 Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, very good morning and welcome to the third day of the 43rd session of the European Commission on Agriculture. My name is Marius Giorgiadis and I am the chairperson of the Commission. Today we are conducting the session which has held on the 27th and the 28th of September in Budapest. As you may recall, the Commission has successfully conducted its debate on almost all agenda items of the session, except for the last one, the review and adoption of the report due to the fact that the session was adjourned, and now moving to the adoption of the report of the 43rd session of the Commission on Agriculture. The secretariat has made the draft report available to members in all four official languages of the Commission on 28th September in Budapest. This report has been supplemented only with details on the results of the elections. The supplemented version of the report has was reviewed by reporters and was shared with members prior to this part of the session. The draft report of the session was introduced to the Commission on 28th September by the reporters. Please let me remind you that day two of the session ascended with a request that the report be adopted through the voting and block, as this could not be done on 28th September due to the lack of forum, should the Commission still wish to move or devote on the adoption of the report, we could do so. However, should the Commission wish to adopt the report by acclamation, I am in your hands. Prior to opening the floor, for any comments, I would like to give the floor first to the Russian Federation in form of the Commission, with the request of the adoption of the report through voting and block still stands. The Russian Federation, you have the floor. Can you hear me, could the speaker please put your camera on? The speaker please put your camera on. The connection here is not very stable, and the camera, it keeps me out of the system. So I switch the camera off, but I'd like to put it on during the stage. I am very sorry for that. The Russian Federation is like, bear with me until I fix the issue in the story. The Russian Federation, please try again to let me confirm if it works with time. I will repeat it again. I repeat it again. I am ready to start. I am ready to switch on the camera, but at the same time, because for evaluation of the two, I am in work with time. You may proceed to the completion and please... So Chairman, as informed most, I would like to thank the whole team for the work which has been done and for providing the text of the report, and I would like to explain the following. We requested a vote on our whole text, because that was the only possibility for our delegation to be assured that our text is duly reflected in the report. All participants were well-reported that we waited for a long time to hit the legal service regarding our proposal. And a lot of time was wasted as a result. And of course, for us, it would be very important to be convinced that our position is faithfully reflected in the report. Having read the text of it, we see our delegation could agree to adopting the report provided by... On condition that paragraph 22b and 22c will contain a footnote to the effect that the mandate of admission is not provided for describing conflicts as rules, in particular, if there is a legal implication to be circumvented. If such a footnote is made, then we are ready to adopt the report without a vote. If our proposal happens to be problematic, then we are ready to vote with the report on block with a vote. I actually read the clapping, or pressed the clapping icon, rather than requesting a call. But on behalf of the European Union and the 27 member states, I'd like to say that the proposal just by Russian delegation is something we oppose, and therefore we would prefer a vote on the report. We often join the position of the EU, regarding this proposal. Before starting to vote on block with the report, we have some small amendments to the report. We see that the report is quite... We reflect our discussions, but some items are needed, our discussions there, of deliberation. Thank you. Thank you, Ukraine. I see no one is asking for the floor, so I will take it in order that the proposal was made by the Russian delegation. I can see that it is proposed. I'm not overworked with this proposal. And I also have a suggestion from the Ukraine for our amendment of the report. I haven't got a solid proposal yet, so if Ukraine has a suggestion to make, now is the time. I'd like to give the floor back to Ukraine for any solid proposal or suggestion. Ukraine, cut the floor. Thanks. The only one amendment to the item number 22 on the page 6 of the report. After this, Para A, you would like to add additional Para A bit. And the governor of this party for only condemned Russia's aggression against Ukraine, fixed systematic attacks on port infrastructure, grain transport and storage facilities in Ukraine, and called upon Russia to use these facilities in order to fully resume agricultural production and its unimpeded export from Ukraine. Mr. Chair, I send the draft and our amendment to you, according to the rules. This is an awful submission to the report. Thank you, Ukraine. Thank you. For the proposal, I would suggest, in order for the whole membership to see the proposal, I would suggest that it's shared through the chat. And I would also like to add that the report, before being amended and shared with membership, the supplemented report was shared with the rapporteurs to have the opportunity to review all the items on the report and check whether everything was reflected. I can see that your suggestion wasn't included in the report after a review of the report. This is one point. And I would also like to explain that this agenda item, where it adopted the report, making sure that it reflects well the discussions during the session, while we cannot introduce new items that were not raised in the discussions. And at this point, I would like to ask the leaders' service for an opinion on this issue. And for this reason, I would like to give the floor to Ms. Mata Patron from the office, from the legal office. Ms. Patron, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I confirm what you just mentioned. From a legal perspective, the reports of the confusions or other FAAO bodies must contain the discussions that have been held during the session, as well as confusions or recommendations that have been made during the meeting. To this end, I wasn't present during the debate, but I understand that this was not mentioned during the Budapest meeting. As a consequence of this juncture, I should give you the floor to yourselves, or we may need to check this with the reporters to confirm or ascertain whether this was actually said during the meeting. Thank you very much, Ms. Patron, for mentioning the opinion of the legal office. I see Spain asking for the floor, so I give the floor to Spain. Thank you, Chair. On behalf of the EU and its 27 member states, we would like to express our explicit support for all the content of the message I was suggested by the delegation of Ukraine. However, thank you for consulting the legal service. Nonetheless, we would like a full legal opinion on this proposal, so we would like to share an expression of the legal office. Thank you to the person who could position the legal office. We all know that. But I would like to stress that the special importance of this amendment is really disgusting. This issue raised by several delegates and the statements, once again, we discussed this issue. We raised some concerns before. Thank you. Thank you, Ukraine. I would now like to give the floor to the delegation. Thank you, Chair. First of all, I would like to say first of all, it seems to me that I'm not sure everybody understood the point of my statement. There were two parts of what I said. The first part was to give thanks, but we do not fully agree with the content of paragraphs 22B and C. Good day, Mr. Chairman. Good day. And therefore, we're calling for a footnote with our mash-up position on this one. The second part of my proposal was that if that is acceptable to everyone, all the members of the commission, then we will be ready to adopt it if there aren't any votes. Who knows two things. Finally, if I correctly understood the delegate of Spain speaking on behalf of the EU and its 27 member states, that the time does break now. I'm glad to have the vote. