 Number eight, biodiversity protection and coexistence with large carnivores. Thank you so much, sir. Thank you. Large carnivores in Europe, challenges and opportunities for local and regional authorities. This is an opinion that has as a reporter, our colleague Saba Bourboli. I would like to invite him to take his seat. Thank you so much, Mr. Bourboli. We also have, or we are expecting soon, very soon, a guest speaker. It would be Mr. Daniel Bouda, he's the vice chair of the Gametion Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Parliament. So what I would like to suggest to you is that we would start with an intervention from Mr. Bourboli, presenting the opinion. And then, if we already have Mr. Bouda here, we will move on. If not, we will see how it goes. So ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Bourboli, you have the floor for five minutes to present the opinion. Thank you, Mr. President. I will speak first in Romanian, after in Hungarian. OK. Estimates colleagues, the objective of the opinion is the need of a solid European policy to protect the biodiversity of a European policy to protect large carnivores, which are considered and coexistence between large carnivores and human activities, especially in the growing of domestic animals. Although the majority of the modifications have been accepted, I would like to remind you of a critical problem, the lack of data on the level of the European Union and the necessary objectives for the fundamental decisions. In the present, we are only based on interpreters, in many cases, on subjective interpreters, and on those in favor of obtaining the results that are convincing and efficient in the report. Many interpreters are based much more on understanding of the requirements than on the document, which leads to the wrong focus in many cases. So I would like to propose that clear and firm support, but also uniform, on the level of the European Union, which has so far been agreed by the member states, as well as specific or considerate policies. So far, in the political framework of biodiversity, we are only dealing with the problem of protected species, but in the meantime, we must be considered and the communities involved, the protection of human lives and the interests of farmers. The solutions at the local and regional level are as important as the ones at the member states. And once again, an independent fund for biodiversity, for the management of the farmers, which has a specific financial insurance for the farmers in the country, is guaranteed by the distribution of the resources in the fund-based, political, and agricultural communities. So let's continue. I would like to emphasize that, since I am a member of the country and I am also a member of the region, I do not want to separate the individual species from the other species, and I do not need to say anything about the individual species, but I do support that it should be a special meaning for our species, where the protected species can be developed as a whole. There is no European method, I do everything according to what I think, there is no sufficient use of Euro-state data. Therefore, this political framework is no longer necessary. This was not a problem before, because with a small-scale project, we could establish separate follow-ups. But now, the European Union territory has 33% of the number of large-scale, existing, permanent models. The conflict-based system does not work in every EU country, one-way, six-way, because the EU territory has one-third of the population, but it is one-way from the rest of the world. Together, it is certain that with our joint efforts, we will be able to keep up with the solutions that all the nature, all our communities, and all our partners. I also hope that the topic will remain in the agenda and that there will be a continuation, so that we can know more about this. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. We have a lot of requests for the floor. I think we shall proceed with them. Mr. Buddha will be arriving very shortly, so we will have the chance that during the interventions from the floor to have his presence with us, and also then after this to have the opportunity to have the statement from his side. Mr. Borboli, do you agree that we proceed this way? Okay. So, I would like to give the floor to member Sáez de Burwaga for one minute. Gracias. Estoy aquí para defender a los ganaderos de Cantabria y pedir ayuda para que el lobo deje de ser una especie estrictamente protegida. La muerte del Pony de la presidenta von der Leyen ha sido noticia en Europa, pero en mi región hechos como ese suceden todos los días. Los ataques han aumentado. Un 113% desde la protección y los lobos matan a siete animales al día. El sector no resiste más, menos ayudas, más exigencias, más costes de producción y ahora más animales muertos. Están indefensos frente al lobo. Los ganaderos exigen el control poblacional que funcionó durante décadas y las regiones queremos ejercer nuestro autogobierno, pero el Gobierno de España nos nega al derecho que nos ofrece, nos reconoce la directiva de hábitats. Por eso pedimos a la Comisión Europea su implicación en la defensa del principio de subsidiariedad, que nos proteja de los abusos de un Estado que amenaza nuestra ganadería con la excesiva protección del lobo y una revisión urgente de