Speeches

Mr President, a reminder to the Rules of Procedure concerning the use of an animal placed in its banana as a mere object, today, to make a declaration, a message of peace. How are you going to get that animal back now, sir? Where is animal welfare in this speaker’s action? I find this absolutely unacceptable.

Madam President, Commissioner, the crisis in Haiti has reached another milestone. Between 1 January and 20 March, more than 1,400 people lost their lives in gang-related violence. More than five million Haitians, including three million children, depend on humanitarian aid for their survival. The creation of a transitional Presidential Council is a good thing, as you said; but its composition raises concerns among civil society. We must remain vigilant and support a genuine democratic transition. We can help Haiti with three concrete measures: Strongly implement the UN arms embargo, establish a moratorium on the expulsions of Haitians – despite the critical situation in the country, almost 300 000 people have been deported to Haiti since 2021 – and finally impose sanctions targeting gangs and members of the political class who support them. For too long, the international community has relied on corrupt elites who have contributed to the current stalemate. It must change its approach, promote democracy in Haiti and build on civil society and the Montana agreements.

Madam President, did you know that at one hour from the European Parliament in Brussels, an environmental tragedy is underway? In the small Belgian town of Écaussinnes, a petrochemical complex owned by TotalEnergies produces 1.2 million tonnes of plastic pellets per year. Some of these granules get lost. They end up in soils, streams, rivers, and then oceans, killing seabirds and fish over time. Total and his petrochemical friends refuse to live up to their responsibilities and turn the ball around. Écaussines, unfortunately, is not an isolated case. The problem arises all over the world, as we have seen on the beaches in Galicia, and causes gigantic pollution. This week, the European Parliament will vote on a regulation to finally tackle this problem. This is a real step forward and we will vote in favour of this text, which strengthens the Commission's proposal. Only far-right MEPs, including those from the Rassemblement National, oppose this. As usual, they prefer to favour petrochemical lobbies rather than the future of our oceans, rivers and health.

Mr President, in the European Union, 300 million animals are raised in cages every year, although it is known that this leads to immense suffering. In the European Union, millions of animals are mutilated to meet the demands of industrial farming. In the EU, 330 million male chicks are killed each year by gassing or grinding on the first day after hatching, while in ovo sexing techniques would prevent this. In the European Union, hundreds of millions of fish are raised on aquaculture farms, while the European Union has no rules to ensure that these fish do not suffer. All this suffering is the result of our inaction. Yet 84% of European citizens believe that animal welfare needs to be better protected. Despite its promise, the European Commission has decided not to publish its proposal to reform EU animal welfare rules before the elections. This was the decision of people who felt that their re-election was worth more than the lives of millions of animals. On 9 June, European citizens will vote. The fate of the new animal welfare guidelines is in their hands. So today, I am no longer talking to the Commission, I am talking to European citizens who are worried about the fate of animals, and I am saying: Read the programmes, watch the votes of the various parties in the European Parliament and, on 9 June, vote for those who will truly defend animals.

Madam President, Commissioner, have you ever taken a train in the south of France? Are there renewable energy projects near you? Has the hospital near you been recently renovated? What do these projects have in common? These projects are funded by the European Union. Regional policy accounts for one third of the EU budget. It is our greatest weapon against economic and social inequality. It is a pillar of solidarity between our territories, our regions, our cities, our municipalities. It is essential for the ecological transition. It is necessary to reduce development gaps between Member States. EU regional policy has a direct impact on every citizen, improves their daily lives and contributes to a greener and more prosperous Europe. When I go on the ground, I am often asked what Europe is for, and the concrete achievements of regional policy are often the best answer to this question. Today, we are faced with a choice: continue on the path of solidarity or let our commitment to our regions weaken, and citizens with it. I call on us to maintain a strong budget for regional policy and to reject any reduction or diversion of its funding. Let us continue to build a stronger, greener and fairer Europe for generations to come.

