Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner! Dear colleagues! With the agreement on the CAP simplification package, we are sending a strong signal to our farmers across Europe. We understood that the rules of the common agricultural policy were too rigid, too fragmented and too unworkable. And we act. With tomorrow's vote, we will ensure that the simplifications arrive quickly and unbureaucratically at the farms. In particular, the cut-off date scheme for grassland classification, but also the facilitation of erosion protection, is a clear step forward and will reduce bureaucracy. Relief for small businesses is also welcome. But we also need to reduce bureaucracy beyond the CAP. This is particularly true in the field of plant protection. I hope that tomorrow the Commission will put forward good, forward-looking proposals in this regard. Last week, a so-called environmental omnibus was proposed. I believe that this is not yet the breakthrough in terms of the relief for farmers when it comes to the Habitats Directive, when it comes to: Nature restoration law when it comes to the Nitrates Directive, when it comes to the relief for the biogas sector. So we have taken the right direction, we are moving forward courageously, but there are still many adjustments to be made to make agriculture in Europe competitive and sustainable.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! One I like, the other I'm not quite convinced yet. What are we talking about? On the one hand, the reform of the common organisation of the market and, on the other hand, the simplification package relating to the common agricultural policy of our European Union. I really have concerns about the reform of the common organisation of the market. I believe we are questioning decades of traditional relationships, supply relationships, stable value chains and markets with the current reform. I think we're shooting well beyond the target. I see, at least in my analysis, more stable markets and better prices in those Member States where, for example, Article 148 has not yet been transposed than in those where it has already been transposed. We are now going right into these mandatory regulations. I am very much in favour of further simplifying the CAP. This is absolutely in the right direction. I believe that our mandate will strengthen this. I look forward to the trilogues. Above all, it is a matter of finding a solution quickly. The rules must enter into force on 1 January next year. And when it comes to grassland: Who puts the pressure on grassland? If you have to obtain arable status, then you are not able to continue to cultivate grassland permanently. On the other hand, it is clear: The reduction of cattle herds in the European Union is putting more pressure on grassland. All those who are constantly fighting against animal food should think about it.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The common agricultural policy must continue to have an independent, reliable and at least inflation-adjusted budget after 2027. We also need an independent law at the European level. We are in charge of the common agricultural policy. It is about planning security for the farmers also in view of the geopolitical global uncertainties, the volatile markets. It is about food security. It is about the competitiveness of agriculture within the European Union and also externally. So it's not about the end in itself, it's about the farmers in Europe. It is also about rural areas. The Commissioner has also spoken of healthcare in rural areas, of broadband. It is about the future of rural areas. That is why we need a first pillar and a second pillar that brings together rural areas. It is about the cohesion of society in Europe, about the cohesion of city and country. Nothing less is at stake. That is why I would like to see a clear signal from the Commission next week.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. It was finally understood that our European farmers are a central pillar in the EU and that we therefore have to work with them and not against them. The Commission's proposal with this vision sends an important signal to agriculture and rural areas in Europe that the message has really arrived in Brussels and that we now have the opportunity to work on the important acute aspects. The vision is clearly committed to food production and in particular to animal husbandry in Europe. It is good that we are moving away from conditionality and that we are getting more incentives in agriculture. The Commission rightly emphasises the importance of adaptation to climate change and the crucial role of future issues such as the bioeconomy. I very much welcome the fact that there is another CAP simplification package. However, I believe that we need more speed in cross-sectoral legislation – it is good that an omnibus is planned there. Simplification of fertilisation rules and plant protection is urgently needed; We need more speed, the faster, the better. Agriculture is the backbone of our society and rural areas in particular. The open question is: We get (Tone off). That is the crucial question in the coming months. Let's fight for that together!