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there more votes? I can repeat. There were two parts. The third part was on a foot. The paragraph 20B and C. The second part of our proposal consisted of if there is such a footnote, then we could adopt the report by contentment. And in response to the European Union, I understand that the EU wishes to adopt the report by vote. So it's not to listen to the faces of footnotes, which my delegation is devoted to. I would like to hear the findings of the legal affair. Have the delegation have the right to propose a footnote if that footnote contains the position of a member state? That's the first part of my question. The second part is that we come to adopt the report, the text application, while circulated in advance, all delegations agree to that fact. And now the delegation, if you say, is introducing a new paragraph in the text. That means that this is already a new report, because it's a new paragraph. I repeat, it's not a footnote in this case, but a new paragraph, which all the members of the commission are being asked to sign up to, and for my interview, that radically changes the situation. And in this regard, once again, we request the full legal opinion of and because of Python. There's a new paragraph introduced into the text report, not a footnote, but a new paragraph. Can that be understood as meaning has been a major change to the text and the whole report needs to be considered a new. Whether the suggestion of new training was mentioned during the meeting or not, the point where, in the hands of the other first, if they're kind enough to provide us with this information, we can take it from there and work as the Russian Federation, asking for the floor, please. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Thank you, Chair. Well, we lost the connection where the European Union has fought it. And if you need to hear my opinion, you could have to go into the room. We're currently attending the Codex Alimentaris Mission. So if you say that I actually need to come to the room, then I would have to come to the room, because you need to tell me where you're meeting at first. Ah, yes, I see the flag of Spain. Spain, please. Yes, well, Sandy, that's a post. You were calling for interpreters. And I'm not in the European Union, so I'm in the European Union, so I cannot share it. I would not be able to join you. However, if ever it's of any help, we can say that and we can just convert for a new and it's going to remain the same declaration where, in our Bond 5, we stated about our concern about the reasons why Russian attacks on brain transport and historically tax sector in Ukraine and underlining that they lost or lives were continuing. So for the question that you have made about if there were mentioned on these items, at least from the side of the EU and the 27 member states, we didn't mention this issue. And of course, as we said before, the content of this file would be in line with the EU. Thank you, Spain. That was very useful. It solves one of the issues. We are still waiting for the Russian Federation to arrive at the European Room and provide their own opinion as a rapporteur this time. I can see the hand of the Russian Federation so please, we have a draw. Thank you very much. I just like to check with the rapporteur and she'll be coming to the room in a few minutes in a few minutes. The second rapporteur to arrive. While doing that, I can see in my notes that the full legal opinion was asked by Spain. We have the UN, the 27 member states on the way forward and by the Russian Federation on the issue of the additional new paragraph and the issue of the right of a member state to ask for a footnote in order to express their opinion on paragraph 22BNC. I would therefore like to pass the floor to Miss Pardo to enlighten us on these issues. Miss Pardo. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll begin in order to see the point in Spain requesting the legal office's opinion with respect to the issue of the possibility of including in the report Ukraine's proposal. And I repeat what I said I may not have been clear enough in the report of the meeting lasting to the discussions and conclusions of the meeting itself. Anything that wasn't mentioned during the meeting should not appear in the review. In regards to the two questions asked by the Russian Federation, Thursday on the footnote issue proposed by the Russian Federation and I would refer to the water procedure of the international agriculture to eight paragraph one which states that the commission shall approve a report embodying its new fragmentation transition including when requesting a statement of minority views. So I confirm if the Russian Federation is proposing something in the footnote which reflects its minority views that can be done. As regards the other question I think that was already answered on the issue of being able to Ukrainian proposal I can only refer to what I said earlier I can only refer to things which got discussed during the meeting during the session inside. Here's a picture pretty much and at this point I would like to refer to the second report from the Russian Federation in order to confirm as previous report from Spain whether the proposed paragraph elements of the proposed paragraph mentioned during the meeting Russian Federation Thank you very much I was the second report and I'd like to say during the meeting what was discussed as what was initially reflected in the report as it's been submitted to the participants today the Russian Federation also on sanction which nonetheless was rejected so as far as additional paragraphs I can say we don't think that it was advisable for the last 500-500 years of the session Now in order to read the first report here from Spain confirming that the suggestion from Ukraine was mentioned during the meeting therefore after the confirmation from the legal office in the clear opinion based on the procedure before the report complete I thought I would like to give the floor to the Russian Federation please you have the floor Thank you very much I have a strange dialogue in this case a statement of the litigation of Spain it was said that there wasn't a statement made by Ukraine and a statement by Spain on behalf of the review regarding the situation in Ukraine at the same time much has been said in different statements during the session on very different issues and nonetheless a draft report was submitted and the rappelters worked on that report with the secretaries and at no stage was a separate paragraph to get the time proposed but moreover neither the Ukrainian delegation nor the EU delegation seem to be in trouble by this time the initial report was proposed with option on the 28th September and up until the adoption none of these delegations proposed any positions of effect after this a month more and again none of those delegations introduced additional plans and now when we are meeting in order to drop the report we're seeing a new proposal and in this regard once again I would like to turn to the legal advisor the appearance of a new paragraph in this case in this case is it legally justified and correct if throughout the whole process of agreement on the date and the possibilities for substance abuse amending the date none of those delegations made such a proposal nor of prior to the state of Ukraine the EU said that they would like to drop the report by a vote on block in other words without the paragraph which has now just been put forward by Ukraine so in this regard I have a serious question as to exactly what text would be voting on now thank you very much and good evening to everybody so as far as the UK is concerned we are meeting here this morning in order to agree the report and the opportunity to meet allows for any member to put forward language to be included as part of that report as the legal advisor has confirmed to us all that language would of course need to reflect discussions that actually took place during the course of the meeting we have confirmed that that has been reflected in the language provided the language has been provided in a very open and transparent manner by doing that in the course of this plenary session and we are ready to support that language as proposed by Ukraine thank you very much the United Kingdom for your intervention so now I have a request further forward to the legal office in to justify if it's legally if it's legally justified to insert new paragraph I think that this has already been answered I would like to pass it over to the legal office to express opinion on this one thank you chair well I will refer back to what I said before the report shooting to the conclusion of deliberations that process let me come back to you in a second yes at this point yes I can see Spain asking for the floor thank you chair I'm sorry I'm sorry the fact that this text was not in the report which was presented to adoption at the end of the session does not mean that we cannot so we understand that this reference we made earlier should be a sufficient basis according to the advice given by the legal office that should survive for us to be able to introduce this text in the light of what was said at the clean room meeting ourselves now back to the russian federation now the floor thank you