, regardless of faith or background, has the right to live free from discrimination and fear,” Race Discrimination Commissioner Giridharan Sivaraman said.

    “Unfortunately, Islamophobia continues to rise in Australia with Muslims facing increased racism across many areas of their lives, including at their workplaces, schools and universities, online, and in public spaces.  

    “In recent consultations conducted by the Australian Human Rights Commission, we heard that many Muslims are experiencing heightened feelings of dehumanisation, isolation and unsafety. We also heard that people who are visibly Muslim, especially women, are being particularly targeted and affected.

    “The violent threat to a mosque in Edmondson Park earlier this month, where online threats were made referencing the Christchurch massacre is yet another reminder of the pressing need to combat Islamophobia. It is especially abhorrent that this occurred at the beginning of the sacred month of Ramadan. The Christchurch attacks were used as a threat, a mere fortnight before the anniversary of this tragic day.

    “We will continue to listen to Muslim community groups during this challenging time. Harmful stereotypes and targeting of Muslims must be addressed for a safer and inclusive society”.

    Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay condemned the rise of Islamophobia.

    “From the violent attack on two women in a Melbourne shopping centre to the online threat targeting a mosque in western Sydney, Islamophobia in Australia must be unequivocally condemned.

    “These are threats against the values that we hold dear as Australians and have no place here”.  

    The International Day to Combat Islamophobia serves as an opportunity for individuals, organisations, and communities to reflect on the impact of anti-Muslim prejudice and to call out Islamophobia.

    The Australian Human Rights Commission calls on policymakers, businesses, and civil society to support initiatives such as the National Anti-Racism Framework to eliminate racism and promote positive engagement between communities.

    MIL OSI News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Shapiro Administration Stocks Trout in Pennsylvania Waterways, Prepare Campgrounds Ahead of Opening Day of Trout Season

    Source: US State of Pennsylvania

    March 14, 2025Mifflinburg, PA

    Shapiro Administration Stocks Trout in Pennsylvania Waterways, Prepare Campgrounds Ahead of Opening Day of Trout Season

    Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) Secretary Cindy Adams Dunn and Deputy Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) Laurel Anders, visited R.B. Winter State Park in Union County to stock trout and highlight the amazing fishing opportunities available in the Commonwealth.

    Through a partnership with PFBC, the American Sportfishing Association, and DCNR, the public can borrow fishing rods, reels, and an equipped tackle box to try fishing while at the certain parks.

    “Being outdoors is good for your health, and a day spent fishing also creates memories with family and friends. We want those benefits to be available to all,” Secretary Dunn said. “Pennsylvania has endless opportunities to experience the great outdoors and offer a chance to reconnect with nature. That’s exactly what this new partnership is about: discovering a new skill, revisiting a childhood hobby and enjoying our beautiful state parks.”

    Speakers Include:
    RB Winter State Park Manager Mike Crowley
    DCNR Secretary Cindy Adams Dunn
    PFBC Deputy Executive Director Laurel Anders
    Derek Eberly, director of the Governor’s Advisory Council for Hunting, Fishing, and Conservation
    Waterways Conservation Officer Jake Bennett
    Director of the Bureau of Hatcheries Brian Niewinski

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-Evening Report: Dramatic growth of NZ’s Māori economy highlights new report

    By Emma Andrews, RNZ Henare te Ua Māori journalism intern

    Māori contributions to the Aotearoa New Zealand economy have far surpassed the projected goal of “$100 billion by 2030”, a new report has revealed.

    The report conducted by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE) and Te Puni Kōkiri, Te Ōhanga Māori 2023, shows Māori entities have grown from contributing $17 billion to New Zealand’s GDP in 2018 to $32 billion in 2023, turning a 6.5 percent contribution to GDP into 8.9 percent.

    The Māori asset base has grown from $69 billion in 2018 to $126 billion in 2023 — an increase of 83 percent.

    Of that sum, there is $66 billion in assets for Māori businesses and employers, $19 billion in assets for self-employed Māori and $41 billion in assets for Māori trusts, incorporations, and other Māori collectives including post settlement entities.

    In 2018, $4.2 billion of New Zealand’s economy came from agriculture, forestry, and fishing which made it the main contributor.

    Now, administrative, support, and professional services have taken the lead contributing $5.1 billion in 2023.

    However, Māori collectives own around half of all of New Zealand’s agriculture, forestry, and fishing assets and remain the highest asset-rich sector.

    Focused on need
    Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira manages political and public interests on behalf of Ngāti Toa, including political interests, treaty claims, fisheries, health and social services, and environmental kaitiakitanga.

    Tumu Whakarae chief executive Helmut Modlik said they were not focused on making money, but on “those who need it most”.

    Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira tumu whakarae chief executive Helmut Karewa Modlik . . . “We focus on long-term benefits rather than short-term gains.” Image: Alicia Scott/RNZ

    Ngāti Toa invested in water infrastructure and environmental projects, with a drive to replenish the whenua and improve community health. Like many iwi, they also invest in enterprises that deliver essential services such as health, housing and education.

    “We focus on long-term benefits rather than short-term gains, ensuring that our investments contribute to the sustainable development of our community,” Modlik said.

    Between the covid-19 lockdown and 2023, the iwi grew their assets from $220 million to $850 million and increased their staff from 120 to over 600.

    Pou Ōhanga (chief economic development and investment officer) Boyd Scirkovich said they took a “people first” approach to decision making.

    “We focused on building local capacity and ensuring that our people had the resources and support they needed to navigate the challenges of the pandemic.”

    The kinds of jobs Māori are working are also changing.

    Māori workers now hold more high-skilled jobs than low-skilled jobs with 46 percent in high-skilled jobs, 14 percent in skilled jobs, and 40 percent in low-skilled jobs.

    That is compared to 2018 when 37 percent of Māori were in high-skilled jobs and 51 percent in low-skilled jobs.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Debates – Thursday, 13 March 2025 – Strasbourg – Revised edition

    Source: European Parliament

    Verbatim report of proceedings
     428k  792k
    Thursday, 13 March 2025 – Strasbourg
    1. Opening of the sitting
      2. A Vision for Agriculture and Food (debate)
      3. Action Plan for Affordable Energy (debate)
      4. Resumption of the sitting
      5. Announcement by the President
      6. Request for an urgent decision (Rule 170)
      7. Voting time
        7.1. European Defence Industry Programme and a framework of measures to ensure the timely availability and supply of defence products (EDIP) (vote)
        7.2. Democracy and human rights in Thailand, notably the lese-majesty law and the deportation of Uyghur refugees (RC-B10-0174/2025, B10-0174/2025, B10-0176/2025, B10-0191/2025, B10-0192/2025, B10-0193/2025, B10-0194/2025) (vote)
        7.3. Severe political, humanitarian and human rights crisis in Sudan, in particular the sexual violence and child rape (RC-B10-0175/2025, B10-0175/2025, B10-0185/2025, B10-0186/2025, B10-0187/2025, B10-0188/2025, B10-0189/2025, B10-0190/2025) (vote)
        7.4. Unlawful detention and sham trials of Armenian hostages, including high-ranking political representatives from Nagorno-Karabakh, by Azerbaijan (RC-B10-0177/2025, B10-0177/2025, B10-0178/2025, B10-0179/2025, B10-0180/2025, B10-0181/2025, B10-0182/2025, B10-0183/2025, B10-0184/2025) (vote)
        7.5. Social and employment aspects of restructuring processes: the need to protect jobs and workers’ rights (B10-0143/2025, B10-0152/2025) (vote)
      8. Resumption of the sitting
      9. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting
      10. European Schools Alliance: potential to achieve the European education area by driving innovation, enhancing mobility and championing inclusivity (debate)
      11. Explanations of votes
        11.1. Social and employment aspects of restructuring processes: the need to protect jobs and workers’ rights (B10-0143/2025)
      12. Approval of the minutes of the sitting and forwarding of texts adopted
      13. Calendar of part-sessions
      14. Closure of the sitting
      15. Adjournment of the session

       

    PREDSEDÁ: MARTIN HOJSÍK
    Podpredseda

     
    1. Opening of the sitting

       

    (Rokovanie sa začalo o 9:00 h.)

     

    2. A Vision for Agriculture and Food (debate)


     

      Christophe Hansen, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, dear colleagues, the first 100 days of our mandate were dedicated to delivering on what we promised and doing this in close cooperation with those who are most concerned: the farming and the food sector.

    Since I became Commissioner, my ‘boots on the ground’ promise has taken me already to eight Member States, and when I speak to farmers, I hear a strong call for stability and predictability, and also for the recognition of the crucial role that farming and rural areas play in Europe’s economy, security and strategic autonomy. Many of you recognise those calls as well.

    In these changing and challenging times, we need a clear perspective and a coherent policy response for everyone involved in guaranteeing our food security and food sovereignty. They need to see that their future will be prosperous.

    The vision for agriculture and food recently adopted by the Commission aims to provide the direction and response to these needs. It is the Commission’s policy roadmap to engage and take action with you and all stakeholders of the agri-food system on the future of food and farming in Europe.

    Our messages, dear colleagues, are very clear: farming, fishing and food are strategic sectors and a critical asset for Europe. They must be preserved across the continent, and the vision identifies European food sovereignty as an integral part of the EU security agenda. Our policies will continue supporting farmers and the agri-food sector in producing safe foods, protecting rural landscapes, traditions and livelihoods. In Europe, farming is highly diverse and so our policies must be tailored to the local needs.

    While facing many challenges, farmers, fishers and the food industry are part of the solution for achieving a future-proof agri-food sector. We will design the solutions pragmatically and in consultation with them. Consultation and dialogue, dear colleagues, are not just words. The vision is the result of close engagement and consultation with many different stakeholders from the agri-food sector and all relevant institutions, including the European Parliament.

    The work does not stop here. The vision is only the beginning of further cooperation and dialogue to develop the initiatives together. This College is committed to overcoming the polarisation that we have lived too much in the past, and that is why I am very glad to be with you today to present the vision and hear your ideas for the way forward.

    We started from a very simple and guiding question: how to build and support and agri-food system that is attractive for current and future generations – today, tomorrow and in 2040. We want a new agriculture and food sector to be – and I quote from the vision itself – ‘attractive, competitive, future-proof and fair’ and built on dialogue and partnership between the players of the food chain and powered by innovation, knowledge and research.

    The vision contains four priority areas to provide direction and stability. For each one, it identifies specific policy responses that focus on all three dimensions of sustainability.

    First, an attractive and predictable agri-food sector that ensures a fair standard of living and leverages new income opportunities. For this, we must help the sector draw on all sources of income. We will help farmers to get a better return from the market by addressing the principle that they should not be forced to systematically sell their products below the production cost. The coming UTP review will be instrumental for achieving this.

    Secondly, public support from the Common Agricultural Policy remains essential to support farmers’ income. The Commission will make future CAP support simpler and more targeted towards those farmers who need it most, creating better incentives for ecosystem services and giving further responsibility and accountability to Member States.

    We will also help the sector to leverage new income opportunities, such as from the bio-economy or carbon-farming, agri-tourism can also provide farmers with a complementary income.

    Furthermore, in 2025, I will present a strategy for generational renewal. As you know, currently only 12 % of the EU farmers are below the age of 40. This is a huge challenge and we need to address it if we are serious about food security and food sovereignty. Therefore, we will have to bundle not only our European efforts, but as well the national efforts to get there.

    Secondly, a competitive and resilient agri-food sector in the face of global challenges. Our farmers insist on fair global competition, and the vision clearly states that we will push for a fairer, global level playing field by better aligning – and in line with international rules – our domestic production standards with those applied to imports, notably for pesticides and animal welfare.

    To advance in this area, we will start work on implementing the principle that hazardous pesticides banned in the EU should not be allowed back into the EU via imports. I always say, ‘if a product is a threat to human health or pollinators in the EU, it is as well outside’. If we still import those products, neither the consumers nor the farmers understand this. Therefore, I believe it is very important that our standards also need to be better controlled because it is good to have high standards, but without checks this is of course inefficient.

    Then, the agri-food sector is strongly affected by different crises. I think that is not a secret and we will develop a more comprehensive approach to risk and crisis management. We enforce incentives for farmers to boost farm-level adaptation and improve access to affordable insurance and de-risking tools for primary producers.

    Lastly, I want to present two simplification packages in 2025 to reduce the administrative burden for farmers and the entire agri-food value chain. The first focus will be on the CAP, while the second will look at the broader EU legislation package.

    Another important initiative will be the work that we will carry out for the livestock sector. As the vision says clearly, livestock remains an essential element of EU agriculture and we will work on making it more competitive, resilient and sustainable.

    Thirdly, we need a future-proof agri-food sector that works hand in hand with nature. To guarantee the sector’s long-term resilience and competitiveness, we need to preserve healthy soils, clean water and air, and the EU’s biodiversity. To support this, we must continue to implement and enforce the legislation that we already have.

    In the future, we must also create better incentives for farmers and agri-food actors who are delivering ecosystem services, and make sure that climate and biodiversity action go hand in hand with competitiveness. For this, there will be some key drivers, such as a more advanced toolbox under the Common Agricultural Policy, a voluntary on-farm sustainability compass, certified carbon farming, as well as measures to accelerate the access to biopesticides to the EU market.

    The fourth priority area is about strengthening the link between food and consumers and promoting fair living and working conditions in vibrant and well-connected coastal and rural areas. Addressing the gap in the availability and affordability of services for citizens in rural and coastal areas, including in the outermost regions, is key to address the need for an effective right to stay for all European citizens.

    To boost the vitality of these areas and to tackle these issues, we will strengthen synergies between EU funds and present and updated EU rural action plan and rural pact. At the same time, annual food dialogues with everyone involved in the food system will help to reconnect people with the food they eat and address many of the most pressing issues, including food reformulation and affordability.

    And finally, we will bring knowledge and innovation, research, skills and digital solutions closer to the farmers. They will play a key role in supporting the agri-food sector to carry out this initiative. And I know that many of you have as well good ideas, this is, of course, the beginning of a path towards a more sustainable agri-food system – more sustainable economically, socially and as well as environmentally – and I’m looking forward to having a good discussion with you on the different workstreams that we have identified in this vision.

     
       

     

      Herbert Dorfmann, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr geschätzter Herr Kommissar, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Bäuerinnen und Bauern sind Essensbringer, das sind die, die uns tagtäglich ernähren. Das ist eigentlich logisch – nur vergessen haben wir das vielleicht etwas in den Jahrzehnten des Überflusses. Ziel einer vernünftigen Agrarpolitik muss es doch sein, dass Bäuerinnen und Bauern tagtäglich gemeinsam mit unserer Nahrungsmittelindustrie versuchen, nachhaltig hochwertige Lebensmittel für uns, für diese 450 Millionen Europäerinnen und Europäer, zu erzeugen.

    Ich bin Ihnen, Herr Kommissar, dankbar, dass Sie dieses Thema wieder einmal ganz klar in den Mittelpunkt Ihrer Vision gestellt haben. Wir verwalten in diesem Haus jährlich rund 60 Milliarden Euro, die an die europäische Landwirtschaft gehen. Das ist viel Geld, und ich denke, wenn wir diese 60 Milliarden Euro, die an 9 Millionen Betriebe in Europa gehen, vernünftig einsetzen, dann können sie wirklich ein Treiber für eine zukunftsorientierte, produzierende, nachhaltige Landwirtschaft sein.

    Die können es sein: indem wir Betrieben – Sie haben es gesagt, Herr Kommissar – in jenen Gebieten weiterhelfen, wo es schwieriger ist zu produzieren. Wenn man die nämlich nicht berücksichtigt, dann steigen sie aus der Produktion aus, und wir verlieren diese Gebiete, wie es leider in vielen Regionen Europas, vor allem auch in den Bergen, passiert ist.

    Indem wir Bäuerinnen und Bauern weiter helfen, ihre Ideen zu verwirklichen. Wir haben viele innovative Menschen in der Landwirtschaft, aber unsere Agrarpolitik hilft manchmal nicht unbedingt weiter, diese innovativen Ideen wirklich auf den Grund zu bringen.

    Indem wir Bäuerinnen und Bauern helfen, die auf Nachhaltigkeit setzen. Auch hier haben wir viele Menschen in der Landwirtschaft, die sehr gute Ideen haben, die Nachhaltigkeit in ihrem Betrieb umsetzen. Ich glaube, wir sollten ihnen helfen, und natürlich auch jenen jungen Menschen, die in der Landwirtschaft anfangen wollen, und auch jenen Betrieben, die sich gegen den Klimawandel stemmen, indem sie aktiv oder passiv versuchen, mit dem Klimawandel umzugehen.

    Ich glaube, Herr Kommissar, das ist nun eine Vision; diese Vision müssen wir nun umsetzen. Meine Fraktion ist dazu bereit. Dazu brauchen wir Geld, und das, glaube ich, ist die größte Herausforderung, die uns in den nächsten Jahren erwartet, dass wir hier alle gemeinsam dafür einstehen, einen ordentlichen, vernünftigen Agrarhaushalt für die nächsten Jahre zu bekommen.

     
       

     

      Dario Nardella, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghe e colleghi, in questi vent’anni abbiamo perso il 37% degli agricoltori e il 12% dei profitti.

    Signor Commissario, il lavoro della visione è un ottimo punto di partenza. Ci sono, però, molti nodi che dobbiamo affrontare, a cominciare dalle risorse: senza risorse adeguate non avremo una visione e non avremo neanche una politica agricola comune. Per questo diciamo “no” a qualunque taglio alle risorse per l’agricoltura. Diciamo “no” a qualunque accentramento dei fondi o a forme di decentramento agli Stati nazionali.

    Vogliamo, invece, risorse sufficienti per aumentare produttività e reddito, senza creare disparità di trattamento, promuovendo filiere alimentari sostenibili, di qualità e innovative.

    I nostri agricoltori hanno bisogno di regole chiare e semplici. Non vogliamo deregulation, ma una buona semplificazione, perché la legge del più forte non è la legge giusta. Ma i nostri agricoltori subiscono il peso di una burocrazia spesso asfissiante.

    Per questo vogliamo un’agricoltura più sostenibile, con i giovani e le donne protagoniste e con i lavoratori che siano il vero motore, perché senza coinvolgere agricoltori e lavoratori non avremo un’agricoltura nel futuro dell’Europa forte, unita e sostenibile.

     
       


     

      Veronika Vrecionová, za skupinu ECR. – Pane předsedající, Evropa dnes čelí zásadním výzvám. Válka, hrozící celní spory a nejistá ekonomika mění pravidla hry. To všechno se promítá i do zemědělství. Je čas říci si otevřeně – našimi prioritami musí být bezpečnost a konkurenceschopnost Evropy, a to i potravinová bezpečnost a konkurenceschopnost zemědělství. V zemědělství musíme maximálně zefektivnit využití stávajících prostředků. Chci, aby společná zemědělská politika byla jednoduchá, předvídatelná a zaměřená na výsledky. Méně byrokracie, více stability. Farmáři potřebují jasná pravidla a ne další papírování. Podporu musíme směřovat tam, kde má největší smysl – k zemědělcům, kteří pečují o půdu a krajinu a především zajišťují kvalitní potraviny.

    Proto budu podporovat zastropování a degresivitu přímých plateb. Nemůžeme dále dotovat velké agroholdingy na úkor malých a středních farem, které drží venkov při životě.

     
       

     

      Valérie Hayer, au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, nos agriculteurs en avaient besoin. Alors, merci, Monsieur le Commissaire, pour la vision que vous nous proposez ce matin sur l’agriculture et l’alimentation. Je vous le dis d’emblée: je vais pleinement la saluer. Les défis du monde agricole sont immenses: gestion du dérèglement climatique, instabilité géopolitique, renouvellement des générations et, ce que nous réclament nos agriculteurs depuis longtemps, des prix justes et des règles claires et faciles à appliquer.

    L’agriculture est l’un des plus grands enjeux stratégiques de notre Europe. On attendait donc de vous une ambition en matière de souveraineté alimentaire; elle y est. On attendait une volonté de développer la résilience de nos fermes; elle est là. On attendait la prise en compte du défi démographique; il y est. On attendait l’enjeu de réciprocité; c’est le cas. On attendait que la rémunération des agriculteurs figure en bonne place; je lis «attractivité», je lis «innovation», je lis «accès au foncier», et je ne peux que le saluer.

    Ce travail, nous le savons tous, n’est que le coup d’envoi d’un chantier aussi colossal qu’indispensable. Il demande maintenant qu’ensemble, en responsabilité, on se relève les manches. J’y veillerai avec mes collègues, dans mes priorités de présidente du groupe Renew. C’est un enjeu que notre groupe porte haut pour avancer concrètement, en commençant notamment par renforcer le poids des agriculteurs dans la chaîne de valeur, y compris en renforçant la directive sur les pratiques commerciales déloyales. Le plus dur reste à faire: mettre tout cela en musique, le décliner dans nos textes de loi et veiller à la cohérence de nos politiques et de nos choix, sans oublier, bien sûr, d’y consacrer les moyens de nos ambitions; le nerf de la guerre, c’est l’argent.

     
       

     

      Thomas Waitz, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, you expect us farmers to produce cheap for the global markets. You expect us farmers to produce affordable food for our citizens. You expect us farmers to produce extra cheap raw material for the food processing industry and for the retailers in the European Union. That’s why farmers need income support from taxpayers’ pockets.

    This income support should be based on the amount of jobs farmers are offering: you have winemakers with direct marketing who can supply two full-time jobs with five hectares, while sometimes crop farmers with 50 or 80 hectares are not even able to supply one full-time job. So I definitely welcome the slight indications in your vision that we need to allocate some of the basic income support budget based on the amount of jobs a farm is actually supplying.

    But before we can actually supply income support, we need to have a budget. And you all know here in the room that the CAP budget is not secured. It’s clearly not secured, even if farmers have the potential to help us with climate mitigation, with climate adaptation. They help us with biodiversity, with rural areas, with animal welfare – a lot of important roles in society.

    So let’s build this partnership between farming, environment, climate and rural areas. Because if you ask me, this will be the only way that we can secure a reasonable budget for our farmers.

     
       


     

      Arno Bausemer, im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Rund 300 Milliarden Euro erhalten die Landwirte in der Europäischen Union in der laufenden Förderperiode – das klingt zunächst nach viel Geld. Allerdings kam in den vergangenen Jahren immer weniger Geld bei den Landwirten an, und gleichzeitig wird der Frust der Empfänger aufgrund neuer widersinniger Vorschriften immer größer und führt bei vielen Betrieben irgendwann zur Aufgabe. Dort, wo jahrelang Raps geblüht hat, da wächst heute noch maximal Unkraut. Dort, wo früher Gänse schnatternd über die Weide gelaufen sind, da ist jetzt kein Tier mehr zu sehen. Und dort, wo früher Milchkühe in den Ställen standen, da herrscht jetzt gespenstische Stille.

    In meinem Heimatbundesland Sachsen-Anhalt in Deutschland gab es im Jahr 2013 noch 560 Milchviehbetriebe – mittlerweile sind mehr als die Hälfte der Betriebe verschwunden. Seien Sie sich eines gewiss: Kein Landwirt trennt sich gerne von seinen Tieren, von seinem Hof und von seinem Betrieb – ganz im Gegenteil. Die Zahl der Betriebsschließungen wäre noch deutlich größer, wenn in den klein- und mittelständischen Familienbetrieben nicht bis zur Selbstausbeutung jeder Euro dreimal umgedreht werden würde, um den Betrieb am Leben zu halten. Und glauben Sie mir, ich weiß da auch gut, wovon ich spreche.

    Die harte Arbeit in der Landwirtschaft darf aber nicht dazu führen, dass es körperliche, seelische und auch finanzielle Selbstausbeutung gibt. Diese harte Arbeit muss sich für die Beteiligten endlich wieder lohnen. Und deshalb sollten wir uns auf die gemeinsamen Ziele besinnen, die 1962 die Grundlage der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik definiert haben, nämlich die Steigerung der Produktivität, die Sicherstellung eines angemessenen Lebensstandards für Landwirte und die Sicherstellung der Versorgung.

    Lassen Sie uns den Landwirten Respekt entgegenbringen, lassen Sie uns die Zukunft der Landwirtschaft sichern!

     
       


     

      Norbert Lins (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, meine lieben Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Endlich wurde begriffen, dass unsere europäischen Landwirte eine zentrale Säule in der EU darstellen und wir daher mit ihnen und nicht gegen sie arbeiten müssen. Der Vorschlag der Kommission mit dieser Vision sendet ein wichtiges Signal an die Landwirtschaft und an die ländlichen Räume in Europa, dass die Nachricht in Brüssel wirklich angekommen ist und wir nun die Möglichkeit haben, an den wichtigen akuten Aspekten zu arbeiten.

    Die Vision bekennt sich klar zur Lebensmittelproduktion und insbesondere zur Tierhaltung in Europa. Es ist gut, dass wir weggehen von der Konditionalität und dass wir zu mehr Anreizen in der Landwirtschaft kommen. Zu Recht hebt die Kommission hervor, dass die Anpassung an den Klimawandel einen hohen Stellenwert hat und Zukunftsthemen wie die Bioökonomie eine entscheidende Rolle spielen.

    Ich begrüße außerordentlich, dass es ein weiteres GAP‑Vereinfachungspaket gibt. Ich glaube aber, dass wir mehr Tempo brauchen bei den sektorübergreifenden Rechtsvorschriften – es ist gut, dass dort ein Omnibus geplant ist. Vereinfachung der Düngevorschriften und beim Pflanzenschutz ist dringend notwendig; da brauchen wir mehr Tempo, je schneller, desto besser.

    Die Landwirtschaft ist das Rückgrat unserer Gesellschaft und insbesondere der ländlichen Räume. Die offene Frage ist: Bekommen wir (Ton aus). Das ist die entscheidende Frage in den nächsten Monaten. Dafür lassen Sie uns gemeinsam kämpfen!

     
       

     

      Cristina Maestre (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, la visión que aquí presenta es buena: recoge el sentir del campo, sus necesidades y sus demandas. ¿La podríamos suscribir? Si, por supuesto. La podemos suscribir. Pero le falta lo más importante. Le falta el cómo y le falta el cuánto. Ya lo estamos diciendo aquí todos esta mañana.

    Por lo tanto, la pregunta es: ¿vamos a tener una PAC con fondos suficientes para hacer esto o va a haber recortes como ya deja intuir la Comisión Europea? Con recortes en la PAC esto sería un quiero y no puedo. Y si me dice que los Estados miembros aporten más, en este caso estaríamos hablando de un my treat, your bill: yo invito pero tú pagas.

    Y también nos tiene que aclarar si van en serio con eso de ir al modelo de sobre único para cada Estado miembro.

    Mire, señor comisario, eso de dejar al albur de cada país el uso de los fondos de la PAC es una bomba en la línea de flotación de la política agrícola y del mercado único. Por favor, quítenle de la cabeza eso a la señora Von der Leyen porque usted ha hecho un buen trabajo y corre el riesgo de quedarse en papel mojado. Que no sea esto una quimera.

     
       

     

      Mireia Borrás Pabón (PfE). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, gracias por su presentación, pero he de decirle que hoy nos presentan aquí otro informe lleno de buenas intenciones pero vacío de soluciones.

    Se cambia el envoltorio, pero el veneno sigue dentro. Permanecen las mismas políticas y objetivos del Pacto Verde y de la política agrícola común. Nos hablan en su informe de hacer el sector atractivo, pero continúan con la asfixia regulatoria. Nos hablan de una preocupación por la competencia desleal, cuando son ustedes los primeros que la promueven pretendiendo inundar Europa con importaciones del Mercosur en unas condiciones tan desiguales y tan injustas que la palabra traición se me queda corta. Nos hablan de soberanía alimentaria mientras ustedes no paran de pisotearla con acuerdos que entregan nuestro mercado a terceros países. En España, pero también en Francia, en Italia, los agricultores ven cómo los precios de sus productos caen y los supermercados se llenan de frutas y verduras marroquíes, porque ustedes nos hacen depender cada vez más de países extranjeros.

    Señor comisario, ¿quiere de verdad soluciones reales o solo otra fantasía legislativa para los agricultores? Porque si quiere soluciones reales lo que hay que hacer es derogar el Pacto Verde Europeo y su burocracia asfixiante y acabar de una vez por todas con acuerdos comerciales injustos. Mismas normas, mismas reglas, o fuera de nuestro mercado.

     
       

     

      Sergio Berlato (ECR). – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, troppe persone, anche in questo Parlamento, ritengono che le risorse finanziarie di cui è dotata la PAC siano eccessive se rapportate al numero dei potenziali beneficiari. Probabilmente coloro che hanno questa errata opinione non sanno che ai nostri imprenditori agricoli è affidato il compito di garantire la sicurezza alimentare per tutti i consumatori ma anche la tutela e la manutenzione dei 3/4 del territorio europeo.

    La Commissione europea dichiara di voler rendere l’agricoltura più attraente, più resiliente e più sostenibile. Attualmente l’agricoltura non risulta attraente perché sempre un maggior numero di imprese agricole chiudono le loro attività.

    L’agricoltura non può risultare competitiva e resiliente se l’Unione europea e continua a sottoscrivere accordi di libero scambio che costringono i nostri imprenditori agricoli a subire la concorrenza sleale da parte di altri produttori extraeuropei che possono portare i loro prodotti sui nostri mercati senza dover rispettare le stesse costose regole imposte agli imprenditori agricoli europei.

    A forza di parlare di agricoltura sostenibile, avete costretto i nostri imprenditori agricoli ad abbandonare le loro campagne e le loro attività, esasperati dall’imposizione delle vostre ideologie animal-ambientaliste.

    Vedremo se coloro che sono pervasi di ideologia animal-ambientalista saranno in grado di sostituire i nostri imprenditori agricoli nella manutenzione del territorio.

    (L’oratore accetta di rispondere a una domanda “cartellino blu”)

     
       

     

      Christophe Clergeau (S&D), question «carton bleu». – Cher collègue, j’ai une question très simple à vous poser. Vous avez dit, à juste titre, qu’il y avait besoin d’un budget important pour la politique agricole commune. Je voulais donc vous demander si vous souhaitiez, vous et votre groupe, un budget plus important pour l’Union européenne et des ressources propres pour ce budget, qui permettraient à la fois de continuer et de renforcer la politique agricole commune, de maintenir la politique de cohésion et de financer les autres priorités. Plus d’argent pour la PAC, d’accord; moi aussi, je suis pour un budget plus important et des ressources propres; mais vous, comment faites-vous pour garder une part importante du budget pour la PAC?

     
       



     

      Cristina Guarda (Verts/ALE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, è davvero un grande “wow”, perché torna al centro la competitività in agricoltura. Temo, però, che in questa sua visione, Commissario, la competitività dipenda, per lo più, dal peso dell’agricoltura nel commercio globale che dalla capacità di garantire cibo sano per gli europei.

    Quindi, cari colleghi, noi insieme dobbiamo guidare l’agricoltura europea a ritrovare la propria autonomia, a non essere più ostaggio degli oligopoli delle multinazionali che controllano i mercati, la genetica dei nostri semi, la chimica e ora anche la transizione verso il biologico e l’agroecologia, volendoli sempre più controllare e snaturare.

    Ad esempio, in questa sua visione, Commissario, i centrali servizi ecosistemici, generati dagli agricoltori che lavorano in simbiosi con l’agricoltura, li vuole consegnare in mano al mercato senza tutele. Così, anche questa volta, invece di essere un’opportunità di reddito per gli agricoltori, il controllo lo avrà il mercato. Lo stesso mercato che oggi lascia nelle tasche degli agricoltori solo il 7% del prezzo pagato dai consumatori.

    Commissario, lavorare per un salario giusto è un diritto anche per noi agricoltori. Ci restituisca il controllo di tutto questo.

     
       


     

      Carmen Crespo Díaz (PPE). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, señorías, es el momento de la defensa europea y, por tanto, lo primero que tenemos que hacer es reivindicar el papel de la alimentación como arma de defensa europea fundamental para los intereses de la alimentación y la soberanía alimentaria. Para ello, blindar los fondos de la PAC en el nuevo marco financiero plurianual es fundamental: sin mezcla de fondos, donde saldríamos perdiendo. Los acuerdos comerciales tienen que venir con reciprocidad y siempre respetando a nuestros agricultores y también a nuestros consumidores.

    Nos gusta la propuesta de la oficina de control de importaciones en Mercosur, es el camino de ayudar a los agricultores con esos acuerdos. Y apostar por la ciencia: las nuevas prácticas genómicas hay que desbloquearlas en el Consejo. Bajar la huella hídrica. Apostar por la economía circular, nuevo nicho de negocio en las zonas rurales. Desde luego, simplificar la vida de los agricultores —hombres y mujeres— y buscar una fórmula, además, que permita la integración de los mayores, que no los penalice y que no salgan perdiendo. Y que los jóvenes tengan una oportunidad real.

    No demonicemos la ganadería, intentemos que los aranceles en este momento, no involucren al sector agroalimentario, ni al bourbon estadounidense ni al vino europeo. Tenemos que dejarlos fuera porque es un sector muy vulnerable que durante todo este tiempo ha sufrido los altos costes y las dificultades y este es el momento de ampararlo.

    Enhorabuena por la visión, querido comisario.

     
       

     

      André Rodrigues (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, a necessidade de garantir um rendimento justo e estável aos agricultores de hoje e construir um setor que seja suficientemente apelativo para atrair os agricultores de amanhã são prioridades com as quais, estou certo, estamos todos de acordo.

    Contudo, só serão concretizáveis com um orçamento robusto, capaz de enfrentar os complexos desafios que o setor enfrenta. Neste contexto, é fundamental manter a coerência e a interligação entre os fundos ligados à agricultura, assim como defender e reforçar o papel das parcerias com as autoridades regionais e locais na sua implementação.

    Registo, por isso, com satisfação o reconhecimento, na Visão para a Agricultura e Alimentação, das especificidades das regiões ultraperiféricas e da importância do regime POSEI. Contudo, Senhor Comissário, este programa precisa de ser atualizado — o que não acontece há mais de uma década —, para que possa ter verbas que verdadeiramente correspondam às reais necessidades do setor agrícola nestas regiões, fazendo assim justiça a quem nele trabalha.

    (O orador aceita responder a uma pergunta «cartão azul»)

     
       


     

      André Rodrigues (S&D), Resposta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Caro colega, muito obrigado pelas suas perguntas, à primeira das quais devo dizer que nós temos vindo a defender já há muito tempo a necessidade de termos um equilíbrio verdadeiro na fileira da cadeia alimentar, de forma que os produtores não sejam, de facto, o parente pobre desta mesma fileira, garantindo, assim, maior igualdade na distribuição do rendimento.

