What Anja spoke about.

Mr President, enough food is produced worldwide to feed everyone. But then we all have to make different food choices and distribute the food better. So we do not achieve that by having Ukrainian grain ships come to the Netherlands to fatten our poultry, while people die of starvation all over the world. We do not achieve this by using three-quarters of our agricultural land to feed billions of animals in the livestock industry, while we can also directly grow food for people. This is not achieved by allowing four large companies to dominate the global grain trade. We cannot achieve this by letting hundreds of small-scale farmers go bankrupt every day, while a handful of large food companies make billions in profits. And we will not achieve that as long as many politicians here say what the lobbyists of the industry have whispered to them in the corridors. Shameless. Dear Commissioner, keep your back straight. Make haste with the promised framework law for sustainable food, because this is the only way we guarantee food security.

Mr President, the current energy crisis makes it painfully clear how polluting fertiliser production is. Yara's fertilizer plant in the Netherlands alone chases 2 billion cubic meters of gas through it every year. This leads to a significant contribution to global warming and a record electricity price. But there are more disastrous consequences of the fossil addiction of agriculture. The depletion of our soils, the leaching of nutrients and the fertilisation and pollution of our rivers, lakes and oceans also make it clear that we do not need more fertilizer, but less. And you can. Nature and organic farmers have had the solution for a long time. Peas, lupins and other legumes bind nitrogen, enriching the soil. Green fertilizers, crop rotations and a truly circular agriculture in which we not only extract nutrients from the fields, but also return them to them, are effective, cheap and future-proof. We must get rid of the fossil form of agriculture and, of course, of agricultural subsidies as soon as possible.

Mr President, a core task of the government is to protect the individual from the power of the majority. The Dutch government has failed in this. That is heartbreaking for all those thousands of parents and children who faced severe financial and emotional damage. It also results in citizens no longer trusting the government. This trust can only return when the government acknowledges its own mistakes and liberally and quickly rectifies the consequences of these mistakes. But that's about more than reparation. The government must also follow the principles of Restorative justice apply. This means: Acknowledge the perpetratorship and feel what you have done. Only then can we work together and in equality with the victims on recovery. This whole scandal is the result of a corporate neoliberal government that has cut itself to pieces. The result was an administrative system that had to cut costs and at the same time focus heavily on tackling fraud. It is also the result of the ‘metaversification’ of this government. The use of algorithms and artificial intelligence everywhere poses major risks. Computers do not apply human rights. They simply incorporate institutional racism, which unfortunately is still very much present in Europe, into their algorithms. I would like to know: What will the Commission do with these important lessons? How does she prevent a benefit affair in her own home? Because I don't see any guarantee for that.