chair thank you chair another dedication we have a to introduce our own text based on the statement made by our dedication all months during the session the text which we had initially prepared as a footnote and my colleague who is in the room can then give you this text and the gist of it is the admission as no mandate to describe conflict as war especially in the light of the legal consequences that text will be handed to now and we will for this text to be included in the body of the russian federation and see Spain asking for the floor Spain please thank you chair thank you chair thank you chair thank you chair thank you russian federation and we will at the beauty press session we understand that in this room this is the expression for minority view and it should be reflected as they are right during the last moments of the session in beauty press so that is the proposal we would like to introduce russian federation and also us your side is accepted in the session of the paragraph of Ukraine thank you I did not understand your opinion I did not understand what you are actually saying did you not really explain to me just trying to understand the previous intervention you said as a counter proposal you are now proposing that the text which was meant to be inserted as a footnote is inserted as a paragraph since the Ukraine proposal stands I mean the paragraph in Ukraine could be accepted by the commission to be inserted in the day and I am asking if your counter proposal is if the paragraph from Ukraine is finally accepted if this means that you could go along the paragraph of Ukraine having your own paragraph in the same in 22 this is what I am just trying to understand and this is not the proposal just to clarify thank you thank you follow now we open up which is the forward introduction with the submission by Ukraine with us the board of the 27 member states of the EU and other countries to introduce the new paragraph and we are therefore introducing our own new paragraph and we will give you the sign for it of that text as we continue the session and let me check now at this point it was made clear that the minority view of a member state could be inserted as a footnote it is legally allowed that one is clear it was also said that the proposal from Ukraine it was mentioned during the meeting it could also be the subject of insertion in the report and now we have another proposal from the Russian Federation for the text it also included the Russian Federation to clarify thank you and the comment the legal advisor and I have to say that I agree with because the legal advisor referred to rule 8 paragraph 1 of the rules each month question that the legal advisor is whether it says the same minority views should be in a footnote or is that just your interpretation could you read that info for paragraph the reflection of minority youth and state, whether it says anything there about the footnote. Thank you, Russian Federation. I will now pass the floor as your request to the Nicaraguanis, Ms. Barca, you have the floor. Gracias, señor presidente. Yo nunca dije que la saying of the minority youth has to be reflected in the footnote. That is the established practice, the discussed practice for the discussion of footnotes, because there are many who may wish to represent their minority youth, and if they were all put in the report to say then they ought to have a very lengthy report containing minority youth. This is the custom in the organisation to put it in the footnote, but I know it made a reference to that fact in my statement. I said minority youths could be reflected in the report, covering the decision of the commission, so as maybe to sign by the commission. For the commission to decide where to insert any proposal, any views from the discussions during the meeting. So it could be inserted in the paragraph, in the report, or as it is, for the commission to decide. I hope this is clear. Yes, we have Spain asking for the floor. Yes, thank you again. Just to make sure. As you mentioned, yes, it's established practice, and it's practice, it's not the legal, it's not included in the rules of procedure of the basic text, it's a useful practice. But now I'm afraid that we are following the rules of procedure and the basic text of the failure, so it's the right of each member state to ask for the extension of the comments that are used in the report, and with the obligation of the mission to decide if and where this should be inserted. I hope this helps the situation, and this is where we started the point, and I don't know if the text from the proposal from the Russian Federation has been shared. Okay, I'm afraid that it's going to be shared soon in the chat. For the time being, this is where it was done, and I can see the Russian Federation asking for the floor. I pass the floor to the Russian Federation. Thank you, sir. In the rules of procedure rule 8-1, there is no reference regarding the form that the opinion of the delegation should take, and since there are different ways of effect we will use the delegation, and it doesn't have to be. Now I won't take up your time giving you various examples. For example, look at the text in the final report of the 15th session of the French-Unwell-Cruised Guarantee of Text on Sanctions. I could give you a plenty of other examples about how the U.S. division was affected in different paragraphs other than and see of this argument, but I think we can basically leave that to the next meeting, the next session, but I'd like to make it clear that this is not a proposal, it's an actual demand, since the rules of procedure do not stipulate that minority views should be reflected in the footnotes. We are calling for the same procedure as what happened at the end of October when we suspended the session, so I am insisting that our paragraph go into the text, and after that the submission will reflect its decision on the text, after which, and after the final meeting, it will be affected in one way or another. Asking for the floor. Ukraine, please. During the current discussion, I have a question, or maybe I know you correctly, but this session is already made in December, where should be a proposal or a suggestion of the Russian people, should be noted, should be noted. On the right, on the left. I will pass the floor to the Russian Federation. Thank you, Ukraine. Now, not about the statement which was made by the Russian Federation in the current version of the footnote, but this will be a new paragraph which is being proposed just as your delegation is doing, with the person in charge. We are with us for a moment, and we will resume. Dear colleagues, we can assume that it is written that he has shared the text, the request from the Russian Federation to insert this text in the report as a paragraph. So, we stand at this point now, which is the following. We have a paragraph proposed by the Ukraine, a paragraph of the Russian Federation, and if you agree on the insertion of both paragraphs, and if you agree on the insertion of both, thank you again, chef. We insist, we understand the position, but our proposal is this opinion that appears in the text proposed by the Russian Federation, and our proposal is that it is valid with the rest of the text, and it is already approved, which is already been more or less adopted, this is what we've been dealing with in our lab, and it should therefore be a footnote to the text in the Russian Federation. The other proposal is that it should be posted in the other text. The other proposal is that it should be posted in the other text, and in the other text, and in the other text. It should be included in the final report as part and parcel of the proposal. And, alas, I repeat our opinion. The text of the report was agreed the day that text has been re-opened, and a new paragraph has been added. I understand that this paragraph has been put forward by a group of characters. One put it forward and several others approve it. Nonetheless, the rules of procedure allow us to put forward our paragraph, which is what we've done by forwarding to the text. If the members of the commission don't agree with us regarding the report, then why reflection of text? Don't agree with being included in the text, I say, of the procedure. How do we need to get to that? Another point is that, like all of us, the way out of your consideration, you have both proposals as a group. Taking a moment to think about it. We are here. It's in your hand, and we can't take it from there. Thank you so much. And we are especially grateful to you. We knew you were attached to the text. But regrettably, this is great. I don't say it doesn't allow it. This is a question of the paragraph, the first one here, which is not a minor issue. This is two which was brought to us, whereas the other paragraph, which is not a minor issue, is a minor issue. So we do not believe each one of you is