    Quanto à questão que coloca acerca das quotas (que, como sabe, já tem muitos anos), a verdade é que nós não podemos ter uma posição que vá contra aquilo que é uma inevitabilidade. E, como todos sabemos, na altura, o regime das quotas terminou. Era uma inevitabilidade. Apesar de todos os constrangimentos que possa ter criado, a verdade é que o setor soube ultrapassar de forma positiva este mesmo constrangimento.

     
       

     

      Valérie Deloge (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, une fois de plus, la Commission européenne présente une vision d’avenir pour l’agriculture qui ne répond pas aux attentes des agriculteurs européens. Les agriculteurs veulent vivre de leur travail, grâce à un revenu décent; mais l’essentiel de vos propositions se concentrent sur les aides et la diversification des activités, sans leur offrir la moindre garantie. Les agriculteurs veulent moins de bureaucratie; vous préférez multiplier les normes environnementales et les obligations administratives. Les agriculteurs veulent un secteur fort et souverain; on constate que vous restez soumis au dogme du libre-échange et de la mondialisation, pourtant néfaste à notre agriculture.

    Quant à votre réponse au besoin d’attirer les jeunes et les femmes, elle se résume à la mise en place de plans, de plateformes et d’observatoires, bref, à une usine à gaz. Ce n’est pas avec des documents de trente pages que l’on remplit les assiettes. Quand allez-vous sortir des promesses creuses et proposer du concret? Monsieur le Commissaire, l’avenir de l’agriculture dans les prochaines années me paraît bien sombre.

     
       

     

      Waldemar Buda (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Miesiąc temu przewodnicząca Ursula von der Leyen oświadczyła, że wspólna polityka rolna będzie zlikwidowana. Będzie połączona z innymi programami. Podpisała porozumienie, negocjacje z Mercosurem i mamy wyraźną tendencję do ograniczenia środków na rolnictwo. I ja bym oczekiwał, żeby komisarz, który się zajmuje rolnictwem, powinien wyjść dzisiaj i powiedzieć o tych trzech sprawach. Powiedzieć jestem przeciwko Mercosurowi, jestem za utrzymaniem wspólnej polityki rolnej i jestem za utrzymaniem albo zwiększeniem środków. Czy usłyszeliśmy jakiekolwiek słowo i zapewnienie w tych trzech podstawowych sprawach?

    Czy Pan chce być grabarzem rolnictwa? Czy Pan chce być zapamiętany jako ktoś, kto rozwijał rolnictwo? Poprzedni komisarz walczył o rolnictwo, był atakowany z każdej strony. Timmermans go atakował, Dombrowskis go atakował, a on mówił swoje: będę bronił rolnictwa. Chcielibyśmy podobnej postawy wobec Pana, żeby Pan był dobrze zapamiętany w historii polskiego, ale i europejskiego rolnictwa również. Nie ma żadnego zapewnienia w tej sprawie. Ja się obawiam, że najbliższa perspektywa finansowa to będzie degradacja europejskiego rolnictwa. Co nam się w Unii Europejskiej udało? Przemysł pogrzebany, konkurencyjność pogrzebana, tylko rolnictwo. I jesteśmy na dobrej drodze, żeby rolnictwo również zlikwidować.

     
       



     

      Arash Saeidi (The Left). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, je suis heureux d’entendre votre volonté, que je crois sincère, d’assurer des prix de vente supérieurs aux coûts de production, d’empêcher l’importation de produits élaborés avec des pesticides interdits dans l’Union européenne et, surtout, d’instaurer des contrôles effectifs pour assurer l’application de nos règles. Vous nous trouverez toujours en soutien pour aller dans cette direction.

    Cependant, est-ce bien la volonté de tout le collège des commissaires? Je vois a minima une contradiction flagrante entre vos propos et la signature d’un accord avec le Mercosur, alors que – et ce n’est malheureusement qu’un exemple – les études démontrent la très grande difficulté du Brésil à rendre effectifs les contrôles sur ses productions agricoles. Vous voulez protéger les agriculteurs contre une concurrence déloyale, mais la Commission ouvre les portes de l’Union européenne à un dumping chimique et social.

    Ma question est donc simple: comment allez-vous répondre à cette contradiction, Monsieur le Commissaire?

     
       

     

      Krzysztof Hetman (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Szanowni Państwo! W debacie o wizji przyszłości rolnictwa powinien wybrzmieć głos rolników. Wczoraj wieczorem jednego z nich zapytałem o to, jaka ta przyszłość rolnictwa powinna być, i wymienił mi to w 5 punktach. 1. Skrócenie łańcuchów dostaw i wzmocnienie pozycji producenta. 2. Rolnicy muszą mieć łatwe i proste przepisy do przetwarzania swojej produkcji. 3. Należy obniżyć koszty produkcji, między innymi poprzez rewizję Zielonego Ładu. 4. Chronić wewnętrzny rynek rolny przed takimi umowami, jak Mercosur, i nadmierną liberalizacją handlu z Ukrainą i przed kolejnymi tego typu umowami. 5. Uprościć i doregulować przepisy w obszarze prowadzenia działalności rolniczej, bo rolnicy powinni pracować w polu, a nie siedzieć za biurkiem i wypełniać stosy dokumentów. I ode mnie, Panie Komisarzu: uważam, że w tej wizji, którą Pan przedstawił, brakuje ewentualnego rozszerzenia Unii Europejskiej o inne państwa i wpływu tego rozszerzenia na rynek rolny, europejski, a także polski. Bez tego elementu ta wizja, moim zdaniem, będzie niepełna.

     
       

     

      Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, stimați colegi, dezbaterea de astăzi trebuie să fie urmată imediat de măsuri, domnule comisar. Asta așteaptă fermierii. Este nevoie să avem mai multă echitate economică și socială în piața internă dacă vrem să avem o agricultură durabilă, pentru că despre asta vorbim. Trebuie să avem reglementări care să combată inflația și să se stabilizeze prețurile. Inflația mănâncă din buget. Nu putem să lăsăm fermierii să-și vândă produsele sub prețul de cost. Aici avem nevoie de măsuri. Trebuie să intensificăm eforturile pentru combaterea practicilor comerciale neloiale. Știm bine că în fiecare stat membru avem practici neloiale. De ce? Pentru că intră în piața internă produse necontrolate.

    Fermierii și muncitorii agricoli au nevoie de o viață decentă, merită condiții de viață mai bune. Trebuie să încurajăm – dacă nu vom rezolva acest lucru, generația tânără nu va merge, generația despre care dumneavoastră vorbeați că trebuie să o avem pentru înlocuire. Politica agricolă comună? Politica agricolă comună trebuie reformată, dar subvențiile directe trebuie să rămână. Domnule comisar, ați vorbit de polarizare. Cum veți face să nu mai fie polarizare? Cum veți face ca subvențiile să fie etice și echitabile pentru toți fermierii? Și da, fermierii susțin o simplificare, fără să afecteze competența și competiția loială în piața internă.

     
       

     

      Csaba Dömötör (PfE). – Elnök Úr! Érdemes őszintén beszélnünk, a Vision nevű anyagban, a hangzatos célok mögött olyan tervek vonulnak, amelyeknek az európai gazdák nem fognak örülni. Alapos a gyanúnk arra, hogy lefaragnák az agrártámogatásokat, külső körülményekre való hivatkozással, mint például Ukrajna EU-tagsága, és ezt a szándékot tompa kifejezésekbe burkolják. Így amikor célzott támogatásokról beszélnek, az valójában azt jelenti, hogy nem kapna minden gazda támogatást, nem kapnának annyian, mint most. Amikor rászorultsági elvről beszélnek, akkor az megint azt jelenti, hogy nem mindenki kapna támogatást, aki most egyébként kap.

    Ráadásul, hogyha jól értjük a terveket, akkor más forrásokkal is összevonnák az agrárpénzeket, ami elfedné azt, hogy csökkenteni akarják a támogatási összegeket. Elgondolkodtatónak tartom, hogy az előterjesztésben szereplő terveket leginkább azok a civilnek mondott szervezetek üdvözlik, amelyeket az Európai Bizottság finanszíroz. A gazdák nagyon nem. Magyarországon közel 250 ezer ember állt ki aláírásával a területalapú támogatások mellett. Kérem, hallják meg az ő hangjukat is!

     
       


     

      Barry Cowen (Renew). – Mr President, Commissioner Hansen, thank you for your presentation earlier. As I mentioned when we met yesterday morning, I welcome much of what is contained in the vision, particularly the Commission’s intention to shift the future CAP from a system of conditions to that of incentives. That, of course, is a step in the right direction.

    However, the vision falls short in addressing one critical issue: the need for a strong CAP in the next multiannual financial framework. This vision is worryingly vague, and there are persistent rumours that the CAP budget could be merged into a broader funding pot. It says nothing concrete specifically about the budgetary needs of the next CAP, failing to acknowledge the need for new funds to pay for the transition towards sustainable food systems and productions.

    So, Commissioner Hansen, I’d like to ask you at this stage, have you identified the level of funding needed to sustain the CAP in the next MFF? And crucially, what steps are you taking within the College to secure this funding?

    (The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

     
       


     

      Barry Cowen (Renew), blue-card answer. – Thank you, MEP Flanagan. And you’re quite correct, of course. I’m well aware of the impact, and the fears and concerns that exist in many farmers, many landowners, whose soil is designated as peaty, and the worries that they would have for the implications of what’s contained.

    However, I’m convinced that the Commission, in its efforts to have this addressed, primarily is committed to nature restoration laws and rewetting programmes, which Ireland and the region has committed strongly to. It has been funded by this Commission to the tune of EUR 100 million – to Bord na Móna, for example, a state body that has responsibility in this regard, that will meet much of the demands that are contained within that.

    I think farmers will continue to be in a position to carry out farm practices in relation to ploughing, in relation to reseeding, in relation to maintenance of drains …

    (The President interrupted the speaker)

     
       

     

      Anna Strolenberg (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, Commissioner, the Netherlands is a country of food innovation and also a country of yoghurt‑lovers for breakfast. And I want to talk about both, because I visited a farm a while ago of two young farmers coming from a long line of dairy farmers, and they saw the inefficiency of giving soy to cows, and they radically changed their business model. By now, they are producing their own soy and creating their own yoghurt. Since recently, you can find their products in one of the biggest supermarkets in the Netherlands. This is the innovation that we need in Europe. This is a success story.

    Commissioner, in your vision, you highlight our dependency on importing proteins. If you want to change this, we have to stimulate the creation of alternative proteins. And I think we can do it. It can create more options for consumers, more new opportunities for income for farmers, and more climate resilience. If your proposed plan has concrete goals and concrete policy proposals, your plan can become a success story as well.

     
       

     

      Sebastian Everding (The Left). – Herr Präsident! „Was wir heute tun, entscheidet darüber, wie die Welt morgen aussieht“, sagte schon die österreichische Schriftstellerin Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach. Herr Kommissar, ich habe eine Vision, in der Lebensmittel nicht mehr in Verbindung mit Wettbewerbsfähigkeit gebracht werden. In dieser Vision haben Landwirte ein gesichertes Einkommen, und wir erleben eine Partnerschaft auf Augenhöhe; auf der anderen Seite Verbraucher, die bereit sind, regionale und saisonale Produkte zu kaufen, frei von Pestiziden und Gentechnik.

    In meiner Vision werden diese gesunden pflanzlichen Nahrungsmittel mit nur minimalsten Steuern belegt, während tierische Produkte mit den Steuern belastet werden, die der Umweltzerstörung, der Gefährdung menschlicher Gesundheit und dem unermesslichen Tierleid gerecht werden. Massentierhaltung und Tiertransporte kommen in meiner Vision zu einem Ende. Der Bürgerinitiative „End the Cage Age“ wird Rechnung getragen, und kein Tier wird mehr in Käfige gesperrt. Sowohl Landwirtschaft als auch Industrie sind dabei, sich vollständig auf pflanzliche Fleischalternativen und lab-grown meat umzustellen. Und ja, es wird auch niemand mehr Milch als ein gesundes Getränk bezeichnen.

    (Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ zu antworten.)

     
       



     

      Daniel Buda (PPE). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, vă felicit pentru documentul prezentat. Stimați colegi, astăzi trebuie să hrănim 450 de milioane de europeni, în timp ce la nivel mondial peste 700 de milioane de oameni suferă de foamete. Cifrele din sector sunt însă îngrijorătoare. Veniturile din agricultură sunt cu 40 % mai mici decât în orice alt sector, în timp ce doar 12 % dintre fermieri au sub 40 de ani. Fără măsuri ferme, Europa riscă să devină dependentă de importuri, pierzând controlul asupra propriei securități alimentare, iar dependența creează vulnerabilități, așa cum spunea, de altfel, Mario Draghi.

    Timpul nu mai este de partea noastră, iar mâine este deja prea târziu pentru fermieri. Domnule comisar, azi avem nevoie de politici care să protejeze producția europeană, de reducerea birocrației, dar mai ales – și subliniez, mai ales – de o finanțare adecvată. Banii pentru agricultură nu sunt banii fermierilor, ci reprezintă investițiile indispensabile pentru ca foametea să nu fie folosită ca armă de război. Dacă vrem o Europă puternică, trebuie să ne asigurăm că este și hrănită, iar acest lucru începe cu sprijinirea fermierilor noștri.

     
       

     

      Σάκης Αρναούτογλου (S&D). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, η γεωργία δε μπορεί να είναι ένας τομέας που απλώς επιβιώνει. Πρέπει να ευημερεί, να στηρίζει τις τοπικές κοινωνίες και να εγγυάται τη διατροφική ασφάλεια της Ευρώπης. Για να πετύχει αυτό όμως, δεν αρκούν τα μεγάλα λόγια τα οποία ακούμε τα τελευταία χρόνια. Χρειάζονται δίκαιες τιμές, αξιοπρεπείς αμοιβές και ένα πλαίσιο θεμιτού ανταγωνισμού. Σήμερα οι αγρότες μας —όλοι το ξέρουμε αυτό— αναγκάζονται να πουλούν κάτω του κόστους παραγωγής, ενώ οι μεγάλες αλυσίδες λιανικής και οι μεσάζοντες αποκομίζουν τα μεγαλύτερα κέρδη. Πώς είναι δυνατό να έχουμε μια βιώσιμη γεωργία, όταν ο παραγωγός είναι ο μόνος που δεν μπορεί να ζήσει από τη δουλειά του; Πότε θα εφαρμόσει η Επιτροπή μηχανισμούς που θα διασφαλίζουν ότι κανένας αγρότης δεν θα αναγκάζεται να πουλάει κάτω από την αξία του κόπου του; Μιλάμε συνεχώς για την ανάγκη ανανέωσης των γενεών στον αγροτικό τομέα, όμως ποιος νέος θα επιλέξει να γίνει αγρότης, όταν η πρόσβαση στη γη και στη χρηματοδότηση είναι όλο και πιο δύσκολη;

    Χρειάζεται, λοιπόν, ένα φιλόδοξο πρόγραμμα για τη γενιά αγροτών με σαφή χρηματοδότηση και πραγματικά κίνητρα. Αν η Ευρώπη θέλει γεωργία με μέλλον, πρέπει να επενδύσει σε αυτήν σήμερα. Oι αγρότες δεν ζουν με ευχολόγια· υποσχέσεις δεν γεμίζουν το σιλό, δεν ποτίζουν τα χωράφια, δεν κρατούν τους νέους στη γη.

     
       

     

      Gilles Pennelle (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, en hémicycle, tout le monde s’intéresse à l’agriculture. On a même vu, tout à l’heure, la présidente du groupe Renew nous parler d’agriculture, alors qu’elle n’a jamais mis les pieds, en tant que membre titulaire, dans la commission AGRI.

    Monsieur le Commissaire, vous avez rencontré énormément d’agriculteurs et d’acteurs au Salon de l’agriculture. Ils vous ont tous dit la même chose: ils vous ont dit qu’ils ne voulaient pas du Mercosur, qu’ils ne voulaient pas de l’adhésion de l’Ukraine, qui serait une catastrophe, et qu’ils ne voulaient pas du pacte vert. D’ailleurs, ce nom de «pacte vert» a disparu de votre vocabulaire et de votre feuille de route. Pourtant, il est toujours là, puisque vous affichez pour l’agriculture la neutralité climatique en 2050 avec ses conséquences: la baisse des rendements, la décroissance, la baisse de la production, l’écologie punitive totalement incompatible avec le maintien du revenu des agriculteurs.

    Vous êtes volontairement ambigu, Monsieur le Commissaire. Moi, je vous le dis très clairement: les agriculteurs dans toute l’Union européenne, dans la quasi-unanimité, vous demandent une chose: arrêtez ce pacte vert pour sauver l’agriculture européenne.

     
       


     

      Emma Wiesner (Renew). – Herr talman! Kära jordbrukskommissionär! Var är vinsten? Visionen för Europas jordbruk pratar om inkomst, inkomst och inkomst. Men vad Europas lantbrukare behöver är vinst, vinst, vinst. Jag är besviken över att vi lägger ribban så lågt, för om lantbruket är samhällets ryggrad är maten dess hjärta. I en tid när lantbrukare runtom i Europa larmar om att ekonomin inte går ihop, samtidigt som konsumenter lägger en historiskt låg andel av sin inkomst på mat, vågar vi inte säga som det är: Lantbrukare måste kunna göra vinst!

    Utan vinst, inga investeringar i omställning eller effektiviseringar. Utan vinst, ingen konkurrenskraft eller generationsskiften. Utan vinst, ingen trygghet för våra lantbrukare. Vi har en tydlig uppgift framför oss att öka lantbrukets intäkter och sänka dess kostnader för vi behöver både ryggrad och hjärta.

    Så stirra er inte blinda på inkomsterna, våga prata om vinsten och lönsamheten! För pengar kanske inte växer på träd, men kapital ska växa på varje gård, och det är min vision för Europas lantbruk.

     
       

     

      Martin Häusling (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Herr Kommissar, ich bin ehrlich: Ich hätte mir eigentlich mehr erwartet von der Vision; die Strategie-Kommission hat ja vorgelegt. Wir haben ja Ziele in der Strategie-Kommission benannt: Klimawandel bekämpfen, biologische Vielfalt stärken und nicht schwächen, Stärkung der Landwirte in der Kette. Wo ist eigentlich die Förderung der nachhaltigen Produktion geblieben? Wo sind die 25 % Öko-Landbau, die ja mal in der Farm to Fork benannt wurden? Das alles vermisse ich. Ich glaube, wir müssen auch klar über Pestizide reden, weil es steht komischerweise in der Strategie: Pestizide werden nur vom Markt genommen, wenn andere da sind. Was heißt das konkret? Wenden wir uns jetzt von der Wissenschaft ab?

    Leider ist mir die Vision viel zu wenig konkret. Farm to Fork wird nicht benannt, der Green Deal wird nicht benannt, und stattdessen wird auf Freiwilligkeit gesetzt, statt klare Ziele zu formulieren, und natürlich wieder der Fokus auf Export. Wir müssen die Stärkung der regionalen Lebensmittelketten in den Vordergrund stellen. Wir müssen auch nicht Gentechnik jetzt als Lösung für viele Probleme im Klimawandel verstehen.

    Gute Ansätze haben Sie ja, und da finde ich die Stärkung der Rechte der Landwirte in der Kette; da sind wir uns – glaube ich – völlig einig. Aber einen Punkt muss die Kommission noch erklären: Ihr Haushalt bedeutet ja am Ende, dass auch die zweite Säule der Entwicklung gefährdet ist.

     
       

     

      Paulo Do Nascimento Cabral (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, esta visão colocou por escrito o que nós, no PSD, e os agricultores lá fora tanto têm defendido. Finalmente fomos ouvidos, e obrigado por isto, Senhor Comissário.

    É necessário reforçar a PAC, porque a agricultura é também coesão, segurança e defesa. De que vale termos territórios se não os desenvolvermos, ou exércitos se não os conseguirmos alimentar e dependermos de países terceiros?

    Saúdo a estratégia para a renovação geracional, e os números são impressionantes: a idade média de um agricultor na União Europeia é de 57 anos e em Portugal, de 64. Daqui a cinco ou dez anos, quem irá produzir o que nós comermos?

    É crucial preservar os dois pilares da PAC, reforçar a transparência na formação dos preços e uma repartição justa do valor na cadeia de abastecimento alimentar. O preço nas prateleiras dos supermercados está demasiado distante daquilo que os agricultores recebem.

    A resiliência hídrica, e Portugal com o plano de ação «Água que une», é um excelente exemplo: a simplificação, a substituição das obrigações por incentivos, a digitalização e a inovação, a promoção e a reciprocidade, e a saúde mental, entre outros, representam uma nova esperança para os agricultores.

    E termino reconhecendo a defesa que faz da agricultura das regiões ultraperiféricas e do POSEI, que precisa de ser reforçado e atualizado. As regiões ultraperiféricas enfrentam desafios únicos e contam com o seu apoio.

     
       


     

      Eric Sargiacomo (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, la vision pour l’agriculture et l’alimentation est un panorama très complet des enjeux que nous devons affronter pour assurer la sécurité alimentaire des Européens. Pour cela, il faut refermer la parenthèse libérale ouverte en 1992. Sans régulation, pas de sécurité alimentaire ni de souveraineté. Notre monde change vite et nous devons y adapter notre politique.

    Nous devons répondre au moins à deux défis majeurs qui tiennent les deux bouts de la chaîne: assurer un revenu à nos agriculteurs et lutter contre la précarité alimentaire, qui touche 20 % des Européens et qui n’a fait qu’augmenter sous la pression de l’inflation alimentaire. Pour cela, il nous faut retrouver des instruments pour la régulation et la stabilisation des prix. Je pense en particulier aux stocks stratégiques et à la révision des prix d’intervention. L’Europe s’est créée sur une double promesse: celle de la paix et de la prospérité. Ne pas assurer la sécurité alimentaire, c’est trahir cette promesse. Monsieur le Commissaire, donnons-nous les moyens de cette vision, afin qu’elle ne soit pas un mirage, une simple illusion de plus.

     
       

     

      Gerald Hauser (PfE). – Herr Präsident! Herr Kommissar, glauben Sie wirklich, dass mit dieser Vision die Bauernproteste zurückgehen und dass Sie den Bauern mit Ihrer Vision die Zukunftsängste nehmen? Ich bin mir sicher: nicht, weil das Hauptproblem, das viele Bauern haben, ist schon einmal der Beitritt oder die Übernahme von Mercosur. Wir sollten und wir müssen Mercosur verhindern, weil Mercosur der Todesstoß für viele landwirtschaftliche Betriebe ist.

    Um Ihnen das zu beweisen, zitiere ich aus einer parlamentarischen Anfrage von mir an den ÖVP-Landwirtschaftsminister Totschnig – nicht von unserer Partei, ich bin Mitglied der Freiheitlichen Partei und der stärksten Partei in Österreich. Diese Anfragebeantwortung habe ich am 13. Februar 2024 Mercosur betreffend bekommen – ist im Netz abrufbar. Ich zitiere Ihnen daraus, was Ihr Kollege zu dem möglichen Beitritt zu Mercosur und den Auswirkungen für die Landwirte zu sagen hat: Das im Jahr 2019 ausverhandelte Mercosur-Abkommen ist jedoch kein Abkommen, das den Agrarsektor stärkt. Studien zeigen, dass es zu erheblichen Wettbewerbsnachteilen für die Agrarproduktion in sensiblen Sektoren kommt …

    (Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)

    (Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ zu antworten.)

     
       



     

      Francesco Ventola (ECR). – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, l’agricoltura europea è di fronte ad una svolta fondamentale: è il momento di riconoscere il vero valore degli agricoltori non come inquinatori ma come custodi della terra, i difensori della natura e garanti della nostra sicurezza alimentare.

    Questa è la visione che dobbiamo abbracciare: un’agricoltura che produce cibo sano, rispettando l’ambiente. Gli agricoltori meritano una politica agricola comune che premi chi lavora la terra, garantendo un reddito giusto, scevro da forme di sfruttamento e di logiche speculative.

    I cittadini hanno diritto di alimentarsi di pietanze che fanno bene alla salute. Quindi anche i prodotti importati devono rispettare i nostri stessi standard qualitativi. Pretendiamo l’applicazione del concetto di reciprocità: in questo modo contribuiremo a determinare un mercato più equo.

    Dobbiamo incentivare tutte le forme di innovazione che la scienza ci mette a disposizione per migliorare la produttività dell’agricoltura europea. La nostra priorità deve essere l’autonomia strategica alimentare, che ne garantisce la sicurezza e l’indipendenza.

    Commissario Hansen, è questa la strada che proponiamo al fine di garantire un prospero futuro al comparto agricolo e soprattutto sana alimentazione.

     
       

     

      Céline Imart (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, merci d’avoir évité l’écueil d’un «De la ferme à la table» bis. Le ton est volontariste, vous parlez de souveraineté alimentaire et vous remettez la production au cœur de la vision et la vache au milieu du champ. Toutefois, des intentions, il faut passer aux actes.

    Sur le terrain, les agriculteurs transpirent et il est temps que les administrations fassent transpirer dans les textes ce vrai changement de cap, qu’elles comprennent que nous avons changé de mandat et qu’elles-mêmes ont changé de commissaire, et non pas qu’elles fassent semblant d’être un peu sourdes pour ne pas abolir les textes dangereux issus du mandat antérieur: le règlement sur le transport des animaux, qui ne ferait qu’imposer aux éleveurs des contraintes insurmontables, sans aucun bénéfice économique, social ni environnemental; le cadre sur l’évaluation des forêts, qui propose une usine à gaz pour accabler nos forestiers, sans aucune garantie de résultat; le programme LIFE, qui doit cesser de financer des ONG écologistes extrémistes, qui s’acharnent à fragiliser notre agriculture sous couvert d’altruisme opaque et militant. Voilà une piste d’économie à reflécher vers les budgets agricoles.

    Monsieur le Commissaire, cette vision est la première pierre pour enrayer la machine infernale. Il faut maintenant remettre du bon sens au cœur des textes européens et au cœur des administrations de la Commission.

     
       

     

      Camilla Laureti (S&D). – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, bene, la visione per quello che riguarda il reddito – ce lo ha detto anche lei il salario medio degli agricoltori e del 40% più basso rispetto ad altri settori – bene, le aree interne rurali che sono l’ossatura della nostra Europa, le filiere corte e i giovani e le donne.

    Mi raccomando attenzione anche alle donne giovani: sono gestite da donne solo il 3% del 12% delle aziende under 40. Mettiamo al centro, però, una politica agricola comune nuova e che arrivi davvero ovunque – in Italia, per esempio, 3/4 dei fondi PAC vanno alle aziende agricole più grandi – e che sia una PAC attenta alla sostenibilità – ha parlato anche lei della centralità dei nostri suoli – e che aiuti tutti gli agricoltori ad innovare. Oltre alla condizionalità ambientale, non dimentichiamo la condizionalità sociale.

    Abbiamo di fronte a noi anni cruciali per il mondo agricolo, in cui sarà essenziale il dialogo e il confronto tra posizioni che spesso sono diverse. Questo è quello che dobbiamo a chi, oggi, con fatica e cura, continua a dedicarsi all’agricoltura e al nostro cibo.

     
       



     

      Ton Diepeveen (PfE). – Voorzitter, commissaris, collega’s, na jarenlang regel op regel op te leggen — de ene strenger dan de andere — na jaren waarin de landbouwsector onder druk is gezet met groene doelstellingen, vaak gepusht door groene lobbygroepen, spreekt de Europese Commissie eindelijk over vereenvoudiging.

    Het gemeenschappelijk landbouwbeleid is compleet ontspoord en staat inmiddels ver van de realiteit van onze boeren af. Hoog tijd om terug te keren naar de kern, naar boeren die voedsel produceren en niet papieren produceren. Minder regels, minder bemoeienis vanuit Brussel is wat onze boeren echt nodig hebben.

    Investeren in technologische vooruitgang en slimme innovaties, daar zit de echte duurzaamheid. Maar het duurt allemaal veel te lang. De innovatie in landbouw en visserij loopt vast in procedures, regels, vergunningen. Nieuwe technieken blijven daardoor te lang op de plank liggen. Dit moet en kan anders. Brussel moet niet op de rem staan, maar juist op het gaspedaal drukken om onze boeren en vissers snelle toegang te geven tot innovatie. Alleen dan blijft onze landbouw- en visserijsector concurrerend. Alleen dan zijn we toekomstbestendig. En alleen dan kunnen we het hebben over handelsakkoorden waarin onze boeren een gelijk speelveld hebben.

     
       

     

      Gabriel Mato (PPE). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, la agricultura es un sector fundamental, no solo por su impacto económico, sino por su peso en la forma de vida de millones de europeos. Y, si esto es importante en la Europa continental, créanme que lo es mucho más en las regiones ultraperiféricas como Canarias. Al fin y al cabo, nosotros estamos muy lejos, aunque nos sintamos muy cerca. Por eso es fundamental que la agricultura prospere en las regiones ultraperiférica, usted lo ha mencionado, y que quienes se dedican a ello puedan seguir haciéndolo. Para ello es necesaria la ayuda de la Unión Europea.

    Hemos de entender que el valor añadido de la agricultura no viene solo de su aportación al PIB, sino también de su aportación a nuestra seguridad alimentaria, de su papel para mantener nuestras comunidades tradicionales y dar oportunidades de vida a la población en áreas rurales, permitiéndoles quedarse junto a los suyos. Por ello, es fundamental que, de cara a la revisión del programa de opciones específicas por la lejanía y la insularidad (POSEI), se actualice la ficha financiera ―que, le recuerdo, lleva estancada trece años― para poder responder a la inflación y a los aumentos de costes de producción.

    Si tenemos un sistema que está dando buenos resultados, apostemos por él y démosle el respaldo económico que necesita para seguir cumpliendo con sus objetivos.

     
       

     

      France Jamet (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, nourrir l’humanité est l’enjeu majeur de ce XXIᵉ siècle. C’est pourquoi nous devons non seulement repenser, mais soutenir le modèle de production. La mer fait partie intégrante de ce défi, avec une filière pêche puissante, durable et associée à une aquaculture raisonnée. Pour cela, nous devons créer toutes les conditions pour favoriser une synergie entre les nourriciers de la mer et les nourriciers de la terre. À l’instar de l’algoculture, dont le développement offre déjà des avancées décisives dans le domaine des engrais durables et recyclés pour notre agriculture, notre indépendance vis-à-vis des intrants chimiques, dont une grande partie vient de Russie, serait ainsi assurée.

    Alors que les accords de libre-échange que vous signez et l’obsession de verdissement imposée par Bruxelles, normative et punitive, contribuent tout simplement à fragiliser notre souveraineté alimentaire, en s’acharnant sur nos agriculteurs et nos pêcheurs. Nourrir l’humanité sera l’enjeu majeur de ce XXIᵉ siècle. C’est avec eux, et non pas contre eux, que nous relèverons ce défi.

     
       

     

      Alexander Bernhuber (PPE). – Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident, lieber Herr Kommissar! Die vergangenen fünf Jahre waren für die Landwirtschaft eher fünf magere Jahre: ein Kommissar, der sich wenig für die Landwirtschaft interessiert hat, eine Gesetzgebung, die sich mehr auf Flächenstilllegung und Außernutzungstellung konzentriert hat, als auf Ernährungssicherheit zu setzen, und politische Mehrheiten im Europäischen Parlament, die absolut nicht die Interessen unserer Bäuerinnen und Bauern vertreten haben.

    Umso mehr freue ich mich jetzt auf die nächsten fünf Jahre mit Ihnen, Herr Kommissar. Ihre Vision ist ein erster wichtiger Schritt: weniger Bürokratie auf unseren Höfen, faire Wettbewerbsbedingungen dann, wenn es um Lebensmittelimporte geht, und ein klares Bekenntnis zur Versorgungssicherheit sind richtige, wichtige Schritte.

    Doch jetzt geht es darum, aus dieser Vision auch wirklich in der praktischen Umsetzung etwas zu erreichen. Wir haben noch sehr vieles auf dem Tisch liegen, das mehr Bürokratie bedeutet: Industrieemissionsrichtlinie, Entwaldungsverordnung und, und, und, wo wir hier Lösungen finden müssen und gleichzeitig auch konkrete neue Schritte setzen – da können wir auf Sie zählen, da bin ich überzeugt; Sie können auf unsere Unterstützung zählen. Lassen Sie uns gemeinsam daran arbeiten!

     
       

     

      Marta Wcisło (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Największym wyzwaniem, przed którym stoją dziś rolnicy, jest niska opłacalność, a nawet jej brak. Rolnicy w Europie, zwłaszcza Wschodniej, borykają się z rygorystycznymi regulacjami oraz nieuczciwą konkurencją produktów spoza Unii Europejskiej. Przedstawiona przez Komisję wizja dla rolnictwa i żywności zawiera między innymi dialog z rolnikami, o czym często zapominają instytucje europejskie, jak to miało miejsce w przypadku umowy z Mercosurem.

    Dziś jednak najważniejszym problemem dla rolników jest biurokracja, nadmierna sprawozdawczość, przesadne wymogi formalne. Rolnicy oczekują uproszczenia zasad dostępu do wsparcia finansowego i grantów, zwłaszcza dla mikro-, małych i rodzinnych przedsiębiorstw rolnych, a także rewizji Zielonego Ładu i zatrzymania umowy z Mercosurem. Propozycja Komisji idzie w dobrym kierunku, ale to zaledwie mały plaster, Panie Komisarzu, na wielką ranę europejskiego rolnictwa.

     
       

     

      Maria Walsh (PPE). – Mr President, the Commissioner mentioned two words: stability and predictability. Commissioner, if you ask young men and women in Ireland right now whether they would consider going into farming, sadly most would say ‘no’. You heard this no doubt, when you visited Ireland in January, because land is expensive, credit is hard to get, succession is complex to navigate and incomes and markets are volatile. We all know this. But what is incredibly important now is what we go forth with. We cannot ignore the fact that only 7 % of our farmers are under 35, and they need that stability and predictability, now more than ever. We need to make agriculture, the whole sector, more attractive and support young people in a practical manner now. Not later on, but now. It’s a matter of food security – you mentioned that – and the survival of our sector across the EU.

    And with all eyes being on how we’re going to fund everything that’s in this vision, Commissioner, I’m asking you in your strategy that you will put forward, that you think of the young men and women, which I know you do, but it’s incredibly important that we have those practical steps in place so that they can develop a stronger food security for us all.

     
       

       

    Vystúpenia na základe prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky

     
       

     

      Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señor presidente, los agricultores y los pescadores desempeñan un papel crucial en nuestra seguridad alimentaria. Sin embargo, conocemos todos el malestar imperante en el sector agrícola, también en el pesquero, que se queja de la excesiva burocracia, de muchas restricciones, de la dificultad de conseguir, comisario, el llamado level playing field. Este malestar se ha exteriorizado recientemente respecto del Acuerdo de Mercosur, pero en el fondo refleja el descontento con la política agrícola desequilibrada que la Comisión llevó a cabo especialmente en la legislatura pasada.