Madam President, I welcome the Commissioner and the Minister. In these times of climate and environmental crisis, we need to urgently step up the protection of the most endangered animals and plants. Crucially, this means that we need to protect more species via the annexes of the CITES convention, and we need to increase enforcement and tackle wildlife crime. I am very glad that my colleagues in the Environment Committee supported the proposal to write this ambitious resolution. This ambition is much needed because, all too often, the European Union made poor choices during the CITES negotiations. CITES was designed to maintain commercial trade in specimens of wild animals and plants, rather than protect them. However, shouldn't CITES regulate the trade, instead of stimulating it? Today, I would like to focus on the role that the European Union plays. The EU's position is often the key reason for the failure of many CITES proposals. One would hope, with this Commission's loudly trumpeted commitments to halting biodiversity loss, that there would be greater support for the range states when they are making a desperate bid to protect their native wildlife populations at the upcoming CITES CoP. Why doesn't the Commission support the range states’ proposals? For instance, proposals to protect the hippo and the elephant. At the last CoP, the Commission refused to support the uplisting of the African elephant to Appendix I. Now, six years later, the situation with some of the African elephant populations is dramatic. At this moment, 10 range states have proposed to transfer the common hippo to CITES Appendix I. These West African countries are bearing direct witness to the decline of this iconic species, and yet the Commission thinks that it knows better and seems determined to not support the hippo uplisting proposal. This Parliament, however, noted the African nations’ concerns and is voicing its support for ending the commercial trade in hippo products in this resolution. We recognise that this will throw a lifeline to the species, which is jeopardised not only by habitat loss and climate change, but also by the trade in its tusks and teeth for ivory. I urge the Commission and Member States to support this hippo proposal. Do not make the same mistake as you made with the African elephant. The same can be said for the proposal to list glass frogs on CITES Appendix II. These amphibians are becoming increasingly popular in the exotic pet trade. They are protected in many range states, but are collected and traded illegally. Also, these species fell victim to the EU's position at the last CoP. We know that we can really make a difference when the EU steps up its action. For example, six years ago, the Morocco and the European Union promoted together the listing of the Barbary macaque. This has already borne fruit: we are now seeing the stronghold population in the Atlas Mountains recovering. Staying on the subject of the exotic pet trade, it is good that this resolution reiterates Parliament's support for an EU—wide positive list. This would also limit the number of wild species that can be kept by private owners and thereby reduce a huge amount of animal suffering of species that are unsuitable to be kept as pets. I urge my colleagues to support the text as agreed by the Environment Committee. I am hoping that the Commission listens to these and Parliament’s other demands and soon delivers a revised action plan against wildlife trafficking, with real teeth and the funding to be able to tackle the overexploitation of other species. We need to increase enforcement and penalties for wildlife crime and decrease the demand for products from endangered species, particularly hunting trophies and traditional medicines. I'm looking forward to hearing the response of the Council and the Commission to the crucial points I raised and also to hear their answers to ENVI’s questions, in particular, the need to address the link between wildlife trade and the risk of zoonotic pandemics. I would like to hear from the presidency about what they will do to make sure that this CoP, as well as those on climate and biodiversity, will deliver the success that we so desperately need to protect our planet. I would like to thank, lastly, all the ENVI shadows for the great collaboration on this resolution and look forward to its adoption tomorrow.

Mr President, fish farms are the mega stables of the underwater world. Just like in mega stables on land, animals in fish farms are locked up in too small spaces at the same time. Just like in mega stables on land, animals in fish farms are kept in such a way that they cannot show their natural behavior and their lives are one great agony. As in mega stables on land, the accumulation of large quantities of animals in fish farms leads to environmental pollution, diseases and excessive antibiotic use. The breeding of fish is also far from sustainable. The African coast is literally being emptied to provide our fish farms in Europe and elsewhere in the world with fishmeal. Growing up one salmon in such a fish farm requires 350 wild-caught fish. A Spanish company even wants to open the world's first octopus farm next year: A disaster for animal welfare and a disaster for the environment, scientists warn. But in spite of all these disastrous effects on people, animals and the environment, there is a call here in Strasbourg for a strong increase in the number of fish farms in Europe. The Party for the Animals wants to prevent us from making the same mistake as in livestock farming. That is why we shall be voting against this report.

Mr President, seas and oceans are essential for life on earth. Nevertheless, we use the ocean as a garbage can, as a hunting ground and as an industrial site, and we drill the seabed in search of gas and oil. What actions is the European Commission taking to successfully amend the Global Convention for the Protection of International Waters as soon as possible? How far has the Commission come with its proposals to finally protect at least 30% of the seas in Europe and preferably beyond? I would also like to draw attention to the whales. Since 1986, there has been a worldwide ban on whaling. Despite this ban, Norway, Japan, the Danish Faroe Islands and, unfortunately, Iceland have been hunting whales since this year. That is cruel and irresponsible. Whales (and their poop) are crucial to the ecosystem and indispensable in the fight against climate change. The European Parliament therefore once again calls on Norway, Japan, but also Iceland and the Faroe Islands, to stop the hunt for whales and dolphins once and for all. Will the Commission support this call and address these countries, including Iceland? I also believe that European agricultural and fisheries subsidies should be abolished.