las normas europeas para rebajarlas sin perjuicio de su conservación. Muchas gracias. Now we move to member García González, Raquel García González, for one minute. Gracias. Desde el principado de Asturias compartimos el espíritu de un dictamen que reconoce la compleja situación de las regiones que enfrentan amenazas por la población de carnívoros en sus territorios. Esta es obra conocida la postura que, desde el principado de Asturias, tenemos respecto a la decisión del Gobierno de España de incluir a todas las poblaciones del lobo en el listado de especies de Regimen de Protección Especial. Queremos destacar que en todas las fases de tramitación de la orden reguladora de este listado, las regiones españolas afectadas hemos documentado nuestra oposición a la modificación que incluye todas las poblaciones del lobo ibérico en el lespre. La aprobación de la orden ratifica una iniciativa carente de bases sólidas en lo jurídico, en lo técnico y en lo científico que dolece del necesario consenso. En el momento actual, los daños de los lobos sobre el ganado extensivo empiezan a ser insoportables en algunas zonas de nuestra región y nos encontramos en una situación de absoluta inseguridad jurídica para aplicar la normativa vigente con base en la directiva europea de hábitats. Y estamos así al desarrollo de los instrumentos precisos para que el plan de gestión de Asturias pueda desarrollarse en todos sus términos. Al trabajo coordinado y conjunto con las comunidades autónomas y el resto de actores para avanzar en la mejora de las líneas de apoyo a la prevención en la mejora de los mecanismos de gestión y en la mediación del sector ganadero. Gracias. The floor goes to member Tobias Gotthard for one minute. Thank you, Mr President. We had a very good debate within the report, but no satisfactory results for everyone. I am in favor of other colleagues in other regions. Let's not be sure that we have discussed the suspension of the protection status of Wolf. I think it would have been an important signal to the regions that are affected. I also notice that the borders not within the factions, or the two factions, but within the factions from regions that are affected and those that are not affected, those that are affected wish clear signals on the European level. It doesn't help if the European level pays 100% protection measures. In my opinion, in Bavaria you have to build in a four to five-star high fence in regions where it simply doesn't work. It also helps the best of the money. We need a suspension of the protection status for Wolf. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Member Ciambetti, you have the floor for one minute. Thank you, Mr President. Thank you to the reporter Borbolic who did a great job. I know that in his course he has very clear and more incisive ideas than what he will talk about today. The emerging programs of the Republic of nature are pushing our rural communities to coexist with the expansion of the wild fauna, including the large carnivores. But the farmers are the custodians of our rural areas, of nature and also of the wild fauna. We must protect the needs of the agricultural and zootechnical sector, which is fundamental for the development of regions, and for maintaining the hydraulic and hydrogeological systems of many of our areas. So the Berna Convention, as President von der Leyen said, can be modified. It's not the Gospel. There are things that have changed in recent years and are facing good sense. In some areas, the large carnivores create great problems for our farmers. Thank you so much. Member Marike Schotten, you have the floor for one minute. Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, Mr. Bobola. Also for some of the compromise amendments that you made, and we already had quite a few exchanges on the subject. And I can say that along the process, as Greens, we have not been naive or ignorant on the fact that the increasing number of large carnivores cause new challenges in many rural areas and also in densely populated areas. However, we also believe that the natural habitats directive already provides for the necessarily flexibilities through derogations and local programs for habitat management. And the increasing numbers of large carnivores is good for the biodiversity in Europe. We also believe that the fencing and smart tracking tools can prevent attacks on livestock and should be fully used. And when that doesn't work, farmers should be financially compensated. We will not support the amendments that ask for more flexibilities regarding derogations or call for the changing in the protection status. These will also be a red light for us. Thank you so much. Thank you. Now the floor goes to Member Anzmol. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for taking the floor. The reason I am here is that we ask for understanding and support for the problems that we experience with the wolf in our densely populated Netherlands, especially around the Veluwe. Despite the pre-care measures, despite the wolf-fishing hacks, the wolf appears in the state to kill many sheep and other sheep, such as horses, goats and ponies. The dead animals leave an inexhaustible impression on farmers and sheepkeepers. That is still out of the immaterial damage. And it does not only affect them. Our inhabitants also worry and fear about this wolf-fishing. Some even wonder if they can still let their children go to school safely or let the dog out. You have to realise that the Netherlands is after Malta the most densely populated area in Europe. We have more time and more opportunities here. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Member Robert Zemen, you have the floor for one minute. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I have a few words. That was all I had to say. And I think that the key lies in this so that we can clearly understand that we want to reduce the level of the international protection of large dogs. That is also a key to the international region where the problem is the biggest, where it is really possible that the authorities can accept some of their actions and actions. We know not only at the base, but also at the base of their decision-making. Because it is very difficult to determine what kind of decisions are made. We know. I would like to ask you to give me a list of new things that are clearly written in the top five. We recommend this protection. And I think it would be very important to send this signal politically. And they allowed all other positive measures that are very good in this. Mr. Barbolli's group writes it. In the opposite case, I am convinced that they will be fully satisfied. Thank you. Thank you. The floor goes to Member Esther Eranz Garcia for one minute. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to thank Mr. Barbolli for an excellent work and a very clear commitment with this issue to address the protection of our biodiversity, at the same time as the preservation of species and also, of course, the economic activity of rural people, farmers and farmers. I highlight, above all, the need to value the crucial role that has extensive cattle in the fight against desertification, forest fires and the maintenance of rural life. That is why, for all of this, we have to base ourselves on making decisions in strictly technical and updated elements. And, of course, always with a very inclusive dialogue with those who live in the exploitation of cattle and rural agriculture. Thank you very much. Thank you. The floor goes to Member Nina Ratilainen. You have the floor for one minute. Thank you, Mr. President. In my opinion, it is important that this area's committee is trying to use the protection level to reduce the protection of the European directives. We need to focus on the fact that we will be able to increase the number of cattle in the area of the forestry sector. We will be able to increase the number of forestry sectors in the area of the forestry sector. And, in my opinion, this is something that needs to be focused on. But it is very important that during the six-month period and during the lay-off period that the area's committee is trying to use the mechanism that can reduce the protection of the European animals. In my opinion, some of the directives of the committee are a very good response. And I hope that we will bring local people as soon as possible. As in Finland, we will bring the protection policy to a different level. Mechanisms and how we can increase the number of cattle in the area of the forestry sector. This is important. And with these actions, we can quickly get good effects on people. Thank you so much. The floor goes to member Garcia Gallardo for one minute. The wolf is a majestic animal that has been in danger of extinction. The problem is that those who are in danger of extinction now are the winners of Castileon. In 2023, the wolf attacks produced in the death of 5,500 heads of cattle, 30% more than in 2021 in my region. We must limit the protection of the wolf. It must be flexibly managed. The overpopulation is patent. In Brussels, many have been very worried about animal welfare in intensive cattle, but very worried about the animal welfare of sheep, sheep and sheep that die in the prads for wolf attacks. Those who self-proclaim ecologists in the farms have been breaking the existing balance between wildlife and the inhabitants of our rural environment that are the authentic guardians of the environment and biodiversity. They listen less to the urbanites and more to those who live in the countryside. We return to the common sense. That they do not have to die more ponies of European leaders so that institutions take cards on the subject. The ecologist workers are farmers, farmers and hunters, who have a greater interest in preserving biodiversity. Thank you. The floor goes to member Milo Rochec for one minute. Thank you. I want to value the magnificent work of the speaker. In fact, to harmonize the defense of biodiversity and the European ecosystems with human activity, we share this need to find a balance between the economic work of the people and the preservation of the animal species with which space is shared. In particular, livestock and the presence of large carnivores pose serious conflicts. We have presented a package of basic three-ingles. First, we believe that in the framework of the diversity of European regions coexistence cannot be conscribed only to wolves. Second, we also have to clarify the territorial character of the presence of large carnivores and finally we want to reinforce the message on the contribution of traditional livestock to the maintenance of biodiversity. Finally, I reiterate the deserved recognition of