    Yo creo que usted, señor comisario, representa, desde luego, un cambio muy positivo. Y lo primero que debemos hacer es flexibilizar la normativa europea y también reducir la burocracia y eliminar determinadas restricciones. Pero quiero insistir en otro punto. La seguridad alimentaria no es un tema solo agrícola. Usted ha mencionado los pescadores, y lo celebro. La pesca y acuicultura son vitales: aportan una fuente de proteína muy nutritiva y con baja huella de carbono. Lamento que este sector haya ocupado un lugar un tanto marginal en la llamada «visión para la agricultura y la alimentación» y me gustaría que estuviera plenamente representado…

    (el presidente retira la palabra al orador)

     
       

     

      Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis (S&D). – Posėdžio pirmininke, gerbiamas komisare. Norėčiau atkreipti dėmesį vizijoje į tuos du sektorius: į sektorių Competitive and resilient sector ir į sektorių Future-proof sector. Jiedu abudu be galo susiję vienu ypatingai svarbiu aspektu. Tai dalykais, kurie vizijoje turi būti aptarti kompleksiškai, kai yra baisūs iššūkiai, kurie nepriklauso nuo žemės ūkio, nuo fermerių, nuo ūkininkų situacijos – karas, klimato kaitos katastrofos, baisūs sutrikimai grandinėse. Ir tada reikia ieškoti, kad vizijoje būtų kompleksinės priemonės harmonizuotos tarp abiejų šitų sektorių, kad mes galėtume užtikrinti ir kompetentingumą, ir ištvermę. Ir aš noriu pasakyti, kad kalbant apie viską, labai svarbu atkreipti dėmesį, kad tiesioginių išmokų suvienodinimas šiandien visiems ūkininkams yra tiesiog būtinybė.

     
       

     

      Anna Zalewska (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Myślę, że rolnicy zasługują na to, żeby powiedzieć im prawdę. Komisja Europejska mówi wprost. Unia Europejska jest zadłużona na ponad 500 mld euro, a jeszcze nie zaczęła spłacać odsetek od funduszu odbudowy. Komisarz von der Leyen mówi jednoznacznie i wielokrotnie: nie będzie odrębnego funduszu dla rolnictwa. Będzie jeden dla jednego państwa. Jednocześnie Komisja jest zdecydowana, zachęca. Pan komisarz też wije się, nie odpowiadając na pytania. Zapadła decyzja o podpisaniu umowy z Merkosurem. Jednocześnie odbyło się spotkanie w komisji AGRI, gdzie usłyszeliśmy, że od czerwca pełnym strumieniem, otwartą granicą będą płynąć produkty rolne z Ukrainy. Tak bardzo się boicie, że nie pokazujecie nawet rozporządzenia. Mówię to po to, żeby zderzyć Pana i Państwa z rzeczywistością. Ta wizja do niej nie przystaje.

     
       

     

      Benoit Cassart (Renew). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, la vision pour l’agriculture marque un tournant décisif pour notre agriculture. Enfin, nous mettons les agriculteurs au cœur de la transition. C’est un changement de paradigme essentiel pour garantir une agriculture durable, compétitive et résiliente. Merci.

    Permettez-moi cependant d’insister sur un point crucial, l’élevage. Nos éleveurs font face à des défis majeurs, et trop de jeunes renoncent à reprendre les exploitations. Or, sans eux, notre souveraineté alimentaire est en péril. Monsieur le Commissaire, serait-il envisageable de mettre en place un groupe de haut niveau sur l’élevage, comme c’est le cas pour le vin? Nous devons trouver des solutions d’urgence. Notre bétail disparaît chaque jour un peu plus de nos prairies.

     
       

     

      João Oliveira (The Left). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, o que a Comissão Europeia propõe é o acentuar de um caminho errado de concentração e intensificação da produção.

    O caminho devia ser outro. Devia ser o do apoio à pequena e média produção, à agricultura familiar, promovendo um modelo de produção de qualidade — e sustentável —, que assegure a coesão social e territorial.

    O caminho devia ser o da defesa da soberania e segurança alimentar no quadro de cada país, aplicando um princípio de preferência nacional, criando e utilizando um sistema de obrigatoriedade de quotas de comercialização de produção nacional, para combater dependências externas e défices produtivos.

    Devia ser o do encurtamento das cadeias de produção, distribuição e consumo, e de uma política agrícola que intervenha nos mercados agrícolas, garantindo o escoamento das produções e preços justos aos produtores, enfrentando os interesses da grande distribuição comercial que esmagam esses rendimentos.

    O caminho devia ser o de uma política agrícola comum que vincule os apoios à produção, pondo fim ao vergonhoso princípio de pagamentos sem obrigação de produzir. Esse caminho é recusado pela União Europeia, mas vamos continuar a bater-nos por ele, que é ele que serve os agricultores e o desenvolvimento.

     
       

     

      Milan Mazurek (ESN). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, keď človek v tomto pléne počúva názory niektorých extrémnych ľavicových vegánskych aktivistov, tak musí byť skutočne zdesený o budúcnosť a slobodu ľudí v Európskej únii. Normálne tu chcete ľuďom hovoriť, aby prestali jesť mäso, že majú prestať piť mlieko, že majú jesť nejakú sóju a že majú jesť len v laboratóriu vypestované mäso? Stále chcete niekomu prikazovať, čo má či nemá robiť?

    Ja vám teraz niečo poviem, vegáni, počúvajte ma dobre: Ja som mäsožravec. Jem mäso na kilá, pijem pol litra zdravého, čerstvého nepasterizovaného mlieka každý deň a v živote som nebol zdravší, ako som teraz. Preto ma vaša propaganda nezaujíma. A keď chcete žiť podľa vlastných pravidiel, robte to, ako chcete, ale nevnucujte to všetkým ľuďom v celej Európskej únii len preto, že ste presvedčení, že vaša agenda je pravdivá. Nie mäso, nie mlieko sú nezdravé, ale vaša nebezpečná propaganda, ktorá berie ľuďom slobodu a mení Európsku úniu na progresivistický nezmysel. To je skutočná hrozba pre ľudské zdravie.

     
       

     

      Katarína Roth Neveďalová (NI). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, pán komisár, veľmi ma zaujíma, ako sa Európska komisia vysporiada s predĺžením dohody s Ukrajinou o dovoze ukrajinských produktov na naše územie, pretože vieme, že my vo východnej Európe sme mali s tým veľký problém, a už sa blíži ten čas a je okolo toho veľmi ticho. Takže bola by som veľmi rada, keby ste možno mohli odpovedať.

    Slovenskí poľnohospodári aj poľnohospodári v Európskej únii si zaslúžia, samozrejme, rešpekt a úctu. A videli sme, že sme tu mali veľmi veľa protestov a veľa tých požiadaviek bolo, samozrejme, veľmi relevantných. V poľnohospodárstve by sme sa mali snažiť o zníženie byrokracie, o zníženie kontrol pre poľnohospodárov a som rada, že aj vďaka ich tlaku sa nám to čiastočne podarilo, pre tých menších v poslednom období.

    Môžeme hovoriť o potravinárstve. Ja som si všimla, že vo vašom predstavení takisto sa zaoberáte potravinárstvom. Je to druhý najväčší sektor v európskej ekonomike a myslím si, že by sme sa mali zameriavať aj na to, ako ochrániť potravinárov, ktorí vyrábajú veľmi veľa veľmi dôležitých a zdravých potravín v Európskej únii, ale aj v súvislosti s vývozom do krajín, ako sú Spojené štáty, kde nám hrozia momentálne takisto niektoré clá alebo dane na takýto dovoz. Samozrejme, diverzifikácia poľnohospodárstva je dôležitá aj v súvislosti s klimatickými zmenami a takisto by sme ju mali podporovať, ale hlavne zachovať peniaze v poľnohospodárstve pre ďalšie obdobie.

     
       


     

      Stefan Köhler (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar, vielen Dank für Ihre Vision, die sehr gute Ansätze liefert für die Zukunft und endlich die Wertschätzung, die die Landwirtschaft benötigt, entgegenbringt. Aber eine Vision, das sind nur Ideen für die Zukunft. Wenn ich mit Landwirten rede – und Sie haben gesagt, Sie haben schon viele Länder besucht –, die wollen jetzt einfach Aktion sehen, die wollen an die Umsetzung rangehen: Da möchte ich Sie ermuntern.

    Und was brauchen wir für eine starke Umsetzung? Wir brauchen ein starkes Budget, ist heute öfters gesagt worden, wir brauchen aber auch Innovation und Forschung und vor allen Dingen Erleichterung – die bringen Sie ja jetzt demnächst auf den Weg; und ich bin auch dankbar, dass wir dafür auch einen starken Kommissar haben.

    Lassen Sie uns gemeinsam die Vision schnell angehen und umsetzen! Dazu sichere ich Ihnen meine persönliche Unterstützung, aber auch die unserer Fraktion zu.

     
       

       

    (Koniec vystúpení na základe prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky)

     
       

     

      Christophe Hansen, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, thank you very much for this open and frank first exchange of views on the vision on the future of agriculture and food. I have the feeling that most of you are quite positive about this new direction – a new Commission that is going and putting farmers back in the centre and is also not afraid to speak about productivity in the farming and food‑producing sector. I believe this is very important due to the geopolitical challenges that we are going through.

    You all remember one year ago that the farmers took to the streets and they had three main concerns they expressed. One was reciprocity in standards. We are addressing this reciprocity, and we are taking the first steps now, and it is clearly stated in the vision. They ask for fairer prices.

    In the first ten days of the new mandate of this Commission, we presented a targeted amendment of the Common Market Organisation Regulation and the Unfair Trading Practices Directive. And we will deliver as well on the third part, which was clearly the administrative burden that was too heavy for the agriculture and food‑producing sectors. So I’m very keen to present, already in the month of April, a first simplification package based on the common agricultural policy, but more needs to follow.

    I have travelled to several Member States, and most of the concerns I got were not related to the common agricultural policy; it was the overlap of several European laws, but as well of national laws. So we have to work and deliver by the end of the year – and I clearly stated this and it is also part of the vision – a cross-cutting simplification package that will really touch to the farms and that is well needed.

    So on the three main concerns, we are delivering concretely now as well. But, of course, you are right when you say you are lacking some details on one part or the other. And, of course, you are right that the proof of the pudding will be in the tasting afterwards. And there I believe it is very important that we take up now the workstreams that are identified in this vision together, not only with the European Parliament, but as well with the newly created European Board on Agriculture and Food, which brings together not only the farming community, but also the entire food value chain and other citizens and NGOs. This is very important to depolarise the debate and find common solutions, and I think this will deliver.

    Of course, we have to be very aware as well, as some have stated, of concerns about the ‘common’ or the ‘c’ in ‘common agricultural policy’, which will remain very important as well to have a fair level playing field between the Member States and our different farming communities.

    I believe it is also important that we speak about the next steps, and there are very many workstreams on livestock, generation renewal. Those need to be addressed together, and I think that will bring us all together forward.

    Then, of course, we have several other initiatives. I haven’t yet mentioned the wine package, although some of you have mentioned the High‑Level Group on Wine. There as well we intend to deliver the proposal already in the month of April to be able to get relief to that sector too which is very much under pressure. I am looking very much forward to doing this work together with you.

    I think it is very important that we keep up the depolarising debate and put the farmers in the centre of the discussion, not only here, but I think it’s very important that, in general, the policies are meant not in opposition here from one side to another. That is not being helpful. Let’s work in the interest of the farmers. A lot has been delivered, and I’m looking forward to future exchanges.

    For those who are members of the AGRI Committee, we will see each other on 19 March. I’m ready to discuss further in detail with a little bit more extended time, and I’m very much looking forward to that good cooperation.

     
       

       

    IN THE CHAIR: VICTOR NEGRESCU
    Vice-President

    Written Statements (Rule 178)

     
       


     

     

      Christine Schneider (PPE), schriftlich. – Die heute debattierte Vision der EU-Kommission setzt die richtigen Schwerpunkte: mehr „Farm“ statt „Fork“. Eine anreizbasierte GAP ist der richtige Weg, um die Landwirtschaft zukunftsfähig und attraktiv zu halten. Es ist alarmierend, dass nur 12 % der Landwirte unter 40 Jahren sind. Ohne gezielte Einkommensunterstützung wird der Generationswechsel nicht möglich sein.

    Bürokratieabbau ist dringend notwendig. Die angekündigte „Simplification“-Initiative im zweiten Quartal ist ein wichtiger Schritt. Sie muss aber direkt auf den Höfen ankommen wie auch in der Verwaltung. Auch beim Pflanzenschutz braucht es eine bessere Balance: Verbote dürfen erst erfolgen, wenn praxistaugliche Alternativen verfügbar sind.

    Besonders positiv ist der Ansatz der nature credits. Statt auf weitere Verbote setzt dieser Mechanismus auf Anreize für nachhaltiges Wirtschaften – ein zukunftsweisender Ansatz.

    Diese Vision bietet Landwirten Planungssicherheit, stärkt ihre Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und ermöglicht Verbrauchern eine informierte Wahl. Europa braucht eine starke Landwirtschaft – mit weniger Bürokratie, fairen Einkommen und innovativen Lösungen. Hansen setzt hier die richtigen Impulse.

     

    3. Action Plan for Affordable Energy (debate)


     

      Dan Jørgensen, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, according to Google, in my home country, the name most searched for last year was actually Taylor Swift. I don’t know what it was in Strasbourg and Brussels, but I’m pretty sure I can guess. It was probably Mario Draghi.

    Indeed, the Draghi Report is extremely important. I’m sure you’ve also all read it and will know that it mentions energy quite a lot – 700 times actually. Why? Because European industries pay two to three times more for energy than their competitors in the US and China. Because last year almost 47 million Europeans were unable to adequately heat their homes due to the high prices. Because since the war began, Europe has imported fossil fuels from Russia for an amount equal to the cost price of 2 400 F-35 fighter jets.

    For our solidarity of Ukraine and for the security of Europe, this cannot continue. And because we need to fight even harder to decarbonise our economies, when the US steps out of the Paris Agreement, it means that the EU has to step up.

    For these reasons and more, the Commission has presented the European action plan for affordable energy: an ambitious strategy to reduce energy costs for households and businesses now, while building a clean, competitive and secure energy union for future generations.

    The first pillar of our plan is focused on immediate steps to lower energy costs. We set out how Member States can tackle inefficiencies in network tariffs and taxation to achieve a more rational energy system with significantly lower prices.

    We also push for the faster deployment of clean, affordable energy. There will be no backtracking. Instead, we will fast track. We will reduce permitting times for clean energy projects significantly. For simpler projects, it should take no longer than six months to get a permit – not years, not decades as is sometimes the case today. Six months.

    We also respond to Professor Draghi’s recommendation to decouple electricity prices from gas prices by boosting longer-term contracts for renewable energy, like power purchase agreements. We will work with the EIB to create new facilities to promote and de-risk these contracts.

    Additionally, as we decarbonise our economy, demand for gas declines, but it will remain a significant part of our energy mix for some time. Our action plan therefore targets fairer gas markets. To this end, we have set up a gas market taskforce to scrutinise the operation of EU gas markets and intervene when necessary.

    So, while the first pillar sets out immediate actions to lower energy bills, the second pillar responds to structural drivers of higher costs that require long-term solutions. We accelerate our paths towards an energy union that delivers competitiveness, security, decarbonisation and a just transition, passing the benefits of clean, affordable energy on to our citizens and businesses.

    This means massive investments in grids and interconnectors. According to the Commission estimates, the EU will need investments of over EUR 570 billion annually to boost renewables, energy efficiency and grids over the course of this decade. That is why later this year, we will introduce a clean energy investment strategy to streamline the use of financial instruments such as grants, loans and blended finance to maximise impact.

    We also need to modernise our systems through electrification and digitalisation. Upcoming initiatives announced in the action plan, such as the electrification action plan, heating and cooling strategy and strategic roadmap on digitalisation in AI, can yield remarkable cost savings and benefits for Europeans. For example, increased electrification could cut energy system costs by EUR 32 billion annually by 2030. Widespread heat pump adoption could slash fossil fuel import spending by EUR 60 billion until 2030.

    The third pillar of our action plan ensures scale and certainty for investments by establishing a tripartite contract for affordable energy. This contract brings together the public sector, clean energy developers and producers, and the energy consuming industry. Our goal is to enable shared commitments and coordinated planning, providing stability in the face of market uncertainties that would otherwise hold back investments in clean transition.

    The final pillar of our plan recognises that the energy crisis exposed critical vulnerabilities in our energy system. We need to learn from this experience and be better equipped. We will therefore revise the EU energy security framework to strengthen our resilience against emerging threats and prepare for future shocks.

    At the same time, we will enhance our crisis response to better prepare for situations such as the one faced by southeast Europe last summer. We will leverage smarter demand management and better cross-border cooperation to mitigate price peaks and ensure electricity flows where it is needed the most.

    What do all of these actions mean for homes and businesses in Europe? Well, taken together, we have the potential to deliver EUR 45 billion in savings just in 2025, growing to at least EUR 130 billion in annual savings by 2030 and to EUR 260 billion annually as of 2040. Overall, between now and 2040, we can save up to EUR 2.5 trillion on fossil fuel imports. Let me just repeat that number – that is huge. EUR 2.5 trillion we can save by deploying faster our renewable energy, by becoming more energy efficient, by controlling the gas markets better, by implementing legislation that’s already been made and by interconnecting our energy systems much better than is the case today.

    If and when we do all these things, we will become much more independent of Russian fuels, our competitiveness will be much better than it is today and we will have decarbonised our economy.

     
       

     

      Peter Liese, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Energiekosten runterzubringen, ist eine absolute Notwendigkeit: Unsere Wirtschaft und auch die Bürgerinnen und Bürger leiden unter den hohen Energiekosten. Und für die Ziele, die wir politisch haben – Klimaschutz, Unabhängigkeit von Importen – ist es absolut notwendig, vor allen Dingen die Stromkosten runter zu bekommen. Strom ist die Energie der Transformation zur Klimaneutralität. Ob beim Heizen, bei der Mobilität oder bei industriellen Prozessen: Nicht immer, aber meistens liegt die Antwort in der Elektrifizierung, und deswegen ist es irre, dass wir so hohe Strompreise haben.

    Ich kenne Leute, die sind im Jahr 2022 jeden Morgen klimaneutral mit einem Hybrid zur Arbeit gefahren, und dann haben sie ihre Stromrechnung gesehen und haben den Hybrid verkauft, weil wir die Strompreise nicht im Griff hatten. Und es gibt Menschen, die sagen – gerade in Ihrer Fraktion, Herr Kommissar: Das ETS 1 kann gar nicht ambitioniert genug sein, aber ETS 2 wollen wir nicht. Das ist genau das Gegenteil, was wir für die Transformation brauchen – wir brauchen niedrige Strompreise. Und Strom ist eben auch die Energie, um uns unabhängig von Russland, Aserbaidschan, Katar und anderen problematischen Lieferanten zu machen; deswegen müssen die Stromkosten runter.

    Aber Kosten sind immer das Produkt von Preis und Verbrauch; das heißt, wenn wir den Verbrauch senken durch Energieeffizienz, dann gehen die Kosten eben auch runter. Und deswegen ist es so wichtig, was Sie gesagt haben, Herr Kommissar: Wir brauchen eben auch die Energieeffizienz. Und ich bitte Sie, da noch intensiver mit der Europäischen Investitionsbank zu arbeiten, um z. B. ein Frontloading der ETS 2-Einnahmen zu haben, damit wir gerade Menschen mit niedrigen und mittleren Einkommen bei der Energieeffizienz so schnell wie möglich helfen können.

     
       

     

      Dan Nica, în numele grupului S&D. – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar Jørgensen, sunteți comisarul pentru energie al Uniunii Europene și aveți în fața dumneavoastră un mandat cu extrem de multe provocări. Piața energiei electrice a Uniunii Europene este într-o situație extrem de îngrijorătoare. În țara mea, România, luna trecută, prețul energiei electrice a ajuns la 160 de euro/megawatt‑oră, de mai mult de două ori mai mare decât în aceeași lună a anului trecut și mai mare decât în Franța, Germania, unde prețurile au fost mici, mult mai mici decât în România. Această situație trebuie să fie rezolvată de urgență, pentru că ea a condus la o situație extrem de îngrijorătoare pentru economia, de exemplu, a României. 70 de mari companii sunt în pericol de delocalizare pentru că aceste costuri ale energiei electrice și ale gazelor naturale fac imposibilă desfășurarea unor activități economice.

    Peste 300 de mii de oameni pot să-și piardă locurile de muncă. Una din cinci familii din România are probleme să își plătească în același timp, în aceeași lună, factura la energie și gaze naturale și să își cumpere mâncare sau haine. Acest lucru necesită o abordare imediată și o schimbare rapidă. Pe de o parte, trebuie să știm ce s-a întâmplat și ce se întâmplă cu cei care au recurs la practici înșelătoare, care au mințit și au încălcat legea. Sunt peste 300 de cazuri în investigații și vreau ca aceste soluții să apară, domnule comisar. În plus, vrem o piață, o piață bursieră a energiei și a gazelor, să știm și noi, să avem transparență totală: cine vinde, cât vinde, cine sunt acționarii, de ce apar aceste venituri excepționale, profituri excepționale care au devenit o regulă în Uniunea Europeană. Aceste lucruri necesită o abordare și știu că puteți face acest lucru. Aveți sprijinul meu și al Parlamentului European. Luați măsuri rapide și fără niciun fel de ezitare.

     
       

     

      András Gyürk, a PfE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Elnök Úr! A magas energiaárak az uniós polgárok mindennapjainak fájdalmas részévé váltak. Európában tavaly átlagosan minden negyedik családnak okozott nehézséget, rezsiszámlájának időben történő befizetése. Ez az eredménye az elhibázott brüsszeli energiapolitikának. A valósággal szembesülve immár a Bizottság is elismeri, hogy a jelenlegi energiaárszint tarthatatlan. Azonban ez a dokumentum nem jelent valódi megoldást a problémára.

    Először is, nem vizsgálja felül az energiaárakat magasba lökő szankciós politikát. Másodszor, nem vállalkozik az árdrágító hatású klímacélok módosítására. Harmadszor, Brüsszel újfent az európai árampiaci szabályozás azonnali bevezetését követeli. Ez ellehetetlenítené a lakosságot védő hatósági árak, mint például a magyar rezsicsökkentés alkalmazását, ami elfogadhatatlan. Tisztelt Ház, az energiaárak letöréséhez nem ehhez hasonlóan sajnos hatástalan bizottsági akciótervekre, hanem bátor intézkedésekre, ha úgy tetszik, a józan ész lázadás ára van szükség, mi, patrióták ezt képviseljük.

     
       

     

      Daniel Obajtek, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowny Panie Komisarzu! Przedstawienie przez panią przewodniczącą Ursulę von der Leyen planu obniżenia cen energii jest niczym innym jak skandalem. Nie zawiera żadnych realnych, szybkich mechanizmów, byśmy mogli jak najszybciej obniżyć ceny energii. Zaproponowane kontrakty różnicowe i kontrakty długoterminowe już były i te kontrakty nie pozwoliły na obniżenie tak naprawdę cen energii ani w Polsce, ani gdzie indziej.

    Propozycja obniżenia podatków to jest nic innego jak generalnie coś, co mogą zrobić państwa członkowskie. Wcale nie muszą o to prosić Komisji. Rozbudowa sieci. Macie rację, rozbudowa sieci, ale to potrwa tak naprawdę dekady i pochłonie miliardy euro. Nie jesteśmy w stanie szybko tego zrobić.

    Rozwiązania są następujące, proszę Państwa, żeby tu i teraz ratować przemysł, obniżyć cenę energii. Zawiesić kwestię ETS-u. Błyskawicznie ETS zreformować z jednej prostej przyczyny: nie mogą w systemie ETS-u być instytucje finansowe, które podnoszą ceny tak naprawdę ETS-u, i zamienić ETS na inwestycje, jeżeli chodzi o emitentów.

     
       

     

      Christophe Grudler, au nom du groupe Renew. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, le plan pour une énergie abordable doit répondre à une urgence: réduire la facture énergétique de nos industries et de nos concitoyens, car sans une énergie stable et compétitive, il n’y a ni industrie ni prospérité. Aujourd’hui, les coûts de l’énergie pèsent jusqu’à 40 % des coûts de production des industries les plus énergivores. Nos entreprises paient leur électricité deux à trois fois plus cher que leurs concurrents chinois ou américains. Comment être compétitif dans ces conditions? Il faut agir dans trois directions.

    Tout d’abord, l’électrification, vous l’avez souligné. L’objectif de 32 % d’électrification d’ici 2030 est un bon cap; mais sans réseau modernisé, procédures accélérées, stockage et flexibilité, ce chiffre ne sera pas atteignable.

    Ensuite, les financements. 584 milliards d’euros seront nécessaires d’ici 2030, rien que pour renforcer les réseaux électriques. Il faut mobiliser tous les leviers publics et privés, sans alourdir la facture des entreprises et des citoyens.

    Enfin, la stabilité. Il est clair que les contrats de long terme offriront des prix plus stables et de la visibilité aux industriels. Ils doivent concerner, Monsieur le Commissaire, toutes les énergies propres, qu’elles soient renouvelables ou nucléaires.

    Une énergie abordable est une énergie que nous n’importons plus. Je terminerai donc par une question: où est passée la feuille de route pour sortir des énergies russes?

     
       

     

      Kira Marie Peter-Hansen, for Verts/ALE-Gruppen. – Hr. formand! Kære Dan. Tillykke med planen. Den har været spændende at læse, for vi står i en afgørende tid. Vores kommissionsformand beskrev os denne uge som Europas øjeblik. Jeg er enig. Jeg tror, at borgerne mere end nogensinde før, ser mod EU for at løse de store udfordringer, og derfor skal vi minde hinanden om, at den mest effektive vej til et sikkert, et uafhængigt og et bæredygtigt Europa, det går gennem en ambitiøs grøn omstilling. Det kræver, at vi gør Europa fri for fossile brændsler. Det kræver også, at vi modstår fristelsen til at jagte kortsigtede gevinster gennem investeringer i nye gasprojekter, som der ellers lægges op til.

    Vejen til lavere energipriser går gennem massive investeringer i grøn energi, ikke gennem fossile kontrakter. Mere sol og mere vind er den billigste og hurtigste måde at reducere vores CO2-aftryk på og undgå de katastrofale konsekvenser af klimakrisen. Mere sol og vind er også den billigste og hurtigste måde at opnå uafhængighed fra gamle mænd med imperialistiske ambitioner, og det er vores stærkeste kort til at sikre en konkurrencedygtig europæisk industri. Så derfor skal vi sikre mere grøn energi. Vi skal investere massivt i vedvarende grøn energi. Det er godt for kloden, det er godt for mennesker, og det er godt for økonomien. Vi skal drastisk reducere vores udledninger, derfor skal vi vedtage et ambitiøst 2040-mål for vores CO2-reduktioner og sætte gang i handling, der sørger for, at vi når Parisaftalen. Vi kan ikke blive ved med at forurene og forvente, at fremtidige generationer rydder op efter os.

    Med grøn energi kan vi samtidig skabe konkrete forandringer for helt almindelige mennesker i hverdagen. I dag kæmper over 41 millioner europæere med at betale deres energiregning. Det er et politisk svigt, for ingen børn skal gå rundt og fryse. Derfor skal vi energirenovere vores boliger. Vi skal investere i energieffektivitet, og vi skal holde hånden under dem, der har svært ved at få enderne til at mødes. Billig, grøn energi er ikke bare godt for klimaet. Det er socialpolitik, der sikrer, at alle kan leve et værdigt liv.

    Billig og grøn energi er også den bedste hjælp, vi kan give de virksomheder, der skal ud at konkurrere med Kina og USA. Derfor skal vi fjerne de barrierer, der gør det svært at tilslutte grøn strøm til elnettet. Alt, der kan elektrificeres, skal elektrificeres. Det er vejen til et stærkt og konkurrencedygtigt europæisk erhvervsliv. Det kræver mod at træffe de beslutninger, men som Van der Leyen sagde, så er det her Europas øjeblik, og vi kan godt!

     
       

     

      Dario Tamburrano, a nome del gruppo The Left. – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, venerdì un rapporto di Bloomberg – che noto non essere un collettivo di un centro sociale – stimava che con l’ETS2 i prezzi del gas per le famiglie saliranno del 20% già dal 2027 e del 43% nel 2030.

    L’ETS2 è stato proposto e negoziato per aumentare artificialmente i prezzi del gas, per orientare le scelte energetico-impiantistiche e ridurre le emissioni. Io e il mio gruppo siamo fortemente a favore della decarbonizzazione di trasporti e riscaldamento, ma essa va raggiunta senza renderla insostenibile a famiglie, imprese e pubbliche amministrazioni, già gravate dai costi energetici, dalla stagnazione economica industriale e dal ridotto gettito fiscale.

    Oggi che il gas è già molto costoso per motivi esogeni, questo meccanismo va rivisto urgentemente. Il Fondo sociale per il clima non è probabilmente sufficiente. Mi sarei aspettato delle proposte di modifica in un piano d’azione chiamato per l’energia accessibile: non c’è nulla, ma siamo ancora in tempo per correggere il tiro.

    Va disaccoppiato il costo dell’elettricità dal gas e non aumentato il prezzo del gas.

     
       

     

      Станислав Стоянов, от името на групата ESN. – Г-н Председател, достъпната енергия означава евтина енергия, а най-евтините и надеждни източници днес са ядрената и въглищна енергия. Вместо да ги отхвърляме под натиска на идеологически догми, трябва да ги разглеждаме като ключови за стабилността на нашата енергийна система.

    Ние подкрепяме напредъка и опазването на околната среда, но това не означава, че трябва с лека ръка да се откажем от работещи и достъпни технологии, особено в такива несигурни времена. Индустриите ни се нуждаят от предвидима енергия, а гражданите от сметки, които могат да си позволят. Достъпната енергия означава и сигурни доставки на ресурси. Отказът от енергийни източници заради налагане на санкции означава по-скъпа и съответно по-недостъпна енергия. За да гарантираме достъпност и икономическа стабилност, се нуждаем от всички възможни енергийни източници. Всяко необмислено ограничаване на тези възможности води до по-високи цени, по-слаба индустрия и обедняване на европейските граждани.

     
       

     

      Raúl de la Hoz Quintano (PPE). – Señor presidente, la Comisión señala en su comunicación que la energía nuclear es clave para la descarbonización, también para la seguridad del suministro y, por supuesto, para el abaratamiento del coste de la energía. En línea con esto, la mayoría de los Estados de la Unión se están planteando nuevas inversiones en el ámbito de la energía nuclear o, al menos, la prolongación de la vida útil de sus plantas. Solo hay un país cuyo Gobierno va a la contra y se está planteando el cierre de las centrales nucleares que existen en su territorio: España. Y no lo hace por cuestiones técnicas o de seguridad. Lo hace única y exclusivamente por sectarismo, por radicalismo ideológico.

    Es el legado de la señora Ribera, el legado que nos deja en España, y tiene como consecuencia inmediata el cierre, en el año 2027, de la central nuclear de Almaraz, una central nuclear que genera el 7 % de la electricidad que se consume en nuestro país. Ni que decir tiene cuál va a ser la repercusión en términos económicos, de empleo y, por supuesto, también en el precio de la factura eléctrica que pagamos en nuestro país. Así que mientras en Europa se plantea el debate en torno al abaratamiento del coste de la energía, en nuestro país seguimos anclados en el debate de «renovables sí, nucleares no». Entiendan ustedes que así es imposible avanzar.

    No es en absoluto el momento de los dogmatismos energéticos e ideológicos. Es el momento del pragmatismo económico. Si no entendemos esto, es imposible que asumamos el concepto de competitividad.

     
       

     

      Γιάννης Μανιάτης (S&D). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αγαπητέ Επίτροπε, οι τιμές ηλεκτρισμού και φυσικού αερίου αυξήθηκαν δραστικά στην Ευρώπη, σε αντίθεση με τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες, που τελικά είναι ο μόνος ωφελημένος από την εισβολή της Ρωσίας στην Ουκρανία. Ασφαλώς η φορολογία της ενέργειας, όπου η Ελλάδα είναι δυστυχώς αρνητικός πρωταθλητής, τα τέλη δικτύου, οι χρόνοι αδειοδότησης κλπ., όλα αυτά, αυξάνουν το κόστος ενέργειας, και ορθά ζητάτε να αντιμετωπιστούν. Όμως το βασικό πρόβλημα είναι ότι, ενώ οι ανανεώσιμες πηγές, που όλοι σωστά προωθούμε, έχουν μικρότερο κόστος παραγωγής σε σχέση με τα ορυκτά, αυτό δεν αντανακλάται ακόμα στις τιμές για τους καταναλωτές. Χρειαζόμαστε, λοιπόν, επενδύσεις σε δίκτυα, διασυνδέσεις, αποθήκευση, με τουλάχιστον υπερδιπλασιασμό των κονδυλίων ενέργειας του Connecting Europe Facility.

    Όμως δεν είμαστε ευχαριστημένοι ούτε με την ανύπαρκτη διαφάνεια, ούτε με την αναποτελεσματική λειτουργία, ούτε με τη μηδενική εποπτεία πολλών αγορών ενέργειας στα κράτη μέλη. Τέλος, θα ήθελα να σας ρωτήσω πώς θα αντιμετωπιστούν οι διαχρονικά αυξημένες τιμές ενέργειας σε Ελλάδα, Βουλγαρία, Ρουμανία σε σχέση με την υπόλοιπη Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση.

     
       

     

      Ondřej Knotek (PfE). – Mr President, dear colleagues, Commissioner, I naively thought that the aim of the affordable energy action plan was to provide affordable energy. But I tell you something: this plan will achieve no substantial energy cost reductions, because you, the European Commission, repeat the same failures as in the past.

    You are obsessed by an energy mix based on renewables. You blindly push forward the electricity market integration. You have disrespect for the existing reliable coal industry. You are failing to place nuclear on the forefront of the energy transition in parallel to renewables. You egotistically insist on maintaining unsustainable EU climate goals. You completely ignore what’s going on in the US and in the BRICS countries. And you naively believe that you will mobilise private capital through your bad plan.

    You will not, and your plan will fail. So if you really want to help, Commissioner, cap immediately the ETS price at EUR 30, and instead of bringing new climate targets for 2040, please cancel the existing targets for 2030 and 2050.

    (The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

     
       



     

      Francesco Torselli (ECR). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, è impossibile non condividere un piano d’azione che si prefigge di arginare la povertà energetica e di arginare l’aumento dei prezzi.