saying, in this regard, the first part is a part of the text proposed to the European Union. That is to say, the text proposed to the European Union is a minor issue. In this case, we try to make you the president. Since there is no consensus on reflecting the form for effective, we need to take a procedural decision and that procedural decision was triggered at the end of, I hope I said it particularly when we suspended our session and I can't see any problem with sticking to that procedural decision at the end of the session when it was suspended. Now we stand at this point, we have two proposals, the proposal number one was made by the Ukraine so we would first address that proposal and as you understand we will need to vote on whether to be inserted in the report or not. Then we will take the next proposal from the Russian Federation in order to decide whether this proposal would also be inserted as a new paragraph in paragraph 22. This is where we stand. At this point I would like to call the elections officer Mr. Yelena Bertran to come and contact the voting. Please Mr. Bertran. The voting of the elections officer is clear that we are now on the floor of the proposal of Ukraine which is a request to insert in the text under paragraph A, let me check the final report. Correct me if it is not the case as paragraph A this or A this. Yelena will continue with the proposal. Yes, correct. It's correct. The proposal is to insert this text as a new paragraph A this and the text reads like this. The commission strongly condemns Russia's aggression against Ukraine. It systematically attacks on port infrastructure, grain transport and storage facilities in Ukraine and called upon Russia to immediately cease facilities in order to fully resume agricultural production until it takes port from Ukraine. So if we vote yes that will remain that report is inserted. We agree to insert this paragraph as paragraph A this. If you say if you vote no that means you don't agree to insert it as paragraph A this. And abstention means at this point I would like to pass the floor to the election officer with the media bed and to conduct alterations. Thank you. Thank you chair. Good morning. As set out in rule 6 paragraph 2 of the rules procedure of the commission decisions are adopted by a majority of the votes cast. Pass means affirmative plus negative votes and does not leave extensions. In the roll call vote that we will conduct we conduct the roll call vote in light of the online nature of our meeting. This is the only manner of voting to us. In the roll call votes delegations of commission members will be called out in alphabetical order to give a response yes if the delegation is in favor of the proposal no if the delegation is against or abstain if the delegation wishes to abstain. In accordance with paragraph 7 of general rule 12 of the general rule of the organization the votes of each commission member participating in the vote by roll call will be included in the record session. When it is your turn please make sure to turn on your microphone. At the conclusion of the first call the names of commission members who fail to answer will be called again. I should also like to remind delegates that under rule 12 once voting has commenced no delegate or representative may interrupt the voting except to raise a point of order connection with the vote. Before we proceed to the vote we have to establish that we have a forum. I am informed by the secretariat that we have. We have 36 members of the commission present. The forum that we need to reach is 22 which is a majority of representatives of the commission session. That means that we have a forum and that we can proceed to the vote. Finally before we begin we must determine which commission member we will begin in the roll call vote by the draw of the lot. I will ask the chairperson to draw this lot. We begin with Luxembourg. Thank you chairperson. With that we can proceed. The commission members beginning with Luxembourg for your votes on the proposal yes no or extension. Luxembourg, Luxembourg, yes. The vote right now. No, I am asking Luxembourg for the vote. We have explained and introduced the vote. I will leave Luxembourg empty at the moment. I am going to hand you over again to the second round. I am sorry, we can. Malta, good morning can I get a 5 minutes please and I will get back to you on the second round. Malta, we will call you on the second round. Here? Montenegro. Madame, I am here, hello. What is your vote? Yes. No Can I also be contacted in the second round? Move to Adelaide Netherlands votes yes, Netherlands votes yes North Macedonia North Macedonia votes yes Macedonia votes yes, Norway Norway moving on to Poland Holland votes yes, Portugal votes yes Yes, Republic of Moldova Republic of Moldova, your vote please. Yes, now our attention. Yes. Hello. Can you hear me? Good morning Here you can hear me. What the answer is yes, we will tell you that Republic of Moldova votes yes, Romania Romania moving to Russian Federation No, again Slovakia, Slovakia yes, Slovenia Yes, Slovenia Yes, Spain. All right. Yes, it's going to be Sweden Sweden votes yes, Sweden votes Switzerland Switzerland moving on to Tajikistan Tajikistan Moving on to Turkey yes, Turkey yes, moving on to Ukraine, Ukraine votes yes United Kingdom United Kingdom votes yes United Kingdom votes yes, Uzbekistan, Uzbekistan Moving on to Armenia, Armenia moving on to Austria Austria votes yes, Austria votes yes Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan moving on to Belgium Belgium votes yes Belgium votes yes, Bosnia has to go up enough Bosnia has to go up enough Moving on to Bulgaria, Bulgaria Moving on to Croatia, Croatia votes yes, Croatia votes yes, Cyprus Cyprus votes yes, Czechia Czechia votes yes, Denmark Denmark votes yes, Denmark votes yes, Estonia has to go to Finland Finland votes yes, France La France votes yes, France votes yes, Germany Germany votes yes, Greece West of Greece Greece votes yes, Hungary Hungary votes yes, Hungary votes yes, I think Moving on to Ireland Ireland votes yes, Ireland votes yes, Israel Israel votes yes Israel votes yes, Italy votes yes, Italy votes yes Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan Moving on to Kyrgyzstan, Kyrgyzstan Moving on to Latvia Latvia votes yes, Kyrgyzstan Latvia votes yes, Lithuania Lithuania votes yes, Czechia votes yes Czechia votes yes, first round I will now start calling out in the same alphabet for starting with Luxembourg for the second round Luxembourg, Luxembourg votes yes Malta votes yes Malta votes yes, Monaco Moving on to Montenegro Montenegro votes yes Montenegro votes yes Moving on to Romania Romania votes yes Moving on to Switzerland Switzerland votes yes Switzerland votes yes Tajikstan Tajikstan Turkey yes Turkey yes Moving on to Uzbekistan Uzbekistan Moving on to Armenia Armenia Moving on to Azerbaijan Moving on to Bosnia Bosnia to Bosnia Moving on to Bulgaria Bulgaria Moving on to Iceland Iceland Moving on to Kazakhstan Kazakhstan Moving on to Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyzstan Thank you That concludes our question Please bear with us for one second Thank you Thank you Please, now for the interruptions At this point we need a few minutes to process the results The chair will be back in a short time Thank you Please bear with us for the number of total votes before the 35 abstentions 0 votes in favor 34 votes again 1 total votes tested 35 and the majority requires 18 and with that the vote is completed I thank the elections officer and new members for moving to the next vote concerning the request from the Russian Federation to insert the following paragraph which reads like this The Russian Federation states that according to the FAO Charter in terms of preference for agriculture conflicts and their characterization with legal implications are not within the mandate of the European Commission on Agriculture and I remind you that this proposal is in the chat At this point I would like to ask the Russian Federation where exactly this paragraph, this text should be placed Is it a new paragraph D? But for this I need the confirmation of the Russian Federation Thank you Mr President Yes It should be a new paragraph D inserted differently not to have the conflict of the commission and the reference to the Russian Federation It's two different terms that would change completely the meaning Let's see how this text can be inserted in the report Yes So it's now a delegation I would suggest What couldn't have been No It began the text different words that they took note that the Russian Federation said So it should have been took note of the same Russian Federation and after that I would like to ask Do you agree with the insertion of the text of paragraph 22D if you don't agree with the insertion you won't know the same Russian Federation I think you probably thought that you should be Thank you