the text presented by the speaker with the hope that our contributions will contribute to enrich this necessary debate. Thank you very much. Thank you. The floor goes to member Marcos Walner for one minute. I would like to thank the president for the opportunity to introduce something from the Austrian delegation. The situation is very clear. We are forced to take wolves in all Austrian countries if there is a problem or a shadow wolf. And we also believe that a resolution of the protection status will actually be insufficient. In any case, I would like to point out two points that are important to me. The point three of the introduction is actually clear in this context. My question is, especially when it comes to the report of the state, and I would like to make it clear whether the point three is to understand that actually a logical consequence would be the reduction of the protection status. And in our view, the change order is five R. That I would also like to say of special importance. If that would go in this direction, it is a vote from Austria that is not conceivable, otherwise, with certainty. Thank you so much. Now the floor goes to member Frida Nilsson. You have the floor for one minute. Thank you, dear colleagues. I would like to emphasize the importance of preserving and maintaining a healthy light at the lowest level in Europe. It is not just a question of biological diversity, but also a necessity to ensure the stability of the ecosystem and the well-being of people. When it comes to large animals, it is especially important that we work to make possible their coexistence with people and residents. When we discuss the question of preserving healthy animals and coexistence in Europe, it is important to recognize the differences and the unique relationships that are present in the European Union. For example, countries with large areas of unhurried nature and rural areas have more space for wild animals and less conflicts with people and residents. On the other hand, it is possible that rural areas with intensive soil use or bait markets need to take into account the special requirements. Thank you so much. Thank you. Member Ericka von Kalban, you have the floor for one minute. I would like to take a look at the countries in which poor communities live, which are also responsible for the protection of animals, such as the tiger or the elephants. We are always very quick to demand that. But if it is in our own areas, that is, in Europe, then we do not want to participate. Therefore, I would like to point out that we have a lot of compromises for nature in the exhibition. I found the report, which was decided there, very, very well. And that is why I am a little disappointed that the mood is in a completely different direction now. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. The floor goes to Member Robby Beaver for one minute. Thank you, dear President. And just to tell you that we, years ago, decided and stated that the habitat-directed force fit for purpose. And in Article 6 and 16, you have in the habitat directive all the possibilities to react on all these problems, as Mr. Balboly and the Spanish colleagues or Austrian colleagues told us. So we should strongly use what the habitat directive give us for possibilities. So I'm advocated that the member states should be much more supported in applying all the possibilities that the habitat directive already gives us. And I want to say that even the wolf, if you want to preserve biodiversity, we have a strong ally. And one of these allies is the wolf because the wolf is enhancing biodiversity. So there is, for this moment at least, no need to lower the protection status of large carnivores because we already have the measures to react to all the problems they oppose. Thank you. I don't have any other request from the floor. We're going to proceed. I would like to thank NEP Daniel Buda for being here with us today. And for his willingness to share with us his insights on a statement about this issue. Is the Vice-Chair of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Parliament. It's a pleasure to have you here. You have the floor for seven minutes. You have the floor for seven minutes. You have the floor for seven minutes. You have the floor for seven minutes. You have the floor for seven minutes. You have the floor for seven minutes. You have the floor for seven minutes. You have the floor for seven minutes. You have the floor for seven minutes. Thank you. The project is based on measures to ensure the development of large carnivores and 36 million euros were agreed on for the project. At the same time, we realize that all these things were not sufficient. That is why the system of compensation should be considered, as the animals grow, and the presence of large carnivores should not involve a loss of profit for farmers and should cover the costs of the large carnivores. Unfortunately, the animals that used to be full of animals, today, not a few countries from the European Union are left behind due to the presence of wolves and bears. As the responsible for the resolution of the large carnivores from the European Parliament, I have remembered that the presence of a large carnivore in Europe may have a negative effect on the viability of animal growth, the biodiversity of rural communities and the rural tourism. The