So, if I understood the question correctly, it was about international trade and the role of agriculture in it. I believe that our ambition must be to include sustainability in future trade agreements. So that standards that are self-evident to us, which we have given ourselves, then also apply to imports from other parts of the world. I believe this is our most important point that we need to enforce in future trade agreements.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I believe we see it was a good idea to launch this strategic dialogue, following the polarisation of the agricultural debate by former Vice-President Frans Timmermans, who was responsible for the biggest loss of confidence of farmers in the European Commission in its entire history. Farmers are back at the table, and I believe this paper, this result, is the way forward – a first step if we see that it also includes incentives instead of prohibitions and conditions. We are no longer talking about blanket reduction targets. It is quite clear that it has been recognised that there are socio-economic reasons for CAP payments, so we need to see that we focus them even better and that they are distributed even better and more correctly. But there are reasons, for example, to accompany structural change and, at best, to mitigate it. What remains questionable for me, if there is a blanket requirement, is that we must constantly increase eco-regulations. You can see it in this year's harvest result, where for the first time in my country we planted and sowed less than 6 million hectares of grain. Of course, this is also an effect of previous decisions. Adapting to climate change costs a lot of money; To this end, we need a sufficient CAP budget. I believe that the strategic dialogue has better approaches than the Draghi report, which only speaks again of the fact that agriculture in Europe is getting too much. We are on the right track, and we have it in our hands to make a good, a better policy now than in the past period.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The other day, the German Minister of Agriculture went from the Greens to the inventors. He invented the bamboo bee. What happened? He stood on his balcony, trimmed his bamboo and claimed that he now lays the feed base for the bees. That can happen. Everyone knows that a bamboo is a useless crop for the bees, but stupidly, it symbolizes your conservation and climate policy. Much opinion, little knowledge of God's creation. The fruit farmers in my region on Lake Constance are different. They have managed to perform positively in butterfly monitoring over the last ten years. More biodiversity, more butterflies, both in quality and quantity. This shows: Climate protection goes with the farmers, biodiversity goes with the farmers and not against them. This is our policy. On the other hand, there is your misguided policy.

Madam President, last plenary session, Parliament endorsed an urgent procedure to be applied for the simplification of certain CAP rules. The vote is for now scheduled on Thursday this week and Parliament waits for the EEC to adopt its opinion on Wednesday. Following the consultation of the EEC agenda, it should be easily feasible that Parliament receives the EEC opinion on the simplification of certain CAP rules in time before the second voting slot on Wednesday afternoon. For this reason, the EPP Group would like to advance the vote from Thursday to Wednesday afternoon, second voting slot.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I am very grateful to the President of the Commission for proposing to the Commission to reduce the protection status of the wolf from ‘strictly protected’ to ‘protected’, first under the Berne Convention and then, of course, in the Habitats Directive. It is about the protection of grazing animal owners. But, of course, it is above all about the protection of biodiversity. We now have a threat to biodiversity from the number of wolves. He has no natural enemies. Unfortunately, the band of blockers leads the German Federal Minister for the Environment. Virtually nothing happens in my country. In my neighbouring country France, a lot is already happening under the high protection status. The firing plan for the next few years has just been published. Last year, 209 wolves were shot in France. So you can already do something, but it is urgently necessary in the case of population expansion that we now lower the protection status and hopefully a qualified majority in the Council will come on 25 March.

I have great sympathy for the fact that we are implementing European regulations – what we are adopting here – in the Member States one-to-one. And indeed, it is sometimes the case that national and, in some cases, regional governments go beyond the provisions of Brussels. But where we also have our own responsibilities, for example when it comes to decommissioning, we need to tackle the 4% now and make it a thing of the past; We are now called upon. In the end, the Black Peter game brings little to the farmers.

Mr President, Mr Vice-President! It is good that farmers in Europe take to the streets, that they do not continue this policy. It is often up to national governments to make the wrong decisions – for example, my own, which does not even understand the term ‘rural area’, which makes pure politics for the big cities. But it is also up to us, among other things; It's the Timmermans agenda, the ideology-driven agenda that we have to leave behind. And it is an important sign, Mr Vice-President, that yesterday the President withdrew the SUR – an important element as a sign to the farmers. But, Mr. Vice-President, I am already very disappointed: The farmers are on the street, and you come here today empty-handed. We need changes to the CAP. We must put an end to the decommissioning agenda. We need simplifications in the common agricultural policy, including sub-legislative ones. Let's let the farmers finally produce, do their work, more back in the field, less in the office! We need to do this in the coming weeks, ladies and gentlemen. (The speaker agreed to answer a question on the blue card procedure.)