Jaya Just for a second So that all delegations understand in this case we're voting on the location of our text where it will be placed So the subject of the both will be including this proposal which is about the suggestion in the report is able to approve the insertion of the report and the suggested position is as a new subparer I hope this clarifies the situation It's about the insertion of the suggestion as the previous world Federation Thank you If this vote is summarized just about done the full introduction of the vote again we'll ask you for your votes yes in favour of insertion of the Russian paragraph in the report no if you against the proposal abstention if you abstain in this vote The same majority of the requirement applies that it is a majority passed not including extensions voting may only be interrupted to raise a point of order in connection with voting and as we did before I will ask the chairpersons once again to draw a lot to see where we will start following the members of the ECA Thank you chair and we begin with the Russian Federation I would like to reconfirm that there are 36 members of the ECA online that means that we have more than 22 of the required number of members representatives present at this moment and we can proceed to this vote with that I will now ask the Russian Federation Russian Federation Yes Russian Federation Slovakia Slovakia votes no Slovakia no Slovenia Slovenia votes no Spain Sweden Sweden votes no Sweden votes no Switzerland Switzerland votes no Tajikistan Tajikistan moving on to Turkey moving on to Ukraine Ukraine votes no United Kingdom United Kingdom both no Uzbekistan Uzbekistan moving on to Armenia Armenia moving on to Austria Austria votes no Austria votes no Azerbaijan Azerbaijan moving on to Belgium Belgium votes no Belgium votes no Bosnia has to go vina Bosnia has to go vina moving on to Croatia Croatia votes no Croatia votes no Czechia Czechia votes no Denmark Denmark votes no Stonia Stonia votes no No sorry Finland Finland votes no France France votes no France votes no Georgia Georgia votes no Germany votes no Germany votes no Greece Greece votes no What's your name? No. Lexenburg. Lexenburg. Malta. Malta. Malta. Malta. Malta. Malta. Malta. Moana. Moana. North Macedonia. North Macedonia goes north. North Macedonia. No, Norway. Move it on to Poland. Poland goes north. Portugal. Portugal. No, Republic of Moldova. Romania. Romania goes south. I will now pull out the second round. We did not perform the first round. We started in this case with Tajikistan. Tajikistan. Move it on to Turkey. Turkey. Move it on to Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan. Bosnia and Jordan. Move it on to Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan. Kurdistan. Move it on to Monaco. Monaco. Thank you. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we are colleagues. We will begin our session and I wish to announce the result of the election current number of total votes recorded 35. 35 abstentions 0. Votes in favor 1 is against 34. The majority require 15 out of 35 votes faster. So, the proposal is not adopted. It includes the voting. At this point I would like to add that the text of the Russian Federation could be inserted as a footnote as a minority view in the report. As this was already happened for a similar matter, a similar request in the Budapest station inserted under paragraph 22 as a footnote and the text would be altered a bit in order to fix to be inserted as a footnote. With this and based on the discussion that we had today I propose that the report is adopted and blocked including the agreed amendments. I see the Russian Federation asking for a footnote. In the footnote, the commission noted that the Russian Federation states that according to the FAO charter in terms of reference of the European Commission on Agriculture conflicts and conflicts and their characterization with little implications are not within the mandate of the European Commission on Agriculture and decided to revoke by roll call to include it as a footnote in the session report rather than in the body of the report. Thank you. I would like to thank the Spanish representatives that wanted to support. I will speak up with you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair, if you'd like to put more of the just a bit by the Spanish presidency a minority point of view cannot be referred to as the commission of the letter. Therefore, the PESTA should be the one that will be initiated by Mr. Ganti, the federal Russian federation in the end of this. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you Chair, thanks for relying on me, and prior to the vote there was a question as to what exactly we're voting on and the answer I would be was that we are voting on the location of the paragraph, while the vote on the text was on the location in the text, in the main body of the text or not in the footnote, and my question was not by happenstance, there was a similar situation at the end of the meeting before, and it's pretty clear to us we're talking about the place in the text and not the text per se, so we think that the voting which was read on was the fact that the patient didn't know that the statement was more of a fake thing or fact that it's not the fact. You know that, but in the chat now, the final time of those texts, the footnote, also people were placed in the preview, footnote that it's already in the report, at least the same exact wording. Mr. Chair, I'd like to turn to the legal advisor, because I see the rules are being changed on a whole set of things, and we proposed the text, and Secretary said the text needed to be suited for what, basically worded, and we worded the text accordingly, and then the question was whether it be in the body of the reporter in the footnote, and is that the text which is now going to be voted on? That is what we voted on about before, we voted on the location, we didn't vote on the actual wording, and now IT, people are basically changing the rules in the middle of the game, and that's a very serious question, so I turn to the legal advisor, what exactly was put to the vote? Was it the text, or was it the location of the text in the report? So that question is here to the legal advisor. Try to be as clear as possible, twice. So, on the vote was on your proposal, it was only for your proposal, in order to be practical and visible, we had to know where it should be placed, so we decided to place it as a subpar paragraph 22B. So, the vote was about if the commission approves your request, your proposal, insert the text in the report as you proposed. There is no second vote going for this one, and now I would like to pass the vote to the legal counsel to explain the legal terms. Is that the legal term? Well, that's not a legal question. I understand what's causing the problem and what's causing the discussion, but I would like to confirm that indeed the vote was on the location of the text. However, the legal text began referring to the commission, and that is why we have to include the words took note. But now we're talking about paragraph 22B, we were talking about paragraph 22B at that time. Yes, we have to look. But once again, we would like to confirm that the vote, as we understood it, was nearly 34 out of 35 regarding the content. In our case, we were talking about the content, and not at all on the location in the text, in the body of the text. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. From a legal standpoint, we voted on two amendments before one was adopted, the Ukrainian text, the other amendment has been rejected. That was the Russian text. Now, I would like for us to proceed to adopt the report as amended, and I ask that we proceed immediately to put to the vote this text, which considers also the footnote that was submitted to us by Mr. Danji. I really urge us to proceed with the vote. In France, your call for a vote is purely noted, and I'll pass the floor to the rest of the generation. Given the fact that they voted, not on the location, but on the content, I would request the records be checked, the actual debate. I'd like to tell you, because my friend was breaking up. It's a new idea, it's just infallible. The text should be reflected in a footnote. It doesn't serve any sort of purpose. That was the situation at the end of September, when we suspended the session. If there's no consensus regarding the actual minutes, then I'd like to clear our answer to the Secretary. Thank you for your consideration. Please bear with us. Thank you very much. Just to reiterate that the vote was the same one as the first vote. We didn't have any questions for the first vote. It's the same thing as the first vote, including the one to be given. The first text was on the page. A request was made to insert a text in the report. At the first vote, the same procedure was followed, which is to remove if we agree to insert the proposed text if we're speaking about the text in the report. It has to be reflected somewhere. So this would be in the report. This was a request, because the same procedure was followed. Now, I'll give the first legal service. Since the proposal was not approved, it has to be reflected somewhere. It's not reflected in the report. Taking it from here, it has to be in the report. This is an app report. Just to explain where we are at this point. Let me pass the floor to the legal service for more details. Thank you, Mr. President. I have nothing to add. Thank you, Mr. President. Since then, we totally agree with the reading that the president made about the situation. What was it about if the commission wanted to produce the report body in the amendment of the Russian colleagues' modification? That proposal has been rejected. Now, the Russian Federation wants to incorporate an expression of opinion in the letter of the page. In other words, its opinion has all the rights, but it must be its opinion. In any case, it should not be introduced by the commission with the letter of the page. Because that is not an expression of the commission that has just been rejected. That's exactly right. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President. On the report, the person from the very start made a decision here in the form of a proposal with text, the separate partner, in response to the fact that the delegation of Ukraine, with the support of the EU, reopened the contract and proposed its impact. After that, actually, acted according to the same logic for a decision to be taken on that matter. Before there was the vote on the Russian side, we asked a question regarding the subject of the voting. And we were to see an exhaustive reply, not only ourselves, everybody who took part in the vote to see that exhaustive reply. And the situation of the vote was basically identical to what happened at the end of September. Do you now have the technical footnote in the report under footnote 12? And this isn't exactly the same situation. So we see no basis for the commission now to violate the procedure and the result of the vote and change the text to footnote. It has to be in a ready upon which the vote took place. We wanted it in the main part of the report, but it's going to have to go in the footnote. Now, if we're going to say that footnote was adopted by vote, then we need to act in the same way as footnote 12. We're ready to go along with that initial question. But now we're seeing a distortion of what the vote was on. That is, the content of the vote and the right of members then to reflect that decision as they wish. The result of some end of the meeting is fine. We didn't leave the Russian Federation on working space before. The result is not the only reason the working space is in front. Just to clarify why it is to play. The proposal hasn't changed. It's the same. It's the Russian Federation states, etc., etc. And this is the proposal. We have an altered proposal just for your certification. And again, the words, the commission noted were placed in order to accommodate the proposal expressed in the report. And with that, I go back to you, Russian Federation. Mr. President, I ask you to understand this. However, I also think that it's working with the people of the Russian Federation after we were told that it didn't fit into their heads. Instead, it was a new wording from the Russian Federation. And the question was asked by me before the new text even emerged. What was voting for? And after everyone had had a chance to look at it, so with all respect to your opinion, I think that at present, we, our delegation, need to follow what it went for, according to the procedure. And we proposed the text. We changed it because it wouldn't fit in the text in its written form. And then we asked the question about the subject for both. We had an exhaustive reply. What's the attempt at that? Is to depart from the actual state with that. The delegation will go back to France. Is that okay? That was a little confused. I repeat what I said before. We have validated the amendments, the Russian amendments that were suggested. It is the right of the Federation of Russia to have an important point of view. This point of view is a minority point of view. And it can only reflect the point of view of Russian Federation. Therefore, once again, urge us to put an end to this pointless debate and to proceed with our further ado to putting to the vote the report as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Fran. Thank you. I think we agreed that the variation is a little different. In the first place, that was very good. We were talking about the approach to it which was not on our first visit to Egypt. Every map of the city has a line of defendant editions that I'm going with based on a teaching which is ready to be. And, well, that's nothing more than what is, in fact, in the level of the app.io's software, the measurement software, the software of the region. And if I leave it, that's it. OK, let's take a quick look. And I've created a company. The only one I'm sure is going to be all those 5 minutes later. So thanks a lot for your company. And thank you all for the preparation. You are welcome to join. You're welcome. We'll be back. OK, thanks a lot. Thank you. I'll take a few minutes to wait. I think that there is no consensus between members of the Commission the position of the Russian Federation as the Commission noted what the Russian Federation stated or only the view of the Russian Federation. There's no consensus on this one therefore before proceeding I would like to ask the Russian Federation if there is any other proposal on this one and then how we proceed. I think that's the answer that I would like to ask at some time if there is a communication as a partner and not a company then I think that's the answer. I think that's the answer. I think that's the answer. I think that's the answer. I can see that we have no consensus on the way forward whether the proposal of the Russian Federation asserted in the opinion of us and start us the Commission a little more totally as the Russian we have not been in this before proceeding. I would like the Russian Federation to see if there are any proposals on the way forward. Thank you. It doesn't happen that what has happened in the day during the meeting during the vote is getting reflected and the act should begin with the words which fully reflects what actually happened in the meeting. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. For us, what really reflects what has happened in this meeting in the Russian Federation has proposed a proposal to be incorporated in the body of the Supreme Court and it has been discussed. Therefore, we consider that the option now is that the President of America proposes a vote on the form on the block as it is at this moment in general on the other side of the table. The Russian Federation states that with this single vote we could resolve all conflicts of opinion. Thank you very much. Just to reiterate, indeed the vote was on the language proposed to submit in the report that was clearly not accepted. Therefore, we cannot have a footnote as the text stood at that time of the vote if Russia wishes to approve the footnote to reflect their position. That is fine and as was stated by Spain on behalf of the EU and its member states we could at this stage go forward to vote to agree the text. Thank you United Kingdom. Thank you for the commission to decide the working of the Russian Federation to be incorporated in the footnote. Therefore, I call for a vote on whether the proposal should start the commission now. If you agree that the proposal starts with the word the commission noted yes, if you don't agree with this proposal you take no or you go forward with the procedure I give the floor to the Lexington officer Mr. William Bethlen to take on the procedure in this case. Mr. Bethlen, you have it there. Thank you Mr. Chair. I will again provide an introduction to what was said earlier. The proposal is just formulated by the chair for it to be adopted with a higher majority of the votes cast including votes in favor and votes against nothing to the extensions. The voting cannot be interrupted except for a point of order in connection with the vote and finally I would like to recall that we still have a quorum and we have certain six members present which is more than the 22 required under the rules of commission. Before to determine where we will begin I will again ask the chairperson to draw the line to the seat. Mr. William Bethlen, I understand. Mr. William Bethlen, I see both the Russian Federation in Spain and the Russian Federation in other countries. Mr. Chair, I think it's breaking up. Could you tell us clearly what's happening in the vote on note? What is the wording which you are proposing in the vote