Madam President, what are we waiting for to adopt the Due Diligence Directive? When will we end this endless saga by approving one of the most awaited pieces of legislation, and finally hold multinationals accountable for their actions? A thousand textile workers perished in the collapse of the Rana Plaza factory, victims of ephemeral fashion; 160 million children worldwide are working; In Africa – in Uganda, for example – oil giants like Total are destroying the environment and violating human rights. While France prides itself on having been a pioneer in adopting a law on due diligence, Mr Macron and Mr Le Maire are trying to torpedo the European text. Yesterday, under the influence of BlackRock and the banks, Emmanuel Macron came to his end to exclude the financial sector. Today, the government cedes to MEDEF and again sabotages the agreement reached to exempt more than 80% of European companies from due diligence. What the government is plotting behind the scenes is totally unworthy and serious. After trying to bury the text on platform workers, its next target is due diligence. My question, Mr Macron, is as follows: When will you take responsibility?

Madam President, let us wake up! Let us not make the wolf the scapegoat of the crisis in the agricultural world. In the run-up to the elections, von der Leyen gave in to pressure from hunting and industrial agriculture lobbies. The Commission proposal to adapt the protection status of the wolf under the Berne Convention could allow the hunting of the wolf. Worse, it could endanger the pillar of European environmental policy, the Habitats Directive. This proposal has no new scientific basis. Promoting the slaughter of wolves is not a sustainable solution for herd safety. It can even be counterproductive. Many shots are already authorised every year in the European Union, in particular in France, with a discussed effectiveness. As the European Commission pointed out earlier, the solution lies in cohabitation. We must work with herders, shepherds, and help them strengthen herd protection systems, be it with shepherd dogs, but also with all the other technical solutions available. Too bad the European right prefers to continue its populist masquerade.

Madam President, Parliament has an important role in monitoring the work of the European Commission. In July 2021, in response to the European Citizens’ Initiative ‘End the Cage Age’, which collected more than 1.4 million signatures, the European Commission committed to ban caged animal farming by 2027. The Commission carried out a broad impact assessment. In its 2023 work programme, it announced the publication of legislative proposals in the third quarter of 2023. Today, with the exception of the proposal on the transport of animals and the proposal on dogs and cats, the Commission has not proposed the promised legislation. These proposals are also not included in the Commission Work Programme 2024. The Commission has not had the opportunity to explain itself to Parliament and that is why I ask that the oral question on the ‘Promised revision of EU animal welfare legislation and European citizens’ initiatives related to animal welfare’ be added to our plenary agenda.

Mr President, Commissioner, a deep, persistent crisis is plaguing Haiti. It is getting worse every day and leaving behind a country on the brink. In response to the security crisis, the UN decided to deploy a military force, although it is unclear when. The crisis in Haiti is not only a security crisis, it is also a political crisis: a collapsing state, widespread corruption, enormous injustices, an illegitimate government in the eyes of citizens. The response of the international community cannot only be of a security nature. Haitians did not request additional forces; They want to be included in decisions that affect their future. It is time for the international community and the European Union to support, in Haiti, a process of political dialogue that leads to the formation of a truly representative transitional government, supported by a large majority of society. It is by addressing the root causes of the Haitian crisis that we can help the country rebuild on a solid footing. We cannot solve the problem and the situation in Haiti without the Haitians.

Mr President, a small aside, Mr Herbst: I was well in the Chamber and I did not leave the debate earlier. With regard to Mrs Bilbao's report, this report makes interesting and important proposals for improving consumer information on seafood. It is important that consumers have access to detailed information on the origin, species, date and place of catch and the fishing technique used, whether fresh, preserved, deep-frozen or processed. However, we believe that this report is wrong when it comes to plant-based alternatives to seafood. Indeed, the EU imports 70% of the seafood it consumes. And if we want to combat overfishing around the world, we need to reduce our fish consumption. Vegetable alternatives to seafood are one of the important ways to reduce this consumption, while ensuring sufficient protein intake. By seeking to prohibit these plant alternatives from using any term related to the sea, you are doing the wrong thing. The consumer must be clearly informed, yes, but to oppose plant alternatives as some opposed the vegetarian burger is to be completely out of step with what citizens want and what is needed for the planet.