Mr President, Commissioner, forests are essential for all life on earth. They provide us with oxygen, regulate the climate and rain patterns, and host the vast majority of biodiversity. But our forests are under serious threat worldwide. The production and overconsumption of meat, dairy and eggs is the main cause of deforestation. Because all those farm animals must be provided with animal feed. Knife and fork are therefore our most powerful weapons against deforestation. Meat, soy, maize and all other products that have led to deforestation should no longer be sold in Europe. But we're not there yet. As long as our banks, insurers and pension funds continue to invest in the deforestation of the Amazon and other vulnerable forests, Europe remains guilty of destroying our global natural heritage. Financial institutions should be covered by this law! I also believe that European agricultural subsidies should be abolished.

European agriculture, in particular intensive livestock farming, plays an important role in the loss of biodiversity. For decades, the focus has been on growth and intensification of livestock farming through subsidies, by governments, by banks. The Netherlands is now one of the countries that finally realizes that the amount of nitrogen that ends up in nature reserves must be drastically reduced. And that inevitably also means that the number of animals in the livestock industry must be drastically reduced. Finally, I would say. Fewer animals also means less manure and less ammonia. But that also leads to violent protests from farmers, who block roads, intimidate ministers and even destroy nature reserves. What would be your message to ministers who are now facing a loss of biodiversity, but also to angry farmers? How do you explain that for years a policy of indifference is no longer sustainable? And how do you explain that procrastination is not an option and that our planet will only stand a chance if the goals are finally met?

Yes, thank you. I will try in English then. As long as the cumulative effects cannot be assessed – and it will take some time and it is complex, I heard – in the meantime, to protect consumers, are you willing to allow only one pesticide per crop to prevent a cocktail effect? Or, another possibility to protect consumers is to fully inform them through the label. So are you willing to put all the pesticides that were used on a specific crop, on the label?

Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for your answers. According to the Commission, the assessment of cumulative effects is complex and may take a long time to be implemented. If we really want to protect consumers from the cocktail effect, we can do two things: allow only one agricultural poison per crop or inform consumers directly about the pesticides used through labels. Is the Commission prepared to do so until the cumulative effects can be properly assessed?

Mr President, if you make a smoothie with, for example, kiwi, pear or cherries, you will not only get enough fiber and vitamins, but also an unhealthy cocktail of pesticides, which to an increasing extent consists of the most harmful agricultural toxins. These poisons should have been banned a long time ago. However, recent research has shown that they are being used more and more. Apart from the dangers of individual agricultural toxins, the effects of toxins are still not assessed in conjunction. The Commission should have taken care of this 10 years ago. When are agricultural poisons finally assessed cumulatively? When will the most harmful and dangerous agricultural poisons finally be banned?

Madam President, the Białowieża forest is an incredibly precious natural site. Protected by the Natura 2000 and World Heritage regimes, it is one of the last old-growth forests in Europe. It is home to thousands of different species. The Białowieża forest is an irreplaceable area for biodiversity conservation, due to its size, protection status and substantially undisturbed nature. And precisely this forest is now under heavy attack as a 186 kilometres long and 5.5 metres tall wall is being built right through its heart. Steel, concrete and razor wire will block this key ecological corridor. The migration of wolves, lynx, bison and elk will become completely impossible, with dire consequences for their survival. This wall is illegal: no impact assessment has been carried out, even though it is prescribed by the Habitats Directive. There are alternatives too, and the so—called mitigation measures proposed by the Polish authorities are utterly inadequate. This wall is deeply unethical too. There is no justification for labelling this wall as a proportionate measure for border control while exhausted migrants are losing their lives because of it. We have a duty to protect the fundamental rights of all refugees, including those chased into the Białowieża forest. Commissioner, do you agree that this wall is illegal and should be stopped? And what will you do to achieve that? I am warning the Commission that claiming that it is a matter of national competence will not do! That is totally inadequate and disregards EU laws. As the guardian of the Treaties and the EU acquis, the Commission has a duty and obligation to act. I would also like to know: what is the status of the infringement procedure that the Commission started in 2021 about the failure of Poland to stop the logging of this unique Białowieża forest? When are you going to take the next step? What are you waiting for? I urge the Commission to do whatever it takes to halt the construction of this wall, and to remedy the negative consequences that it has already inflicted. The Białowieża forest needs to be protected: no walls, no logging, and no violation of fundamental human rights. It’s as simple as that.