on note? Before we ask you to tell us the kind of work that many of you have been doing so far, so good. Mr. Chair, I have a question. What exactly do you think in all that we have in Spain? So, maybe here. Now, the vote is the following. It considers the insertion in the footnote of this the commission to note that the Russian Federation states that according to the FAO basic text conflict and their characterization with little implications are not meeting the mandate of the European Commission on Agricultural. This is what we are voting. If you agree with this text which is proposed text yes, or if you agree with this text the proposal is approved this will be the text. If it's not approved then please, the commission to note will be deleted and the rest of the text will be inserted as a footnote and where we stand at the moment the UK asking for the floor UK, please. Thank you for that clarification. It actually raises a question. My understanding from our discussions in this plenary session this morning is that the majority of member states have said that in voting against the text as was proposed it was not the case that the commission took note of that at all and that was not the case in the plenary session that took place in Budapest. Therefore it's unclear to me why we are having to vote on this at this point. I think the member states have been cleared. The commission has been clear. If the Russian Federation wishes to include a footnote that is of course a prerogative and that footnote should be very clearly stating that it wishes to include in that footnote as we have in the text and we could proceed with simply voting to adopt the text as is rather than having another round of voting on whether to include the words the commission took note which has already been clarified that the commission does not take note of that. I wonder if you might just clarify the subject itself. Thank you very much. Thank you, United Kingdom. I do understand what you are trying to explain. Unfortunately we are not in that stage now. We are in a loop and this will not end. Therefore I wish to end it by a vote and this is my way out. I offer you this way out not to stop debating for this issue and I hope that you vote decide on this one and then we can vote on the report. We close the session the 41st session of the European Commission on Agriculture. All positions are taken into consideration. All positions are respected. I as a chair have demanded to finish this session and this is the only way out I see at this moment. We have to legally be correct and move forward. So please, everyone next to these two votings we can move forward. Thank you very much for your understanding. Russia Federation, you have a vote. I think we are at a time where I could better test the politicians than I should see this type in the chat and not just in the chat. You can now see the text that we are going to vote. This is a good note of the statement of the Russia Federation. So that is part of the FAO in terms of reference and their characterization with legal implications are not within the mandate of FECA. Again, if you agree with this text you will have another vote. Sorry for that. Advice, the legal advice and also the text reads as follows. The commission took note of the statement of the Russian Federation that according to the FAO basic text and the terms of reference of the European Commission on Agriculture conflicts and their characterization with legal implications are not within the mandate of the European Commission of Agriculture. If you agree with this text it is inserted as a good note in the report, if you vote yes. If you don't agree, you can vote no. Make it clear, because I might be some questions. If it won't be approved then the words, the commission took note of the statement of the Russian Federation and it will be deleted and it will be altered to the original text the original proposal which is also about let me copy and paste it here for your reference just have it in mind, just for your reference. Again, in case that proposal is not approved it will be inserted in the footnote let me report it correctly now this will be inserted as a footnote in case, and only in case the proposed text is not approved the commission asking for the floor. I apologize, I didn't ask for the floor but I would like to ask you to repeat your final conclusion. The proposal is not approved but it's as follows the commission took note of the statement of the Russian Federation that according to their text and the terms of reference of the European Commission on Agriculture conflict and their characterization with legal implications are not between the mandate effect. If you agree with this proposal then you will agree with note if the result of the vote is not approved then automatically the following text will be inserted in the footnote if it reads like this the Russian Federation states that according to their text the central reference of the European Commission on Agriculture conflict and their characterization with legal implications are not between the mandate effect made it clear that all the vote is procedure over the class of the vote to be included in the footnote for everyone in contact with the situation before going forward I have Ukraine asking for the floor Ukraine please objection to the proposal the Russian Federation may be to use here is Boston that stated that the text is being in the chat both texts are in the chat just above the last yes before the comments from the United Kingdom United Kingdom you have the floor thank you again and thank you for posting the proposed text or the inclusion in a footnote I would agree that the wording of that footnote should be in the past tense so the Russian Federation stated that and just to be clear perhaps one could add stated that in their opinion and then proceed with reference to the FAO basic text etc because I'm not sure but that's clear for everybody thank you to put it in the past tense indeed we are reflecting what happened during the meeting which already happened but at the same time we cannot agree with the United Kingdom coming after this vote the first urging doesn't go through for reference to the Commission and it's the second passage that will purely reflect the Russian Federation's statement obviously that statement was based on our opinion so there's no need to add a thing out of the text it would be a logical plan the reason is that the procedure the first country to vote is Ireland and I project both to the Elections Officer to initiate the voting thank you I will be calling out the member's name starting with Ireland asking for your vote yes now for abstention Ireland votes no Ireland votes no, Israel I still need someone for everything second round please Italy votes no Kazakhstan Ireland votes no Latvia votes no Lithuania votes no Lithuania votes no Luxembourg votes no Malta votes no Malta votes no Monaco votes no Montenegro votes no Ireland votes no Netherlands votes no North Macedonia votes no Norway votes no Norway votes no Poland votes no Portugal votes no Portugal votes no Republic of Montenegro votes no would you repeat Republic of Montenegro? against Republic of Montenegro votes no Romania votes no Romania votes no, Russian Federation yes Slovakia votes no Slovakia votes no Slovenia votes no Spain votes no Sweden votes no Sweden votes no Switzerland votes no Switzerland votes no Tajikistan moving on to Turkey moving on to Ukraine United Kingdom votes no United Kingdom votes no Uzbekistan moving on to Armenia Armenia Austria votes no Austria votes no Azerbaijan votes no Belgium votes no Bosnia votes no Bosnia-Russia votes no Croatia votes no Croatia votes no Cyprus votes no Czechia votes no Czechia votes no Denmark votes no Denmark votes no Estonia votes no Finland votes no Finland votes no France votes no France votes no Georgia votes no Germany votes no Germany votes no, Greece votes no Greece votes no, Hungary Hungary votes no Iceland, Iceland Thank you, I will now call out members who did not reply in the first round in the second round that I'm starting I was starting with Israel Israel votes no Kazakhstan moving to Kyrgyzstan moving on to Monaco moving on to Montenegro Montenegro votes no Montenegro votes no Norway moving on to Tajikistan moving on to Turkey Turkey moving on to Uzbekistan to Armenia moving on to Azerbaijan moving on to Bosnia moving on to Iceland Iceland, thank you that closes the vote that closes the vote that closes the vote that closes the vote that closes the vote reported 35 votes to�� one votes against 34 abstentions zero the required majority is 18 out of what the deadline 45, therefore the proposal is rejected We will change today the elections result let's move forward made during the session we now proceed to the I propose that the report is adopted and blocked included the agreed amendments and as requested during this