Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, at a time when the availability of mineral fertilisers is a cause for concern, how can we underestimate the importance of livestock farming in Europe? European agriculture needs to evolve, but looking at the facts, it remains the most productive, diverse and sustainable in the world. So why is it the subject of so much criticism? Part of the answer lies in the particularly keen ability of some Members of this Parliament to look for problems rather than solutions. The report we are going to vote on today has at least one great merit: it seeks to reduce the fragilities that still affect our agricultural models. Livestock must be respected and thought of as a strategic sector, it is a pivot of our agricultural system. The identity of European agriculture is based on these production standards. Let's protect them. Breeders don't need to be taught their trade. On the other hand, we need them, like all farmers, and we need to take care of those who remain. Thank you for not forgetting it.

Mr Bellamy, I take responsibility for the votes I took part in and the way I voted in this European Parliament. I know which paths we should not have chosen. What I am saying today is that farmers are not looking for culprits, they are looking for answers. If you want us to keep fighting, we can say: You voted that. You voted that, you shouldn't have. This is because of the Green Deal. This is because of the Farm to Fork Strategy. It is because of the Greens, who are always asking for more..." I would like to take part in this debate, but that is not where we will find the answers. So let's build together. If you have good ideas, let's take them. I think we have some too. I think there are some in all the camps, in the Republican field, in this Parliament. So let’s build the future of agriculture together. Farmers need us. Let's help them.

Madam President, Commissioner, European agriculture is already the most virtuous. Our farmers follow the most demanding rules in the world. I'm sorry to call him back. Many here spend their time polarizing the debate, looking for culprits wrongly and through. I think we should focus more on finding answers. This is what women and men in agriculture expect. Let us stop deciding without them, let us listen to them, let us give them solid answers, tangible, applicable answers, rewarding answers for such a difficult job. We have a path to build. This is possible if we are serious, rational. This is possible if there is more coherence, for example if the Commission launching the policy dialogue on agriculture does not sacrifice agriculture by provocatively validating the trade agreement with Mercosur. Let us no longer import agriculture that we no longer want. (The speaker agreed to answer a blue card question)

Mr President, Commissioner, the fact that we are preparing to adopt without amendments a report on generational renewal in agriculture can be seen as a good sign. Our Europe expects a lot from its agriculture, especially from an environmental point of view. But one thing is certain, to meet our challenges, our many challenges, and to succeed in transitions, there is a condition: Let's stop losing peasants. Envy among young people is there, but that is not enough. We need resources. At the time of words and speeches, many are ready to do anything for young farmers, but at the time of accounts and budget decisions, there are often no more people. I therefore warmly welcome this report and thank Isabel Carvalhais for coordinating this work. However, I would like all of us MEPs who are going to vote on this text and you, members of other institutions, who are going to welcome it, to be there for the next big political issues. We will always have to have the courage to make the decisions that will really, significantly help young farmers.

Ms Aubry, one thing is certain: I do not defend the same interests as you and I do not defend them in the same way. I am sensitive to the peasants, to the peasant world, to all those who get up in the morning to try to feed the Europeans. So I have no lesson to learn from you about what I was, what I am and what I stand for. I will always stand up for farmers and what I am asking for today is something reasonable: an exit from glyphosate, but a clean exit, precisely, where we take everyone at the same time and where France does not find itself ahead of the others and loses to its agriculture. That's it. So don't lecture me and keep doing your national politics here in Brussels. I defend the Europeans, I don't defend only the French.