Mr President, Commissioner, are we going to bury any objective of protecting the oceans or are we going to start the transition to fishing that is more respectful of marine ecosystems? That is the meaning of today's vote. For lack of political courage and electoral calculation, the right and its allies, gravediggers of the oceans, are now proposing a dangerous demagogic report that ignores the warnings of scientists, minimises the impacts of bottom trawling, refuses to recognise the benefits of marine protected areas and leads European fishing to a dead end. In the face of the collapse of biodiversity and climate change, we must not ostrich. With its Action Plan, the European Commission has had the merit of proposing a series of important measures and recognising the impact of bottom trawling on the seabed. The transition to low-impact fishing, a just transition in the medium and long term, where fishermen are given visibility and crises are anticipated, must start now. An incentive distribution of fishing quotas, the gradual end of bottom trawling in marine protected areas, the reduction of incidental catches are all necessary measures that can be tools of this transition. It takes courage and it is courage to tell the truth.

Mr President, the 2013 reform of the common fisheries policy has reduced overfishing, which is of great benefit to fishermen. But too often it is not fully applied. The landing obligation has been significantly weakened by exemptions. Ecosystem-based fisheries management is still in its infancy. Article 17 of the CFP, which requires States to allocate fishing quotas using social and environmental criteria, and which must protect artisanal fishermen, is not applied by Member States. Last week, I met young woodworkers in Brittany. They decided to adopt environmentally friendly practices, but in the absence of ecosystem-based fisheries management, the pollack population, which accounted for 70% of their catches, has completely collapsed. In the absence of application of Article 17 of the CFP, they are left without any quota for 2024 while trawlers will have one. They're walking on our heads. So, before embarking on a risky reform, as this report proposes, let us fully apply the current law. Finally, the report calls for animal welfare to finally be taken into account in aquaculture, but not in fisheries. I invite you to vote on our amendment to correct that.

Mr President, Commissioner, for years Norway has wanted to establish itself as the world leader in protecting the oceans. Yet in June 2023, the Norwegian government became the potential destroyer of the Arctic by proposing to open its waters in the Norwegian Sea to deep-sea mining. A time bomb for the climate and marine biodiversity! But what an admission of failure for future generations! Last week, the Norwegian parliament approved the exploration of an area the size of the United Kingdom in the Arctic following a sealed agreement between socialists and centrists and Norwegian conservatives. The most worrying thing is that the text adopted will open the door to the exploitation of the deep sea, despite the mobilization of citizens, despite the mobilization of civil society, scientists, businesses and a hundred parliamentarians from all over Europe around a letter to the European Parliament that I initiated with my colleague Marie Toussaint. But we can still stop this totally destructive project. The good news is that the first extraction licences will have to be put to a new vote in the Norwegian Parliament. Contrary to what we are led to believe, scientists show that we do not need to exploit the seabed to find minerals. For the ecological transition, we must instead invest in the circular economy and recycling to reuse metals already extracted. Our Parliament and the European Union must push to stop this. Colleagues, join the global mobilization.

– Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, imagine a life in which simple acts such as turning on the light or keeping food cool are a luxury. This is the daily reality for hundreds of millions of people. Access to clean and reliable energy is a driver of development. Access to electricity makes it possible to develop children's education, ensure quality medical care and livelihoods for communities. It is also an important vector for equality between women and men. In many developing countries, however, energy infrastructure remains inadequate. The use of traditional and polluting energy sources has devastating consequences for health and the environment. The European Union is investing heavily in energy projects in Africa, but we have focused on large infrastructure, often neglecting local needs. It is time to reorient our efforts towards local and small-scale projects, such as installing solar panels in villages or replacing wood with low-emission stoves. We must end all funding for fossil fuel projects and focus on renewable energy that respects local communities and the climate. We need to act now by working together, supporting innovation and funding sustainable projects. We can ensure that access to energy is no longer a luxury, but a reality for all. The energy future of developing countries is of direct concern to us. Investing in clean energy today means building a safer and more sustainable world for tomorrow. I really invite you to adopt this text as it was adopted in the Committee on Development.