    I dubbi, semmai, ci arrivano sulle modalità che vogliamo mettere in campo per raggiungere questi obiettivi: nei prossimi 25 anni, ci dicono i dati, il consumo energetico in UE raddoppierà e le reti elettriche nazionali dovranno essere estese di almeno il 70%.

    E noi con quali mezzi economici ci possiamo prefissare il raggiungimento di questi obiettivi? Basterà la contrattazione a lungo termine? Basterà dire agli Stati membri: “Diminuite le tasse?”. Basterà dire: “Miglioriamo il mercato del gas?”. Ad oggi per noi la risposta è “no”.

    Servono investimenti concreti e azioni concrete; servono per mantenere, Commissario, quelle promesse che lei ha fatto per risolvere il tema della povertà energetica. Ad oggi mancano le ricette: io non ho sentito da lei una parola su biofuel e biogas, per esempio, che sono ricette assolutamente valide per conseguire i nostri obiettivi.

     
       

     

      Martin Hojsík (Renew). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, pán komisár, vysoké ceny energie škodia ľuďom aj firmám. Ohrozujú prosperitu, konkurencieschopnosť. Energetická chudoba špeciálne na Slovensku ohrozuje štvrtinu domácností. Kde je príčina? Povedzme si to rovno: z veľkej časti v našej závislosti na dovážanom fosílnom plyne. Najdrahšie plynové elektrárne určujú cenu všetkej elektriny, kolega Knotek.

    Preto vítam plán pre cenovo dostupnú energiu Európskej komisie. Obsahuje opatrenia pre zníženie platieb ako domácnostiam, tak priemyslu. Zlepšuje našu pripravenosť na krízy. Verím, že zníži účty pre domácnosti a firmy a hlavne posilní našu odolnosť voči krízam. A rieši aj hlavnú príčinu problému: závislosť od dovážaných fosílnych palív. Do roku 2030 môže pomôcť ušetriť 130 miliárd eur. Môže.

    A tu je to kľúčové. Bude závisieť od toho, či ten plán premeníme na skutky, či členské štáty vrátane Slovenska naozaj začnú robiť kroky, alebo budú niektoré ďalej hádzať polená pod nohy rozvoju zelenej energie a energetickým úsporám. Pretože bez nich budeme mať naďalej vysoké ceny a budeme závislí.

    (Rečník súhlasil, že odpovie na otázku položenú zdvihnutím modrej karty)

     
       

     

      Bogdan Rzońca (ECR), pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Bardzo uważnie słuchałem Pana wystąpienia i wiem, że Pan się na tym zna. I mam prośbę, nie tylko pytanie, ale prośbę, dlatego, że poszukuję bardzo detalicznych informacji na temat kosztu budowy średniej farmy wiatrowej w Europie. Ile trzeba żwiru, cementu, wody, metalu, metali szlachetnych? Ile to wszystko kosztuje? I nigdzie nie mogę tego znaleźć. Czy Pan może mi wskazać źródło, bo chciałbym porównać. Gdyż Pan mówił o wielkich kosztach i cenach gazu, a ja nie mogę znaleźć, jak rozmawiam z wyborcami, jakie są koszty budowy farmy wiatrowej? Proszę o taką informację.

     
       


     

      Marina Mesure (The Left). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, nous le savons tous ici: le prix de l’électricité est déterminant pour notre compétitivité. Or, l’électricité est trois fois plus chère en Europe que chez nos concurrents. Malheureusement, votre plan d’action pour l’énergie abordable ne règle rien. Vous affichez une ambition de découpler le prix de l’électricité de celui du gaz. C’est un objectif louable et d’ailleurs, Ursula von der Leyen le promettait, elle aussi, dans son discours sur l’état de l’Union en 2022. Pourtant, trois ans plus tard, le prix du gaz augmente de nouveau et rien ne change.

    Par ailleurs, rien ne nous protège du président américain, qui pourrait menacer d’augmenter les prix du GNL, que nous importons massivement des États-Unis. Nous n’avons plus les moyens de payer encore une fois le prix de notre dépendance, que ce soit à la Russie ou aux États-Unis.

    De nombreux secteurs industriels stratégiques pour notre souveraineté sont aux abois. La précarité énergétique touche 10 % des foyers européens. La solution est pourtant simple, et nous le répétons en commission comme ici dans l’hémicycle: proposez une réforme du marché de l’électricité, cette fois-ci ambitieuse; ayez le courage de sortir du dogme du marché et de privilégier l’intérêt général, plutôt que ceux des énergéticiens.

     
       

     

      Milan Mazurek (ESN). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, máme trojnásobne vyššiu cenu elektriny než v Spojených štátoch amerických, päťnásobne vyššiu cenu plynu než v Spojených štátoch a to ani nehovorme o tom, ako vysoko sa líšia ceny nafty alebo benzínu. A prečo je tomu tak? No jednoducho preto, že máme Európsku komisiu, ktorá zaviedla politiky, ktoré k tomuto cieľu neskôr viedli. Je to kvôli tomu, že počúvame ľavicových marxistických extrémistov s ich zeleným podvodom, ktorý planétu nezachráni, nič nezmení, ale ľuďom predraží ich život.

    Dnes, keď sa pozrieme na to, čo sa deje v USA, ktorí odstupujú od týchto nezmyslov, alebo na Čínu, ktorá otvára skoro dve uhoľné elektrárne za týždeň, tak vidíme, že celý svet nám uniká. A kým ľudia v Európe si už ani len nemôžu zakladať rodiny, pretože nedokážu platiť svoje mesačné účty, tak príde Komisia a povie, že ona má riešenie. Tá Komisia, ktorá to spôsobila, nám povie, že musíme investovať ešte viac do zeleného podvodu, ešte viac do zelených nezmyslov a že sa to nakoniec rieši. Je šialenstvom robiť to isté stále dookola a očakávať odlišný výsledok.

    (Rečník odmietol otázku, ktorú zdvihnutím modrej karty položila Jadwiga Wiśniewska)

     
       

     

      Kateřina Konečná (NI). – Pane předsedající, říká se, že starého psa novým trikům nenaučíš. Myslím, že Komise pod vedením předsedkyně von der Leyenové tímto starým psem je. Akční plán pro dostupné ceny energií je totiž opakováním toho samého, co slyšíme od vypuknutí krize s cenami energií, i když vidíme, že dosud plány Komise na jejich zlevnění nefungovaly. Přesto je podpora obnovitelných zdrojů jediné, s čím Komise neustále přichází.

    Energie určitě nebudou dostupnější a levnější, pokud jádro zůstane opomenuto. Naopak jádro musí být podporováno alespoň tak jako obnovitelné zdroje. Nemusíte hledat nový zdroj levného plynu ze zahraničí, protože ten již existuje, jen jste na něj z politických důvodů uvalili sankce a ruský plyn teď dráže překupujete. Zrušte proto sankce! Podpořte členské státy v úplném zestátnění energetických firem, protože pokud bude s elektřinou zacházeno jako se zbožím, tak se také nikam nepohneme. Nic z toho v plánu Komise není, a pokud Komise není schopna se z minulosti poučit, pak je načase se zamyslet, zda ji není čas vyměnit.

     
       

     

      Angelika Winzig (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Die hohen Energiepreise gefährden die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit Europas. Jetzt ist schnelles Handeln gefordert, um den Kostendruck vor allem für unsere Betriebe zu reduzieren. Herr Kommissar, Sie haben gute Ansätze vorgelegt, aber eines hat mir gefehlt, und zwar, wenn ich an den Netzausbau denke. Immer mehr Bürgerinnen und Bürger verhindern wichtige Leitungsprojekte. Auch wenn ich heute heimfahre, komme ich an einem tollen Infrastrukturprojekt vorbei, das wahrscheinlich nicht umgesetzt werden kann. Vermehrt kommt es jetzt auch dazu, dass die Bürgerinnen und Bürger Erdkabel fordern, die natürlich wesentlich teurer sind; das führt natürlich dazu, dass auch Investoren häufig abspringen.

    Herr Kommissar, ich glaube, wir brauchen einen ganzheitlichen Ansatz, um Mitgliedstaaten, Gemeinden, vor allem auch die Bürgermeister, aber auch die Bürgerinnen und Bürger einzubeziehen, wie wir das schaffen, damit grenzüberschreitende Stromverbindungen wirklich möglich sind.

     
       

     

      Nicolás González Casares (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, no nos engañemos, la energía en Europa siempre ha sido más cara que en otros lugares como los Estados Unidos. ¿Por qué? Porque estaba basada en los combustibles fósiles. Está muy claro.

    Además, hemos visto cómo los amigos de Putin o los aliados de Trump, esos caballos de Troya, defienden consumir combustibles fósiles y apostar por más y más gas. Nosotros debemos ir en la dirección contraria: seguir con el Pacto Verde Europeo, confiar en fuentes de energías renovables que no emiten gases y, además, nos ayudan a luchar contra el cambio climático. Esa es nuestra garantía de éxito, esa es nuestra seguridad energética. Y es cierto que seguimos teniendo riesgos. Por lo tanto, reducir nuestro consumo de energías fósiles es el camino.

    Pero, además, siempre hemos defendido desde este grupo desacoplar los precios de la electricidad de los precios del gas. Creo que debemos avanzar en todas las oportunidades que nos permite la reforma del mercado eléctrico. Por lo tanto, señor Jørgensen, ¿por qué no adelantar la revisión de los mercados a corto plazo prevista en esta reforma? Se puede y se debe hacer, manteniendo la seguridad regulatoria.

    (El orador acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la «tarjeta azul»)

     
       




     

      Kateřina Konečná (NI), otázka položená zvednutím modré karty. – Pane kolego, já bych s vámi v podstatě, kromě té obrany, úplně souhlasila. Podepsala bych všechno, co jste řekl, ale vy jste členem vládní strany a já se vás ptám: Kdy česká vláda pod vedením vašeho premiéra Fialy přijde na Evropskou radu a navrhne tam, aby se zrušila nebo změnila taxonomie a aby se zrušil nebo změnil systém emisních povolenek tak, aby opravdu došlo ke snížení ceny elektrické energie? Já vám děkuju za to, co tady říkáte. Česká vláda zatím nemá odvahu cokoliv z toho udělat, nejen v České republice, ale ani to přenést na evropskou úroveň.

     
       

     

      Ondřej Krutílek (ECR), odpověď na otázku položenou zvednutím modré karty. – Paní kolegyně, pokud víte, tak česká vláda pracuje na jiných věcech týkajících se Green Deal, když už se bavíme o automobilovém průmyslu. Co se týče ETS, tak rozvíjíme iniciativy, které povedou minimálně k odložení ETS2 o rok až dva. A co se týče těch dalších věcí, o kterých jsem tady hovořil, tak jsem v kontaktu s lidmi, kteří k tomu mají co říct v Radě, naslouchají mi a je to běh na trošičku delší trať. Ale nebojte, pracujeme na tom.

     
       

     

      Isabel Serra Sánchez (The Left). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, cuando se inició la guerra de Ucrania ustedes dijeron que, con la escalada bélica, aumentando el gasto militar íbamos a ser más independientes y más soberanos; hoy se ve que eso es una gran mentira. Tras tres años somos más dependientes —sobre todo energéticamente— de los Estados Unidos, que desde el año 2018 ha aumentado su exportación de gas licuado un 1 749 %. Quien se ha forrado con la guerra, aparte de las grandes empresas armamentísticas, son las empresas energéticas. Y ahora, frente a su fracaso, proponen más gasto militar y recortes de los derechos sociales, lo que aumenta también la pobreza energética.

    Este Plan que proponen hoy es papel mojado, lo saben perfectamente, en una Unión Europea donde hay nada menos que 42 millones de personas que sufren pobreza energética y donde, desde sus inicios, el mercado energético es un oligopolio, un robo y una estafa a la ciudadanía. Para bajar la factura de la luz, para que seamos realmente soberanos, hacen falta más impuestos a las grandes energéticas, una intervención decidida del mercado energético, control público y paz.

     
       

     

      Siegbert Frank Droese (ESN). – Herr Präsident, verehrte Kollegen! Das einzig Richtige im Aktionsplan für erschwingliche Energie ist die Feststellung der Tatsache, dass es zu hohe Energiepreise gibt. Falsch im Plan sind dagegen die Ursachen, die genannt werden, z. B. Verbrauch der Konsumenten oder gar das Wetter – was für ein Unfug steht da drin!

    Richtig ist: Die ganze Energiepolitik der EU ist falsch. Falsch ist besonders die Abkopplung von günstigen Gas- und Ölimporten aus Russland. Daher sagen wir: Wettbewerbskompass – weg damit! Aktionspläne – weg damit! Flaggschiffprojekte oder Pilotprogramme – weg damit!

    Die EU muss einfach ökonomisch denken, profitorientiert und nicht grün-ideologisch. Wir brauchen Marktwirtschaft statt Planwirtschaft, weg mit dem grünen Energiesozialismus. Die Lösung in der Energiefrage ist nicht clean energy, sondern cheap energy. Solange das die Kommission nicht begreift, wäre es bei den Aktivitäten der Kommission für die Menschen besser, Sie würden gar nichts tun. Die fossilen Brennstoffe sind nicht das Problem, sondern die Fossile in der Kommission sind das Problem – da darf sich der Herr Kommissar ruhig angesprochen fühlen. Und man kann daher nur hoffen, dass die aussterben wie die Dinosaurier.

    (Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ zu antworten.)

     
       


     

      Siegbert Frank Droese (ESN), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Herr Kollege, ich weiß nicht, wie alt Sie sind, aber es ist Ihnen sicherlich entgangen, dass wir in Zeiten des Kalten Krieges mit der früheren Sowjetunion – die ja durchaus deutlich aggressiver gegenüber dem Westen auftrat als das heutige Russland das eigentlich tut – sehr, sehr gute Verträge gehabt haben. Ich weiß nicht, wo hier das Problem ist.

    Also, für uns ist wichtig, dass wir unseren Verbrauchern günstige Energie zur Verfügung stellen. Die Administration in den USA hat das erkannt. Wir hoffen sehr als deutsche Volksvertreter, dass Nordstream 2 repariert wird und dass wir dann dort gemeinsam als amerikanisch‑russisches Projekt Nordstream 2 wieder günstige Energie beziehen können. Das ist eine absolute Frage der Souveränität; günstige Energie ist auch eine Form von Souveränität.

     
       


     

      Katarína Roth Neveďalová (NI). – Vážený pán predsedajúci, kolegovia, dostupná energia je právo, nie privilégium pre ľudí a mali by sme sa snažiť, aby ceny energií boli celkovo dostupné pre občanov, nielen pre firmy, ale aj pre občanov. Viacerí kolegovia tu hovorili o tom, že ako môžeme porovnávať ceny v Spojených štátoch amerických a Európskej únii, koľkonásobne vyššie sú ceny v Európskej únii oproti Spojeným štátom, čo znižuje našu konkurencieschopnosť a zvyšuje cenu našich produktov. Toto je jedna z vecí, na ktoré by sme sa mali viacej pozrieť.

    Takisto si myslím, že odstrihávanie sa od lacných zdrojov a fosílnych palív je nesprávnym krokom, ktorý Európska únia robí, a mali by sme ho prehodnotiť. Takisto si myslím, že keď hovoríme o kúrení a teple, zákaz kotlov na fosílne palivá bolo zlé riešenie. A keď budeme všetko iba elektrifikovať, tej elektriny nemáme momentálne dostatok a musíme tým pádom viac budovať aj siete. A oceňujem, že Komisia to takisto chce robiť.

    Takisto by som chcela povedať, pán komisár Jørgensen, že veľmi oceňujem váš príspevok do debaty, ktorú má Slovenská republika s Ukrajinou, kde sa snažíme obnoviť tranzit plynu cez ukrajinské územie pre Slovenskú republiku, aby sme mali lepšiu bezpečnosť energetickú aj pre Slovákov, ale aj pre celú východnú a strednú Európu.

     
       

     

      Aura Salla (PPE). – Mr President, the affordable energy action plan has a market-based approach, but execution is the key. We must accelerate investment, cut red tape and ensure that competition – not subsidies – drives our transition. Europe cannot afford to slip into state-driven energy markets. Overreliance on government planning will drive investment elsewhere and hidden subsidies would distort price signals.

    As the Nordic model shows, a market-based, diverse and clean energy mix lowers energy costs. And yes, nuclear power is one of the key elements in this mix. Europe can do the same: scale renewables, strengthen our grids and develop long-term contract models.

    We must invest in grids. But this is not a cost; it is a down payment on lower energy bills, cheaper transport and industrial competitiveness.

    So, let’s be clear: free markets, competition and private investments must lead our energy transition.

     
       

     

      Bruno Gonçalves (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, colegas, investir na produção de energia renovável não é uma questão ideológica: é a aposta certa para uma Europa que quer mais autonomia estratégica, uma trajetória favorável de preços e menos emissões poluentes.

    Sabemos que, no curto prazo, será muito difícil competir com os preços de energia, seja dos competidores americanos, seja dos competidores chineses. Temos falta de recursos naturais endógenos e a dependência do gás barato da Rússia, que agora se extingue, inibiu durante muito tempo o investimento em alternativas. Mas o caminho é este — e o caminho é certo.

    Comissário Jørgensen, terá todo o meu apoio para o seu plano para a energia acessível. Mas, como diz o relatório Draghi, há uma forma de a Europa aliviar já, hoje, os preços da eletricidade. E isso é caminhar para acabar com a indexação do preço do gás. Contamos consigo para essa batalha.

    A política energética e a transição climática precisam de entregar resultados para as pessoas e para as pequenas e médias empresas, não para grandes empresas do setor energético, nem para especuladores do sistema financeiro, cujos interesses não são os interesses europeus.

    (O orador aceita responder a uma pergunta «cartão azul»)

     
       

     

      João Oliveira (The Left), Pergunta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Senhor Deputado Bruno Gonçalves, este plano de ação para preços de energia acessíveis anuncia a intenção de desacoplar o preço da energia do preço do gás, como, de resto, referiu na sua intervenção, mas faz esse anúncio de forma muito tímida e não introduz nenhuma alteração de fundo ao mecanismo de formação de preços.

    E, portanto, o que isso significa é que a energia produzida a partir de fontes renováveis — e mais barata — continua a ser paga aos preços, mais altos e voláteis, do gás.

    E a pergunta que lhe faço, por isso, é se é possível, nestas condições, esperar mesmo que os preços da energia baixem para as famílias e para as empresas ou se, pelo contrário, vão continuar elevados, a alimentar os lucros dos grupos económicos do setor energético.

     
       

     

      Bruno Gonçalves (S&D), Resposta segundo o procedimento «cartão azul». – Caro Deputado, como mencionei na minha intervenção — e menciona também bem —, o mais importante neste momento é reduzir o preço para as famílias, para as pequenas e médias empresas, para quem precisa.

    Isso significa, obviamente, olhar para o mecanismo de formação de preços, entendê-lo e reformulá-lo. E é por isso que eu vejo com muito agrado que esta Comissão, pela primeira vez, encara este desafio e diz, desde logo, não só para o futuro, como para o presente, que os Estados‑Membros têm também a responsabilidade de desenhar mecanismos que possam prever já isso.

    Olhe o nosso caso em Portugal: é responsabilidade do Governo português começar já a desenhar esses mecanismos, esse mecanismo de desacoplamento. Não é aceitável que, num país onde a produção renovável é tão alta, os preços continuem como estão.

    E, portanto, essa é uma boa medida, essa é uma boa proposta.

     
       

     

      Kris Van Dijck (ECR). – Voorzitter, commissaris, de energiekosten in de EU zijn te hoog en daar lijden dus de burgers en onze ondernemingen onder. De vraag is dus: “hoe maken we die energie goedkoper, terwijl we ook steeds meer elektriciteit nodig hebben?” Ik volg de Commissie als het gaat om de realisatie van de energie-unie en onder andere het beter connecteren van het Europese net.

    Maar wat mis ik toch wel in deze nota? Dat is de plaats van, ook op korte termijn, kernenergie, die zeker betaalbaar, efficiënt en schoon is. De elektriciteitsprijs wordt bepaald door de duurste productie. Die moet vervangen worden en dat doe je dus niet door het sluiten van kerncentrales. Ik geef een voorbeeld: in februari betaalden een Belgisch gezin en een Belgische kmo 50 % meer voor elektriciteit dan een Frans gezin of een Franse kmo. En ja, waar zit het verschil, denk je? Ik vraag dus, mijnheer de commissaris, met aandrang om de ideologische vooringenomenheid die de Europeanen veel geld kost, te stoppen en naar de volledige systeemkosten van elke technologie te kijken.

     
       

     

      Gabriella Gerzsenyi (PPE). – Elnök úr! Magyar családok százezrei fáznak a saját otthonukban, és vannak, akik télen megfagynak. Orbán Viktor a versenyképesség élharcosának mutatja magát, miközben elhanyagolják az infrastruktúra fejlesztését. Magyarország több áramot importál, mint Németország. Az ipari fogyasztók pedig az Európai Unió ötödik legmagasabb áramszámláját fizetik. Hatalmas energiaigényű kínai akkumulátorgyárakat építenek az országban, és nem csökkentik az orosz fosszilis forrásoktól való függőséget.

    Megjegyzem, lehet, hogy ezentúl az amerikai forrásokra fognak áttérni, hiszen tudjuk, hogy Orbánnak nem csak Putyin, hanem Trump is a barátja. Mi a Tisza Pártnál azon dolgozunk, hogy a diverzifikálás, az energiahatékonyság és a megújulók, például a geotermikus energia jobb kihasználása révén minden magyar számára biztosítsuk az otthon melegét.

     
       


     

      Massimiliano Salini (PPE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il piano proposto dalla Commissione europea va nella direzione corretta per molti motivi, individuando strumenti di carattere finanziario o interventi di carattere infrastrutturale che certamente aiuteranno a ridurre l’impatto del costo dell’energia.

    Il problema è che la gran parte dei provvedimenti individuati all’interno di questo piano sono lenti, cioè genereranno nel lungo termine gli effetti auspicati. Noi abbiamo bisogno di interventi anche, che, però, consentano oggi a chi consuma energia, in particolare la nostra industria energivora, di avere effetti positivi.

    Il Commissario ha fatto correttamente riferimento alla necessità di disaccoppiare in forme particolari il calcolo del prezzo dell’energia, distinguendo l’energia prodotta da fonti fossili da quella da fonti rinnovabili.

    Ma non viene messo in discussione la possibilità, almeno, della revisione del disegno del mercato elettrico. Valutiamo di fare una vera valutazione dell’impatto di questo disegno, perché è stato costruito in tempi troppo diversi da quelli attuali.

     
       

     

      Thomas Pellerin-Carlin (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, pour rester maîtres de notre destin, maîtrisons nos prix de l’électricité. Mon pays, la France, produit déjà de l’électricité décarbonée en abondance, grâce au nucléaire et aux renouvelables. Pour rester maîtres de notre destin, nous devons investir massivement dans toutes les énergies renouvelables, y compris l’éolien terrestre, les énergies marines et le solaire sur toiture. Cela nous permettra de continuer à produire de l’électricité à un prix abordable, tout en respectant les objectifs européens fixés dans les plans nationaux en matière d’énergie et de climat. Pour rester maître de notre destin, le gouvernement français doit écouter la Commission européenne et arrêter d’augmenter les taxes sur l’électricité.

    Chers collègues, nous disposons aujourd’hui de tous les outils pour mieux maîtriser les prix de l’électricité. À nous d’en faire bon usage. C’est ainsi que nous restaurerons la confiance dans les prix de l’électricité pour aider nos industriels, nos collectivités locales et nos citoyens à pouvoir faire sereinement le choix de l’électrique.

     
       

     

      Bruno Tobback (S&D). – Voorzitter, commissaris, collega’s, nog erger dan een half miljard Europeanen te laten gijzelen door Vladimir Poetin is om een half miljard Europeanen laten gijzelen door Donald Trump én Vladimir Poetin. De beste manier om daaraan te ontkomen, is aan onze welvaart te bouwen met de energie die we zelf produceren en controleren. Dat is ook de basis van uw actieplan. Laat ons nu zorgen voor actie.

    De Europese energie-unie moet meer zijn dan een verzameling van 27 aparte energiemarkten met te hoge prijzen, waar burgers niet alleen moeten betalen voor dure stroom omdat we die met gas moeten produceren, maar zelfs moeten betalen wanneer ze zelf groene stroom produceren en gratis leveren, omdat onze netten niet in staat zijn om die te brengen naar de bedrijven die erom smeken. In een markt die schreeuwt om goedkope energie is het absurd dat honderden projecten waarmee goedkope stroom kan worden geproduceerd, vandaag wachten op een aansluiting.

    Commissaris, iedere politicus droomt ervan om te verbinden. Enfin, misschien niet iedereen in dit halfrond, maar toch velen. Verbindingen vermenigvuldigen is vandaag de beste garantie voor lagere energieprijzen voor onze gezinnen en voor onze bedrijven. Laat die kans niet liggen.

     
       

     

      Elena Sancho Murillo (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario Jørgensen, con la publicación del Plan de Acción para una Energía Asequible, la Comisión reconoce que los obstáculos fundamentales para la competitividad europea siguen siendo los precios de la energía y la dependencia de la energía fósil externa. Este es un gran paso en la dirección correcta.

    Sí, tenemos que reducir las tarifas de red y tenemos que aportar más oferta y flexibilidad al sistema acortando los plazos de autorización, aumentando la velocidad a la que incorporamos las energías renovables y desacoplando los precios de las renovables de los precios de los combustibles fósiles. La Comisión también señala de manera correcta en este Plan algunos de los principales cuellos de botella que siguen obstaculizando nuestros objetivos, como la capacidad de red y, especialmente, las interconexiones.

    Además, este Plan debe ir más allá y poner el foco en un aspecto realmente decisivo: el de la inversión pública. Debemos ser capaces de reducir los precios de las tarifas e invertir para mejorar y ampliar nuestras redes e interconexiones. Debemos tomar ejemplo del trabajo que lleva haciendo el Gobierno de España estos últimos años, optando por las energías renovables y consiguiendo una bajada histórica de los precios.

    Trabajemos por una Unión Europea limpia, conectada y competitiva que no deje a nadie atrás.

     
       

     

      Michael McNamara (Renew). – Mr President, I’m not here very long, but already I have the impression that this place operates like a bubble. I’ve listened to numerous speeches this week saying that the only thing that our citizens care about is defence. Colleagues, I do not believe for a moment that this Parliament will be judged on whether or not there are soldiers wearing the European Union insignia on their shoulder in five years’ time. The success or failure of this Parliament will be judged on whether or not we bring down energy prices in Europe, and whether or not we provide energy stability and security across Europe. And the same is true, Commissioner, of your Commission, in my view.

    I do very much welcome the action plan that has been announced, though. Clearly, we need a huge investment in our infrastructure. Clearly, we need to break the link between gas‑pricing and energy‑pricing, because that has resulted in energy prices remaining artificially high across Europe. But we can’t wait for grid infrastructure. We do need to look at innovative solutions.

    Everybody across Europe is talking about the benefits of AI. At the same time, the same people are saying that we can’t have data centres. Well, we can’t have it both ways. We do need to look at whether data centres can be used to stabilise our grid in the short term, while we wait for our grid to be enhanced.

     
       

       

    Catch-the-eye procedure

     
       

     

      Elena Nevado del Campo (PPE). – Señor presidente, señor comisario de Energía, en su propósito tiene usted al enemigo en casa: la señora Ribera. Nos enfrentamos en Europa a un reto crucial: garantizar a las familias, y a las empresas que dan trabajo, una energía asequible sostenible y segura. La ciencia es clara: la combinación de las energías renovables y la energía nuclear es clave para reducir las emisiones y proteger nuestro planeta.

    Mientras los Estados Unidos prolongan hasta ochenta años la vida útil de las centrales nucleares, Sánchez las cierra en España sin importarle las familias ni de Extremadura ni de Cataluña. Por lo tanto, el desmantelamiento de la central nuclear de Almaraz, en mi tierra, que abastece a más de 4 millones de hogares en España y evita la emisión de 7,2 millones de toneladas de CO2 al año, es un sacrificio que no podemos permitir.

    Por eso les pido a todos ustedes que apoyen el no al cierre de la central nuclear de Almaraz.

     
       

     

      Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, discutăm despre prețuri accesibile, însă mi-aș fi dorit să dați o definiție: ce înțelegeți dumneavoastră prin prețuri accesibile la energie? Pentru că alt preț este accesibil pentru cetățenii din Luxemburg, alt preț este accesibil pentru cei din România sau din țările din est. Ați fost foarte sigur pe dumneavoastră, ca și cum aveți asul în buzunar. Puteți să rezolvați făcând o uniune a energiei, reducând prețurile, energie curată – toate acestea înseamnă investiție și mai ales timp. Cetățeanul are nevoie astăzi, pentru că de trei ani Europa este mereu în criză.

    Unde se duce criza? La buzunarul cetățeanului. Aș vrea să ne spuneți în răspunsurile pe care le dați acum, când? Un termen, un timp. Eu așa am înțeles, ca om de afaceri: să spun măsura și timpul. Când avem prețuri accesibile pentru toți cetățenii, în funcție de veniturile pe care le au? În plus, mai cred ceva, domnule comisar. E o speculă în prețul energiei, necercetată, necăutată și lăsată așa, să trăiască bine producătorii de energie necontrolați și furnizorii de energie, iar costurile din nou să meargă la buzunarul cetățeanului.

     
       

     

      Anna Zalewska (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Pan zdaje sobie sprawę, że Pana plan to wzrost cen energii. Czas uwolnić się od algorytmów, szantażystów, zielonych, którym płacicie, lobbystów. Czas usiąść z inżynierami, energetykami, chemikami i fizykami. Czas wrócić do ETS-u sprzed 2014 roku, bo w tej chwili stał się bańką, piramidą finansową, która spekuluje i manipuluje. Jednocześnie czas wyrzucić ETS 2 do kosza. Obywatele nie mogą ponosić odpowiedzialności za Wasze beztroskie pomysły, za Waszą ideologię i za to, że jesteście zakładnikami wielkich biznesów.

    ECR w ciągu najbliższych tygodni przygotuje projekt rezolucji i debatę na temat wyrzucenia ETS 2 do kosza.

     
       

     

      Billy Kelleher (Renew). – Mr President, I welcome the publication of the Action Plan for Affordable Energy. Of course, affordable energy and energy in the context of security is vital for the development of the European economy, to give certainty in terms of investment, but equally – and importantly – we have to address a very fundamental issue around our competitiveness, the cost to businesses and the cost to families and households right across Europe.

    Reference has been made to affordability and, of course, affordability varies greatly across the European Union itself. I would like to see greater investment in generation capacities and in harnessing capacities, particularly in the area of solar and wind, and we do need a Eurogrid, Commissioner, whereby we can transport electricity from where it is produced to where it is needed, and there will be significant challenges.

    From an Irish perspective, of course, we are an island nation. We have great potential in terms of wind energy, but we need to have the capacity to export it through interconnectors, via France directly, and also via the UK as well. There would be significant costs and challenges, but this needs to be done to advance our wind energy capacity.

     
       

     

      Ana Miranda Paz (Verts/ALE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, como eurodeputada galega, quero advertir que, para ter energia acessível, há que travar os benefícios escandalosos do lobby elétrico.

    No meu país, somos produtores de energia elétrica e estamos penalizados por produzir sem que se favoreça o nosso povo. O preço da energia disparou nos últimos anos em 300 %. Os benefícios das empresas elétricas também.

    O lobby elétrico é apoiado no meu país pelo Governo do Partido Popular, que permite que se espolie energia, com benefícios que emigram. Por isso, defendemos uma tarifa elétrica pública.

    Advirto também, Senhor Comissário, que, perante esse espólio, há muitos lares afetados pela pobreza energética e pelo preço iníquo, sem poderem aquecer mais a casa e passando frio. A pobreza energética na Galiza é o dobro da média europeia — 20 % dos nossos habitantes não podem pagar a conta da luz.

    Advirto também, Senhor Comissário, que acelerar o licenciamento nos projetos eólicos tem um perigo: o PP no Governo galego acelera projetos, violando normativas ambientais. Energia acessível…

    (o Presidente retira a palavra à oradora)

     
       


     

      Lukas Sieper (NI). – Herr Präsident, liebe Menschen Europas, liebe Schülerinnen und Schüler des DBG, Felix! Bezahlbare Energie ist nicht nur eine wirtschaftliche Frage; es ist die große politische Frontlinie unserer Zeit. Denn Energie bedeutet nicht nur, die urmenschlichen Bedürfnisse wie Wärme im Winter zu erfüllen, sondern auch Arbeit und industrielle Zukunft.

    Nach wie vor beziehen wir unsere Energie maßgeblich von Autokraten; es sind nun andere, aber immer noch Autokraten. Und das müssen wir ändern: Wir brauchen echte europäische Energieunabhängigkeit. Wir brauchen ein massives Solarprogramm, mit dem wir bis 2035 auf jedem öffentlichen Gebäude in Europa Solarzellen haben. Wir brauchen ein 100 Milliarden Euro‑Sondervermögen für den Ausbau der Infrastruktur, insbesondere der Ladeinfrastruktur. Wir brauchen einen europaweiten Windkraftausbau mit weniger Bürokratie, schnelleren Genehmigungen und Mindestkapazitäten für jeden Mitgliedstaat.

    Bezahlbare Energie ist kein Luxus, sie ist Grundlage sozialen Friedens, wirtschaftlicher Stärke und geopolitischer Unabhängigkeit.

     
       

       

    (End of catch-the-eye procedure)

     
       

     

      Dan Jørgensen, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, we are now in a situation where we are still, in Europe, dependent on Russian gas. Every day we use gas bought in Russia and thereby indirectly help fill up Putin’s war chest. This is, of course, unacceptable.

    At the same time, last year was the year with the highest temperatures ever measured. So, climate change is not going away. Actually, it’s probably even more serious than we thought.

    These two huge fundamental problems need to be solved. But the good news is that the tools that we need to solve these problems, to make us independent of fossil fuels, to decarbonise our economies, are also the tools that will make us more competitive. If we look at the deployment of renewable energy from 2021 to 2023, it saved us more than EUR 100 billion – more than EUR 100 billion!

    If we then also look at how connected we are, how connected our grids are, that rationality saves us more than EUR 30 billion a year on top of that.

    So yes, our energy prices are too high, but they would have been even higher had we not had the green transition that we are in the middle of going through in Europe. And we can do even better: we will deploy renewable energy faster, we will become much more energy efficient, and we will connect our energy systems in Europe much better. Thank you so much for a very good debate today.