Mr President, Commissioner, let us not allow simplistic speeches to trap us. The path we are taking is that of a glyphosate renewal. Everyone knows that and that is, I think, reasonable. The real question that everyone should face is the conditions of this renewal. The Commission's proposal is not serious, because it does not incorporate any of these conditions of use by continuing to leave responsibility for them to the Member States. Such laxity on this subject is the distortion of competition between European farmers. With the emblematic case of glyphosate, our marketing regulations show their limits. What we really need is a real and strong harmonisation of authorisations, with conditions of use established at European level. In order not to leave agriculture in a deadlock and society unanswered, let us not forbid without a solution, but let us not allow without harmonized conditions. (The speaker agreed to answer a "blue card" question)

Madam President, Commissioner, contrary to what some people think, for victims, the problem of predation is not anecdotal. 11,000 animals killed, shredded, in France, 4,000 in Germany, 700 in the Czech Republic. Faced with these figures, the benefit for biodiversity is largely questionable. You can admire the wolf, the bear and other carnivores, but you cannot turn a blind eye to the damage they cause, to the stress and distress they cause for farmers. I therefore invite those who do not accept this reality, who love these nice animals but love them from afar, from their cities, to offer them a place of choice on their balcony, in their urban park or in their peri-urban forest. Predators know no borders, and as Ursula von der Leyen said: "in the face of large carnivores, European livestock farming is at risk". To provide concrete answers, let’s harmonise counting, facilitate slaughter and have the political courage to revise the status of the wolf and others if necessary.

Madam President, Commissioner, the subject of polluting emissions is certainly important, but I did not imagine that the European Commission would not see the gross error of forceps agriculture into an inadequate framework. It is dangerous and ineffective to treat European livestock farming so lightly as industrialists. This ignores the progress already made in this area, thanks in particular to the common agricultural policy. Because if our agriculture is not perfect, it remains the most virtuous in the world. Let's stop weakening her, let's protect her. The Green Deal, in order to succeed, must stop looking for symbols, thresholds, numbers, constraints that would magically settle everything. It won't work. A holistic approach to sustainability is needed for livestock farming. So, for my part, to protect, to support farmers, I see no other choice than the status quo on the agricultural side of this text.

Mr President, Commissioner, we would indeed have preferred to have the Commissioner for Agriculture by your side to listen to us, but that is not the case. I am hardly surprised by many of the interventions heard this morning. A certain conservative right, which had partly voted for the Green Deal three years ago, is now making us believe that change can be refused. And then a certain left, the Greens in the lead, which plays the card of catastrophism, condemns for no reason, and is therefore inaudible to farmers. The political responsibility is not so much to ask ourselves if we need to change, but to ask ourselves how. And farmers have not waited for us to change their practices. They did not, of course, wait for the war in Ukraine either. Yes, of course, they will contribute to the Green Deal, but if they are given the means to do so. And the means to limit our dependencies without questioning global productivity. Let’s be ambitious, but let’s not underestimate the investment that this represents financially and humanely, and let’s always prefer, as you said, the strong, motivating, empowering incentive to the discouraging and very rarely effective sanction.

Mr President, Commissioner, animal welfare, especially animal welfare, is a public expectation that must be taken seriously. It is also, no matter how unpleasant to some, a major concern of breeders. We do not talk much about it, but above all, breeders love and cherish their animals and all actors in the sector have no interest in working with abused animals. So taking a subject seriously may mean giving it symbolic recognition as perhaps a dedicated commissioner, but it mostly means treating it seriously. From my experience and my work with my colleagues in the other groups on the report I presented last year, I note in particular that farmers, that we are already doing a lot of good things with regard to animal welfare and that, in order to continue to make progress, we must do so collectively by giving ourselves rules adapted to each species - as you have said, Commissioner - that we are able to apply everywhere, in a homogeneous way in Europe and by finally providing ourselves with dedicated and sufficient financial means to achieve our objectives. These rules, if they are to be viable, must also be conditioned to the standards of the products we import into Europe. So, for those who would be in a hurry to sign Mercosur, there is still a little work to do to adapt our rules. And finally, it is also necessary that a label is a little better framed. DG Health will be making proposals to us soon. I hope that they will also be based on serious principles.