Mr President, the ecological transition will require large quantities of critical raw materials. It is necessary for the European Union to be able to source from its own soil and to be less dependent on third countries in view of the social, environmental and human impacts. But this procurement strategy must also respect planetary boundaries. The Critical Materials Act offers interesting elements on demand mitigation, recycling, circularity, but without really proposing new, more sober models and without questioning the all-digital. Above all, the European Union must not repeat the mistakes of the past by supporting a purely extractivist approach, both at home and abroad. The rights of indigenous peoples and local populations must be respected, including the principle of free, prior and informed consent. The race for critical raw materials should not be a pretext for further endangering nature. Unfortunately, in this final compromise, states reserve the possibility to extract from protected areas and accelerate new mining projects in the name of the overriding public interest. We will therefore be particularly vigilant on the application of this text.

Madam President, my colleagues have said: rearing animals for their fur is an unjustifiable practice. Raising animals in cages, including wildlife, in defiance of their behavior and behavioral needs, killing them by gassing or electrocution to make them luxury clothes, this should no longer exist. Several States have legislated to prohibit this practice. It is time to act at European level, to ban the rearing of animals for their fur and to ban the sale of products containing fur. But this is the fourth time since the beginning of the legislature that we have met here to discuss a citizens’ initiative on animal protection. I therefore ask you the question: What happened to the previous European Citizens' Initiatives?On the end of cages, the Commission committed to banning caged animals by 2027. The proposal for a regulation was expected before the end of the summer; it seems to have been simply abandoned. How do you want European citizens to trust the European Union if the Commission makes promises, but its President decides to abandon them, by electoral calculation, a few months before the elections?

Madam President, did you know that some of the fish from the forced labour of the Uyghurs in China ends up on our plates? This is suspected in the latest Outlaw Ocean investigation. For years, the Chinese authorities have been implementing labour transfers from Uyghurs to industrial regions, where seafood processing plants are located. These products end up in supermarkets in Europe or the United States. At least ten major seafood companies in China have used more than a thousand Uyghur workers since 2018. A workforce that China oppresses, exploits, domesticates, tortures; international audits and other certifications fail to detect forced labour, and some fish are even labelled ‘sustainable fishing’. However, these seafood products feed factories in Europe, which in turn supply major brands and supermarkets. Some products can be found in our hospitals or in the Commission's canteens. I welcome the fact that the report aims to increase the traceability of imported products. The Greens have also worked to ensure that legislation banning the import of products made with forced labour puts an end to this situation.

Madam President, without strong control measures, there is no confidence, and without confidence there is no longer a common fisheries policy. Without effective control measures, not all of the measures we take to improve the sustainability of fisheries would be implemented by all. The reform of fisheries control was therefore necessary and will have taken time to come – more than five years of titanic work! This reform modernises, harmonises and strengthens European rules on fisheries control: harmonisation of penalties, electronic logbooks, VMS geolocation for vessels less than 12 metres, establishment of a permit for recreational fishermen, use of cameras on larger vessels to ensure compliance with the landing obligation. Even if we would have liked to go further, progress is substantial and leads us to support this reform. There remains the question of margins of tolerance. We have avoided the worst, given the mandate voted by Parliament three years ago. The relaxation of the margins of tolerance would have created a real ecological and economic disaster. But the two-speed solution is questionable, and we will be particularly vigilant about its implementation.

Madam President, Commissioner, speaking of the wolf as a danger to man, Ursula von der Leyen has revived the cultural fear of the great evil wolf. The public consultation that was launched at the same time is opaque and hasty. The aim is to review the protection status of wolves in order to introduce more flexibility and facilitate their slaughter. These statements are part of a well-crafted political strategy to sacrifice the wolf on the altar of elections. Talking about the wolf as a danger to humans is disinformation. To promise farmers that slaughter is the solution is a lie. It is even counterproductive. Cohabitation is possible. Let’s build solutions with farmers instead of crying wolf, the EPP and Mrs von der Leyen would do better to look at alternatives such as better monitoring of herds by patous, reinforcement of fences, financial compensation, etc. The number of wolves is increasing, it is true, but the species remains threatened and must remain protected by the Habitats Directive. So after the restoration of nature, we are on the wolf, and then, what will be the next target? Let us not allow the cynicism of the right to prevail over nature and our future.