     
       


       

    (The sitting was suspended at 11:58)

     
       

       

    IN THE CHAIR: MARTIN HOJSÍK
    Vice-President

     

    4. Resumption of the sitting

       

    (The sitting resumed at 12:03)

     

    5. Announcement by the President

     

      President. – Yesterday, the President made an announcement about the name of Péter Magyar having been added to the names of the signatories of the joint motion for a resolution on the future of European defence due to a clerical error. After a thorough investigation into the matter was launched, it can be confirmed, as already said yesterday, that the name should not have been on the list of signatories since it was not in the names transmitted by the EPP Group to the services.

    The President has asked the services to put measures in place to prevent similar errors in the future. However, I would also like to invite the Members of this House not to escalate such a regrettable situation and to stick to the facts.

     

    6. Request for an urgent decision (Rule 170)



     

      President. – As important as this situation is, this is not a point of order. Thank you for understanding.

     

    7. Voting time

     

      President. – The next item is the vote.

     

    7.1. European Defence Industry Programme and a framework of measures to ensure the timely availability and supply of defence products (EDIP) (vote)


     

      François-Xavier Bellamy, rapporteur. – Mr President, the time for having the floor will be longer than the time for taking the floor.

    I just wanted to say that with our EPP Group, we are asking our Parliament to go for an urgent procedure on the European Defence Industry Programme.

    This will allow us to work, of course, in a very inclusive manner. With the rapporteur of the SEDE Committee, we are very much looking forward to working with all of you on the proposals you will make, but it will allow us to deliver fast. In this very important geopolitical moment, our Parliament has to show that we are ready to be efficient, precise and to work fast on this absolutely decisive programme for the defence of our Europe.

     

     

      President. – The next vote is on the joint motion for a resolution on democracy and human rights in Thailand, notably the lese-majesty law and the deportation of Uyghur refugees (see minutes, item 7.2).

     

     

      President. – The next vote is on the joint motion for a resolution on the severe political, humanitarian and human rights crisis in Sudan, in particular the sexual violence and child rape (see minutes, item 7.3).

     

    7.4. Unlawful detention and sham trials of Armenian hostages, including high-ranking political representatives from Nagorno-Karabakh, by Azerbaijan (RC-B10-0177/2025, B10-0177/2025, B10-0178/2025, B10-0179/2025, B10-0180/2025, B10-0181/2025, B10-0182/2025, B10-0183/2025, B10-0184/2025) (vote)


       

    – After the vote on paragraph 7:

     
       


       

    (Parliament did not agree to put the oral amendment to the vote)

     

    8. Resumption of the sitting

       

    (Rokovanie pokračovalo od 15.02 h.)

     

    9. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting

     

      Predsedajúci . – Zápisnica zo včerajšieho rokovania a prijaté texty sú k dispozícii. Má niekto pripomienky? Nie. Ďakujem. Zápisnica je týmto schválená.

     

    10. European Schools Alliance: potential to achieve the European education area by driving innovation, enhancing mobility and championing inclusivity (debate)


     

      Christophe Hansen, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, last week, Executive Vice-President Roxana Mînzatu delivered the Union of Skills package, and she presented it to you yesterday.

    The Union of Skills is a bold and ambitious package which strives to equip people with the right skills, starting with basic skills, and to support balanced cross-border mobility and free movement of knowledge and skills. The Union of Skills, with the European Education Area as a key enabler, will help to lay strong foundations for learning.

    A key objective of these efforts is ensuring that everyone has the basic skills they need to thrive in life. Currently, one third of 15-year-olds struggle with real life mathematics, one quarter fail to understand basic texts, and 43 % of eighth-graders lack basic digital skills. Most countries have either declined or shown no improvement. This concerning trend demands immediate action.

    One of the first deliverables of the Union of Skills is the action plan on basic skills. The first objective of this action plan is to set an ambitious target by complementing the existing target on basic skills as follows. By 2030, the share of underachievement in literacy, mathematics, science and digital skills should be less than 15 %, whereas the share of top performance in literacy, mathematics and science should be at least 15 %. For this, we will pilot a basic skills support scheme as from next year.

    In addition, we will pilot in 2026 the first European school alliances with the support of the Erasmus+ programme. The European school alliances aim to foster better cooperation and mobility among schools across Europe, acting as a catalyst to enhance the learning and teaching of basic skills. These alliances will test innovative teaching methods, curricula and competence frameworks, including in collaboration with local authorities.

    To support this, we will work to make mobility a standard in schools. Indeed, what better way to learn citizenship than by exchanging with learners from another country and culture. This is what opens the mind. The alliances will lead the way towards structural, strategic and sustainable cooperation between schools across Europe. They will provide a new format of cooperation both for schools and for school authorities, and they will serve as a springboard, enabling the transfer of knowledge and of innovative best practices at all levels.

    Erasmus+ has highlighted the benefits of learning, mobility and cross-border cooperation. However, national school systems often face obstacles that prevent them from fully reaping these benefits, lacking the legal autonomy needed. Schools rely heavily on local, regional and national authorities. The European school alliances will help address these barriers, ensuring all schools have equal access to opportunities. They will support teachers’ professional development and contribute to the future EU teachers and trainers agenda.

    To conclude, let me say that we are glad to see your interest in this initiative and we look forward to hearing your views and ideas on how together we can shape the European school alliances to offer Europe’s children the best possible start in life.

     
       

     

      Tomislav Sokol, u ime kluba PPE. – Poštovani predsjedavajući, povjereniče, kolegice i kolege, obrazovni sustav je institucionalni stup društva, temelj društvenog poretka i ključni instrument nacionalne suverenosti i identiteta.

    Dok promišljamo o jačanju obrazovne suradnje unutar Europske unije moramo osigurati da se svaka inicijativa odvija u okviru načela supsidijarnosti i proporcionalnosti kako bi nacionalne vlade zadržale primarnu regulatornu nadležnost nad svojim obrazovnim politikama. Europska unija je ovlaštena podupirati, koordinirati i dopunjavati djelovanja država članica u području obrazovanja. U tom kontekstu Europski savez škola može poslužiti kao mehanizam za unapređenje obrazovne mobilnosti, znanstvene izvrsnosti, institucionalne kohezije i općenito za unaprjeđenje vještina, kao što rekao i povjerenik, ali ne može dovesti do harmonizacije nacionalnih obrazovnih sustava. To se posebno odnosi na obrazovne programe, odnosno kurikulume, gdje države članice zadržavaju punu autonomiju njihovog definiranja, a Europska unija im, naravno, pri tome može pomoći.

    Drugim riječima, pravo na obrazovanje mora se prvenstveno ostvarivati u nacionalnim okvirima koji najbolje reflektiraju kulturne, gospodarske i društvene prioritete svake države članice. Mobilnost unutar europskog obrazovnog prostora može biti koristan instrument akademskog razvoja, no moramo osigurati da se ona ne koristi kao instrument društvenog inženjeringa ili prisilne homogenizacije obrazovnih standarda. Inkluzivnost obrazovnog sustava važan je društveni cilj, no treba biti oprezan da nas ovaj put ne vodi k normativnim rješenjima koja favoriziraju političku korektnost na štetu meritokracije.

    Europska unija može djelovati u onim područjima gdje dodana vrijednost nadilazi ono što se može postići na nacionalnoj razini. Bilo kakva tendencija prema unifikaciji obrazovnih sustava putem sekundarnog zakonodavstva ili financijskih uvjetovanja predstavljalo bi korak u krivom smjeru koji bi ugrozio stabilnost europske integracije i dao argumente onima koji žele njenu propast.

    No, svakako, na kraju bih istaknuo da ovakvi programi jesu dobri, da suradnja i razmjena su ono što jača europsku integraciju, što stvara nove generacije koje su odgojene na europskim vrijednostima, ali isto tako moramo biti oprezni da, dok to radimo, postupamo isključivo u okviru nadležnosti koje Europska unija ima.

     
       

     

      Sabrina Repp, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Stellen Sie sich vor: eine junge Schülerin aus einer Kleinstadt in einer ländlichen Region. Ihre Eltern haben nie die Möglichkeit gehabt, im Ausland Urlaub zu machen, und finanzielle Sorgen stehen an der Tagesordnung. Für diese junge Frau scheint Europa weit weg – eine Idee auf dem Papier, aber nicht Teil ihres Alltags. Doch sie ist nicht alleine. Viele junge Menschen haben nicht die Chance, mit Gleichaltrigen aus anderen Ländern in Kontakt zu kommen. Ihnen fehlt die Möglichkeit, Europa wirklich zu erleben, weil es zu teuer ist, weil die Schule es nicht anbietet oder weil sich niemand um sie kümmert. Genau hier setzt die Europäische Schulallianz an.

    Sie bietet jungen Menschen die Chance, über Grenzen hinweg zusammenzuarbeiten, neue Perspektiven zu entdecken und Freundschaften zu schließen. Programme wie Erasmus+ und eTraining ermöglichen es Schülerinnen und Schülern, andere Kulturen kennenzulernen, Sprachen zu üben und zu verstehen, was europäische Zusammenarbeit bedeutet.

    Aber diese Chancen müssen für alle gelten. Der europäische Austausch darf nicht nur für junge Menschen da sein, deren Eltern es sich leisten können. Er muss auch diejenigen erreichen, die es schwerer haben – junge Menschen aus Familien mit wenig Geld, aus kleinen Dörfern, aus schwierigen Lebensverhältnissen.

    Schule ist dabei der Schlüssel. Sie können dafür sorgen, dass alle jungen Menschen an Austauschprogrammen teilnehmen können, unabhängig vom Einkommen oder Bildungsstand der Eltern. Doch das funktioniert nur, wenn wir Hürden abbauen und mehr Möglichkeiten schaffen. Daher brauchen wir mehr finanzielle Unterstützung für benachteiligte Schülerinnen und Schüler, digitale und lokale Austauschformate, mehr Informationen in Schulen, damit alle erfahren, welche Chancen es gibt, und mehr Geld für Programme wie Erasmus+ und eTraining.

    Der europäische Austausch ist mehr als nur ein Vorteil für den Arbeitsmarkt. Er verändert Menschen; er macht sie offener, neugieriger und selbstbewusster. Und vor allem zeigt er, dass Europa für alle da ist, nicht nur für einige. Er ist das Versprechen, dass nicht Herkunft über Zukunft entscheidet, sondern Bildung.

    Ich wünsche mir, dass die Schülerin vom Anfang meiner Rede diese Chance bekommt. Und wer weiß, vielleicht steht sie irgendwann hier vor Ihnen im Europäischen Parlament und ist eine der jüngsten Abgeordneten und setzt sich dafür ein, dass noch mehr junge Menschen Europa entdecken möchten.

     
       

     

      Annamária Vicsek, a PfE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Elnök Úr! Az európai oktatási térség megteremtése egy ambiciózus célkitűzés, ugyanakkor egy kiváló lehetőség, amely hosszú távon meghatározza Európa versenyképességét, társadalmi kohézióját és kulturális sokszínűségét. Az Európai Iskolák Szövetsége kezdeményezés tényleges megoldásokat kínál ehhez, hiszen az innováció, a mobilitás és az inkluzivitás hármas pillérére épít. Támogatnunk kell az ilyen projekteket, de egyúttal biztosítanunk kell azt is, hogy az európai oktatási térség építése tiszteletben tartsa a nemzeti identitásokat, a tagállamok oktatási hagyományait és szuverenitását.

    Az egységes Európa nem az uniformizálásról kell, hogy szóljon, hanem a sokszínűség és az együttműködés erejéről. A tagállamok jó gyakorlatainak és esettanulmányainak egymás közötti megosztása hozzájárulhat ahhoz, hogy uniós szinten még jobb eredményeket érjünk el e téren. Az európai oktatási térség megvalósítását jelentősen segíti az Erasmus+ program, a diákok és pedagógusok mobilitásának lehetővé tételével. Örömmel vehetjük tudomásul, hogy az EU-n kívüli, csatlakozni kívánó országok is részt vehetnek az Erasmus+ programokban, de követeljük, hogy az EU-s tagállamok minden diákja és oktatója megkülönböztetés nélkül férjen hozzá a mobilitási programokhoz. Nem engedhet meg magának az EU olyan negatív példákat, mint egyes magyar és osztrák egyetemisták kizárása az Erasmus+ programokból. Ugyanis ez teljesen összeegyeztethetetlen a sokszor emlegetett európai értékekkel és az európai oktatási térség vállalt céljaival.

    Végezetül szeretném hangsúlyozni, mennyire fontos az EU-s tagjelölt államok minél szorosabb bekapcsolása a térség kínálta programokba és lehetőségekbe. Különösen fontos az ott élő fiatalok számára, hiszen ők azok, akik egy nap remélhetőleg uniós állampolgárok lehetnek. A tagjelöltek bekapcsolásával elérhetjük azt, hogy a csatlakozás pillanatában az oktatási rendszereik jobban össze legyenek hangolva az uniós elvárásokkal.

     
       

     

      Христо Петров, от името на групата Renew. – Г-н Председател, знаете ли кое е най-важното нещо, което научих през последните години, докато помагах на деца и младежи, много от които в неравностойно положение. Те могат, те имат талантите и желанието. Това, което им липсва, е възможност. Просто трябва да им се даде шанс. Те имат всички качества, за да успеят, и потенциалът и желанието им надминават нашия ритъм. За да отговорим на техния потенциал, ние трябва да осигурим не само повече, но и по-разнообразни и качествени възможности за развитие.

    “European Schools Alliance” е точно този шанс, който те заслужават. За да бъде успешен този Съюз на училищата, той не трябва просто да повтаря стари практики в нов формат. Аз призовавам Европейската комисия да отвори Съюза на училищата към широк спектър от дейности по мобилността, включително неформални форми на образование като летни лагери с фокус върху изкуство, спорт и езикови умения. Една от причините да имам възможността да бъда днес тук сред вас е, че аз съм обещал на хората в моята страна да се боря за тази идея, защото тя е онова, което може да накара децата и младежите в България, Румъния, Гърция, но също и във Франция, Германия и Испания, да могат да приемат дълбоко в себе си истината, че Европа, това сме всички ние. Има нужда да заложим гражданското образование като приоритет на Съюза на училищата, за да бъде този съюз успешен, той трябва да достигне до най уязвимите деца и младежи. От личен опит знам, че успехът зависи от способността на училищата да участват в подобни проекти. Ето защо трябва да направим всичко, за да бъдат подготвени учителите и да гарантираме, че процедурите за кандидатстване и участие са опростени и насочени към децата с най-малко възможности. Колкото повече подкрепяме учителите, толкова по-добре ще се развиват учениците.

    Що се отнася до структурата на Съюза, нека се поучим от опита на европейските университети, които от самосебеси се организират тематично. Мисля, че ще е подходящо да окуражим училищата също да сформират съюзи тематично на тема спорт, изкуство, а също и по професионални сектори. Така ще може от самото начало да стимулираме задълбочаване на техните учебни методи и по-дълбокото профилиране на учителите като специалисти. “European Schools Alliance”, Съюза на училищата една уникална възможност за нашите деца в цяла Европа. Аз призовавам както Комисията, така и всички мои колеги тук, които се вълнуват от съдбата и бъдещето на децата, да работим заедно, за да направим така, че този съюз да бъде успешен и за да могат и нашите деца един ден да покажат на техните деца, че най-хубавото място на света е Европа.

     
       

     

      Marc Jongen, im Namen der ESN-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Überall, wo die EU ihre Hände im Spiel hat, folgen Bürokratie, Zentralisierung, Gleichmacherei und regelmäßige Berichtspflichten für die Betroffenen sowie eine schleichende Infiltrierung mit den EU-Ideologien wie Klimarettung, Genderismus, diversity usw. Die unter den EU-Auflagen ächzende Wirtschaft kann ein Lied davon singen, und in der Bildungspolitik ist es nicht anders. Wir trauen daher den schönen Worten nicht, mit denen jetzt eine europäische Schulallianz etabliert werden soll.

    Mobilität von Schülern – ähnlich wie bereits von Studenten durch Erasmus+ – Fortbildung und Karrieremöglichkeiten von Lehrkräften, lebenslanges Lernen: klingt alles wunderbar, wird aber teuer erkauft, nämlich durch den Abbau der nationalen Bildungstraditionen, auch den Abbau der Qualität und den schleichenden Verlust nationaler Souveränität im Sinne der ever closer union.

    Dabei zeigt sich besonders deutlich der Grundwiderspruch dieses Ansatzes: Man feiert einerseits die europäische Vielfalt und tut zugleich alles dafür, diese zu eliminieren und überall gleiche Standards, gleiches Denken, gleiche Ergebnisse einzuführen. Und sobald die EU hier durch Subventionen einen Fuß in der Tür hat, wird sie auch jeden bestrafen, der ihre Vorgaben nicht erfüllt – davon ist mit Sicherheit auszugehen.

    Dabei sind die schulischen Ergebnisse zunehmend katastrophal. In Deutschland können nach der Grundschule ein Viertel der Kinder nicht richtig lesen und schreiben. Trotzdem dürfen immer mehr aufs Gymnasium, und 30 % erhalten dann ein Einserabitur – nicht nur der Euro inflationiert, sondern auch die Schulnoten. Die Rezepte der EU wie mehr Inklusion und sogenannte Geschlechtergerechtigkeit werden diese Misere nicht beheben. Sie verstärken nur nationale Fehlentwicklungen, die etwa das deutsche Schulsystem zu einer leistungsfeindlichen Komfortzone und einer Spielwiese für Bildungsideologen gemacht haben.

    Was wir brauchen, ist eine Rückkehr zum Leistungsprinzip und zu einer differenzierten Schulbildung, je nach den Talenten der Kinder, die ja auch sehr unterschiedlich sind. Dann wird es auch etwas mit der vielbeschworenen europäischen Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, und zwar ganz ohne EU-Zentralismus.

     
       

     

      Giusi Princi (PPE). – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, onorevoli colleghi, l’Europa deve costruire con determinazione un sistema educativo interconnesso e globale, un sistema in cui l’innovazione, la mobilità e l’inclusività siano i pilastri fondamentali.

    In questo contesto, il modello di riconoscimento automatico dei titoli sta trovando efficace applicazione nell’istruzione accademica attraverso il diploma europeo. Ma sorge spontanea una domanda: perché fermarsi all’università e non estendere l’iniziativa anche ai licei? Se l’obiettivo è realizzare lo spazio europeo dell’istruzione, è necessario partire dalle fondamenta, ovvero dalla scuola secondaria.

    Da donna di scuola, lo so bene perché conosco a perfezione queste dinamiche. Immaginiamo l’impatto trasformativo che un’iniziativa del genere potrebbe avere nelle aree periferiche delle nostre regioni.

    Penso alla mia Calabria: un’integrazione effettiva delle scuole in un sistema educativo europeo interconnesso porterebbe non solo al riconoscimento universale dei titoli ma anche alla creazione di uno standard educativo europeo, non solo una garanzia di qualità per i nostri studenti, ma un’opportunità concreta di accesso a percorsi formativi e professionali in tutti gli Stati membri.

    Semplificherebbe maggiormente la mobilità studentesca eliminando barriere burocratiche e linguistiche, rafforzando un’identità europea condivisa. L’Alleanza delle scuole europee, dunque, non deve essere solo una proposta ma un imperativo categorico per realizzare pienamente lo spazio europeo dell’istruzione.

    Attraverso la promozione di una mobilità attiva e strutturale, l’innovazione dei metodi didattici e la garanzia di un’istruzione inclusiva creerebbe una comunità educativa che non solo forma, ma prepara i giovani a essere cittadini europei consapevoli e pronti a rispondere alle sfide globali di oggi.

     
       

     

      Victor Negrescu (S&D). – Mr President, Commissioner, education is a foundation of a united, competitive and inclusive Europe. To shape the future, we must invest in education, skills, knowledge, values and mobility. The European Schools Alliance has the potential to become a game changer in achieving the European Education Area, bringing together innovation, mobility and inclusivity to create a truly borderless learning experience.

    As Vice-President of the European Parliament and a strong advocate for education, I work alongside colleagues in the EPP Intergroup on the Future of Education and Skills to push for ambitious and transformative policies supported by adequate funding. One of our key demands is to allocate at least 20 % of the next multiannual financial framework to education and skills. If we want Europe to remain a global leader, we must treat education as a strategic investment, not just another policy or a cost.

    We need a new European framework for education and skills – a comprehensive plan that ensures every child and young person, regardless of their background, has access to quality education, modern learning environments and future-proof skills. This can and must be Europe’s vision of the future.

    This means also fostering greater synergies between them and avoiding fragmentation. At the heart of this vision is a need for a real Erasmus 2.0. It should be not just a mobility programme, but a pillar for quality education and training across Europe. We must move towards a common curriculum, share learning objectives and truly European diplomas that are recognised across borders. Our students should not only gain knowledge in different European countries, but also learn about what it means to be together in Europe, strengthening their sense of belonging and shared responsibility.

    The European Schools Alliance can be a driving force behind these ambitions. By fostering collaboration between schools, educators and policymakers, we can create a system that transcends national borders, ensures fair access to opportunities and equips the next generation with the skills they need to thrive in an increasingly complex world.

    The time to act is now. The European Education Area must be more than just a concept; it must become a reality. If we speak more and more about defence, we should also speak more and more about education and working together. Investing in education means investing in a better future for our citizens.

     
       

     

      Virginie Joron (PfE). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, parler de stratégie et d’alliances, c’est aussi parler de bilan. L’éducation en Europe s’effondre. C’est le crash des écoles en France: les examens PISA de 2022 le prouvent. Les résultats s’écroulent, alors que les pays d’Asie progressent. Singapour culmine à 575 points, tandis que la France traîne à 474; c’est un écart gigantesque. L’OCDE nous dit que les enfants issus de l’immigration ont encore plus de difficultés. Cela, on s’en doutait un peu; mais, même parmi les enfants les plus favorisés, nous sommes désormais très loin des pays asiatiques en maths. Dans les écoles américaines, les plus pauvres ont de meilleurs scores en maths qu’en France.

    Voici les pays devant la France en mathématiques: Singapour, Macao, Taïwan, Hong Kong, Japon, Corée du Sud, Estonie, Suisse, Canada, Pays-Bas, Irlande, Belgique, Danemark, Pologne, Royaume-Uni, Australie, Autriche, Tchéquie, Slovénie, Finlande, Lettonie, Suède, Nouvelle-Zélande, Lituanie et Allemagne. En lecture, nous sommes très loin derrière les États-Unis.

    Un autre chiffre est effrayant: 13 % des enfants ont peur pour leur sécurité en allant à l’école, soit plus d’un million d’enfants et d’adolescents qui ont peur. Moi, j’ai envie de vous dire d’arrêter avec ces slogans creux. Votre inclusion ne s’adresse pas aux enfants handicapés, autistes ou hospitalisés; c’est pour les toilettes neutres sans urinoir et les livres LGBT obligatoires à la bibliothèque; ne pas dire «père» ou «mère», mais «parent 1» et «parent 2». Voilà les priorités de la caste de Bruxelles.

    L’exemple à suivre est pourtant simple. Regardez Singapour; c’est notre programme: rigueur académique, autorité des enseignants, priorité aux matières essentielles, fin des dérives idéologiques et soutien aux élèves en difficulté. Finalement, et c’est tragique, nous avons le résultat de cette idéologie mortifère, qui tire les écoles vers le bas.

    (L’oratrice refuse de répondre aux questions carton bleu de Sieper et Repp.)

     
       

     

      Seán Kelly (PPE). – As a former teacher, I am particularly pleased to see the European Schools Alliance being proposed by President von der Leyen. Education is the foundation of our future, and this initiative represents a crucial step in ensuring that young people across Europe have access to high-quality, innovative and inclusive learning opportunities.

    The success of the European University Alliance has demonstrated the power of cross-border collaboration in higher education. The European Schools Alliance should take inspiration from this model. The University Alliance has proven that overcoming fragmentation and enhancing cooperation leads to real benefits, such as joint degrees in research, collaboration and mobility programmes.

    At the school level, we must aim for similarly tangible outcomes, ensuring that students and teachers alike can benefit from a truly European approach to education. To be effective, the European Schools Alliance must focus on delivering measurable outcomes, much like the University Alliance has done with research, innovation and joint degree programmes.

    This is particularly important from my own country, Ireland, an island nation. Strengthening ties between our schools will help bridge the physical gap, ensuring Irish students and teachers have the same opportunities for collaboration and exchange as their counterparts across the continent. By building these connections, the European Schools Alliance will not only benefit students and teachers, but also contribute to a more unified and competitive Europe.

    Now to conclude, next Monday is our national holiday, Saint Patrick’s Day. Isn’t that right, Billy?

    Lá Fhéile Pádraig sona daoibh uilig agus caith an tseamróg.

     
       

       

    Vystúpenia na základe prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky

     
       

     

      Bogdan Rzońca (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Mamy fatalne wyniki szkolnictwa podstawowego. Mamy fatalne wyniki działalności uniwersytetów. W pierwszych 30 uniwersytetach świata jest tylko jeden uniwersytet, jedna politechnika, monachijska, z Europy, z Unii Europejskiej. Przegrywamy. Ale tak jest dlatego, że lewicowo-liberalne trendy powodują, że w przedszkolach i w szkołach przebiera się chłopców za dziewczynki i dziewczynki za chłopców. To jest pierwsze zadanie niektórych nauczycieli. Dalej przekazuje się dzieciom książki z gołymi kobietami i mężczyznami. Uczy się je po prostu hedonistycznych zachowań, do których dzieci nie dorosły, burzy się ich intelekt. Trzeba więc po prostu wrócić do normalnej psychologii rozwojowej. Wielu psychologów doskonale wie, jak uczyć dzieci. I wielu doskonałych nauczycieli wie, jak uczyć dzieci. Trzeba im tylko dać szansę, dać lepsze płace. I wara, i z daleka odsuńmy eksperymentatorów i eksperymenty od natury dziecięcej.

     
       

     

      Billy Kelleher (Renew). – Mr President, I am very excited about this European Schools Alliance, and I really do welcome it, and I hope that it is supported across the entirety of the European Union. This is not about integration. It’s about a celebration of diversity, broadening horizons and deepening understanding, learning about each other and learning from each other. And if we can get to that principle in terms of education, I think we will have done an awful lot for the generations of children to come.

    If you look at the Erasmus+ programme, it has has been really beneficial to third‑level students right across the European Union. To learn to live, to love in another country and another culture is a beautiful experience and something that stays with people for evermore.

    So I hope that this particular programme will be supported and encouraged at Member State level, facilitated by local authorities. But we need to ensure that in areas of deprivation, they are not forgotten, and that they’re as entitled to access this programme as any other child across the continent. There must be no barriers to children being able to access this programme and facilitated by the educators that support them. I commend it and support it.

     
       

     

      Lukas Sieper (NI). – Mr President, all students in Europe will hate this idea, but we need new school subjects in all of the European schools. Before I elaborate, let me educate some colleagues like Mr Jongen, who struggles to read Article 1 of the Treaty on European Union or, for example, Article 23 of the German Constitution, which in fact set the aim of ‘ever closer union’.

    But a Europe-wide school policy makes sense. What difference is there in teaching English, art, music or maths. And in the same way, all our European children need to understand these topics.

    All of our European children today need to be educated in two new subjects. The first one is digitalisation. All the possibilities and dangers of the digital realm need to be taught to them. And the second thing – and this is ever more important – is democracy. How does this Parliament work? How does the European Union work? Those are things that children need to learn all over Europe. So let’s go forward and enact these ideas.

     
       

       

    (Koniec vystúpení na základe prihlásenia sa o slovo zdvihnutím ruky)

     
       

     

      Christophe Hansen, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, the design and development of the European Schools Alliance is still in its very early days. That is why a debate like the one today is so useful, and the outcomes will feed into the design of the pilot.

    After the pilot, the success of the European Schools Alliance will depend on the next Erasmus+ programme and, of course, the future multiannual financial framework. This is why we believe we must give priority to investment in people, in pupils and their skills. We have to invest where it matters the most.

    You will be part of the debates, and we hope that the budget for the next Erasmus+ programme will match the expectations that some of you – like Mr Negrescu and Mr Petrov have mentioned – including for future European school alliances. To build a true Union of Skills, to make the European Schools Alliance a success, we need your support and we know we can count on you to make a difference.

     
       

     

      Predsedajúci . – Rozprava k tomuto bodu sa týmto skončila.

     

    11. Explanations of votes

     

      Predsedajúci . – Ďalším bodom programu sú vysvetlenia hlasovania.

     

    11.1. Social and employment aspects of restructuring processes: the need to protect jobs and workers’ rights (B10-0143/2025)



     

      Predsedajúci . – Tento bod programu je ukončený.

     

    12. Approval of the minutes of the sitting and forwarding of texts adopted

     

      Predsedajúci . – Zápisnica z tohto rokovania bude predložená na schválenie na začiatku nasledujúceho rokovania. Pokiaľ nie sú žiadne námietky, uznesenia prijaté na dnešnom rokovaní budú ihneď postúpené osobám a orgánom, ktoré sú v nich uvedené.

     

    13. Calendar of part-sessions

     

      Predsedajúci . – Nasledujúca schôdza sa uskutoční od 31. marca do 3. apríla 2025 v Štrasburgu.

     

    14. Closure of the sitting

       

    (Rokovanie sa skončilo o 15.37 h.)

     

    15. Adjournment of the session

     

      Predsedajúci . – Schôdza Európskeho parlamentu je týmto prerušená. Rokovanie sa skončilo.

     

    MIL OSI Europe News

  • MIL-OSI Global: What food did the real St Patrick eat? Less corned beef and cabbage, more oats and stinky cheese

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Regina Sexton, Food and culinary historian, University College Cork

    Every St Patrick’s day, thousands of Americans eat corned beef and cabbage as a way of connecting to Ireland. But this association sits uncomfortably with many Irish people.

    That’s because the dish, while popular in the past, has nothing to do with St Patrick himself. St Patrick (also known as Patricius or Pádraig) was born in Roman Britain in the 5th century. He is the patron saint of Ireland and in later biographies, legend and folklore, he is depicted as almost single-handedly converting the Irish to Christianity, and breaking the power of the druids.

    The entangled mix of history, myth and folklore that has been attached to the saint makes it difficult to isolate historical fact from hagiographical and folklore embellishments. So what, if anything, do the celebratory foods of today have to do with the real St Patrick? And would he have eaten any of those same foods himself?


    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.


    The real St Patrick

    The little we know about the real Patrick comes from two, probably 5th-century, short Latin texts written by the saint himself. Those are the Confessio, which is believed to be Patrick’s autobiography, and the Epistola, a letter of excommunication to the soldiers of a British king Coroticus, after they killed and enslaved some of his converts.

    A St Patrick’s Day greeting card from 1909.
    Missouri History Museum

    In these texts, food is only mentioned in the context of hunger and the miraculous appearance of pigs that are slaughtered to sustain starving travellers.

    Other important biographies of St Patrick were written in the 7th and somewhere between the 9th and 12th century. The two 7th-century Latin texts were written by churchmen, Muirchú and Tírechán. The author of the later biography, The Tripartite Life of Saint Patrick, is not known, but it was written partly in Latin and partly in Irish. These hagiographies (writing on the lives of saints) were works in legend-building with little connection to the real Patrick.

    They do, however, give us a glimpse of the food culture of early medieval Ireland, when Patrick lived. They make references to dairy produce, salmon, bread, honey and meats, including beef, goat and a “ram for a king’s feast”.

    Herb gardens are discussed alongside details of the cooking culture with mention of copper cauldrons, kitchens and cooking women. Grain and dairy foods would have most common, with white meats abundant in summer, and grain – especially oats – associated with the winter and early spring.

    It is these foods, along with cultivated cabbage and onion-type vegetables and wild greens and fruit, that most likely would have sustained Patrick.

    Delicious miracles

    Food is frequently the subject of Saint Patrick’s miracles. As a child, he is said to have turned snow into butter and curds. On his missionary work, he was said to have changed water to honey, and cheese into stone and back to cheese again. In another miracle, he turned rushes into chives to satisfy a pregnant woman’s craving.

    The bountiful fish stocks of certain rivers are also attributed to the saint’s blessing. One such example is the River Bann in Northern Ireland which was known for its salmon.

    The food in Patrick’s world had a defined Irish signature. There is an emphasis in the hagiographies on a range of fresh, cultured and preserved dairy produce and the use of byproducts such as whey-water.

    Corned beef and cabbage has become a popular St Patrick’s Day meal, but bears little connection to the real Patrick.
    Brent Hofacker/Shutterstock

    The extensive and later abandoned Irish cheese-making tradition is referenced in mention of curds and fáiscre grotha (pressed curds). The differentiation between new milk and milk may indicate a skills-based culture of working with dairy in the preparation of a family of thickened, soured and fermented milks. The associated communities, of which Patrick would have been part, probably had a taste for highly flavoured and cultured milk and cheese products.

    These foods are typical of a self-sufficient agrarian economy, producing food that was suited to Irish soil and climatic conditions including wild and managed woodland, coastline and farmland. It is this vision of an untouched Ireland that continues to inspire Irish food culture today.

    Regina Sexton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. What food did the real St Patrick eat? Less corned beef and cabbage, more oats and stinky cheese – https://theconversation.com/what-food-did-the-real-st-patrick-eat-less-corned-beef-and-cabbage-more-oats-and-stinky-cheese-251746

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Putin mulls over US-Ukrainian ceasefire proposal – but the initial signs aren’t positive

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor

    While Donald Trump’s special envoy was en route to Moscow to talk about a possible ceasefire deal with his opposite numbers in the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin enjoyed a meet-up with his old friend Alexander Lukashenko, the president of Belarus, and the atmosphere was reportedly congenial.

    According to the Guardian’s contemporaneous report, the pair even shared a macabre joke at a press conference after their meeting about Europe being “done for”. Putin hastened to clarify that when Lukashenko said if the US and Russia came to an agreement, Europe would be “done for” he had of course been enjoying a pun. Apparently, said Putin, “pipeline in Russian means also being done for, so this will be to Europe’s benefit, because they will get cheap Russian gas. So they will have a pipeline.”

    “That’s what I meant,” said Lukashenko. “Yes, that’s what I thought you did,” Putin replied. Smiles all round from the Russian media audience.

    Putin explained that while he’s technically in favour of a ceasefire, there were a few things that needed to be cleared up and that he and Donald Trump would have a phone call to do just that. Top of the list was “removing the root causes of this crisis”, which most observers are translating as Putin maintaining his demand for all four provinces Ukraine that Russian troops currently occupy and an undertaking by Kyiv never to join Nato.

    It’s unlikely to meet with the approval of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. Zelensky has said he thinks that Putin will do “everything he can to drag out the war” – and Putin’s approach appears to bear this out. This accords with what Stefan Wolff and Tetyana Malyarenko wrote in reaction to the news that the US and Ukraine were at last seeing eye to eye, at least on the need for a halt to the killing.


    Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.