Madam President, Commissioner, far from the issues that are shaking our Parliament, rural areas represent more than 80% of Europe's territories. Territories that often feel, rightly or wrongly, a little forgotten. With this report, I am proud that Parliament is sending them a serious, comprehensive, well-informed and well-worked message. Above all, I hope that the Commission will listen to us and that it will transform the trial of its June 2021 communication. I hope that we will make progress on the observatory and the definition of functional rural areas, that we will apply the ‘rural reflex’ principle to all European policies and that we will make our funds and financial support more effective. We need to give visibility to our campaigns, make them more attractive and stop the demographic decline – in agriculture, of course, but also beyond. There are encouraging signals in some European regions, which we could multiply by working more closely with the players on the ground. Brussels alone will not build the future of rural areas. We must care for and accompany in a complete and adapted way those areas that play so many roles, starting with that of providing almost all of our food. I hope that the Member States, but also the regions, can continue to act, coordinate and implement their respective programmes: This is a major challenge for the balance of our Europe. Thanks again to our rapporteur, Isabel Carvalhais. I believe that this text must be approved in its entirety, including, therefore, the paragraph on predators.

Mr President, while we weigh our words very carefully to try to reconcile the irreconcilable, more and more breeders across Europe feel cornered, ignored, misunderstood. I want to pay tribute to them for all the work they do and the courage they have. Their deep distress should alert us. Can we protect both the wolf and the farm? Maybe, but certainly not everywhere. Whatever the means, whatever the protections and compensations, there are areas where cohabitation will remain impossible. Let's admit it. This debate today in plenary shows at least that we are not closing our eyes. But we must have more political courage. Very concretely, we must immediately give more flexibility to regulation so that Member States can act more effectively. And acting doesn't mean counting the carcasses of sheep and cows. Acting means targeted killing of predators with devastating behaviors.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, Ukraine is suffering in a war that continues to be devastating. In the face of this, the Ukrainian people are giving us all a lesson in courage: He fights tirelessly for his country, his children, but also his agriculture. An agriculture different from ours, but solid and productive. Agriculture that deserves urgent support from Europe to get its production out of the territory. The world needs it to feed itself, Ukraine needs it to save its next harvest. Europe must also be more forward-looking. Europe must help Ukrainian women and men rebuild their agriculture, support its development to bring it closer to ours and start shaping the future of our agricultural models now. Strong and sustainable agriculture: the establishment of a Europe-Ukraine Union capable of responding to the challenge of global food security.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, the war in Ukraine is a disaster. Ukrainian women and men are bombed, killed, neglected and sacrificed because of a mad and dangerous man. Ukrainian women and men are soon at risk of starvation because their fields have become theatres of military operations. So, Europeans, decision-makers, companies, everyone at their own level, our responsibility today is to help Ukraine feed itself. In Europe, with dignity and restraint, let us at least learn from this war: Let us bring food sovereignty and our environmental ambitions to the same level. Let us be determined to finally rebuild a strong, sovereign and sustainable agricultural Europe.