Mr President, we are constantly crossing the boundaries of the earth. Two weeks ago, in the Netherlands, we made up all the raw materials that the earth can offer us in one year. This is not the time to be lax in the hope that the next generations will come up with a solution. Intensive agriculture leaves billions of animals suffering, relies heavily on agricultural poison and fertilizer, destroys biodiversity and emits a lot of greenhouse gases. This is the time to be ambitious and embrace the Farm to Fork Strategy’s target of having at least 25% of organic farmland by 2030. That means high animal welfare standards, no harmful poison and a clear label, so that citizens can make informed choices that are important not only for their own health, but also for the health of the entire planet and all its inhabitants. Finally, I believe that European agricultural subsidies should be abolished.

Mr President, for decades we have been poisoning our environment, and therefore ourselves, with chemicals that remain toxic forever. We need to get rid of this polluting legacy. For far too long we have used very dangerous substances in fire retardants, non-stick coatings and post-its. I am therefore pleased that the Commission and Parliament want to set stricter standards for these substances. It is crucial that we ensure that our raw material flows, including recycled waste, are completely safe. However, much more action is needed. We know from more substances, including all PFAS and new substances such as GenX, that they are so dangerous and so persistent that they should be banned. Together with a number of other countries, the Netherlands has made a proposal for a European ban on these substances. I would therefore ask the Commission to do so as soon as possible. Finally, I believe that European agricultural subsidies should be abolished.

Mr President, nature is essential to our existence. Nature is irreplaceable. Nature is essential to our food supply. These are the scientific conclusions of the IPBES. It is contradictory and irresponsible that the European Commission is victimising precisely this indispensable nature under the guise of food security. Once again, the Commission is pumping millions of euros into the livestock industry. Areas that are meant to restore nature want to fill them with animal feed. The climate and biodiversity crises are not waiting for Russia to lay down its arms. You don't help food production by making it less sustainable. "That is an illusion", Commissioner Timmermans said last week. But a week later, that is exactly what the Commission is doing. Feeding mega stables is at the expense of people, animals, climate, nature and the environment. Instead, Europe should focus on reducing the livestock industry and on sustainable food production directly for people. This is the only way to achieve true food security. That is why I also believe that European agricultural subsidies should be abolished.

Madam President, the rapporteur announced at the start of the negotiations that he wanted an objective debate without extreme positions. Is it possible for an active cattle farmer to write an objective report on animal welfare on farms, solely based on facts instead of his personal opinions? Clearly not. This report is not objective. It is not science-based and not even about animal welfare. It is time that those who cried the loudest for scientific evidence start using scientific evidence themselves. I cannot emphasise enough how extremely disappointing it is that once again, animal welfare is hijacked by the ongoing debate on the future of farmers. A missed opportunity, but we can fix this by voting in favour of the alternative and objective reports written and adopted by the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI). Dear Commissioner, times are changing, but not everyone seems to be willing to embrace this change. I hope and expect from the Commissioner that she will use her common sense and base her legislative proposals on scientific evidence and on the welfare and needs of every animal species. That is what we need to tackle the numerous cases of non-compliance, the enormous animal suffering and the systemic inhumane treatment of animals exposed by multiple investigations and by your own inspections. The sooner, the better.