    Wolff and Malyarenko, professors of international security at the University of Birmingham and National University Odesa Law Academy respectively, believe Putin will want to keep hostilities going as long as he can while still keeping in with the US president. They see Russia following a “two-pronged approach” – engaging with the White House over the ceasefire proposal while also pushing for further battlefield gains. They write:

    The peculiar set-up of the negotiations also plays into the Kremlin’s hands here. Short of direct talks between Kyiv and Moscow, Washington has to shuttle between them, trying to close gaps between their positions with a mixture of diplomacy and pressure. This has worked reasonably well with Ukraine so far, but it is far less certain that this approach will bear similar fruit with Russia.




    Read more:
    US and Ukraine sign 30-day ceasefire proposal – now the ball is in Putin’s court


    In all this shuttle diplomacy, one question that you hear more rarely is what the Ukrainian public will be prepared to accept. Over the past three years Gerard Toal of Virginia Tech University, John O’Loughlin of the University of Colorado and Kristin M. Bakke of UCL have provided us with some valuable insights based on polling of the Ukrainian public. They believe that while the majority of Ukrainians are war-weary and willing to make concessions, even ceding territory in return for peace, they are not willing to compromise their country’s political independence. They also don’t trust Putin and see the war in existential terms.

    And, contrary to what Trump might have the world believe, Zelensky remains a popular leader. In fact the latest poll finds his support up ten points on the previous survey at 67%. (Incidentally, Trump posted on his TruthSocial website recently that Zelensky’s approval rating was 4%.) They conclude:

    It will be in large part down to ordinary Ukrainians to shape what happens afterwards. An ugly peace may be accepted by a war-weary population. But if it has little local legitimacy and acceptance, peace is likely to be unsustainable in the long run.




    Read more:
    Are Ukrainians ready for ceasefire and concessions? Here’s what the polls say


    Russia, meanwhile, has weathered the conflict remarkably well, certainly better than the analysts who forecast in the summer of 2022. It that stage, when Ukraine’s counter-offensive was pushing the invaders out of occupied territory, inflicting major casualties and destroying huge amounts of equipment, some observers thought that Russia’s economy would collapse under the weight of defeat and western sanctions.

    Not so, writes Alexander Hill of the University of Calgary. Hill, a military historian, observes the ways in which the Russian war machine has adapted to conditions over the past two years, ditching the recklessness which saw it suffer such grievous losses in 2022 and using more conservative tactics coupled with smart adoption of new technology to give it an edge on the battlefield. He concludes: “While the Russian army remains a relatively blunt instrument, it is not as blunt as it was in late 2022 and early 2023.”




    Read more:
    Why Russia’s armed forces have proven resilient in the war in Ukraine


    Turning off US aid

    Of course, when the US suspended its intelligence-sharing for a few days last week it was a major boost for the Russians. Without data from US satellite coverage and other intelligence traffic, Ukraine’s defenders were left virtually deaf and blind at a crucial time. It gave Russia the space to push its advantage even further as it races to take more territory ahead of a possible peace deal.

    The state of the conflict in Ukraine, March 10 2025.
    Institute for the Study of War

    It’s a bitter lesson for Ukraine to have to learn at this stage in the conflict, write Dafydd Townley and Matthew Powell, experts in international security and strategy at the University of Portsmouth. They believe relying too heavily on one ally for so much was never going to be a good idea and has been exposed as risky since Donald Trump returned to the White House. Perhaps even more risky, given the personality involved, is Ukraine’s dependence on data from ELon Musk’s Starlink satellite system. Musk himself has boasted that: “My Starlink system is the backbone of the Ukrainian army. Their entire front line would collapse if I turned it off.”

    Egotistical self-promotion aside, Musk is probably right about this, but less so when he says there’s no alternative. Townley and Powell believe that it’s in Ukraine’s best interests to look into other satellite systems available to them and note that shares in French-owned satellite company Eutelsat, a European rival to Starlink have recently climbed by almost 400%.




    Read more:
    The US has lifted its intelligence sharing pause with Ukraine. But the damage may already be done


    Many of us who are watching this conflict closely cringed when Trump announced he would cut off military assistance to Ukraine after his (one-sided, it has to be said) shouting match with Volodymyr Zelensky at the end of February. And the announcement that the Pentagon was halting intelligence-sharing as noted above simply made matters worse.

    It felt like a spiteful move. Psychologist Simon McCarthy-Jones of Trinity College, Dublin, has written a book about spite which delves into, among other things, exhibitions of spitefulness in the public arena. It’s a fascinating read. A spiteful approach to foreign policy, he writes, is when we abandon what he calls “humanity’s superpower” – cooperation.

    Trump’s approach, as exemplified by his treatment of Zelensky and also by his baffling decision to impose tariffs even on his friends and allies, “embraces selfishness, treating international relations as a zero-sum game where there can only be one winner”.




    Read more:
    Donald Trump’s foreign policy might be driven by simple spite – here’s what to do about it


    One of the sticking points between the US and Ukraine has been the question of security guarantees in case of a ceasefire or even a longer-term peace deal. It seems increasingly far-fetched that Ukraine will be allowed to join Nato any time soon, so Nato article 5 protections, which would mean that all other member states would be obliged to come to its defence, will not be an issue.

    Trump’s vice-president, J.D. Vance, has suggested that if Ukraine allows US companies access to its mineral resources this would in itself be a security guarantee feels equally improbable. And, in any case, how valuable have US security guarantees been in the past, asks historian Ian Horwood, of York St John University. Horwood pints to the Paris Peace accords of 1973 in which the Nixon administration promised to underwrite South Vietnam’s continued security, while withdrawing US combat troops. Within two years, North Vietnamese tanks were rolling into Saigon.

    More recently the Doha agreement between the first Trump administration and the Taliban was made without involving the Afghan government and didn’t even last long enough for US and Nato troops to get out of Kabul. This sorry history will no doubt have given Zelensky food for thought.




    Read more:
    What is the value of US security guarantees? Here’s what history shows


    Ukraine’s mineral wealth

    All the while many of us have been asking what’s so special about Ukraine’s minerals. We’ve long known about the country as the “bread basket of Europe”, but what is not as widely understood is Ukraine’s mineral wealth. Geologist Munira Raji of the University of Plymouth, says Ukraine has deposits containing 22 of 34 critical minerals identified by the European Union as essential for energy security. This, she says, positions Ukraine among the world’s most resource-rich nations.

    Much of this cornucopia of geological booty is contained in what is known as the “Ukrainian shield” which sits underneath much of the country, writes Raji. Here she walks us through the riches beneath Ukraine’s soil and why America is so keen to get its hands on them.




    Read more:
    What’s so special about Ukraine’s minerals? A geologist explains



    World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.


    ref. Putin mulls over US-Ukrainian ceasefire proposal – but the initial signs aren’t positive – https://theconversation.com/putin-mulls-over-us-ukrainian-ceasefire-proposal-but-the-initial-signs-arent-positive-252225

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Opus: clunky satire about an evil celebrity cult has plenty to say – it just doesn’t know how to say it

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel O’Brien, Lecturer, Department of Literature Film and Theatre Studies, University of Essex

    Opus, the film debut of former GQ editor-turned-director Mark Anthony Green has been described as a horror-musical. And while this new hybrid-genre film clearly has something to say, what that is remains frustratingly unclear.

    Produced by independent film company A24, often a hallmark of quality, the film follows Ariel Ecton (Ayo Edebiri), a young writer striving to make her mark in entertainment journalism. While it gestures toward themes of celebrity culture and the toxicity of extreme fandom, the film ultimately feels tangled in a jumble of unfocused ideas and derivative references to other – arguably stronger – works.

    Despite talent and determination, Ariel struggles with her boss Stan (Murray Bartlett) who redeploys her ideas to other senior colleagues and is often too self-absorbed to nurture her career development.

    The very watchable Edebiri eases into centre stage after catapulting to global fame in the TV show The Bear (2022-present), for which she has received a Golden Globe and an Emmy.


    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.


    In contrast to the achievements of The Bear’s Sydney, her character Ariel’s success as a writer seems out of reach in Opus. In an early scene, she articulates her frustrations to a friend who responds by pointing to Ariel’s ordinariness and comfortable upbringing. Apparently, her lack of disadvantage is precisely what’s holding her back, leaving her “too middle” to be noticed, promoted or considered.

    Here we have the first clue that Ariel will be destined to experience trauma which will come by way of the “final girl” horror trope (a reference to the last woman standing) by the end of the film.

    To Ariel’s surprise, she is selected to accompany Stan to a remote desert compound with other journalists to cover the story of reclusive pop legend Alfred Moretti (John Malkovich, returning to the big screen for the first time in five years).

    Coincidentally, Moretti is about to make a return to public life after a 30-year hiatus and reset his reputation with a new album. Malkovich seems to relish the role, cranking up his flamboyant eccentricity in what feels like a mash-up of Ziggy Stardust and Frank-N-Furter.

    Moretti’s ostentatiousness in contrast to Ariel’s subdued “middle-ness”, seems to be one of several binaries that the film explores, with an epilogue that discusses the left and right sides of the brain, and the division between destruction and creativity.

    The theme of creativeness is a driving force in the film, with Moretti’s and Ariel’s respective musical and literary artistry used as fuel in the narrative, from a director with a similar writing background to Ariel.

    Unfortunately, the film often feels more derivative than creative because of the numerous sources it takes as its inspiration. Moretti’s compound turns out, of course, to be a cult where Ariel, Stan and other invited guests will find something even more sinister than Malkovich’s rhythmic hip thrusts.

    The rules of the compound mean that all guests must hand over their phones and electronic devices, so that in typical horror fashion, the characters are completely cut off from the outside world.

    The knowing nod to this horror cliché is perhaps done for comedic value, but becomes another of the film’s weak spots, in the sense that it never really commits to any one thing. It’s not quite a comedy, a horror or a musical but something that is more fragmentary, borrowing elements of each.

    It’s as if the director has assembled his favourite genres, but only in notes that have not yet been successfully put together. For example, there is an explicit recreation of a very distinct scene from Takashi Miike’s harrowing Audition (1999), while other parts are heavily influenced by Ari Aster’s disturbing Midsommar, (2019) a folk horror film also made by A24.

    There are also nods to Mark Mylod’s The Menu (2022) in which an eccentric celebrity chef creates a meal for a group of sycophant critics with lethal consequences. As a dark comedy-horror, The Menu succeeds in satirising the absurdity of reality cooking shows, where competitiveness and TV chefs are caricatured.

    However, Green’s attempt at satire in Opus doesn’t really work. That’s not to imply that the film hasn’t got something to say – Green appears to be interested in the relationship between celebrity culture and fandom. However, that idea doesn’t feel fully fleshed out, particularly when other films like Brandon Cronenberg’s dangerously underrated Antiviral (2012) was addressing this idea with visceral originality more than a decade ago.

    Moretti’s songs have a deliberately dated sound which seems to be inspired by Michael Jackson, particularly around the time of his 2001 Invincible tour and album, which both failed to return the singer to his “king of pop” status.
    Again, films such as Coralie Fargeat’s The Substance (2024) tackle the idea of the ageing celebrity with more clarity and originality, even while clearly being inspired by other movies.

    Consequently, Opus has quite a 1990s feel to it, perhaps aided by the casting of Malkovich and Juliette Lewis, both huge stars during that decade. The film also gets a bit meta, nodding to Spike Jonze’s Being John Malkovich (1999) through a similar use of star cameos and a puppet show – both interesting elements, but again which feel disjointed in Opus.

    I think Green has stronger films in him to come but, although his work raises interesting points, there are too many ideas here for a convincing film to properly materialise. I was unclear on a number of things including Moretti’s motives and his contempt for critics, including the positive ones.

    Opus perhaps bites off more than it can chew, leaving me feeling that Green’s directorial opus is still to come.

    Daniel O’Brien does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Opus: clunky satire about an evil celebrity cult has plenty to say – it just doesn’t know how to say it – https://theconversation.com/opus-clunky-satire-about-an-evil-celebrity-cult-has-plenty-to-say-it-just-doesnt-know-how-to-say-it-252118

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI USA News: Remarks by President Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte Before Bilateral Meeting

    Source: The White House

    class=”has-text-align-center”>Oval Office

    12:33 P.M. EDT

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Hello, everybody.  It’s great to be with a friend of mine, who was prime minister of the Netherlands, so I got to know him very well.  We had a great relationship always.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Absolutely.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Mark Rutte.  Now he’s secretary general of NATO and doing a fantastic job.  Everybody — every report I’ve gotten is what a great job he did.  And I’m not at all surprised when I hear it.  We had to support him, and we supported him as soon as I heard the name.  

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Thank you.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  But he was a fantastic prime minister, and he’s doing a fantastic job. An even tougher job.  Which is tougher: being the prime minister of Netherlands or?

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  This job is quite tough.  Yeah.  (Laughter.)

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  I would think this is a little tougher.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  But — but Dutch politics is also brutal.  So — (laughter).

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.  But this is pretty tough. 

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  But you’re doing good. 

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Thank you.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  We’re going to be discussing a lot of things.  Obviously, we’ll be discussing what’s happening with respect to Ukraine and Russia. 

    At this moment, we have people talking in Russia.  We have representatives over there — Steve Witkoff and others.  And they’re in very serious discussions.  As you know, Ukraine has agreed, subject to this — what’s happening today — to a complete ceasefire, and we hope Russia will do the same. 

    Thousands of people are being killed — young people, usually, mostly young people.  We were just talking about it.  Thousands of young people are being killed a week, and we want to see that stop.  And they’re not Americans, and they’re not from the Netherlands for the most part.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  No.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  They’re not from — they’re from Russia and they’re from Ukraine, but they’re people.  And I think everybody feels the same way.  We want it to stop.

    It’s also a tremendous cost to the United States and to other countries.  And it’s something that would have never happened if I were president, and it makes me very angry to see that it did happen.  But it happened, and we have to stop it.  

    And Mark has done some really good work over the last week.  We’ve been working together, and he’s done some really good work.  So, I’m very happy about that. 

    We’ll also be talking about trade and various other things, and I think we’ll have a very, very strong day.  We’re going to have lunch afterwards.  That’ll go.  And then we’ll see you all later. 

    But, Mark, would you like to say something?

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.  First of all, thank you so much, Mr. President, dear Donald, again for hosting me and — but also for taking time in Florida a couple of weeks after you —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Right.  That’s right.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  — you were reelected. 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  That’s right.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  And, of course, our phone call a couple of weeks ago.  And I must say, Trump 45 — you basically — you originated the fact that in Europe we are now spending, when you take it to aggregate, $700 billion more on defense —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  — than when you came in office in 2016 — in 2017.

    But that was Trump 45.  But when look at Trump 47 —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Going to be hard to top.  (Laughter.)

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  — what happened the last couple of weeks is really staggering.  The Europeans committing to a package of $800 billion defense spending.  The Germans now —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  — potentially up to half a trillion extra in defense spending.  And then, of course, you have Keir Starmer here, the British prime minister, and others all committing to much higher defense spending.  

    They’re not there.  We need to do more.  But I really want to work together with you in a run-up to The Hague summit to make sure that we will have a NATO which is really reinvigorated under your leadership.  And we are getting there.  

    We also discussed defense production, because we need to produce more weaponry.  We are not doing enough — not in the U.S., not in Europe.  And we are lagging behind when you compare to the Russians and the Chinese.  And you have a huge defense industrial base, Europeans buying mo- — four times more here than the other — the other way around, which is good, because you have a strong defense industry. 

    But we need to do more there to make sure that we ramp up production and kill the red tape.  So, I would love to work with you on that. 

    And finally, Ukraine — you broke the deadlock.  As you said, all the killing, the young people dying, cities getting destroyed.  The fact that you did that, that you started the dialogue with the Russians and the successful talks in Saudi Arabia now with the Ukrainians — I really want to commend you for this.

    So, well, The Hague is my hometown.  I’d love to host you there in the summer and work together to make sure that —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  We’ll do that.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  — that will be a splash, a real success, projecting American power on the world stage. 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  What Mark is saying is: When I first went to NATO, my first meeting, I noticed that very few people were paying.  And if they were, they weren’t paying their fair share.  There were only seven countries that were paying what they were supposed to be paying, which was —

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  It’s even worse, there were three.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  That’s even worse.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  It could be even worse. 

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  But there were just very few countries that were paying.  And even the paying, it was at 2 percent, which is too low.  It should be higher.  It should be quite a bit higher.

    But you had Poland and I remember Poland was actually paying a little bit more than they were supposed to, which I was very impressed with.  And they’ve been actually terrific and some of the others.  But most of them weren’t paying or they were paying very little.  

    And I didn’t think it was appropriate to bring it up there, but I said, “It’s going to be brought up at my next meeting.”  And my next meeting — you know, the first meeting, you want to give them a little break.  The second meeting, it began.

    And I was able to raise —

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  You did.  (Laughs.)

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  — hundreds of billions of dollars.  I just said, “We’re not going to be involved with you if you’re not going to pay.”  And the money started pouring in.  And NATO became much stronger because of my actions and working along with a lot of people, including Mark.

    But they would not pay for other presidents.  I don’t think other presidents even knew that they weren’t paid.  I asked, first question, “Has everybody paid up?”  And literally, I mean, they showed — they told me seven.  You could be right.  It could be three.  But — that makes it even worse — but they just weren’t paying. 

    And I said, “No, I won’t protect if you’re not paying.  If you’re delinquent or if the money isn’t paid, why would we do that?”

    And as soon as I said that, got a little hit from the press, because they said, “Oh, gee, that’s not very nice.”  But if you said the other, nobody would have paid.  And the money started coming in by the billions.  

    And, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars flowed into NATO, and NATO became strong.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  And you remember that.  And your predecessor, who I thought was a very good man actually.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Absolutely.  Jens Stoltenberg.  He sends his best greetings.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.  He was terrific.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Stoltenberg, secretary general.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Great man.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  And he made the statement that when Trump came in, the money started coming in like we never saw before.  Hundreds of billions — it was actually probably close to $600 billion came in.  And NATO became strong from that standpoint.

    And now, we have to use it wisely.  And we have to get this war over with.  And you’ll be back to a normal — much more normal life. 

    And maybe we’re close.  We’re getting words that things are going okay in Russia, and it doesn’t mean anything until we hear what the final outcome is. 

    But they have very serious discussions going on right now with President Putin and others.  And hopefully, they all want to end this nightmare.  It’s a nightmare.  It’s a horrible thing, when you look.  I get pictures every week.  They give me the pictures of the battlefield, which I almost don’t want to see.  It’s so horrible to see.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  It’s so terrible.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Young people laying — arms and legs and heads laying all over the field.  It’s the most terrible thing that you’ll ever see. 

    And it’s got to stop.  These are young people with mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers and friends, and it’s got to stop. 

    So, we hopefully are going to be in a good position sometime today to have a good idea.  We’ll have — we know where we are with Ukraine, and we are getting good signals outside of Russia as to where we are with Russia, and hopefully they’ll do the right thing.  

    It’s a really — humanity — we’re talking about humanity.  We’re not talking about the money.  But then you add the money to it, and, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars is being spent and, really, wasted so unnecessarily.  It should have never happened.  

    So, it’s an honor to have you here.  They picked a great gentleman.  I’ll tell you, that was — I was so happy to hear, because you had somebody — Stoltenberg was really good.  And you have somebody that’s going to do an incredible job.  And I was so much in favor of you, you have no idea. 

    They had another person that I did not like.  (Laughter.)  I was not happy.  And I think I kept him from — you know what I’m talking about.  I said, “This is the right man to do it.”  And he really did.  He was a great prime minister of the Netherlands.  He did a great job.  And that’s what he’s doing right now. 

    So, thank you, everybody, for being here.  And very great honor to have you.  And we even have some of our great energy people here today, right?  We have the governor, and we have Chris.  You know Chris.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.  Absolutely.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  He’s supposed to be the most talented man in the world of energy, according to the governor.  (Laughter.)  So, I don’t know if he’s right.

    And we have — General, you’ve been fantastic.  Thank you very much. 

    And we have a lot of good people that won’t be so much involved with this, but they wanted to see what was happening.  It’s become a little bit of a show — (laughter) — but they wanted to see what was happening.  And I think a lot of good things are happening.  

    So, with that, if anybody would have a question.

    (Cross-talk.) 

    Q    Mr. President, o- — on Russia. 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Please, go ahead.

    Q    Vlad- —

         Q    Sorry.  Sorry, Mary.  Steve Witkoff’s trip to Moscow, you spoke about it.  What sort of agreement do you hope he comes away from there with?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, we’d like to see a ceasefire from Russia.  And we have, you know, not been working in the dark.  We’ve been discussing with Ukraine land and pieces of land that would be kept and lost and all of the other elements of a final agreement.  

    There’s a power plant involved — you know, a very big power plant involved.  Who’s going to get the power plant and who’s going to get this and that.  And so, you know, it’s not an easy process.

    But phase one is the ceasefire.  A lot of the individual subjects have been discussed, though.  You know, we’ve been discussing concepts of land, because you don’t want to waste time with the ceasefire if it’s not going to mean anything.  So, we’re saying, “Look, this is what you can get.  This is what you can’t get.” 

    They discussed NATO and being in NATO, and everybody knows what the answer to that is.  They’ve known that answer for 40 years, in all fairness. 

    So, a lot of the details of a final agreement have actually been discussed.  Now we’re going to see whether or not Russia is there, and if they’re not, it’ll be a very disappointing moment for the world. 

    Yeah. 

    Q    And Vladimir Putin just said he is open to a ceasefire, but he does still have some concerns.  He suggested that you two should speak directly.  Do you have plans to speak to him soon?  If so, when?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, I would.  Yeah, sure.

    Q    And are you confident you can get this across the finish line?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Sure.  He did say that today.  It was a very promising statement, because other people are saying different things, and you don’t know if they have anything to really — if they have any meaning, or I don’t know.  I think some of them were making statements.  I don’t think they have anything to do with it.

    No, he put out a very promising statement, but it wasn’t complete.  And, yeah, I’d love to meet with him or talk to him, but we have to get it over with fast.  You know, every day people are being killed.  It’s not like — as we sit here, two people will be killed.  Think of it.  Two people are going to be killed during this little period of time. 

         Thousands of people a week are dying, so we really don’t have very much time.  We have to make this fast.  It shouldn’t be very complicated.

    (Cross-talk.) 

    Yes.

    Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  A representative of Canada, the finance minister, are in town and will meet members of your administration during the day. 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Sure.  Yeah.

    Q    Any chances that you will ban on the tariffs on aluminum and — and the — the ones that are planned for April 2nd?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  No.

    Q    You are not going to change your mind? 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  No, I’m not.  Look, we’ve been ripped off for years, and we’re not going to be ripped off anymore.  No, I’m not going to bend at all on aluminum or steel or cars.  We’re not going to bend.  We’ve been ripped off as a country for many, many years.  We’ve been subjected to costs that we shouldn’t be subjected to. 

    In the case of Canada, we’re spending $200 billion a year to subsidize Canada.  I love Canada.  I love the people of Canada. I have many friends in Canada.  “The Great One,” Wayne Gretzky, the great.  Hey, how good is Wayne Gretzky?  He’s the Great One.  

    But we have — I know many people from Canada that are good friends of mine.  But, you know, the United States can’t subsidize a country for $200 billion a year.  We don’t need their cars.  We don’t need their energy.  We don’t need their lumber.  We don’t need anything that they give. 

    We do it because we want to be helpful, but it comes a point when you just can’t do that.  You have to run your own country.  And to be honest with you, Canada only works as a state.  We don’t need anything they have.  As a state, it would be one of the great states anywhere.  

    This would be the most incredible country visually.  If you look at a map, they drew an artificial line right through it — between Canada and the U.S.  Just a straight artificial line.  Somebody did it a long time ago — many, many decades ago — and makes no sense.  

    It’s so perfect as a great and cherished state, keeping “O Canada,” the national anthem.  I love it.  I think it’s great.  Keep it, but it’ll be for the state.  One of our greatest states.  Maybe our greatest state.  

    But why should we subsidize another country for $200 billion?  It costs us $200 billion a year.  And again, we don’t need their lumber.  We don’t need their energy.  We have more than they do.  We don’t need anything.  We don’t need their cars.  I’d much rather make the cars here.  

    And there’s not a thing that we need.  Now, there’ll be a little disruption, but it won’t be very long.  But they need us.  We really don’t need them.  And we have to do this.  I’m sorry, we have to do this.  

    Yes. 

    Q    Mr. President — 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah. 

    Q    — you have made it very clear that NATO needs to step up, although great progress —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.

    Q    — has been made in your first mandate.  How do you envision this new transatlantic —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Are you talking about NATO stepping up?

    Q    Yes.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, NATO is stepping up through this man. This man is a man that only knows how to step up.  And we have the same goal in mind: We want the war ended.  And he’s doing his job.  He only knows how to do a good job.  That’s one thing.  That’s why I fought for him to get that job —

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Thank you so much.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  — because they had some other candidates that I’ll tell you would not have done a very good job.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  I need this part of the — of the movie for my family.  (Laughter.)

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  That’s right.  That’s right.  We’ll get you a clip. 

         SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.  Exactly.  (Laughs.)

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  We’re going to get him a clip of that — of that little last essay.  But the rest of the statements he doesn’t care about.

    Q    Sir, how does this new transatlantic cooperation — how do you envision it?  What is it going to look like?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, we have — that’s one thing.  I mean, you know, we’re the other side of the ocean, and they’re right there.  And yet, we’re in for $350 billion because of Biden, and they’re in for $100 billion.  So, it’s a big difference, and it’s unfair.  

    And I said, “You have to equalize.”  They should equalize.  They should have — it should have never happened, where Biden just gave his money away. 

    Now, as you know, we have an agreement with Ukraine on the rare earths and other things, and that’ll get us

    something back — a lot back.  It’ll get us our money back.  We’re not doing it for that, though.  We’re doing — I’m just doing this to get the war stopped.  I’m doing it, really, to save lives.

    But, at the same time, we were treated very unfairly, as we always are by every country.  And we’re in for very substantially more than the European nations are in for, and that shouldn’t be.

    You know, they’re much more affected by it than we are, because we do have an ocean in between. 

    But I don’t know.  I think good things are going to happen.  I really do.  I think good things are going to happen. 

    I do say — we were talking before, and Mark was very nice.  He said, “If you wouldn’t get involved, there would be” — you’d just be going on.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  This thing would have gone on for a long time.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Breaking a deadlock.  It was crucial.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah, we broke a deadlock. 

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah. 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  We did break a deadlock.  I hope it’s meaningful. 

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah. 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yes, did you have one?

    Q    Mr. President — 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah, please.

    Q    Yes, sir.  Thank you, Mr. President.  Amanda Head with Just the News.  On the southern border, you’ve got DHS and ICE, who are reporting that there was a little bit of fudging of numbers during the Biden administration —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.

    Q    — on both the catch and the release side with respect to reporting the number of illegals coming into the country who were released.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  They cheated on the numbers.  They were — the numbers were — I love that question.

    Q    Right.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Who are you with?

    Q    Just the News.  Amanda Head.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Very nice.  That’s good.  That’s good.

    Q    Do you know how many of those are criminal illegal aliens? 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Many of them.

    Q    And Biden is out of office —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:   Yeah.

    Q    — Alejandro Mayorkas.  Who gets held accountable?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  No, Biden fudged the numbers.  The numbers were totally fake, and he gave fake numbers.  I knew they were fake.  Everybody knew they were fake, but now it came out.  And terrible what — what they did.  That administration was a horror show for this country.

    Q    Can you hold anyone accountable?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, I don’t know.  They gave phony numbers, and phony numbers are a very bad thing to give.  But I’m not sure about that.  I don’t know how it would play.  We want to get it straightened out.  

    We have — we’re after many, many bad people that were let into our country.  And Kristi Noem and my friend Homan — how good is Tom Homan doing, right?  And they’re after them.  And they — I mean, you see: They’re taking them out in record numbers.  Gang members, gang leaders, drug dealers. 

    This is a problem the Netherlands does not have.  The Netherlands never had this problem.  If you’d like to take —

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  We have a few drug- — drug dealers, I’m afraid.  (Laughter.)

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  I could deliver some people.  I could deliver some nice people to the Netherlands if you’d like.  (Laughter.)

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  I’m not sure.  (Laughs.)

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  No, what he did to this country, letting 21 million people flow through an open border — many of those people were hard criminals from prisons and jails, from mental institutions, and I always say “insane asylums,” because they were seriously deranged.  And they’re here from not South America, from all over the world.  From South America, but from all over the world.  And it’s so sad. 

    You’d say, “Why would anybody do this?  Why?”

    Yeah, go ahead.

    Q    And — and one more.  There’s some new internal Democrat polling that doesn’t look great for Democrats, but it also has 54 percent unfavorability for Republicans in swing states and battlegrounds for the midterms.  Do you consider those voters cap- — capturable for — for Republicans?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah, well, we did — you know, I won every swing state, as you know, by a lot, and I won the popular vote by a lot, and we won the counties.  If you look at the counties and district plan, we had 2,725, and they had 501.  That’s a real — that’s why the map is all red.  So, we had a great thing.

    Yeah, I think winning from the Democrats — I saw — if you looked the other night, I made a speech, and I introduced two young ladies who were killed.  Two killed.  Viciously, violently killed.  Young.  Unbelievable.  Both outstanding people.  They were killed by illegal aliens.  And the Democrats wouldn’t get up and applaud.  The mothers were, I mean, inconsolable.  They were crying, and everybody was crying.  The Democrats sat there with stone faces.  They didn’t clap, they didn’t stand, they didn’t do anything.  

    We had a young man with very serious cancer, wanted to — his dream is to be with the police department someday, and he was introduced. 

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  That was very touching.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  They didn’t even clap.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah, I saw it.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  I mean, they were disgusting.  Frankly, they were disgusting.  There’s something wrong with them.  They’re deranged.  They’re deranged.  Like Jack Smith, they’re deranged people. 

    And I never saw anything like it.  I’m standing up, and I introduce the mother and the parents of these two young girls that were just recently, essentially, killed.  Violently killed.  And the Democrats are like this.  It’s so sad.  

    And I saw this morning where — one of them is pretty well-known — one is arguing, fighting like crazy over men being able to play in women’s sports.  I said, “Yeah, I thought that was tried.”  I thought that was about a 95 — I think it’s a 95 percent issue.  

    But, in a way, I want them to keep doing it, because I don’t think they can win a race.  I mean — and I tell the Republicans, I said, “Don’t bring that subject up, because there’s no election right now.  But about a week before the election, bring it up, because you can’t lose.”  

    And everything is “transgender this, transgender that.”  You know, they have bad politics. 

    But one thing: They stick together.  You know?

    I wish — and the Republicans stick together, mostly, but we have a couple that are grandstanders.  You know, you always have grandstanders in life.

    But the Democrats, they don’t seem — they have grandstanders, but when it comes to a vote, they do stick together, right?

    VICE PRESIDENT VANCE:  They get in line.  Yes, sir.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  So.

    Q    It seems like they’ll stick together on the shutdown.  Will that hurt Democrats going into midterms?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, if they do a shutdown and, ultimately, that might lead to very, very high taxes, because we’re talking about a shutdown.  We’re talking about getting to work immediately on the greatest tax bill ever passed.  That was the one we did.  It’s a renewal, and it’s an addition to it.  And we’re going to cut people’s taxes. 

    And if we don’t open, the Democrats are stopping all of these good things that we’re providing.  We’re providing the greatest package of benefits that this country has ever provided. 

    The biggest part of that’s going to be tax cuts for the middle class and for businesses, small businesses, employers — people that hire people and jobs. 

    And if it’s shut down, it’s only going to be — if there’s a shutdown, it’s only because of the Democrats, and they would really be taking away a lot from our country and from the people of our country.

    Q    Mr. President, on — on tariffs.  You made clear you’re not backing down from this, but many American small-business owners say they are concerned that these tariffs are going to hurt them.  What’s your message to them?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  They’re going to be so much richer than they are right now.

    And we have many — yesterday, General Motors was in.  They want to invest $60 billion.  The people from Facebook were in yesterday.  They’re going to invest $60 billion by the end of the year.  Other people are talking about numbers.  

    Apple, as you know, a few days ago, announced $500 billion investment.  They’re going to build their plants in the United States, which, as you know, almost all of their plants are in China.  Now they’re building in the United States.

    Look, the reason is two things.  Number one, the election. November 5th.  And the other thing is tariffs.  I think, probably, in that order. 

    But Tim Cook came in and he announced 500 — think of it, $500 billion, not million.  Five hundred million is a lot, when you think about it, right?  But —

    VICE PRESIDENT VANCE:  Yes, sir.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  I would have been happy with $500 million.  But it’s $500 billion investment by Apple in the United States, and that’s because of the election result and it’s because of the tariffs and the tax incentives too.  You know, tariffs and tax incentives.  And I’ve never seen anything like it. 

    We have plants going up now in Indiana.  We have plants going up in Michigan.  A lot of plants going to be planned from — I’m trying to steer them to Michigan, because Michigan got so badly beaten by, you know, what happened with Europe.

    You know, if you look at Europe. Take a look at the EU.  We’re not allowed to sell cars there.  It’s prohibitive because of their policies, and also their nonmonetary tariffs.  They put obstacles in your way that you can do nothing about.  

    But if you take a look at what happens — so, we sell no cars to Europe — I mean, virtually no cars — and they sell millions of cars to us.  They don’t take our agriculture.  We take their agriculture. It’s like a one-way street with them.

    The European Union is very, very nasty. 

    They sue our companies.  Apple was forced to pay $16 billion on a case that — very much like my cases that I won.  They shouldn’t have been even cases.  But we felt they had no case, and they ended up having an extremely favorable judge and decision.  

    But they’re suing Google, they’re suing Facebook, they’re suing all of these companies, and they’re taking billions of dollars out of American companies, many more than the ones I just mentioned.  And I guess they’re using it to run Europe or something.  I don’t know what they’re using it for. 

    But they treat us very badly.  China obviously treats this very badly.  Almost everybody does.  And I blame past presidents, to be honest. 

    Because when I was president, I — we received, so far, about $700 billion from China, over the years, on the tariffs that I put in.  No other president got 10 cents from China.  And that was only beginning.  Except for COVID, it would have — I would have been able to finish the process.  But we had to fight the COVID thing, and we did really well with it.  But we had to fight.

    And then we had actually — as you remember, Mark, we actually handed over the stock market.  It was higher than just previous to COVID coming in, which was sort of a miracle, frankly.  We did a good job.

    But the tariffs are very important.  And I think the psychology — there’s great spirit.  When Mark came in, he said, “Congratulations.  There’s a whole new spirit.  There’s a whole new light over this country, and really over the world” —

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  — because you have somebody that — a whole group of people, really, because I talk about this whole group, that we know what we’re doing.  And a lot of great things are happening.