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Brussels cannot support the fact that Germany has a low performer as Minister of Agriculture, who, when decisions are made, obviously sits at the cat table and not at the cabinet table. But that does not mean that we are complacent and that we have done everything right in recent years. But I think we've been sending good signals in the last few months. The use of plant protection products is assured. The financial planning security for farmers in the CAP budget is guaranteed until 2028. There is common sense in the forest. The woody biomass also remains renewable at the European level. We are on the way to better protecting grazing with the Commission President's proposals to reduce the protection status of wolves. And the best news is: Frans Timmermans has left Brussels. With his ideology-driven politics, he has fallen on his snout. But, Commissioner, there is still one task, especially for you, which you can still do in the coming months: Start the decommissioning. Decommissioning, as we currently practice it, with 4% decommissioning for farmers, is impractical and no longer appropriate given the current food security situation. This would also be a significant increase in income for the farmers and a clear help and signal, especially in these times.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Many amendments to the Treaties are necessary in many areas. This does not apply to agriculture. I believe, like the majority of my committee, that the objectives of the common agricultural policy remain appropriate and important, as we have seen during the ongoing war in Ukraine, the COVID pandemic and also climate change and its impact on the food and energy sector and on the Union economy as a whole. And they still play a strategic and fundamental role in agricultural production, rural development and European integration in general. Also consider: The current objectives of the Treaty are formulated in such a way that they have always allowed for fundamental reforms of the common agricultural policy. Nothing prevented us from adding new objectives and measures to agricultural policy reforms in line with the three sustainability aspects of the environment, the economy and social affairs. Therefore, the objectives of the CAP remain appropriate and more important than ever.

Dear colleague Wiener! This is exactly what it is all about: This is a reversal of the burden of proof. It is about: First, it must be clear: Are any animal species or plant species endangered by a certain active substance, by a certain plant protection product in particular and not prohibited as a general rule? And I repeat again: Exceptions, which are then to be decided by the Member States, politicise this debate and especially in Member States which have a particularly large number of protected areas; This includes my home country of Germany with every sixth hectare that is affected by this. And that is why this poses a threat to the landscape, in particular a practical ban on farmers in these areas.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! In the coronavirus pandemic, in the Russian attack on Ukraine, we have become aware of the importance of good self-sufficiency of high-quality food in the European Union. And this is exactly what, in addition to the issue of climate and biodiversity protection, must guide us in our vote tomorrow. I believe that the proposals of the Committee on Agriculture are the right way forward in terms of reduction. A postponement after 2035 and in particular the issue of protected areas, protected area bans, still needs to be significantly changed. The proposal of the Committee on the Environment is not a solution, it is a sham solution. This is also shared by the Prime Minister of my region, who is also a member of the Green Party. We must not punish the frontrunner regions in Europe – those that have already done a great deal. And you can see how there is already more biodiversity in my homeland; This is shown by the latest eco-monitoring. Let's take a path of cooperation with agriculture, not confrontation! And that's tomorrow in this vote. (The speaker agreed to answer a question on the blue card procedure.)