session a voting will take place so if you agree with the adoption of the report and block including the agreed amendments yes if you don't agree to be loaded and block you both know. Before going forward I would like to do the I propose that this night the block for the report on block not your proposal as chair for me. This was not my proposal. It had a request from member state to the Commission's market culture to adopt the report in block. Importing that we sorted out the matter of the note and now we are in position to propose this proposal to the voting of the report and block. So now we are in position to go forward to contact the voting I would like to give the floor to our beloved elections officer who's working overtime today. Thank you for your kind words Mr. Chair. I'll summarize again the project procedure briefly. Also these votes require a majority of the votes cast including the votes in favor and votes against but not including the attention and in that basis we will establish the majority. We have no information in the Secretary about the present members but we still have 36 members present more than to require to use it with the mission. I will be calling out the end of the CAA matters that would have happened before. I will now open the voting and let's just begin by the chair. Monaco, moving to Montenegro. Nibblos votes yes. Nibblos votes yes. North Asitania. North Asitania votes yes. North Asitania. Norway. Holland votes yes. Bournemouth votes yes. Portugal votes yes. Republic votes no. Java. Yes. Romania. Romania votes yes. Russian Federation. Against. Russian Federation votes no. Slovakia. Slovakia votes yes. Slovakia votes yes. Slovenia. Slovenia votes yes. Spain. Spain votes yes, Sweden votes yes, Switzerland votes yes, Tajikistan, moving to Turkey, moved off to Ukraine, Ukraine votes yes, United Kingdom, UK votes yes, Uzbekistan, moving off to Armenia, Armenia, moving off to Austria, Austria votes yes, Austria votes yes, Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan, moving off to Belgium, Belgium votes yes, Bosnia and Herzegovina, moving off to Croatia, Croatia votes yes, Cyprus votes yes, Czechia votes yes, Denmark votes yes, Estonia votes yes, Finland votes yes, France votes yes, Georgia votes yes, Germany votes yes, Greece votes yes, Hungary votes yes, Iceland votes yes, Israel votes yes, Italy votes yes, Kazakhstan, moving off to Kyrgyzstan, Kyrgyzstan, moving to Latvia, Latvia votes yes, Latvia votes yes, Lithuania votes yes, Lithuania votes yes, Luxembourg votes yes, Malta votes yes, Malta votes yes, let's close the first round with my first poll of votes, starting with Monaco, moving off to Montenegro, Montenegro votes yes, Norway, Norway, moving off to Tajikistan, Tajikistan, moving off to Turkey, moving off to Uzbekistan, moving off to Armenia, Armenia, moving to Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan, moving to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, moving to Iceland, Iceland, moving to Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan, moving to Kyrgyzstan, Kyrgyzstan, thank you that closes the vote, please drive with us for one opinion, thank you, thank you very much Mr. Breslin, number of votes reported 35, extensions zero, votes in favor 34, votes against one, majority require 18 out of 35 votes casted and we've got the report, final report is adopted, congratulations everyone with this, I have to say that we have included our winner, see the right of the nation asking for the floor, thank you Mr. Chairman, we would like to speak with the announcement later to debate when the report was adopted on the vote of the session, the European Union and its member states, as well as a number of other countries, they're not historically but in actual fact, what we're talking about in actual fact, roles, those order means with gross violations of the world's exposure and re-adjusting them to see their own insurance, so they're extremely difficult to find and even with a numerical majority in recognition, the European Union and its member states refuse to include in the report something which departed from their point of view and the votes instead would be both, other reports about it, what they say is a demonstration of weakness, a truly strong person doesn't hide behind the vice of a majority and never refuses to listen to and take into account an alternative point of view, thank you for your attention, once again I recall for this, expressing our extreme dissatisfaction and the call for this to be attended to the thank you chair, I'll be brief, I simply wish to be on behalf of the European Union and the state our thanks to the entire EU that has allowed for a way forward this conference then we leave here in Rome thanks to your stewardship chair, thank you for all your work throughout the long day, now we are truly pleased and would like to thank you in advance and congratulate you for your future work, chair from Northampton, Northampton, thank you very much, ah okay I have been unmuted, thank you Marius, good afternoon everyone, I'm really happy that we managed to conclude the program for the third session of ECA and we finally adopted the report, let me use this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to the member panzi for the successful election process in 28th September and my appreciation for meeting with you this evening on behalf of the ECA as a chairperson along with my colleague Brian's chairperson and members of the executive committee, I congratulate all of them, I'm honored to be the first among the people who will be working on the smooth implementation of the program in the future to write from the priorities and needs of the region, we are aware that in recent years the European Central Asian region has been affected by several serious shocks and testicles with multiple crimes, a challenging period with ECA, emerging situations to be dealt with but I'm convinced that with dedicated and hard work we will manage to achieve a successful result, I would also like to use this opportunity to thank FAO for their very fresh and continuous support throughout the year, my special thanks goes to Nabil for his valuable advice and guidance, also to Piotr on behalf of the ECA secretariat for his hard work and dedication and for the whole rail team, last but not the least I would like to address my special thanks to Marius for his excellent work as a chair of ECA, for his discipline and functionality, for his responsiveness, I wish you Marius all the best in your future endeavors, thank you all once again and I'm looking forward to seeing you again soon. Thank you dear Lydia, I also wish to congratulate you once again for being elected in this very important post and I would like to wish you and the newly elected executive committee success and work well on the issues that really affect the region, thank you. Now I would like to call Mr. Nabil Tanji for the final remarks in between the floor, Mr. Nabil Tanji is the officer in charge for the regional office for Europe and Central Asia, Mr. Tanji. Thank you very much and join my voice to everyone who's congratulated you and must thank you for your diligent work again with the XCOM and as the chair of probably the longest ECA session that we have seen and probably the one that has deployed as you know the highest number of voting process I'm looking at the elections officers and hopefully he will probably also have something for him for his record as probably not only the ECA session but the whole governance. So I'd like to thank you all, I'd like to thank the membership, both who are here and who have attended in person in the session to the first as well as the virtual session today and I wish the new chair the best of luck and we are all here to support her on her new assignment. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman and back. Mr. Tanji I thank you very much for your intervention and your nice works and I also wish you all the best in the future works of the regional office including ECA of Europe. Now we're nearly there ladies and gentlemen, excellencies I thank you again for your patience, persistence and constructive participation in the session. Many special thanks to the interpreters for supporting us again and for more time that anticipated. Particular thanks to the Secretariat of Special Leads Mr. Teot Podacic, Ms. Zofia, Kovac and Ms. Deniko Podi for their continued support and excellent preparation of background documents for the meeting of the Executive Committee as well as the recent intended of the application report that for the Executive Committee over not only over the last two years, over the last almost five years have been part of the Executive Committee and throughout the preparations for this session. I'm happy to declare the 43rd session of the European Commission on Agriculture closed. Thank you all and I wish you a pleasant afternoon.