    But I’ve never seen investment like this.  Trillions of dollars is being invested in the United States now that would have never — our country could have failed.  Another four years of this, what happened in the last four years, our country would have been a crime-ridden mess.  

    And I don’t know if you noticed — a little thing, they call it, but it’s not a little thing if you don’t have — if you like eggs and you don’t have a lot of money — eggs have gone down 25 percent in the last couple of weeks.  We inherited that problem: eggs.  

    Groceries have gone down a little bit.  Energy has gone down. 

    Do you want to speak to that for a second, Governor?  Would you just say a couple of words, you and Chris, about energy, what’s happened?

    SECRETARY BURGUM:  Well, happy to, but I think that — Chris and I just came from CERAWeek, which is the largest conference in the world.  So, global leaders, people from the EU, officials from all the energy-producing countries all there.  And all the global nationals, all the U.S.  The — the spirit of that group is through the roof, because now they realize that in the United States, that President Trump’s policies are pro — pro developing more energy, as opposed to we’re trying to shut down energy.  

    And that pro-growth, pro-business, pro- — pro-energy approach is giving people the optimism.  So, then the markets are reacting to that, and energy prices on the futures market are going to go down because people know we’re — we’re not going to be killing off the energy we need for prosperity in all of our countries, but also for peace, because people have used energy to fuel these wars that President Trump is working so hard to end.  And — and we — we know that energy — high energy prices were driving the inflation that he talked about. 

    So, it accomplishes two goals for us — which is prosperity for the world, peace for the world — when we have smart energy policies.  And — and President Trump has brought common sense back to how we think about energy.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  And it’s brought down now $65 a barrel,  I saw this morning.  That’s phenomenal news, and that’s going to bring — that’s what brought it up.  The energy went — they took our beautiful energy policies and they just messed them up.  And then they went immediately back to them, because — but by that time, they lost it.  They lost that bronco, as the expression goes.

    Chris, do you have something to say?

    SECRETARY WRIGHT:  I think Doug said it well, but you just can’t overstate how important the return of common sense, the return of knowledge about energy and pro-American consumers, pro investment in our country.  I think, globally, that was welcomed.  It means capital flows.  It means more sobriety and lower energy prices, more economic opportunity for Americans. 

    So, yeah, it was elated atmosphere at a global energy conference. 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, we’re working on one project, and it should be very easy.  It’s a pipeline going through a small section of New York.  New York has held it up for years, actually.  For years they’ve wanted to do it. For years and years.  And it will reduce — 

    The most expensive energy, almost, in the world is in New England, because they have no way of getting it there because it’s been held up by New York.  And the whole of New England and Connecticut and New York — the energy prices are through the roof.  And this one pipeline will save per family, $2,500 just on heating and another $2,500 on everything else.  So, the energy — by just a simple pipeline going through an area that wants it — an area that’s not a rich area; it’s actually a very poor area — would create jobs and everything else.

    And it’s going to be way underground.  Nobody’s going to see it.  Once they fill it up, nobody’s going to see it.  Nobody’s going to know it’s there. 

    And families in New York and Connecticut and New England are going to save $5,000 a family.  Think of that.  Because, right now, they have the highest energy prices maybe in the world, they say.  New England is a disaster.  

    So, we’re working on that.  In fact, the governor is coming in — governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, who’s a very nice woman.  She’s coming in tomorrow morning at 9 o’clock to meet me on that and other things — not only that, but other things.

    So, I hope we don’t have to use the extraordinary powers of the federal government to get it done, but if we have to, we will.  But I don’t think we’ll have to. 

    I can tell you, Connecticut wants it and all of New England wants it.  And who wouldn’t want it?  And it’s also jobs on top of everything else.  So, that’s going to be very exciting.  So, we’re meeting with the governor tomorrow morning. 

    (Cross-talk.)

    Yeah. 

    Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Greenland.  What is your vision for the potential annexation of Greenland and getting them, potentially, to —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.

    Q    — to statehood?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, I think it’ll happen.  And I’m just thinking — I didn’t give it much thought before, but I’m sitting with a man that could be very instrumental.  You know, Mark, we need that for international security — not just security, international.  We have a lot of our favorite players, you know, cruising around the coast, and we have to be careful.  And we’ll be talking to you.

    And it’s a very appropriate — really, a very appropriate question. 

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  It’s an —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Thank you very much.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  — an issue in the high north, so the Arctic.  So, what you did —

    So, when it comes to Greenland, yes or no, joining the U.S., I would leave that outside, for me, this discussion, because I don’t want to drag NATO in that. 

    But when it comes to the high north in the Arctic, you are totally right.  The Chinese and — are using these routes.  We know that the Russians already arming.  We know we have a lack of icebreakers.  So, the fact that the seven — outside of Russia, there are seven Arctic countries — working together on this, under U.S. leadership — it’s very important to make sure that that region, that that a part of the world stays safe.  And — and we know things are changing there, and we have to be there.

    Q    Well, they just had an election there the other day.  I mean, do you see a referendum, a plebiscite where the people of Greenland would be in a position to decide if they want to become part of the United States? 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah, it was a good election for us, as you know.  It was not a referendum.  It wouldn’t be called that.  It was an individual election.  But the person that did the best is a very good person, as far as we’re concerned.  And so, we’ll be talking about it.  And it’s very important. 

    Mark mentioned the word “icebreaker.”  So, we’re in the process of ordering 48 icebreakers, and Canada wants to know if they could use them.  I said, “Well, you know, you got to pay for them.”  Think of it.  Canada.  We pay for their military.  You know, Canada pays very little for their military, because they think we’re going to protect them, but — even with the icebreakers. 

    So, we’re going to order 48, and Canada wants to be part of the deal.  I say, “You got to get your own icebreakers.  I mean, if you’re a state, you can be part of the deal, but if you’re a separate country, you’ve got to get your own icebreakers.”  

    Russia, as you know, has about 40 of them, and we have 1 big icebreaker.  But that whole area is becoming very important and for a lot of reasons.  The routes are, you know, very direct to Asia, to Russia, and you have ships all over the place.  And we have to have protection.  So, we’re going to have to make a deal on that.

    And Denmark is not able to do that.  You know, Denmark is very far away and really has nothing to do. 

    What happens?  A boat landed there 200 years ago or something, and they say they have rights to it.  I don’t know if that’s true.  I’m not — I don’t think it is, actually.

    But we’ve been dealing with Denmark.  We’ve been dealing with Greenland.  And we have to do it.  We really need it for national security.  I think that’s why NATO might have to get involved in a way, because we really need Greenland for national security.  It’s very important.  

    You know, we have a couple of bases on Greenland already, and we have quite a few soldiers that — maybe you’ll see more and more soldiers go there.  I don’t know.

    What do you think about that, Pete? Don’t answer that, Pete.  (Laughter.)  Don’t answer that question.  

    But we have bases, and we have quite a few soldiers on Greenland already. 

    Q    Mr. President, some people question your commitment to NATO.  Will everything — anything change?

    Your com- — your commitment to NATO, will anything change?  Same amount of money?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, I think they made —

    Q    Same number of troops?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  — a great step by putting Mark in charge.  I think, to me, that’s a great step, because he and I have seen eye to eye on everything for a long time.  We’ve been doing this a long time now.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Nine years now.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  And so, that’s a great step. 

    You have to keep NATO strong.  You have to keep it relevant. 

    But the biggest thing we have to worry about right now is what’s going on right now.  I think the rest is going to take care of itself. 

    I don’t see this having — this was a fluke.  This was something that if we had a competent president, it would not have happened.  The man was grossly incompetent.  All you have to do is look in — take a look at — he signs by autopen.

    Who was signing all this stuff by autopen?  Who would think you signed important documents by autopen?  You know, these are major documents you’re signing.  You’re proud to sign them.  You have your signature on something — in 300 years, they say, “Oh, look.”  Can you imagine?  Everything was signed by autopen — almost everything.  Nobody has ever heard of such a thing. 

    Q    Do you —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  So —

    Q    Sorry. 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Should have never happened. 

    Q    You’re speaking tomorrow at the Justice Department about law and order.  Could you tell us a little bit about that? 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah, we’re going to be with the Justice Department.  We have a great Justice Department.  Pam Bondi is so fantastic.  And Todd Blanche and Emil — you got to know him a little bit; he was acting for a little while — and some other people are incredible in the Justice Department. 

    And I consider the FBI to be a part of it, in a sense, and Kash is going to be fantastic, and all the people he’s — Dan Bongino, I love that.  I mean, I love that.  I think Dan is great. 

    I think we have unbelievable people.  And all I’m going to do is set out my vision.  It’s going to be their vision, really, but it’s my ideas.  And basically, we don’t want to have crime in the streets.  We don’t want to have people pushed into subways and killed, and then the — the person that did the pushing ends up in a 15-year trial and gets off scot-free.  We want to have justice, and we want to have safety in our cities, as well as our communities. 

    And we’ll be talking about immigration.  We’ll be talking about a lot of things.  Just the complete gamut.  So, I look forward to that.  That will be tomorrow at the Justice Department. 

    Q    Mr. President, you are a man of peace.  You’ve said it several times and made it very clear.  A man of peace dealing with belligerent people. 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.

    Q    And I’m thinking we saw you handled Zelenskyy in this very own room.  What is your leverage on Putin?  Are you thinking sanctions?  What if he refuses to —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, I do have leverage, but I don’t want to talk about leverage now, because right now we’re talking to him.  And based on the statements he made today, they were pretty positive, I think, so I don’t want to talk about that.  

    I hope Russia is going to make the deal too.  And I think once that deal happens, you’re never going to be in a process.  I don’t think they’re going back to shooting again.  I really believe if we get a peace treaty, a ceasefire treaty, I think that leads to peace.  That’s going to really lead to a —

    I don’t think anyone wants to go back.  They’ve been doing this for a long time, and it’s vicious and violent.  And I think if President Putin agrees and does a ceasefire, I think we’re going to be in very good shape to get it done.  We want to get it over with.  That’s why — it was very important what I instructed everybody, including Steve, what we’re looking for: to discuss concepts of land, concepts of —

    MR. WALTZ:  Yes, sir.   

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  — of power plants because it’s complicated.  You know, you have a whole — you’re sort of creating the edge of a country. 

    The sad part is that country, if they didn’t — if this didn’t happen — and it wouldn’t have happened — I don’t know if they would have to give anything back.  I guess Crimea? 

    You know, I said it last time, Crimea was given by Obama, Biden gave them the whole thing, and Bush gave them Georgia.  And Trump didn’t give them anything. 

    I gave them — you know what I gave them?  I gave them Javelins.  And the Javelins were very effective, as you know.  I gave them nothing —

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  2019. 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  And then also, if you take a look, I was the one that stopped the pipeline going into Europe.  It was totally stopped: Nord Stream 2.  Nobody ever heard of Nord Stream 2 before I came along.

    But I got along very well with President Putin.  I got along with most of them.  I get along great with President Xi.  I got along great with Kim Jong Un.  I got along great with all of them.  And we had no wars.  We had no problems.  We wiped out ISIS in record time. General “Razin” Kane.  And he wiped them out. 

    And he is going to be our new chief, right?  He’s going to be —

    SECRETARY HEGSETH:  Yes, sir.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  — the head of Joint Chiefs of Staff, and he’s a highly respected man.  He’s going to be great. 

    Pete is going to be fantastic.  I have no doubt about it.  We have a great team.  A really great team. 

    Yeah, please.  Go ahead, please.

    Q    Mr. President, some of our allies have said that they’re worried that they could be the next to be attacked by Russia.  You’ve spoken directly with the Russian president.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.

    Q    Do you think those fears are justified?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  No, I don’t.  I think when this gets done, it’s done.  They’re going to all want to go home and rest.  I don’t see it happening.  Nope, I don’t see that happening.  And we’ll make sure it doesn’t happen.  Not going to happen.  But we’ll make sure it doesn’t happen. 

    Yeah, go ahead, please. 

    Q    Leaders from Russia and Iran are heading to Beijing tomorrow to discuss nuclear programs.  What do you hope to get out of that?

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Well, maybe they’re going to talk about non-nuclear programs.  Maybe they’re going to be talking about the de-escalation of nuclear weapons, because, you know, I was talking about that with President Putin very strongly.  And we could have done something.  Had that election not been rigged, we would have had something.  I think I would have made a deal with Putin on de-escalation, denuclearization, as they say.  But we would have de-escalated nuclear weapons, because the power of nuclear weapons is so great and so devastating. 

    And, right now, Russia and us have by far the most, but China will catch us within five years.  China doesn’t have — but they’re in the process of building.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP: And they build.  And within four or five years, they’ll probably have the same.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  And, by the way, you — this is a Republican tradition.  Ronald Reagan, when he negotiated with Gorbachev —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Right. 

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  — in the 1980s —

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  That’s right.

    SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  — about bringing down the number of nuclear weapons is what you have been doing your first term.  And it is important. 

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  It would be a great achievement if we could bring down the number.  We have so many weapons, and the power is so great. 

    And we — number one, you don’t need them to that extent.  And then we’d have to get others, because, as you know, in a smaller way — Kim Jong Un has a lot of nuclear weapons, by the way — a lot — and others do also.  You have India.  You have Pakistan.  You have others that have them, and we’d get them involved. 

    But we started off with Russia and us.  We have, by far — actually, by far, the most.  And we were going to denuclearize, and that was going to happen. 

    And then we were going to China.  And I spoke to China.  I spoke to President Xi about it.  And he really liked the idea.  You know, he’d like not to spend trillions of dollars building weapons that, hopefully, he’s never going to have to use.  And — because they are very expensive also.  So, that would have been great. 

    Okay, one or two more. 

    (Cross-talk.)

    Yeah, go ahead.  

    Q    Thank you.  We are looking at an impending government shutdown Friday at midnight.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah. 

    Q    Democrats, for 30 years straight, have said, if there’s a shutdown, bad things happen.  Do you anticipate direct negotiations yourself with conference leader of the Democrats, Chuck Schumer?

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah, if they need me, I’m there a hundred percent.  It’s — right now, it’s two or three people.  If it shuts down, it’s not the Republicans’ fault.  You know, we passed a bill where we had an incredible Republican vote.  We only had one negative vote, a grandstander.  You know, one grandstander.  There’s always a grandstander in the lot. 

         But it was amazing.  People were amazed that the Republicans were able to vote in unison like that so strongly. 

         If there’s a shutdown, even the Democrats admit it will be their fault.  And I’m hearing a lot of Democrats are going to vote for it, and I hope they do.  This is an extension. 

         But ultimately, we want to vote for one big, beautiful bill where we put the taxes in, we put everything in.  We’re going to have big tax cuts.  We’re going to have tremendous incentives for companies coming into our country and employing lots of people.  

         It’ll be — I called it, in a rare moment, one big, beautiful bill.  That’s what I like.  And it seems to be that’s where they’re heading.  And we’ll have to take care of something to do with Los Angeles. 

         A place called Los Angeles almost burned to the ground.  By the way, I broke into Los Angeles.  Can you believe it?  I had to break in. 

         SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah?

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  I invaded Los Angeles.  And we opened up the water, and the water is now flowing down.  They have so much water, they don’t know what to do.  They were sending it out to the Pacific for environmental reasons.  Okay?  Can you believe it?  And in the meantime, they lost 25,000 houses.  They lost — and nobody’s ever seen anything like it. 

         But we have the water.  I’d love to show you a picture.  You’ve seen the picture.  The water is flowing through the half pipes.  You know, we have the big half pipes that go down.  Used to — 25 years ago, they used to have plenty of water, but they turned it off for — again, for environmental reasons.  Well, I turned it on for environmental reasons and also fire reasons. 

         And I’ve been asking them to do that during my first term.  I said, “Do it.”  I didn’t think anything like — could happen like this, but they didn’t have enough water. 

         Now the farmers are going to have water for their land, and the water is in there. 

         But I actually had to break in.  We broke in to do it because we had people that were afraid to give water.

         SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  They were — in particular, they were trying to protect a certain little fish.  And I say, “How do you protect a fish if you don’t have water?”  They didn’t have any water, so they’re protecting a fish, and that didn’t work out too well, by the way.  

         So, they have a lot of water going down throughout California, all coming out from the Pacific Northwest, even some from Canada. 

         Thank you, Canada, very much.  I appreciate it. 

         Next thing you know, they’ll want to turn the water off.  They’ll want to charge us for the water.

         But it comes up from the Pacific Northwest, and it’s a beautiful thing to see.  I mean, it is brimming with water. 

         Now, if they would have had that done, you wouldn’t have had the damage, because the fire would have been put out.  The fire hydrants would have been loaded.  The sprinklers in people’s living rooms and bedrooms would have been loaded up with the — they had no water.  The government makes them put sprinklers in.  They had no water in the sprinklers because they had no water. 

         So, the water is flowing, and we’re going to have to give a lot of money to Los Angeles to help them, and the Democrats are going to want to do that.  So, that’s the one thing different. 

         And I frankly, I think that makes it a lot easier.  But one of the big thing is we have the big, beautiful bill.  We got to get that done.  And that will put our country in a position like it’s never been in. 

         It’s a reduction of taxes.  It’s tremendous incentives for companies to come from all over the world into our country.  It’s great environmentally, but it’s not this environmental scam that we went through — that we all went through.  It provides for everything.  

         It’s a big, beautiful bill, and I hope we can get it approved.  And that will be next. 

         But in the meantime, we have the continuing resolution, and the Republicans have approved it, and now the Democrats have to approve it.  And I hope they will. 

         And I think a lot of them — I can tell you, they want to.  I’ve spoken to some of them.  They really want to.  Their leadership may not want them to.  And if it closes, it’s purely on the Democrats. 

         All right, one more.

         Q    On Korea, sir.  We’ve seen tension increasing in the Peninsula.  You’ve talked about Kim Jong Un.  Do you have any plans of getting — of reestablishing the relationship you had during the first meeting?

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.  Well, I would.  I had a great relationship with Kim Jong Un, North Korea.  If I wasn’t elected, if Hillary got in, you would have had a nuclear war with North Korea.  He expected it.  He expected it.  And they said, “Oh, thousands of people.”  No, millions of people would have been killed.  

         But I got in.  We went to Singapore.  We met.  We went to — to Vietnam.  We met.  We got along really good.  We had a very good relationship.  And we still do.  We still do.  You don’t have that threat that you had.

         Q    You have talked with — have you talked to him?  

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  I mean, look, when I was running the first time, it looked like there was going to be a war with North Korea.  You know that better than anyone.

         SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Tensions were high.  Yes.  Yeah.

         PRESIDENT TRUMP.  Yeah.  And it started off —

         SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  And everybody was — was startled that you —

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah.

         SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  — invited him for talks. 

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Right.

         SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  But you did, and it —

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  It started out very rough.  

         SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.  Yeah.

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  And he wouldn’t meet with Obama.  Wouldn’t take his calls.  I said, “How many times did you call?” They called a lot.  He wouldn’t take their call.  He told me, “I wouldn’t take his call.” 

         But with me, it did start off rough, if you remember.  Very rough, actually.  Very nasty.  And — 

         SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  That was in Singapore, the first one?

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah, but then — no, before that.  Then it stopped.  The rhetoric was extremely tough.  It was a little bit —

         SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  You had it in your speech at the U.N. I remember.  (Laughs.)

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Yeah, that’s right.  It was a little bit dangerous.  

         And then we met.  They asked for a meeting, and then we met.  And the meeting caused the Olympics, which was in South Korea, to become a tremendous success.  Nobody was buying tickets for the Olympics because they didn’t want to be nuked.  

         And I met, and not only did the Olympics become successful, but North Korea participated in the Olympics.

         SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.  His sister visited.

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  It was an amazing thing.

         SECRETARY GENERAL RUTTE:  Yeah.

         PRESIDENT TRUMP:  And that was something that was an achievement of the Trump administration. Great achievement.  And so, I have a great relationship with Kim Jong Un.  And we’ll see what happens. 

         But certainly, he’s a nuclear power.

         Okay?  Thank you very much, everybody.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.

                                      END            1:20 P.M. EDT

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: March 14th, 2025 Heinrich Discusses Need to Bring Hardrock Mining Law into the 21st Century & Re-Shore Critical Minerals Supply Chain

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for New Mexico Martin Heinrich
    VIDEO
    WASHINGTON — At a hearing this week, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich, Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, discussed the need for legislation to bring public land mining into the 21st century and re-shore the critical minerals supply chain.

    VIDEO: U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich, Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, delivers opening remarks at a hearing on March 12, 2025.
    At the hearing, Heinrich underscored how the Mining Law that governs metal mining on most public lands in the West was written more than 150 years ago.
    Heinrich stated, “Our hardrock mining law remains stuck in the 19th Century, right when we need to build the energy infrastructure of the 21st Century. Updating the 1872 Mining Law could bring public land mining into the 21st century and provide the minerals we need for the energy technologies of today.”
    Additionally, Heinrich pointed out the urgent need to re-shore our nation’s supply chain away from dependence on foreign adversaries by investing in the entire lifecycle of minerals.
    “This includes increasing our domestic mineral processing capacity, continuing the onshoring of manufacturing through the CHIPS and Science Act, and investing in recycling technologies so that we can reuse the minerals we already have,” Heinrich said.
    Heinrich continued, “The fact that we export copper and rare earth minerals to China in the form of electronic waste is one of the more infuriating realities of our current system. We should be capturing and reusing the minerals present within our borders in devices, vehicles, batteries and machinery rather than paying to ship them overseas.”
    Heinrich also emphasized the importance of securing minerals critical for new energy technologies while also protecting our water, air, and public lands.
    “I believe it’s possible to open new mines while giving local communities a say in whether a particular location on public land is an appropriate place for a mine, just like we do with oil and gas. And I am confident we can find a way to finally fund the cleanup of legacy mine pollution that contaminates streams and rivers across the West,” Heinrich said.
    Heinrich’s full opening remarks are below:
    I’m glad we’re holding this hearing today on a set of issues that are critically important to people and communities across the nation, but especially in the West.
    However, before turning to the topic of today’s hearing, it’s impossible to talk about any natural resource issue today without talking about the incredible damage being done to the workforce that manages those lands and resources for the American people.
    The illegal firings of probationary staff—rumored to be just the beginning of staffing reductions—is already reducing access to public lands, with locked gates and closed visitor centers at parks across the country.
    What’s more, as we’re considering legislation intended to increase mineral production on public lands, this administration is cutting staff and the land agencies that process those same permits.
    With a voluntary resignation offer that encouraged some of the most experienced, highest performing staff at these agencies to leave public service, along with illegal firings of staff who were recently promoted because of their high performance, this administration is crippling the very public land agencies that evaluate plans for new mines. 
    Anyone one who was hoping for “government efficiency” out of this administration can see what we’re getting is government dysfunction instead.
    Now to today’s hearing.
    Modern technologies involve a lot of raw materials—and as our scientists and engineers find new and cheaper ways to generate and store energy, the types and quantities of minerals used in energy technologies will only continue to grow.
    Responsible domestic mining and processing can be part of the solution—but we can’t get there with outdated laws that don’t reflect the nation’s needs and priorities today.
    The law that governs metal mining on most public lands in the West was written in 1872—more than 150 years ago.
    Yellowstone had been a national park for barely two months when the Mining Law was signed, and New Mexico would still be a territory for another 40 years. 
    We’ve learned a lot since 1872:
    How to manage public land for public benefit;
    How to conserve habitat for sustainable fish and wildlife populations;
    How to protect our drinking and irrigation water from heavy metals pollution;  and
    How to ensure a fair return for the commercial development of resources that belong to the American people.
    And yet our hardrock mining law remains stuck in the 19th Century, right when we need to build the energy infrastructure of the 21st Century.
    Updating the 1872 Mining Law could bring public land mining into the 21st century and provide the minerals we need for the energy technologies of today.
    But we’re here today to talk about more than mining, because mining alone won’t solve our supply chain dependence on adversaries unless we also invest in the entire lifecycle of minerals.
    This includes increasing our domestic mineral processing capacity, continuing the onshoring of manufacturing through the CHIPS and Science Act, and investing in recycling technologies so that we can reuse the minerals we already have.
    The fact that we export copper and rare earth minerals to China in the form of electronic waste is one of the more infuriating realities of our current system.
    We should be capturing and reusing the minerals present within our borders in devices, vehicles, batteries and machinery rather than paying to ship them overseas.
    I firmly believe we can find ways to secure the minerals we need for new energy technologies while also protecting our water, air, and public lands.
    I believe it’s possible to open new mines while giving local communities a say in whether a particular location on public land is an appropriate place for a mine, just like we do with oil and gas.
    And I am confident we can find a way to finally fund the cleanup of legacy mine pollution that contaminates streams and rivers across the West.
    I hope that today’s hearing can be a step toward those goals.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Shapiro Administration Stock Trout in Pennsylvania Waterways, Prepare Camgrounds Ahead of Opening Day of Trout Season

    Source: US State of Pennsylvania

    March 14, 2025Mifflinburg, PA

    Shapiro Administration Stock Trout in Pennsylvania Waterways, Prepare Camgrounds Ahead of Opening Day of Trout Season

    Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) Secretary Cindy Adams Dunn and Deputy Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) Laurel Anders, visited R.B. Winter State Park in Union County to stock trout and highlight the amazing fishing opportunities available in the Commonwealth.

    Through a partnership with PFBC, the American Sportfishing Association, and DCNR, the public can borrow fishing rods, reels, and an equipped tackle box to try fishing while at the certain parks.

    “Being outdoors is good for your health, and a day spent fishing also creates memories with family and friends. We want those benefits to be available to all,” Secretary Dunn said. “Pennsylvania has endless opportunities to experience the great outdoors and offer a chance to reconnect with nature. That’s exactly what this new partnership is about: discovering a new skill, revisiting a childhood hobby and enjoying our beautiful state parks.”

    Speakers Include:
    RB Winter State Park Manager Mike Crowley
    DCNR Secretary Cindy Adams Dunn
    PFBC Deputy Executive Director Laurel Anders
    Derek Eberly, director of the Governor’s Advisory Council for Hunting, Fishing, and Conservation
    Waterways Conservation Officer Jake Bennett
    Director of the Bureau of Hatcheries Brian Niewinski

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Unlocking the future of manufacturing with AI-powered digital thread

    Source: Microsoft

    Headline: Unlocking the future of manufacturing with AI-powered digital thread

    Imagine you are the quality control manager at a large electronics manufacturer. You have received reports of a serious, recurring component issue for a newly released product, which unfortunately has led to a recall. Historically, the only solution would be to issue a full recall, which has significant financial, operational, and reputational consequences. However, as part of an industrial transformation strategy, your organization has implemented a digital thread framework to provide comprehensive visibility into your organization’s data. In a few simple clicks, you can now trace the entire production history of the defective product—from design to final assembly. The digital thread helps you to quickly identify a fault in a specific batch of components sourced from a single supplier. Armed with these insights, you can determine the exact scope of the affected products, work with the supplier to remedy the situation, and initiate an extremely precise, targeted recall. This swift, data-driven response mitigates customer inconvenience, and helps preserve the brand reputation of your company.

    Read the PTC whitepaper “How AI Agents Are Accelerating Digital Transformation in Industry”

    Over the last decade, this end-to-end view, has been the promise of digital threads in the industrial space, a holy grail of data touchpoints that provide a real time view of the entire lifecycle of a product or a specific process, from design all the way to end of life. This has largely out of reach for most industrial companies for two key reasons:

    1. The data problem: Fragmented, siloed, and uncontextualized mountains of data across a heterogenous stack of technologies and modalities, that require prohibitive investments in data science techniques to be able to leverage for a specific use case, with little scalability.
    2. Return on investment (ROI): Traditionally, it has been difficult to prove ROI for digital thread initiatives, partly due to the challenges presented by the data problem, and partly because of the complexity to action on insights, from cultural resistance to skills gaps, to mention a few factors.

    Microsoft, alongside partners like PTC, believe we are at the pivotal moment where digital threads are becoming an attainable reality for industrial customers due to two key innovations. First, the rise of unified data foundations that make data usable by securely sourcing it from systems like customer relationship management (CRM), product lifecycle management (PLM), enterprise resource planning (ERP) and manufacturing execution system (MES), and automating the contextualization aligned to any given standard or custom data model.

    Secondly, the rise of generative AI, specifically, AI agents that reason using this unified data foundation and provide insights or take actions—unlocking thousands of use cases across the manufacturing value chain.

    The role of AI agents

    AI agents are sophisticated software systems designed to automate complex analyses, support decision-making, and manage various processes. They are productivity enablers who can effectively incorporate humans in the loop through the use of multi-modality. These agents are designed to pursue complex goals with a high level of autonomy and predictability, taking goal-directed actions with minimal human oversight, making contextual decisions, and dynamically adjusting plans based on changing conditions. AI agents can assist in various business processes, such as optimizing workflows, retrieving information, and automating repetitive tasks. They can operate independently, dynamically plan, orchestrate other agents, learn, and escalate tasks when necessary, however, AI agents are only as good as the data used to train the models that power them, and the current landscape of AI agents in the industrial space is domain specific, so these agents are confined to exclusively operate within the constraints of a single data domain, for example a CRM agent or an MES agent.

    A leading example of domain specific agent is PTC’s Codebeamer Copilot. The Codebeamer Copilot supports software development process for complex physical products, like software-defined vehicles. Codebeamer Copilot leverages the Codebeamer data graph, for a connected and comprehensive view into the product development process. From requirements management to testing to release, the Copilot provides rapid insight into key areas of application lifecycle management (ALM). The result is automated requirements handling, enhanced quality control, and boosted productivity due to drastically reducing the time it takes for engineers to write and validate requirements.

    Application Lifecycle management is just the beginning. The AI-powered digital thread provides agents with the combined knowledge of the entire manufacturing data estate, with multiple domains: removing their previous limitations confining them to one function.

    Real-world applications of AI-powered digital threads

    The era of AI and digital threads has arrived, and it’s delivering real value for the world’s leading manufacturers today.

    Schaeffler

    A manufacturer of precision mobility components faced a need to modernize data management, as its data previously took days to decode. Their goal was clear: find a scalable solution to uncover factory insights faster. An agent was implemented to allow frontline workers to immediately uncover detailed information when faced with unexpected downtime. This allows operators to get the line running again faster, reducing costly delays in production.

    Bridgestone

    The world’s largest tire and rubber company leverages manufacturing data solutions in Microsoft Fabric to accelerate the productivity of their frontline workforce. As a private preview customer, in collaboration with a Microsoft partner, the company uses digital thread and AI technology to address key production challenges, like yield loss. The query system solution enables frontline workers, with various levels of experience, to easily interact with their factory data, and efficiently uncover insights to improve yield, and enhance quality.

    Toyota O-Beya

    Toyota is leveraging AI agents to harness the collective wisdom of its engineers and accelerate innovation. At its headquarters in Toyota City, the company has developed a system named “O-Beya,” which means “big room” in Japanese. This system consists of generative AI agents that store and share internal expertise, enabling the rapid development of new vehicle models. The O-Beya system currently includes nine AI agents, such as the Vibration Agent and Fuel Consumption Agent, which collaborate to provide comprehensive answers to engineering queries. This initiative is particularly crucial as many senior engineers are retiring, and the AI agents help preserve and transfer their knowledge to the next generation. Built on Microsoft Azure OpenAI Service, the O-Beya system enhances efficiency and reduces development time.

    The road ahead

    The journey to fully realizing the potential of AI-powered digital threads involves phased implementation. Starting with identifying the right use cases aligned to business goals, where AI agents can play a role. Secondly, identify if the right data is available and in the right standards for usability. Lastly, quickly proving value by implementing a set of initial use cases with a minimum viable digital thread and measuring and socializing its results. Achieving the AI-powered digital thread with the Microsoft Cloud for Manufacturing capabilities:

    • Azure adaptive cloud approach to source data from the edge, while supporting application modernization following cloud patterns.
    • Partner applications as systems of records, like PTC Windchill.
    • Microsoft Fabric as the unified data platform, and Manufacturing Data Solution in Fabric as the data transformation and enrichment service for manufacturing operations.
    • Microsoft first party manufacturing agents, like Factory Operations Agent in Azure AI Foundry, to unlock high-value factory use cases.
    • Microsoft AI platforms like Azure AI Foundry and Microsoft Copilot Studio to support development and orchestration of custom AI agents.
    • Partner applications with agentic AI capabilities embedded, for example PTC ServiceMax AI.

    Learn more

    Microsoft Cloud for Manufacturing

    Manufacture a sustainable future

    MIL OSI Economics

  • MIL-OSI Canada: G7 Foreign Ministers’ Declaration on Maritime Security and Prosperity

    Source: Government of Canada News

    March 14, 2025 – Charlevoix, Québec – Global Affairs Canada

    1. We, the Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America, and the High Representative of the European Union, reaffirm the G7’s steadfast commitment to contribute towards a free, open, and secure maritime domain based on the rule of law that strengthens international security, fosters economic prosperity, and ensures the sustainable use of marine resources.

    2. Maritime security and prosperity are fundamental to global stability, economic resilience, and the well-being of all nations, and the conservation and sustainable use of ocean ecosystems is essential to all life on Earth. Over 80% of global trade is transported by sea, and 97% of global data flows through submarine cables. Disruptions to maritime routes pose a direct threat to international food security, critical minerals, energy security, global supply chains, and economic stability. We express deep concern over the growing risks to maritime security, including strategic contestation, threats to freedom of navigation and overflight, and illicit shipping activities. State behaviour in these areas has increased the risk of conflict and environmental damage, and imperils all nations’ prosperity and living standards, especially for the world’s poorest. 

    3. We recognize the role of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as the legal framework for governing all activities in the oceans and the seas.

    4. We recall the G7 Statements on Maritime Security adopted in Lübeck (2015) and Hiroshima (2016). We welcome related work presently underway through other G7 ministerial tracks and working groups, on a range of issues including securing undersea cable networks and combating abandoned fishing gear. We welcome, as well, G7 work relating to transnational organized crime and terrorism that touches on the maritime domain, including in relation to piracy and armed robbery at sea, trafficking in persons, and strengthening the maritime law enforcement capabilities of coastal states. We acknowledge the importance of regional maritime security frameworks, to support coastal states to address collectively threats to their maritime security. We welcome existing initiatives, such as the G7++ Friends of the Gulf of Guinea (G7++ FoGG, that Canada chairs this year), which has been the primary forum for dialogue among G7 members and partners on maritime security in the Gulf of Guinea.