Mr President, every year, some one and a half billion animals are transported live over long distances through Europe or to countries far beyond it. That is an average of four million animals per day. As I say this sentence, a thousand animals are loaded into trucks to start their day-long and harsh journey. After a year and a half of research, the Committee of Inquiry into Animal Transports comes up with a clear and destructive judgment. The rules that animals must protect during transport are systematically violated, which means that animals have to deal with violent treatment with extreme heat or cold, too little water, food or rest. Countries are breaking the rules and no one is acting against them, not the Member States, not the Commission. In short, Europe does not fulfil its obligation to take care of animals throughout the journey, from the point of departure to the place of destination. And that's a big shame. We therefore need a revision of the Animal Transport Directive as soon as possible, a revision which has fortunately already been promised by the Commission. And better today than tomorrow, because until then we send animals on the road and the sea every day with horror transports. Unfortunately, the recommendations of the committee of inquiry do not do justice to the harsh conclusions of the research report. In practice, the small improvements have nothing at all to do with animals. We need a system change. We need to take big steps and rethink the legislation. And even then, there is still a chance that the European Parliament will vote today to weaken the recommendations even further, recommendations that are even weaker than the current legislation. Commissioner, can you promise that you will work for species-specific legislation, for shorter transport times, for lowering the maximum temperature and for strict rules to protect vulnerable animals, such as pregnant and very young animals? And colleagues, you can make a difference today. With a lot of guts and a few presses on the voting button, you can make it clear that long-distance animal transport has to end, you can make it clear that there has to be an end to the export of animals, and you can make it clear that there has to be an end to the transport of animals by sea.

Mr President, lions jumping through hoops, elephants standing on their hind legs and hippos sitting on a stool. That is the unnatural behavior that we teach wild animals with extremely violent training methods under the guise of entertainment. And if the animals do not have to show their tricks, they are locked in far too small cages or are chained and isolated in their trailers. They do not get any movement, there is no possibility to exercise their natural behavior and, in fact, the animals are stressed and each and every one of them exhibits abnormal or even dangerous behavior. Then there are the many and long transports on top. This is pure animal suffering. We are talking about animals, living beings with consciousness and feeling, no accessories, toys or products to entertain people. I am therefore pleased that 1 million citizens have called for a European ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. 23 Member States have already banned the use of wild animals in circuses for reasons of animal welfare, but also for reasons of public safety. It's not just an ethical problem, Commissioner. Hundreds of incidents, such as escapes, attacks and accidents, have proven this over the last two decades. Let's give Germany, France, Italy and Spain a helping hand. Come up with a European ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. And together, let's free the last wild animals and take them to a place far away from the circus.

Mr President, we desperately need a food revolution. Globally, food and farming systems contribute up to 30% of our greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to an even bigger proportion of biodiversity loss. Why is this ignored in the global climate negotiations? Again, COP26 failed to address this crucial issue. Again, the big cow in the room was ignored. We cannot save the climate crisis if we don’t address one of the biggest drivers of climate change: our overly intensive farm-animal production system and the promotion and consumption of meat, dairy and eggs. Our food system is a ticking time bomb, and if we don’t fix it now the food security will be at stake. So let’s talk about food, Commissioner.

Mr President, today we are voting on 270 billion in European agricultural subsidies, for more mega stables, for more agricultural poison and for more pollution. Many farmers, environmental organizations, climate activists have turned against this agricultural policy, because with this disastrous plan, the Green Deal becomes a Black Deal in one fell swoop. The future of farmers, animals, nature and the environment is put on sale. How is it possible that this Parliament voted in favour of the climate emergency, the biodiversity strategy and the farm to fork strategy, when it is now about to do exactly the opposite? This common agricultural policy will not solve the climate crisis, the biodiversity crisis and the animal welfare crisis, but rather fuel it. There is only one choice: Vote away this cap. That is also why I believe that European agricultural subsidies should be abolished. Vote this CAP down!

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, the right to a healthy environment is a human right and it is high time that the European Union and the United Nations also enshrine this right in their charters, as so many countries have already done. However, we need to deepen this fundamental debate on rights that are endangered by the way we deal with the earth. Because what should be the consequences if our healthy living environment is affected? What should be the sanctions we impose on those who destroy ecosystems? To answer these questions, it is also necessary that we recognise ecosystems as legal entities, so that everyone can help to protect nature. We are all interested. It is also important to recognise ecocide, degrading a healthy living environment and destroying ecosystems as a crime, so that it can also be prosecuted. That is also why I believe that European agricultural subsidies should be abolished.