Madam President, Commissioner, today's report to our House on animal welfare on the farm is an evaluation report. It aims to help our institution to make proposals for the evolution of existing EU rules. He wants nothing more and nothing less. Animal welfare is a sensitive issue. Some would rather turn a blind eye to this growing societal concern and avoid talking about it. They would like us to do nothing at all, without even trying to understand what is at stake. Others, on the contrary, who make it their struggle, denounce what they consider to be a lack of action, promote new – often inappropriate – practices, demand the abolition of others, when it is not simply the abolition of livestock farming. They expect a lot from us, observe us and even note us sometimes. We are not in one camp or the other. We are, for the vast majority of this Parliament, those who make, those who act, those whose responsibility is to propose ways forward; This is the question before us: not to know at what level of priority we place the subject of animal welfare, nor whether we need to make progress or not, because, of course, we still need to do so, but rather – and this is more difficult – to know how We're making progress. I would like to thank very sincerely the rapporteurs of the other groups, with whom I had the pleasure of working, for their commitment and their largely constructive stance. I believe that we have succeeded in presenting useful work, which I hope Parliament will adopt and which will feed into future legislation. We relied on facts, first and foremost on a study led by the Parliamentary Research Service, a documented, interview-based study, the lessons of which were telling. For my part, I have drawn some convictions from this, which are at the heart of the report we are discussing today, which has been widely supported by the Committee on Agriculture and, of course, enriched by contributions from the Committee on the Environment. There are four points I would like to stress, as they seem to me to be the basis of our message. The first is that there will be no further possible progress on animal welfare in farming until we have managed to harmonise the implementation and controls of the rules that already exist. To raise the bar before having succeeded in this would, I believe, be a pleasure, but to condemn all efficiency while undermining our common market. Let's strengthen our surveillance capabilities. Let us support Member States and economic actors first. Extend the scope of the species covered by the regulations; Many deserve specific and tailored rules. Then we can raise our ambitions. The second point is that we will not achieve anything by seeking to act against breeders, who are, whether some like it or not, the first actors on the subject, actors who must be encouraged to continue to take good care of their animals, which most are already doing. This must first be recognised, precisely, by paying for these efforts, including when they go beyond regulation. The third point, which is linked, is that we need, for this recognition and this remuneration, a labelling less anarchic than today, more framed, which is based on serious specifications, but which leaves room for private initiatives, Member States, sectors, NGOs or actors combined. Why not consider a mandatory common base and lay safeguards to avoid excesses and far-fetched demands? Consumers want legibility, of course, but not an overly prescriptive approach. The fourth and final point is that the continent, which has already rightly chosen today to adopt the highest standards in the world, will only be able to continue to raise them if it is able to enforce them also by imported products. Otherwise, once again, we can claim to be demanding, but our consumers will not benefit, and we will only have exported the problem. In terms of responsibility, I am convinced that we must incorporate these principles if we really want to move forward. Continuing to improve animal welfare is my wish, don’t doubt it. This is the wish of an increasing number of citizens. This is the wish of the vast majority of farmers and one hundred per cent of those who set up farming today. We will achieve this ambition only if we apply these principles of harmonisation, recognition, fair valuation and reciprocity.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are about to approve a trilogue agreement on the new CAP. Many of us in this room are measuring the work that has been necessary to achieve this result and preparing to approve it responsibly, despite the limitations that each of us necessarily finds in the final compromise – but to approve it anyway. Some prefer to get out of the game and position themselves as spectators, commenting on the imperfections of this agreement. Too bad for them. For my part, I welcome the enhanced balance between the economic and environmental ambitions of the CAP. I welcome the innovations of this reform – eco-scheme, operational programmes, mandatory definition of active farmer. I welcome our strong demand for reciprocity of standards in trade. Finally, I welcome the fact that we have not forgotten the agriculture that is the basis of our food and made by women and men who are asked a lot and whom we must accompany. The European agricultural policy will inevitably continue to evolve. It is not intended to ensure the survival of farmers, which it still often does, but rather to promote the serene and prosperous exercise of their profession and the dynamism of our rural areas and to offer positive prospects to young people who will take up the torch. These are conditions for this sector to contribute effectively to the sustainability of our economy and our planet. Agriculture cannot do without the CAP, nor can Europe, despite what is said. We all worked as best we could. So now, for farmers and citizens, let us vote and move forward.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, perhaps this afternoon's concert seems to you to be at odds, between those who think that the Farm to Fork strategy is inapplicable and that we are being concealed from all its dangers, and those who believe on the contrary that it is perfect and easy to implement. Reality is different to me. The strategy without an action plan is not a strategy. The intentions are good, but what is seriously missing is a feasibility study to establish a real roadmap. Beyond a simple impact assessment, it is now necessary to put on paper the difficulties for farmers and other stakeholders involved, the methods to be developed, the support to be provided so that no one is left behind. Pending this work, the Commission should not reconsider the trilogue agreement on the link between the CAP and the Farm to Fork Strategy. Farmers and society deserve us to move beyond positions to collectively build this indispensable roadmap to strengthen the agricultural and food identity of our Europe.