    Emerging Threat on Safe Seas and Freedom of Navigation and Overflight

    5. Enhancing Stability: We underscore the importance of freedom of navigation and overflight and other internationally lawful uses of the high seas and the exclusive economic zones as well as to the related rights and freedoms in other maritime zones, including the rights of innocent passage, transit passage and archipelagic sea lanes passage, as provided for under international law. We share a growing concern at recent, unjustifiable efforts to restrict such freedom and to expand jurisdiction through use of force and other forms of coercion, including across the Taiwan Strait, and the South China Sea, the Red Sea, and the Black Sea. We condemn China’s illicit, provocative, coercive and dangerous actions that seek unilaterally to alter the status quo in such a way as to risk undermining the stability of regions, including through land reclamations, and building of outposts, as well as their use for military purpose. In areas pending final delimitation, we underline the importance of coastal states refraining from unilateral actions that cause permanent physical change to the marine environment insofar as such actions jeopardize or hamper the reaching of the final agreement, as well as the importance of making every effort to enter into provisional arrangements of a practical nature, in those areas. We condemn, as well, dangerous vessel maneuvers, the indiscriminate attacks against commercial vessels and other maritime actions that undermine maritime order based on the rule of law and international law. We reiterate that the award rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal on 12 July 2016 is a significant milestone, which is legally binding upon the parties to those proceedings and a useful basis for peacefully resolving disputes between the parties. We reaffirm that our basic policies on Taiwan remain unchanged and emphasize the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait as indispensable to international security and prosperity. We welcome the resumption of exports from Ukraine’s Black Sea ports. Freedom of navigation for commercial shipping in the Black Sea must be upheld.

    6. Attempts to Change the Status Quo by Force: We oppose unilateral attempts to change the status quo, in particular by force or coercion including in the East and South China Seas. We undertake to implement means through which to track systematically and report on attempts to change the status quo by force and by the establishment of new geographical facts, including through coercive and dangerous actions on the oceans and seas that might threaten regional and international peace and security.

    7. Protecting Critical Maritime and Undersea Infrastructure: We are seized of the fact that vital energy and telecommunications infrastructure under the oceans and seas connects our economies and is vital to our prosperity. We recall the G7 Joint Statement on Cable Connectivity for Secure and Resilient Digital Communications Networks (2024) and the New York Joint Statement on the Security and Resilience of Undersea Cables in a Globally Digitalized World (2024). We share a growing concern that undersea communications cables, subsea interconnectors and other critical undersea infrastructure have been subject to critical damage through sabotage, poor seamanship or irresponsible behaviour which have resulted in potential internet or energy disruption in affected regions, delays in global data transmission, or compromised sensitive communications. We will enhance our cooperation with industry to mitigate risks, reduce bottlenecks to operational tasks while strengthening repair capacities in order to improve the overall resilience of critical undersea and maritime infrastructure. In this respect, we welcome the EU Action Plan on Cable Security adopted in February 2025 by the European Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

    8. Maritime Crime: Maritime crime, including piracy, armed robbery at sea, maritime arms trafficking and sanctions evasion, human trafficking, illegal drug trafficking and Illegal, Unreported, Unregulated (IUU) fishing, continues to impede maritime security, freedom of navigation, and our economy and prosperity. We have been working together to tackle these maritime crimes, but maritime illegal activities have extended into new areas, to become an urgent issue to be addressed. We welcome the G7 Action Plan to combat migrant smuggling adopted under Italy’s 2024 G7 Presidency.

    9. Protecting Freedom of Trade: In the past year, indiscriminate Houthi attacks in the Red Sea have endangered maritime security of vessels and their crews, disturbed international trade, and exposed neighboring countries to environmental hazards. Enabled by Iran’s military, financial, and intelligence support, these illegal attacks have also contributed to increased tension in the Middle East and Yemen, with severe repercussions on the intra-Yemeni peace process. The vessel “Galaxy Leader” seized by the Houthis must be released immediately. We appreciate the efforts of all those countries that have engaged to ensure freedom of navigation in the Red Sea, protecting crucial shipping lanes and helping to restore regular flows of trade through the Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian and Pacific Oceans. In this regard, we commend the efforts of EU’s maritime operation “Aspides” and U.S.-led operation “Prosperity Guardian”.

    Safe Shipping and Supply Chain Security

    10. Curtailing Unsafe and Illicit Shipping Practices: The rise of unsafe and illicit shipping practices, including fraudulent registration and registries, poses a significant threat to global trade and environmental sustainability.  We are concerned that unsafe and illicit shipping imposes heavy costs on industry, governments and citizens. Russia’s ability to earn revenue has been sustained through its extensive effort to circumvent the G7+ oil price cap policy through its shadow fleet of often older, underinsured, and poorly maintained ships that routinely disable their automatic identification systems or engage in “spoofing” to avoid detection and circumvent international safety, environmental, and liability rules and standards. North Korea continues to pursue its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes and evade sanctions, particularly through its illicit maritime activities, including prohibited ship-to-ship transfers of petroleum and other UN-banned commodities. Through G7 coordination, we have exposed North Korea uses of “dark” vessels – those that engage in illicit activity – to circumvent United Nations Security Council mandated sanctions. Russia and North Korea are strengthening their economic relations including through maritime routes, such as the reported transfer of petroleum products from Russia to North Korea. Unregulated, “dark” vessels undertake IUU fishing, destroying marine habitats and depleting fish stocks, with negative impacts for biodiversity and food security. Unregulated, inadequately insured “dark” vessels also pose a high risk of maritime accidents, including in fragile ecosystems such as the Arctic and Antarctic. We commit to strengthening our coordination, amongst the G7 and with other partners, to prevent the use of unregistered or fraudulently registered, uninsured and substandard vessels engaged in sanctions evasion, arms transfers, illegal fishing and illicit trade. We encourage relevant International Organizations to improve maritime domain awareness by expanding satellite-based vessel tracking and establishing comprehensive data records of the movement of individual ships and of ship-to-ship transfers, as a means of identifying and tracking illicit maritime activities. We are also committed to capacity building of the countries in the region in law enforcement and Maritime Domain Awareness.

    11. Shadow Fleet Task Force: We invite members of the Nordic-Baltic 8 (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden), and possibly others, to join participating G7 members in a Shadow Fleet Task Force to enhance monitoring and detection and to otherwise constrain the use of shadow fleets engaged in illegal, unsafe or environmentally perilous activities, building on the work of others active in this area. The Task Force will constitute a response by the participating States to the call by the International Maritime Organization in its Resolution A.1192(33) of 6 December 2023 for Members States and all relevant stakeholders to promote actions to prevent illegal operations in the maritime sector by shadow fleets and their flag states, including illegal operations for the purposes of circumventing sanctions, evading compliance with safety or environmental regulations, avoiding insurance costs, or engaging in other illegal activities.

    12. Enhancing Maritime Supply Chain Resilience and Energy and Food Security: Maritime supply chains will continue to underpin the global economy, but these face a variety of threats, both present and future, stemming from both geopolitical tensions and environmental factors.  Maritime disruptions raise consumer costs, increase transit times, and can reduce demand in importing countries, which in turn means lower revenues and diminished competitiveness for producers in exporting countries. Such vulnerabilities in maritime transport can undermine energy and food security, particularly for developing nations reliant on stable shipping routes, including Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs). We welcome maritime initiatives involving and supported by G7 partners intended to promote energy and food security, such as the Grain from Ukraine scheme, and the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific. We invite cooperation with the African Union (pursuant to Africa’s Integrated Maritime Strategy 2050) and other relevant International Organizations to identify best practices for enhancing maritime supply chain resilience and for safeguarding energy and food security, including in times of geopolitical crisis. 

    13. Promoting Safe and Resilient Ports and Strategic Waterways: Port ownership and operational control matter to national security, as foreign control or influence over critical port infrastructure can create vulnerabilities in trade, in defence and security, and in economic stability. Port resilience is also crucial to economic stability and global trade and yet ports face growing risks from environmental degradation, extreme weather events and geopolitical conflicts. Strengthening port security and modernizing infrastructure are essential to maintaining safe and efficient maritime trade. Ensuring that the ownership and management of strategic waterways and key maritime choke points are not vulnerable to undue influence by potential adversaries is also essential to national security. We underscore the importance of scrutiny of ownership structures and port management and resilience within our own national jurisdictions, including with regard to Information and Communications Technology (ICT) systems, to ensure that adversaries do not gain leverage over supply chains, military operations, or the flow of strategic resources. We will work with partners and with relevant International Organizations to encourage robust cybersecurity standards for port ICT infrastructure, to increase resilience against malicious cyber incidents on maritime logistical networks, to reduce monopolistic power over key supply chain nodes, to promote secure and transparent port ownership, to limit unsolicited or undue foreign influence over critical infrastructures and strategic waterways, and to otherwise encourage greater focus on such potential vulnerabilities.

    14. Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) at sea poses a significant hazard to the marine environment, to the safety of fishermen and other users of the maritime space, and to various marine economic activities. We commit to enhancing diplomatic efforts and to exchanging best practices among national authorities, relevant international and regional organizations, and relevant industry sectors to accelerate the clean-up of UXO from the seas and ocean.

    Sustainable Stewardship of Maritime Resources

    15. Strengthen Enforcement Against IUU Fishing: IUU fishing is a major contributor to declining fish stocks and to marine habitat destruction. It may account for a third of all fishing activity worldwide, at a cost to the global economy of more than US$23 billion per year and with negative consequences for fisheries as an enduring economic asset, including for developing countries. We welcome the Canadian-led Dark Vessel Detection System in Ecuador, Peru, Costa Rica, the Philippines, and members of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and would see value in replicating the model to support other partners whose fisheries are under threat from IUU fishing. We recognize that data sharing and transparency play a key role in this fight by exposing bad actors and that technological advances can support a robust Monitoring, Control and Surveillance and enforcement landscape. We encourage further progress in addressing IUU fishing, working with and through relevant International Organizations to establish and strengthen rules to sustainably manage fish stocks on the high seas and to improve the enforcement of these measures, including through the further development of detection technologies, aircraft patrols and high seas boarding and inspection of vessels, building upon the 2022 G7 Ocean Deal.

    16. We welcome the Third UN Ocean Conference, in Nice, France, from 9 to 13 June 2025.

    PARTNERSHIPS

    17. This G7 Maritime Security and Prosperity Declaration provides a framework for cooperation with non-G7 partners, including countries hosting major ports, large merchant fleets, or extensive flag registries as well as relevant regional and International Organizations, such as the International Maritime Organization and ASEAN. We would welcome robust cooperation with partners to take forward the goals set out in this Declaration, consistent with the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, under the efforts of the G7 countries, including a free, open, prosperous and secure Indo-Pacific region, to build a free and open maritime order based on the rule of law, and of commitment to the sustainable development of the world’s maritime spaces.

    18. We welcome the cooperation on Coast Guard Functions, including the Global Coast Guard Forum hosted by Italy in 2025, as well as the Arctic Coast Guard Forum, which could also support the objectives of this Declaration.

    [14] March 2025

    Charlevoix, Canada

    MIL OSI Canada News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Murray, Former NOAA Administrator and WA State NOAA Employees Fired for No Reason Slam Trump & Elon’s Destructive Mass Layoffs at NOAA

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray
    ICYMI: Senator Murray Statement on Mass Layoffs Beginning at NOAA
    WA state NOAA employee fired for no reason by Trump & Elon: “I’m here because I care. I care about the people and communities that are impacted by reduced or closed fisheries that my work supported. I care about the devastating effects a diminished NOAA may have on Washingtonians and Americans across our country… I care because I am a grandpa and a fisherman, and I want to ensure these resources are perpetuated for the generations following me.”
    ***WATCH HERE, DOWNLOAD VIDEO HERE***
    Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, held a virtual press conference with former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator Dr. Rick Spinrad, and former NOAA employees in Washington state who were recently fired through no fault of their own and with zero justification as part of Trump and Elon Musk’s unprecedented assault on the federal workforce. About 650 NOAA employees have already been dismissed for no reason by Trump and Elon, with another round of job cuts targeting more than 1,000 additional employees expected.
    Joining Senator Murray for today’s press conference were: former NOAA Administrator Dr. Rick Spinrad, Dr. Rebecca Howard, former Research Fish Biologist at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center in Seattle; Dennis Jaszka, former NOAA Investigative Support Technician for Office of Law Enforcement for the Alaska Division based in Seattle; and Mark Baltzell of Olympia, a former Fisheries Management Specialist at the Sustainable Fisheries Division in the Anadromous Harvest Management Branch at NOAA.
    “NOAA scientists play a crucial role protecting our waters, oceans, and our fisheries. The Puget Sound, the Columbia River, they all rely on NOAA. In Washington state, salmon are not just a pillar of our economy—and of the seafood industry that is so prominent in our state—it is also a way of life for our communities, for our tribes, and it’s part of our state identity, So NOAA’s work could not be more important when it comes to that. I think we all know that we can take the weather for granted, we can take our fish and water for granted. But this work is make or break—not just for Washington state, but for our entire country. So, it is beyond alarming to me that right now, Donald Trump and Elon Musk are choosing ‘break’ and taking a wrecking ball to NOAA offices. They are firing public servants they’re firing our experts, they’re closing buildings, like at Port Angeles, and they’re throwing a lot of critical work into jeopardy,” Senator Murray said on today’s press call. “About half of the National Weather Service offices were already understaffed, and then came this hiring freeze and then came the mass firings—and that was just round one. Musk and Trump have already fired 650 NOAA workers—including dozens of people right here in Washington state—with no rhyme or reason, with no clue or concern how it will seriously harm our economy and our communities. And now we are hearing that NOAA intends to lay off another 10 percent of its workforce—that is more than a thousand critical jobs Trump and Elon are putting on the chopping block.”
    NOAA has a major footprint in Washington state, employing over 700 people—and communities across Washington state rely on the agency’s work, from providing storm warnings and weather forecasts to protecting and restoring marine resources that are essential to our state’s economy and culture. Senator Murray has been outspoken in calling attention to how Trump and Elon’s indiscriminate mass layoffs are hurting people across the country and will undermine services Americans everywhere rely on.
    “The firings, facilities closures, and program terminations currently ongoing by this Administration are misguided, ill-informed, often illegal, and just plain stupid actions.  They will also cause great harm. In short, this is ‘All cost, no benefit,’” said Dr. Rick Spinrad, a former NOAA Administrator, who abruptly lost his job because of the Trump administration’s mass firings.
    “Our branch is small but mighty. Our work is responsible for regulatory oversight of salmon and steelhead fisheries occurring in the EEZ off the West Coast, the Columbia River, and Puget Sound. An additional significant portion of our work involves implementing the relevant chapters Pacific Salmon Treaty. The work that my branch conducts enables hundreds of millions in economic activity around salmon fisheries coast-wide,” said Mark Baltzell from Olympia, who worked as a Fisheries Management Specialist at the Sustainable Fisheries Division in the Anadromous Harvest Management Branch, before he was abruptly fired for no reason by Trump and Elon on February 27th and given only 68 minutes to pack his office and leave. “I’m here because I care. I care about the people and communities that are impacted by reduced or closed fisheries that my work supported. I care about the devastating effects a diminished NOAA may have on Washingtonians and Americans across our country. I care about the tens of millions of dollars in Federal Money that is funneled through NOAA for salmon recovery, monitoring, hatchery improvements, and supporting fisheries that is in danger of going away. I care because I was in an Agency loaded with people who care and were devoted because they believed in the science and the mission. I care because I am a grandpa and a fisherman, and I want to ensure these resources are perpetuated for the generations following me. Gutting NOAA and the federal government puts all those things that I care about at risk.”
    “At the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, I was part of the groundfish bottom trawl survey team. This meant I was involved in the work needed to assess Alaska’s populations of shellfish and groundfish, which are fish that live near the seafloor like pollock, cod, and flatfish. These fish make up not only some of the largest and most valuable fisheries in the country, but also the world. The team I was part of was in the midst of preparing for the two bottom trawl surveys that are expected to happen this summer, as they have for the last four decades. We were busy staffing surveys, preparing scientific equipment and software, setting up staff and volunteer trainings, and making sure we have necessary supplies. This requires an immense amount of time and effort, and is done by a team that was very understaffed and stretched thin even before I was fired. Several NOAA employees who were supposed to participate in the survey were fired, including myself, making it even more challenging to find the necessary staff,” said Dr. Rebecca Howard, former Research Fish Biologist at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center in Seattle, who was fired from her dream job with NOAA for no reason by Trump and Elon on February 27. “If more employees from the bottom trawl teams retire or are fired in upcoming reductions in force, the surveys will be extremely difficult to pull off, if not impossible. And, we have recent examples of how important these kinds of data are. In 2020, the Bering Sea bottom trawl survey did not happen due to the Covid-19 pandemic. This led to a missing year of data and critically, missing information on the snow crab population. As many of you know, the snow crab fishery collapsed in 2021 and consequently, we don’t have a good idea of what their population looked like in 2020. We need these types of data to know how many fish and crabs we can catch each year, where those populations are going as the oceans changes, and to keep track of environmental trends. Firing people like me will make it incredibly hard for NOAA Fisheries to fulfill its mission and provide the best available science.”
    “The work I did was essential to Office of Law Enforcement’s efforts to ensure the safety of fisheries observers. While the Alaska Division is spread throughout coastal Alaska, the observer operations staff is mostly located in Seattle. Therefore, one of my main roles was to be the point of contact for enforcement officers. Having an enforcement representative in Seattle is essential to connect people and ensure fisheries observers are familiar with the enforcement arm of NMFS,” said Dennis Jaszka, former NOAA Investigative Support Technician for Office of Law Enforcement for the Alaska Division based in Seattle, who was with NOAA for 26 years before being abruptly fired by Trump and Elon as part of their massive indiscriminate staffing cuts. “The rapport between Alaska Division, the North Pacific Observers, and the Observer support staff is lauded every year as being the gold standard of partnerships between an enforcement division and a scientific division. It was an honor to play such a role in this partnership. But practically speaking, having someone in that position who is familiar with both observer and enforcement operations, is simply the most efficient way to do things. Without a person to represent and connect law enforcement to the observers in Seattle, NMFS loses an opportunity to continue building rapport with observers. Support staff will have no contact with an individual who can answer compliance-related questions. This will result in an excess of complaints being filed. Additionally, the task of reviewing, vetting, and sending documents falls on others who already have a high workload. The whole point of my job was to streamline and educate people in a very proactive way.”
    Senator Murray’s full remarks from today’s press conference are below and video is HERE:
    “Thank you all for joining me to talk about something people actually rely on every day, they take for granted, and they may not even know the name of—and that is NOAA. NOAA does work that is crucial to our safety, to our economy, and to our everyday lives.
    “People all across the state of Washington count on the National Weather Service, which is at NOAA, when you watch the weather forecast on the news and decide whether it’s a great week for hiking or you check the weather app on your phone and grab your umbrella in Seattle—you are relying on NOAA.
    “Farmers in Yakima Valley rely on NOAA for seasonal outlooks for crop advice—which means our groceries actually rely on it too. When pilots take off from Sea-Tac airport, or boats head out from our ports, they are consulting NOAA data to prepare for a safe journey.
    “When there is a dangerous storm coming, a blizzard, or flooding, or a tsunami, or high winds, local officials and disaster experts use NOAA’s data to help issue public safety guidance, to protect property, and most importantly—to save lives.
    “NOAA is also tracking data that is crucial to understanding climate change and showing us how serious this threat is. When we warn that 2024 was the hottest year on record—it’s NOAA that tracks that data so you can know that and people can raise the alarm.
    “NOAA scientists also play a crucial role protecting our waters, oceans, and our fisheries. The Puget Sound, the Columbia River, they all rely on NOAA. In Washington state, salmon are not just a pillar of our economy—and of the seafood industry that is so prominent in our state—it is also a way of life for our communities, for our tribes, and it’s part of our state identity—so NOAA’s work could not be more important when it comes to that.
    “I think we all know that we can take the weather for granted, we can take our fish and water for granted. But this work is make or break—not just for Washington state, but for our entire country. So, it is beyond alarming to me that right now, Donald Trump and Elon Musk are choosing ‘break’ and taking a wrecking ball to NOAA offices.
    “They are firing public servants they’re firing our experts, they’re closing buildings, like at Port Angeles, and they’re throwing a lot of critical work into jeopardy.
    “About half of the National Weather Service offices were already understaffed, and then came this hiring freeze and then came the mass firings—and that was just round one.
    “Musk and Trump have already fired 650 NOAA workers—including dozens of people right here in Washington state—with no rhyme or reason, with no clue or concern how it will seriously harm our economy and our communities.
    “And now we are hearing that NOAA intends to lay off another 10 percent of its workforce—that is more than a thousand critical jobs Trump and Elon are putting on the chopping block.
    “Meanwhile—the problems this has already caused are already mounting. NOAA has already had to stop releasing weather balloons due to some staff shortages.
    “Here in Washington state, I have heard from fired NOAA employees who worked to support Tribal fish and infrastructure projects, another was an engineering technician who worked to make sure that our radar locations and our forecast offices could produce the data that we all need. Others were fired that worked to educate the public about our coast at the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary in Port Angeles—gone.
    “A NOAA employee of the year—someone who helped divert orcas from an oil spill off San Juan Island a few years ago—was fired as a result of the fact that she had been promoted in the last year.
    “And that is just the tip of the iceberg Trump and Musk are steering us into, as you will hear from the people on this call, who did really important work for our country only to have the rug pulled out from under them by a couple of billionaires without a clue. 
    “So, I want to again say personally thank you to each one of you. I am really grateful to your years of public service, what you have done for all of us, and I so appreciate you coming here today.
    “I know you’re all dealing with personal things as well as a result of being laid off—but I appreciate you coming here today to send one more forecast. And that is a forecast that warns a dark cloud is coming if Trump and Musk don’t reverse this course and reverse the unthinkable damage they are doing to NOAA.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: ICE Houston deports 8-time removed criminal alien convicted of kidnapping to Mexico

    Source: US Immigration and Customs Enforcement

    HOUSTON – U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported Baltazar Pantoja Calderon, a 43-year-old eight-time removed criminal alien convicted of kidnapping and several other criminal offenses in the U.S., to his home country of Mexico March 13.

    Pantoja has illegally entered the U.S. at least eight times. Each time he was caught by U.S. immigration officials and voluntarily departed to Mexico May 27, 1999; and was deported on July 1, 2008; Sept. 1, 2010; Oct. 29, 2014; March 18, 2015; May 3, 2017; and Feb. 2, 2018.

    Pantoja has also been convicted of numerous criminal offenses while in the U.S. illegally including kidnapping May 12, 2010; driving while intoxicated May 29, 2008; illegal entry July 3, 2018; and resisting arrest March 10, 2025.

    “The complete lack of respect for our nation’s system of laws that this criminal alien has displayed over the past quarter of a century has in recent years, unfortunately, become more commonplace,” said ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Houston Field Office Director Bret Bradford. “The law enforcement community in South Texas is united in our determination to restore sovereignty over our southern border and has banded together to remove these dangerous criminal aliens from our country to restore law and order in our communities.”

    For more news and information on ICE’s efforts to enforce our nation’s immigration laws in Texas follow us on X at @EROHouston.

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: McConnell Comments on the CR

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Kentucky Mitch McConnell
    Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) issued the following statement today on government funding:
    “Government shutdowns mean pain for the American people and political consequences for Congress. I will vote, as I have repeatedly, to avoid such a disastrous outcome.
    “But even in averting a shutdown – in meeting the bare minimum of the expectations of our office – Congress must be honest with the taxpayers who entrust us with providing for the common defense. This week, the price of keeping the lights on will be to consign the Department of Defense to topline funding even lower than President Biden’s last defense budget request.
    “As I have warned publicly, a truly clean continuing resolution for defense would do real, immediate, and measurable harm to the U.S. military’s readiness and lethality. It would force the armed services to meet tomorrow’s challenges with yesterday’s budget. Fortunately for the national defense, this is not a clean CR. I am grateful that, with Leader Thune and Senator Collins’ help, we forestalled the worst impacts of such an outcome by securing new start authority, needed flexibility, and additional resources beyond the Biden FY24 topline. But this measure still falls well short of meeting the U.S. military’s growing needs.
    “Punting the responsibilities of new full-year appropriations for an entire year also makes Congress’ own job harder down the road. It means that the task before us this fall will entail even greater requirements and steeper costs. Under this continuing resolution, governed by an outdated budget topline, more and more of Congress’ authority to set defense spending priorities is crowded out by these rising mandatory and operational costs.
    “Budget reconciliation, for its part, is only a supplement to steady, annual appropriations – not a substitute. This CR represents a missed opportunity to make those overdue, full-year investments in rebuilding our national defense. The next opportunity to deliver on our responsibility to provide for the common defense will require that the Administration use its FY26 budget request to assess growing threats, requirements, and costs with clear eyes and engage defense appropriators to ensure that they respect Congressional intent in the obligation of funds provided by this CR.
    “Restoring peace through strength is an urgent priority. And the longer we wait to get serious about it, the more expensive it becomes. The Administration and Congress must come quickly to terms with the fact that rebuilding the national defense requires more of us than we have thus far managed to give.”

    MIL OSI USA News

  • MIL-OSI USA: Long Island DRI and NY Forward Winners Announced

    Source: US State of New York

    overnor Kathy Hochul today announced that Hempstead will receive $10 million in funding as the Long Island winner of the eighth round of the Downtown Revitalization Initiative, and Farmingdale will receive $4.5 million as the Long Island winner of the third round of NY Forward. For Round 8 of the Downtown Revitalization Initiative and Round 3 of the NY Forward Program, each of the State’s 10 economic development regions receive awards from each program, to make for a total State commitment of $200 million in funding and investments to help communities boost their economies by transforming downtowns into vibrant neighborhoods.

    “Long Island’s downtowns are more than hubs for business, they’re the infrastructure that inspires people to build a better world around them,” Governor Hochul said. “By investing nearly $15 million in revitalizing Hempstead and Farmingdale, we’re creating stronger communities that honor their history and possibility — paving a path for generations of Long Islanders to experience all they have to offer.”

    To receive funding from either the DRI or NY Forward program, localities must be certified under Governor Hochul’s Pro-Housing Communities Program — an innovative policy created to recognize and reward municipalities actively working to unlock their housing potential. Governor Hochul’s Pro-Housing Communities initiative allocates up to $650 million each year in discretionary funds for communities that pledge to increase their housing supply; to date, 287 communities across New York have been certified as Pro-Housing Communities. This year, Governor Hochul is proposing an additional $100 million in funding to cover infrastructure projects necessary to create new housing in Pro-Housing Communities, and a further $10 million to technical assistance to help communities seeking to foster housing growth and associated municipal development.

    Many of the projects funded through the DRI and NY Forward support Governor Hochul’s affordability agenda. The DRI has invested in the creation of more than 4,400 units of housing — 1,823 of which are affordable or workforce. The programs committed over $8.5 million to 11 projects that provide affordable or free child care and child care worker training. DRI and NY Forward have also invested in the creation of public parks, public art (such as murals and sculptures) and art, music and cultural venues that provide free outdoor recreation and entertainment opportunities.

    $10 Million Downtown Revitalization Initiative Award for the Village of Hempstead
    Hempstead’s Main Street is the social, retail and civic heart of the community, serving as a key destination for the Village, Town and County. Its strategic location offers walkable access to essential transit services, commercial corridors and cultural institutions, including restaurants, Denton Green and the Nassau County African American Museum. Signature buildings with distinctive facades line the street, adding to its character and enhancing its unique visual identity. With a vibrant mix of arts, culture and retail, Hempstead seeks to transform its Main Street into a thriving hub of activity, community and commerce. Specific community goals include creating a broad mix of housing opportunities, increasing business and service offerings, enhancing cultural arts and fostering recreation and entertainment.

    $4.5 Million NY Forward Award for the Village of Farmingdale
    The Village of Farmingdale’s downtown is a compact area mixed with small parcels and dense building coverage, mixed land uses and charming architecture. It is situated among some of the most popular tourist destinations in New York State. Due to the Village’s characteristics, Farmingdale is focusing on projects that will yield dramatic and positive effects, thereby advancing an active downtown with a strong sense of place. The Village seeks to attract new businesses, encourage a diverse population, improve downtown living and quality of life and enhance the pedestrian walkability and cyclability of the downtown.

    New York Secretary of State Walter T. Mosley said, “Residents and visitors of Long Island have witnessed first-hand how impactful the Downtown Revitalization Initiative and NY Forward programs have been for countless communities and the entire region. Now, the Villages of Hempstead and Farmingdale will receive this critical funding that will help to jumpstart their downtowns and join in on the wave of revitalization that is sweeping our state. Congratulations to both of these communities, and we look forward to working with you throughout this process!”

    Empire State Development President, CEO and Commissioner Hope Knight said, “The Downtown Revitalization Initiative and NY Forward programs continue to be transformative forces for communities across Long Island. With these strategic investments in Hempstead and Farmingdale, New York State is supporting locally-driven solutions that will create vibrant, walkable downtowns while expanding housing opportunities and strengthening local economies. These projects demonstrate the State’s commitment to building sustainable, prosperous communities that attract both residents and businesses.”

    New York State Homes and Community Renewal Commissioner RuthAnne Visnauskas said, “Today’s $14.5 million in transformative NY Forward and the Downtown Revitalization Initiative investments demonstrate Governor Hochul’s continued commitment to rewarding communities that are serious about expanding housing and economic opportunities for current and future residents. As two of the 287 current participants in the Governor’s Pro-Housing Communities program, Farmingdale and Hempstead have unlocked access to today’s funding that will enrich their neighborhoods and grow the housing supply through targeted investment. We thank these communities for their commitment to improving housing supply and congratulate them on today’s awards.”

    LIREDC Co-Chairs Linda Armyn, President & CEO at Bethpage Federal Credit Union and Dr. Kimberly R. Cline, President of Long Island University, said, “Hempstead and Farmingdale presented compelling visions for their downtown corridors that will create new opportunities for housing, business growth, and community engagement. The Village of Hempstead’s focus on enhancing its historic Main Street while expanding housing and cultural amenities, coupled with Farmingdale’s plans to strengthen its walkable downtown core, exemplify the kind of forward-thinking development that will benefit Long Island for generations to come. We look forward to working with both communities as they implement their strategic investment plans.”

    State Senator Siela Bynoe said, “This Downtown Revitalization Initiative grant will provide much-deserved investment to the Village of Hempstead. As we’ve seen in Westbury Village, this grant will have a transformational impact on Hempstead’s downtown by improving walkability, and creating opportunities through investment in the Village’s commercial downtown. In Westbury Village, the Downtown Revitalization Initiative provided a blueprint for innovation to address our housing and infrastructure needs, and it is exciting to see Hempstead have this same opportunity. I’d like to thank the Governor and the Long Island Regional Economic Development Council for their commitment to helping to empower our communities.”

    Assemblymember Noah Burroughs said, “I’m pleased to hear that finally the Village Of Hempstead is being recognized as the great hub in Nassau County as well as Long Island. Today I was notified that the Village of Hempstead has been awarded the downtown revitalization initiative. I would like to thank Governor Hochul for seeing the vision we have in the 18th assembly district. This brings us one step closer to having a downtown that the residents could be proud to visit, shop, dine and enjoy on a daily basis.”

    Village of Hempstead Mayor Waylyn Hobbs said, “Hempstead is a proud, hardworking community, and this $10 million investment will go a long way in making our downtown a place where families, businesses, and visitors can thrive. We’re incredibly grateful to Governor Hochul for believing in Hempstead and for giving us the tools to build a stronger, more vibrant future. This funding means more opportunities for local businesses, more housing for our residents, and a downtown that truly reflects the energy and diversity of our village. We’re excited to get to work and make this vision a reality.”

    Village of Farmingdale Mayor Ralph Ekstrand said, “On behalf of Myself and the Board of Trustees, all Farmingdale Village Residents, Our Merchants & Local Community; we are thrilled to have won a $4.5 million grant for a Performing Arts Center! Thank you to New York State! We are so fortunate and thankful for the incredible efforts of all involved who helped secure the grant, it’s truly spectacular news for our community! As everyone knows, Farmingdale Village has been going through an incredible Revitalization and has become a downtown destination. Our (BID) Business Improvement District was formed in 2021, and shortly thereafter; our Downtown was designated as “the Culinary Quarter Mile”. Farmingdale Village was also voted Best LI Downtown 2025 – in the Four Leaf (Formerly BFCU), Annual contest, the last 10 out of 11 years! In the Village; we all work as a team; and there are also many Music Fests (“Music on Main, etc..); Art Shows and basically Culture Everywhere! But the one desire was always for a Cultural Arts Center! So this is the Icing on the Cake; the Farmingdale Village Cake! We are beyond thrilled and our community will be dancing in the street! (Literally!) Thank You!”

    Nassau County Legislator Scott Davis said, “Thank you, Governor Hochul, for selecting the Village of Hempstead as a recipient of the 2025 Downtown Revitalization Program Award in the amount of $10,000,000. These funds will provide much needed assistance in helping to make the vision of a vibrant downtown become a reality. I look forward to seeing the village continue on the path toward a promising future for residents and a destination for visitors.”

    Hempstead and Farmingdale will now begin the process of developing a Strategic Investment Plan to revitalize their downtowns. A Local Planning Committee made up of municipal representatives, community leaders and other stakeholders will lead the effort, supported by a team of private sector experts and state planners. The Strategic Investment Plan will guide the investment of DRI and NY Forward grant funds in revitalization projects that are poised for implementation, will advance the community’s vision for their downtown and that can leverage and expand upon the State’s investment.

    The Long Island Regional Economic Development Council conducted a thorough and competitive review process of proposals submitted from communities throughout the region and considered all criteria before recommending these communities as nominees.

    About the Downtown Revitalization Initiative
    The Downtown Revitalization Initiative was created in 2016 to accelerate and expand the revitalization of downtowns and neighborhoods in all ten regions of the state to serve as centers of activity and catalysts for investment. Led by the Department of State with assistance from Empire State Development, Homes and Community Renewal and NYSERDA, the DRI represents an unprecedented and innovative “plan-then-act” strategy that couples strategic planning with immediate implementation and results in compact, walkable downtowns that are a key ingredient to helping New York State rebuild its economy from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as to achieving the State’s bold climate goals by promoting the use of public transit and reducing dependence on private vehicles. Through eight rounds, the DRI will have awarded a total of $900 million to 89 communities across every region of the State.

    About the NY Forward Program
    First announced as part of the FY22 Enacted Budget, Governor Hochul created the NY Forward program to build on the momentum created by the DRI. The program works in concert with the DRI to accelerate and expand the revitalization of smaller and rural downtowns throughout the State so that all communities can benefit from the State’s revitalization efforts, regardless of size, character, needs and challenges.

    NY Forward communities are supported by a professional planning consultant and team of State agency experts led by DOS to develop a Strategic Investment Plan that includes a slate of transformative, complementary and readily implementable projects. NY Forward projects are appropriately scaled to the size of each community; projects may include building renovation and redevelopment, new construction or creation of new or improved public spaces and other projects that enhance specific cultural and historical qualities that define and distinguish the small-town charm that defines these municipalities. Through three rounds, the NY Forward program will have awarded a total of $300 million to 60 communities across every region of the State.

    MIL OSI USA News