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! A job in industry or handicrafts that is financially more interesting in the immediate vicinity of your own farm, more wages, and all this with fewer working hours: Sounds appealing – it is. Lots of work, little pay, dwindling social prestige, bureaucratic requirements that put more and more stones in your way: It doesn’t sound very appealing – nor is it. If colleagues - such as Mr Waitz in particular - continue to play organic farms against conventional ones, play the city and the countryside against each other, then it is truly not a good future for farmers. We have to do exactly the opposite: Prospects, financial incentives, an investment plan, an innovation plan are needed for rural areas, for agriculture in Europe. And we need to do more. We started well in the CAP – next time we need to do even more for the young farmers in Europe. And above all, they need appreciation and not blame, but appreciation for their work, that they have a future perspective, that they also have social recognition.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Mr Biteau and the German Minister for Agriculture have just shown that they have not understood the precautionary principle at all. The precautionary principle with regard to the authorisation of plant protection products is the hardest thing the European Union has in the world, and that means that we have confidence in the toughest authorisation process in the world. Rarely has an active substance been studied as closely as the active substance glyphosate. Well over 1 000, thousands of pages of research were involved – from national authorities and also from EFSA. No critical problem areas have been identified which, if used correctly as prescribed, lead to a ban on the active substance. How can the European institutions be taken seriously when bans are imposed, even though scientifically and methodologically sound data do not give rise to them? What can European farmers trust? I therefore welcome the European Commission's trust in EFSA's assessment and its intention to allow glyphosate for another ten years. This is a very important step for agriculture and especially for the planning security of farmers. Of course, it is right to continue to discuss how, for example, France is doing if we include further application restrictions. But we are heading in the right direction, and I now trust the Member States to make a wise and correct decision, namely re-authorisation.

Mr President! Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! For more than 30 years, we have not changed anything about the protection status of the wolf. In a quarter of this time, we expect the laws of Green DealsTransforming Europe's entire environment and biodiversity by 2030. The Habitats Directive was adopted in 1992. At the time, wolves were practically extinct in my homeland. Today, more than 1,500 animals live there, around 20,000 in the European Union. The numbers are increasing exponentially. The danger posed by the wolf must be clearly stated. How could change have been ignored for so long? A re-evaluation is overdue. I would like to thank Mrs von der Leyen, President of the Commission, for taking seriously not only the voices of rural areas, but also of this Parliament, and for taking the initiative. Because we must not allow the wolf to drive a wedge between urban and rural areas in Europe. We need a European solution. Wolves don't stick to national borders. And we see that practically nothing happens in some Member States. We also need a clear overview of what the Commission intends to do and, of course, when it intends to do so. Urgency is required. I demand clarity for life in rural areas, for agriculture, for grazing livestock farmers.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! In recent months, we have been negotiating intensively on this Parliament mandate for the revision of the Ambient Air Quality Directive. I believe that the report of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection still needs to be significantly improved. That is why, together with colleagues from other political groups, we have tabled a whole package of amendments. It is a matter of continuing the ambitious objectives of the European Union and continuing the successes we have already achieved in the past in terms of improving air quality. But it is also a question of not taking unrealistic and drastic measures, such as driving bans or the decommissioning of industries, as demanded by the S&Ds and parts of the Liberals, Leftists and Greens in this House. The solution should be very clear: Create incentives, promote low-emission opportunities – instead of bans and penalties. We must also bear in mind that many Member States already have a very high standard of air quality. This revision must therefore balance the costs and effort with the result in a proportionate manner. The red line for me is to call for the alignment of WHO values in the next ten years. Approximation to WHO values yes, alignment no. The emphasis is on the benchmark. These values should not be misunderstood as limit values. The WHO itself also emphasizes that its guidelines only reflect the most optimal state of health. As decision-makers, we must therefore responsibly reconcile all facets of health, the environment and economic efficiency within the EU and decide at what speed this transformation should take place. I therefore call for the adoption of the emission levels of the Commission's proposal for 2035.