Madam President, Ms Von der Leyen, you have reiterated your commitment to the Green Deal several times today, but you have said nothing, not a single sentence, not a single word on animal welfare and the revision of European animal welfare rules. Yet it is one of the parts of the Green Deal most awaited by European citizens. This reform is a repeated commitment by the European Commission to the Farm to Fork Strategy, following the Committee of Inquiry on the Transport of Animals – more than a year and a half has been worked on – following the citizens’ initiative ‘End the cage age’. Abandoning this reform after committing to it would seriously undermine the credibility of the European Commission. Abandoning this reform – there is no need to hide behind false arguments such as inflation. If we really want to tackle inflation, there are other solutions, such as tackling the margins of processors and distributors. Animals do not have to pay the cost of political calculations a few months before the elections and we count on you.

Mr Herbst, you are often committed to defending fishermen and fishing. Fishermen everywhere are suffering from the destruction of marine ecosystems, including pollution of industry, pollution of agriculture and cities. If I take the example of cod in the Baltic Sea, the Nature Restoration Act allows for a solution in relation to cod. You are also president of the Recreational Fisheries Forum and recreational fishers are for this way of restoring nature. Mr Herbst, what are you going to say to fishermen when there are no more healthy marine ecosystems and fishermen have to shut down?

Mr President, Commissioner, for years, scientists have been sounding the alarm about the collapse of nature, which is taking place at an unprecedented rate and which is already having serious consequences for humanity, starting with fishermen. We have many examples of fish populations collapsing due to degradation of marine ecosystems. The Law on the Restoration of Nature allows an approach as close as possible to the territories by taking the measures adapted to each situation. But for months, the EPP has been chaining false information about this text. You first explained to us that the Nature Restoration Act would bring famine to Europe. Experts have shown that this is wrong and that we need bees to have fruit, that we need marine ecosystems in good condition so that there are fish to fish for, that without nature there is no food. You then began to tell on social networks that the law on the restoration of nature would lead to the destruction of entire cities and even the house of Santa Claus. Let's be serious, our debates deserve better than that. So really, I hope that the EPP and Renew MEPs who are considering opposing the Nature Restoration Act will pull themselves together and not take part in this circus that tarnishes the image of the European Parliament and puts nature, fishermen and citizens at risk.

Madam President, the cosmetics regulation of 2009 prohibits animal testing of cosmetic products and their ingredients. It also prohibits the placing on the market of products that have been tested or whose ingredients have been tested on animals. However, the European Chemicals Agency continues to require some manufacturers to use animal testing. There is currently no justification for animal testing for cosmetics. Manufacturers and animal welfare associations have been warning about this scandal for years. Today, thanks to the mobilisation of dozens of associations and more than a million signatures from European citizens, we are finally discussing it! Thanks to them. The European Citizens' Initiative also invites us to ask ourselves more generally the question of animal testing. Alternatives exist. They are often even more reliable than animal tests. However, animal testing is barely diminishing. We need a comprehensive action plan that combines professional training, public funding and regulation to significantly reduce animal testing.

Madam President, Commissioner, it is a fact: Climate change increases the frequency and intensity of droughts. The water crisis is just beginning, and we would be wrong to think that it is only related to climate change: it is also the result of political choices, which put water resources at risk. Urban sprawl, the artificialisation of land or the disappearance of hedges mean that less rainwater enters the soil to recharge the water table. The development of water-intensive crops, concentrated in a few regions, leads to even larger quantities being pumped. Finally, while everyone is being asked for their efforts, golf courses continue to be allowed to be watered or snow cannons to be used, which use incredible amounts of water. In the face of this, some are locked into an outdated model: basins, which allow a handful of large farmers to grab two thousand cubic metres of water at the expense of others. This is an aberration. Let's go back to the fundamentals. Water is a human right, water is a common good, it must be managed and protected as such.