Madam President, no action is no option. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science—Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) have forewarned, if we do not take action now to halt the climate crisis and the loss of biodiversity, this will undoubtedly lead to higher food prices and less food security worldwide. If we want the farm to fork strategy to succeed, the EU must be willing to face up to these challenges and resist pressure from corporate interests to carry on with business as usual. The multinationals, who dominate the seed and pesticides market with manipulated, toxic—dependent products, won’t profit from a change to a toxic-free, resilient form of agriculture. But the farmers, the ecosystems and the consumers will benefit from this transition. Those who dominate the food and drink industry, who sell us ultra-processed food and soft drinks, high in sugar, salt and fat, won’t profit from the change to a more healthy food environment, fair and true pricing and crystal-clear labelling. But the farmers, the ecosystems and the consumers will benefit from this transition. Those who make profits from confining millions of sentient animals in cramped cages, hauling them hundreds of kilometres to be brutally slaughtered, don’t profit from changes to a more plant-based, healthy diet and crucial changes in animal-welfare protections. But the animals, the caring farmers, the climate, our ecosystems and the consumers will certainly benefit from this transition. We have to listen to science and common sense. We will continue our fight for sustainable food systems, animal rights and animal welfare, healthy diets and a resilient future for farmers. And tomorrow, in the vote on our report, we have a great opportunity to start this journey.

Madam President, today we are talking about food, about the vital energy source that fuels us. Much like the fuels that feed our factories and cars, our food system must undergo a transition because the way we are feeding ourselves today is undermining our future. We have already far exceeded the carrying capacity of the Earth. Our current food production and consumption is responsible for about a third of all our greenhouse gas emissions and an even greater proportion of biodiversity loss. I am grateful to the Commission for delivering the farm to fork strategy. This prelude to crucial changes in our legislation and policy did not come a day too soon. Its goals and ambitions are necessary to transform our thinking and our actions with regard to food. I am also grateful to my colleagues in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and, in particular, Mr Herbert Dorfmann, my fellow rapporteur, for their dedication to working on our response to this strategy. We have discussed our positions, our ideas and proposals for the future development of the strategy in an open and inclusive process. And I am proud of the result. It is no secret that I believe that our joint response could, and should, have been far more ambitious on many issues, but our report offers hope. Hope for a liveable future in which the foods that we consume will no longer be produced at the expense of future generations. They too will need food security. By setting targets for the use of pesticides and promoting the development of environmentally friendly alternatives, we can halt the decline of crucial pollinators, such as bees. By strengthening the animal welfare legislation, we can reduce the worst suffering that goes on behind the closed doors of barns, trucks, ships and slaughterhouses. By investing in a transition to a more plant—based diet, we can spare animals the suffering, fight food—related disease, save precious farmland and biodiversity, and limit the climate impact of what is on our plates. By providing food with clear labels and a fair and true price, we can enable consumers to make more informed choices for the environment, animals and their own health. The sustainable choice must be the most affordable one. Crucially, the EU’s farm to fork strategy must create a path for a common food policy which achieves policy coherence. For example, we cannot truly restore biodiversity or successfully achieve a protein transition while we are still heavily subsidising the intensive animal agriculture industry and signing free trade agreements (FTAs) that directly contradict these goals. By extending the rules we set for food to imported products, we protect our farmers from unfair competition. By investing in and sharing knowledge, we enable farmers to produce more sustainably and by redirecting the very significant agricultural funds to support truly sustainable agricultural practices, we will encourage the preservation of small farms that work with nature. With these proposals, I am convinced that our report offers a good starting point for the Commission to shape the legislative proposals that it has announced. I look forward to our continued work on aligning our food system with the planetary boundaries.

Mr President, this summer Europe was hit by floods and wildfires. Aid workers did everything they could to prevent people and animals from being injured or drowned, but in vain. Numerous people were injured and more than two hundred deaths are to be regretted. In addition, tens of thousands of people had to leave their homes. We are very sympathetic to the victims and believe that they should be helped as much as possible. It is therefore important to know whether the European emergency response is still suitable for major climate disasters. Even more important are the questions about climate policy. According to European weather experts, we must do everything we can to stop climate change, so that what we find extreme now does not become normal. Does the Commission intend to take additional climate action or does it still not realize that we are not going to make it with half-hearted climate policy and agricultural policy that destroys this climate action? This is one of the reasons why I believe that European agricultural subsidies should be abolished.