tourism in various areas is affected today in many places that are not only due to the tourism of wild animals, and these things are in reality that cannot be ignored, especially if you have the responsibility of the local public administration. For this reason, the protection of wolves should be re-evaluated due to the evolution of their populations and why the intention of changing the international state of the wolves from strict protection to protected, so that the member states have more flexibility. I hope that this will happen in the current situation in which the bear population comes. Of course, at the same time we are going to leave for a balanced coexistence on the functions and resilience of the ecosystems and on the conservation of biodiversity. But let's not forget this because we must have a measure, and when people start to be in danger, then we must re-evaluate our policies and protect our communities. Thank you very much for the opportunity to have a discussion with you and I hope that in a short time we will be able to put the man in the center of our attention. Thank you so much Mr. Abouda for being with us, for taking the time to be with us. Now I would like to give the floor to the rapporteur, Mr. Borbolli. You have the floor for three minutes. Mr. Abouda, I think that there is a lot of political groups in this test. We can't just be a political group who is interested in the interests of the public, but we can find a solution to the problem. And in Van Caalben there is no other direction than what we have established with the political groups. And I would like to say that there are 20 measures and 20,000 measures. So the question is about the research, the compensation, and yes, Mr. Gotthard, I would also like to say that the local problems must be addressed at the European Union level. And that is why it is important that García González, I would like to say that there are many opportunities to address the local and regional issues, and I am in charge of this, because I am in the country, for example, I am in Romania, and in one region there is nothing else. Thank you, Mr. Csambetti, for your understanding. And yes, the economy is at the end of the day, and there are also six countries that use it, but this is not the case in every country. And the biodiversity and the communities are interested in this being in order, that there are more in the Netherlands than in the other countries. I am afraid that we will die. Thank you, Mr. Zemán, for coming to us to learn what we have and I understand that this is not the case in the political reality where the decisions are made. I would like to say that García González, I think this is the most important reason that the biodiversity and the communities of the environment are also heard here. I can say that we have united in our goals, but the current solutions are not difficult, they are difficult to reach and in many ways, the financing is also community-based. I would like to say that the Austrians did not have a three-point point of view, and yes, if you need to understand something, then you can understand it objectively. And I would like to thank the employees and the representatives of the party and the responsibility of the community who have supported this in their months. Thank you very much Mr. Buda, for your support and I hope that the European Parliament will continue to support this. Thank you very much Mr Buda. Mr Buda, would you like to add something? Thank you so much. I would like to thank Mr Buda for being here with us. Now I know that he has some time constraints. We are going to vote right now. We have 89 amendments to this opinion. So Mr Buda we truly understand your time constraints, especially considering the 89 amendments. Thank you so much. Okay, are we ready to vote? So let's start voting. Amendment number one is on vote who votes against amendment number one. Thank you. Abstention? Who votes for amendment number one? Electronic vote. What a good way to start. The vote is closed. Amendment number one was adopted. Amendment number two is on vote who votes against amendment number two. Thank you. Abstention? Adopted. Amendment number three is on vote who votes against amendment number three. Thank you. Abstention? Adopted. We have amendment five R and we have an oral compromise. Is everybody seeing the yeah? If this compromise if this compromise has adopted amendments five, six, seven, eight, nine and ten will fall. Can we proceed to vote? Who votes against the oral compromise? Thank you. Abstention? The oral compromise is adopted. Amendment 11. Who votes against amendment 11? Thank you. Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 12 R is on vote. If adopted, amendments 12, 13, 14 and 15 will fall. Who votes against amendment 11? Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 16 is on vote. Who votes against amendment 16? Thank you. Amendment 16 is rejected. Amendment 17 is on vote. Who votes against amendment 17? Thank you. Abstention? Amendment 18 is on vote. Who votes against amendment 18? Thank you. Abstention? Who votes for amendments 18? Electronic vote. Electronic vote on amendment 18. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Amendment 18 is adopted. Amendment 19 R is on vote. Who votes against amendment 19 R? Thank you. Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 20 is on vote. Who votes against amendment 20? Thank you. Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 21 is on vote. Who votes against the amendment 21? Thank you Abstention. Adopted. against amendment 22. I'm sorry, amendment 22 falls. There is no vote on amendment 22. Let's move to amendment 23R. If adopted, amendments 23, 24, 5, 6 and 7 will fall. Who votes again? There is an oral compromise amendment. It is on screen. Ready to vote? Who votes against the oral compromise? Abstention adopted. Amendment 28 is on vote. 28R. If adopted, amendments 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 will fall. Who votes against amendment 28R? Abstention adopted. Amendment 33 is on vote. Who votes against? Abstention adopted. 34. Amendment 35 is on vote. Who votes against? Amendment 35. Abstention. Who votes for? Amendment 35. Electronic vote. The vote is open on amendment 35. The vote is closed. Amendment 35 is rejected. Amendment 36 falls. Amendment 37 is on vote. Who votes again? Was rejected. Yes, you're correct. So 36 needs to be voted. We're going to vote amendments 36. Who votes against? Amendment 36. Abstention adopted. Amendment 37 is on vote. Who votes against? Amendment 37. Thank you. Abstention. Who votes for? Amendment 37. Amendment 37 is rejected. No. Electronic vote. The vote is closed. Amendment 37 is rejected. Amendment 38R. There is a normal compromise on amendment 38R. And if adopted, amendments 38, 39 and 40 will fall. Let's vote on amendment 38R. Who votes against? Amendment 38R. Thank you. Abstention. Amendment 38R is adopted. That means amendment 38 to 40 fall. Amendment 41R, there is an oral compromise. If adopted, amendments 41 to 45, 41 to 45 will fall. The oral compromise is on screen. We're going to vote amendment 41R. Who votes against? The amendment 41R. Thank you. Abstention. Amendment 41R is adopted. Amendment 46 is on vote. Who votes against? Amendment 46. Thank you. Abstention. Amendment 46 was adopted. Amendment 47R is on vote. If adopted, amendment 47 to 50 will fall. Who votes against? Amendment 47R. Abstention adopted. Amendment 51 is on vote. Who votes against? Thank you. Abstention. Who votes for? Amendment 51. Amendment 51 is rejected. Amendment 52 is on vote. Who votes against? Amendment 52. Thank you. Abstention. Amendment 52 is adopted. Amendment 53 is on vote. Who votes against? Amendment 53. Abstention. Adopted. Amendment 54 is on vote. Who votes against? Amendment 54. Thank you. Abstention. Adopted. Amendment 55R, there is an oral compromise. And if adopted, amendments 55 to 58 will fall. The compromise is on screen. We're going to vote amendments 55R. Who votes against? Amendment 55R. Thank you. Abstention. Amendment 55R is adopted. Amendment 59 is on vote. Who votes against? Amendment 59. Thank you. Abstention. Amendment 59 is adopted. Amendment 60R is on vote. If adopted, 60 falls. Who votes against? Amendment 60R. Abstention. Adopted. Amendments, may I tempt you with a block vote 61, 62? Thank you. You're very generous. Amendment 61 and 62 are on vote. Who votes against? Abstention. Adopted. Amendment 63R is amendment by the rapporteur. If adopted, 63 and 64 will fall. Who votes against? Amendment 63R. Abstention. Adopted. Amendment 65R. If adopted, 65 to 67 will fall. Who votes against? 65R. Abstention. Adopted. Amendment 68 is on vote. Who votes against? Amendment 68. Thank you. Abstention. Who votes for? Amendment 68. It's adopted. Amendment 69 falls if 68 was adopted. Block vote. Amendment 70 to 72. No opposition? Amendment 70 to 72 are on vote. Who votes against? Abstention. Adopted. Amendment 73R is on vote. If adopted, 73 to 75 will fall. Who votes against? 73R. Abstention. Adopted. Amendment 76 is on vote. Who votes against? Thank you. Abstention. Who votes for? Amendment 76. Electronic vote. Amendment 76, electronic vote. The vote is open. The vote is closed. Amendment 76 was rejected. Amendment 77 is on vote. Who votes against? Amendment 77. Thank you. Abstention. 77 was adopted. Amendment 78 is on vote. Who votes against? Amendment 78. Abstention. Adopted. Amendment 79R is on vote. If adopted, 79 falls. Who votes against? 79R. Abstention. Adopted. Amendment ADR is on vote. If adopted, 8081 falls. Who votes against? Amendment 80R. Abstention. Adopted. Amendment 82 is on vote. Who votes against? Amendment 82. Abstention. of votes against. Abstention? Thank you. Amendment 82 was adopted. Amendment 83 is on vote who votes against amendment 82? 83, sorry. Thank you. Amendment 83 is rejected. Amendment 84 is on vote who votes against amendment 84? Thank you. Abstention? Who votes for? Amendment 84, electronic vote. The vote on amendment 84 is open. The vote is closed. Amendment 84 was adopted. Amendment 85 is on vote who votes against amendment 85? Thank you. Abstention? Amendment 85 was adopted. Amendment 86 is on vote who votes against amendment 86? Thank you. Abstention? Amendment 86 was adopted. Amendment 87 is on vote who votes against amendment 87? Thank you. Adopted? Amendment 8080 is on vote who votes against amendment 88? Abstention? Adopted. Amendment 89 is on vote who votes against amendment 89? Thank you. Abstention? Adopted. Final vote on the opinion. Who votes against the opinion? Thank you. Abstention? The opinion was adopted by a majority. Thank you. Congratulations to the rapporteur and to everyone involved.