Madam President, Commissioner! I brought good news from my home country. We recently had a monitoring in my intensive fruit growing area on Lake Constance in the south of Germany. We have 112 wild bee species in 2023, twice as many as in 2010, of which 26 species were considered threatened or significantly reduced nationwide. What a success! And who did it, who got it? Farmers, especially fruit farmers. What did they do? Flowering areas placed in the orchard, nesting aids, local wild herbs extended, intensively planted with own commitment. This is the path we need to take, the path with farmers, the path of best practice. Sit down, Commissioner, look at which regions have advanced, which regions have lost biodiversity, and then come up with a new proposal, including a revision of the Habitats Directive. The biggest threat to biodiversity is the uncontrolled spread of the wolf population. That is the great danger. Please, take all this into account.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister! It is good, Commissioner, that you are here now; We would also like to welcome you to the agricultural debate this morning. It is undisputed that the war in Ukraine presents us with great challenges. The prices of grain in the Ukrainian border states are on the decline, the situation is precarious, the farmers are urgently dependent on financial aid. Only: The protective measures you have recently adopted are not a long-term solution. In order to secure the single market in the long term, we must not push the problem further in the EU. The influx of Ukrainian grain into the European riparian states is a home-made problem, and the European Commission has a responsibility in this regard too; That was clear to us a year ago. You finally have to think about how you solidarity lanes Take it to the next level. The Ukrainian grain must land in the countries in need, must not seep somewhere after crossing the border. Global food shortages, high inflation and the collapse of currencies threaten food security in the Middle East and North Africa. Demand from these third countries is falling not because there is less demand, but because there are budget deficits, high public debt, currency depreciation and dangerous inflation rates – this is what the World Food Programme writes. And when we're there on exports, I think we have to realize that we can't hope every 60 or 120 days that Russia will let the deal continue in the Black Sea. And the current one expires in a week. I believe that we have the solidarity lanes We need to strengthen the fact that we need to launch logistics aid, that we need to buy Ukrainian grain, especially wheat, that there must finally be a special representative in the Commission or a task force to address this problem, and that we must now react quickly and symbolically start exporting humanitarian grain right away. That would be a signal to the farmers, both in Poland and in Romania in particular.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen! I am glad, Commissioner, that you are here. But I wonder where the Commissioner for Agriculture is, why he is not taking up this debate, where he is hiding this morning; That's the question. I believe that it is a matter of respect for this House that the Commissioner for Agriculture should take up this debate. Next week, on 15 May, farmers will have to submit their application for support for the new agricultural policy for the first time. I believe that many will then become aware of the requirements and challenges that this new common agricultural policy poses to farmers – keywords Enhanced conditionality, eco-schemes. I believe that we are seeing what our agriculture is already doing, what we are demanding of it in the future, and of course agriculture is already making a major contribution to environmental and climate protection. But I think we are overburdening farmers. There are currently 80 legislative initiatives from the European Commission, 30 with a direct impact on agriculture: the SUR, Nature restoration law, animal welfare, industrial emissions, Sustainable food systemsJust to name a few. It is pushed, pushed, pushed. And Europe's agriculture needs to do more and more faster. Farmers are no longer doing what we ask them to do. Let the farmers work! Especially in the current food situation, we have to make them want to be able to continue to practice this wonderful profession, especially as far as the young generation is concerned.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Bees are an essential part of our ecosystem: Without them there is no harvest and no food. But I also say: Farmers are an essential part of our ecosystem, because without them there is no harvest and no food. It is therefore all the more important that we develop practical and feasible solutions together with them, i.e. the farmers. We must work together with the farmers, in cooperation and not in confrontation. If we make ill-considered decisions that are perhaps shaped by ideals, but not by reason, then we will not reach the goal. The European Citizens’ Initiative ‘Save bees and farmers! A bee-friendly agriculture for a healthy environment” demonstrates the importance of this concern for the European population. But the question is: How can we guarantee the long-term protection of bees and farmers? Let me tell you: It's in dialogue! We need alternatives. That is, we must first develop the alternative means, allow them and then enforce the reduction. The Commission is clearly late in this. When we talk about biodiversity and how we can conserve or improve it, it is especially about family farming. Many complain that it is getting more and more into the background, that farmers stop. But above all, there are also many editions, documentations, bureaucracy that just cause the small farmers to stop and that the farm does not go into the next generation. I think we have to pay attention to that too. In my home state of Baden-Württemberg, we are following the path of cooperation and not confrontation. We have shown this way with a Biodiversity Strengthening Act. The European Union should take a closer look at this path. Right now, I'm afraid we're going to end up in a dead end.

Madam President, Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! I think it was an important sign in November that we were able to reach an agreement on LULUCF and ESR before or during COP27, sending a signal to Sharm al-Sheikh. I would like to reiterate that agriculture and forestry is the only sector that not only generates emissions but is also capable of sequestering carbon. This takes place in the forest, this takes place in grassland, this takes place in arable farming in many ways in the European Union. In the field of forest management, I would stress in particular that active, sustainable forest management is the one that ensures CO2 storage, that ensures sustainable wood products and can thus ensure climate protection in the long term. The agreement at 310 million tons is very ambitious. Member States will have to make great efforts to achieve these objectives. I would also like to emphasise once again: For me, forestry, agriculture, agriculture belong together. I think it is right that the Commission wanted to think it together. I also think it is important that the review clause is in place as far as AFOLU is concerned by 2035. In other words, the merging of agriculture and forestry is important, even if it has not now found a majority, neither in the Council nor in the European Parliament. I believe our teaching must be: We need to listen more to farmers, to foresters, to those who can actively ensure that we achieve carbon sequestration. However, it is also important to me that we do this now, especially in the process. carbon farmingbetter achieve the certification proposed by the Commission and incentivise farmers there to move forward on carbon sequestration. Natural sinks, however, have a limit. That's why we quickly need a framework for CCU and CCS. Technical methods will continue to be important in the future.

Dear Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the situation we have just experienced – that is, that we now have a few colleagues here who are already there – is very welcome! – and the Commissioner is there too – it shows just a little bit of the situation we are in in terms of food security and food supply, not especially in Europe, but in terms of our global situation. I think we are sleepwalking into a catastrophe and somehow don't even notice it or take it really seriously or at least not as seriously as the situation actually requires at the moment. Commissioner, yesterday I saw the new figures from the World Food Organisation again – I was at a meeting with the Chief Economist of the World Food Organisation – and I have to say: We cannot in any way give an all-clear on the issue of food security: In the world, 839 million people are starving or don't have enough to eat. Last year's figures have worsened again. The number of people who do not have enough calories has increased once again compared to the situation a year ago. That's why I think we need to act in many places. I don't think it's a time of concern, but it's definitely a time when we have to act and not just react. And I think we need to react quickly in different places. This applies on the one hand to the situation of our farmers, especially in the border regions with Ukraine, and on the other hand to our Polish farmers, Romanian farmers, Hungarian, Slovak and Bulgarian farmers. I think we need to help quickly. And, Commissioner, I thank you for making proposals there, but they must now also be enforced soon, so that there are compensations for the situations that have just arisen as a result of the faults. And then there is also a lot of need for action in the field of fertilisers; This is what our resolution, which we are going to adopt today, is about. I am optimistic that we will adopt them by a good majority. I believe that your communication is pointing in the right direction, but that different decisions are still pending at crucial points. For example: Why do we need or why do we still have anti-dumping duties in the current situation, although fertiliser prices are still high, sometimes very, very high in some regions in Europe? Why are we not moving forward to become more independent of fertilisers – I mean in particular the better use of organic fertilisers? In the end, too, many, many approvals from the European Commission are still pending; There are many concerns. I think we have to realize that organic fertilizers and the animal husbandry that is behind them are one of the solutions that we have to draw, that we have to lift in order to make us more independent of chemical-synthetic mineral fertilizers. There are actually a few decisions on the table. It is clear that one must and can meet these now in order to have to use fewer mineral fertilizers in the future in order to be able to use more organic fertilizers, which can also be better distributed within the European Union where it is necessary. Therefore, in the area of RENURE In my view, what is happening very quickly and in the area of anti-dumping duties, in the area of compensation, especially for the farmers who are now exposed to the faults. I believe these are the very important, necessary decisions that must come soon. And we need to think about how we are positioning ourselves for 2024 and 2025, Commissioner. I believe that we cannot afford to make larger set-asides in 2024 and 2025, to have too restrictive regulations than the European Union, but we must see that we at least maintain our production in order to be able to make our contribution as a basis for food supply in the world.