Speeches

Madam President, agriculture needs help. So let's really focus on useful and effective solutions. We deal with fair prices, unfair trade practices, we deal with the impact of foreign imports, we deal with ever-increasing prices of inputs. But please, let us avoid an argument that is false, crooked and that says here that, while nature conservation is contrary to agriculture, it is an obstacle to it and must be reduced. This is a very dangerous claim. It's not good for anything. In this spirit, I must criticise the Commission's move to open up new areas of eels for agricultural use this year. It has no economic significance. We are talking about the decimal percentages of land on which we want to grow alfalfa and lentils at a time of overproduction, which precipitates prices. For the protection of nature, and these areas also concern the natural lands, this is a disastrous decision, because it threatens the survival of critically endangered species, who find the last suitable conditions in the agricultural landscape on the eels. Such a narrative, such concessions are of no benefit to anyone except the far right, which has presented itself today with an outcry against the Green Deal. And on these false real claims, you've long since claimed your copyright.

Madam President, I understand that new genomic techniques have undeniable advantages, speed up the breeding process and are tied to specific modifications to the genome of organisms. I don't understand one thing: how, when introducing such new organisms into practice, we can completely resign ourselves to risk assessment. We say that they are so safe that we do not need to label them and distinguish them from conventional products. We even renounce the ability to follow them, or withdraw them in case they turn out to be harmful. I do not understand how farmers can accept a framework that moves towards further higher production and thus lower prices that pushes them into intense monocultures and ultimately traps them with patented seed that they will not be able to distinguish from the conventional one. By saying that we do not want to label these products and mix them with conventional ones, we deprive consumers of their choice. And those who do not agree with such an approach, we refer to a more expensive alternative to the organic economy. Quality, safe and affordable food has been the framework of European agriculture so far, and I really do not understand why we are resigning. This proposal, as it stands, is ill-prepared, potentially dangerous, and I will vote against it.

Madam President, I am really pleased that we are finally seriously talking about geothermal energy. It's really high time. This energy has enormous potential for Europe. And at the same time, we have tremendous reserves in its use. Despite having large geothermal water reserves, Slovakia uses this potential to 2-3%. It is a local, clean and carbon-free energy, really a permanent and reliable source of heat and electricity. But the biggest advantage is that this energy source is really future-proof. No foreign dictator will limit it. The use of this energy will not overwhelm us with truly radioactive waste, nor will we have to re-evaluate it in 2030-2040, as it would destroy our forests, as is the case with cheap energy biomass. If there are obstacles to its use, let us offer solutions and finally start to make full use of this resource. The sooner we start, the more we gain.

Madam President, the situation in Slovakia is serious. The major changes planned by the current government are not for the benefit of the public. On the contrary, they are tailor-made for selected persons who, through the pro-mafia package of dismantling specialised offices and reducing penalties, are supposed to escape justice. There is even a risk that the most serious crimes will be time-barred. One aspect that should not be lost in this debate concerns the amendment of criminal codes and the impact on nature protection. It is also part of the rule of law, and the current government is being ridiculously and severely attacked. It is now technically almost impossible to commit a crime by killing a protected animal. You would have to kill seven bears to commit such an act. This amendment specifically allows poachers to act with impunity where the environmental police have hitherto trampled on their heels. An attempt to break the rule of law is underway in Slovakia. At stake is a democratic Slovakia, which may lose its democratic nature. This line is defended in this House by non-attached leaders and fascists. These are the people who did not fit into this parliament and now want to take the whole of Slovakia with them. For Slovakia, for the future, for all of us. We have to stop them.

Madam President, protecting pollinators is not a whim. This is essential for biodiversity and therefore for the preservation of agriculture. The Commission's proposal to revise the initiative goes in the right direction because it is based on the basic premise that the protection of any species is built on the protection of its habitat, i.e. the conditions in which pollinators find food, escape, breeding conditions and shelter. This requires comprehensive and coherent legislation. Please be honest with yourself in this regard. By rejecting legislation to reduce the use of pesticides and by grinding and rendering inoperable legislation to restore ecosystems, this House is going in the very opposite direction. We do not protect habitats, we cling to further damage. This is a populist, shallow and harmful approach that we clearly need to fundamentally change. Otherwise, this initiative also risks remaining a non-functional formal act. And this must not happen, because it is about life.

Madam President, I am not used to speaking that soon in the debate, but thank you very much for the floor. I will continue in Slovak. – Vážená pani predsedajúca, to, čo budeme dneska konzultovať, je štvrtá úspešná občianska európska iniciatíva týkajúca sa vyslovene dobrých životných podmienok zvierat. Celkovo z počtu desiatich úspešných takýchto iniciatív ide až o šiestu, ktorá sa týka naozaj záležitostí životného prostredia alebo zvierat. Chcem podotknúť aj to, že bola výrazne úspešná, skončená o dva a pol mesiaca skôr, ako bolo predpokladané, a zatiaľ vyzbierala jeden a pol milióna podpisov, teda ten treshhold – toto kvórum preskočila veľmi rýchlo. Z pozície výboru PETI musím konštatovať, že európska občianska iniciatíva je popredným nástrojom priamej demokracie a vo svojom druhu je to naozaj v nadnárodnom priestore bezprecedentná iniciatíva. Je to nástroj, ktorý poskytuje občianskym iniciatívam silný hlas, a v kombinácii s náležitou odozvou Európskej komisie je to naozaj nástroj participatívnej demokracie, ktorú Európska únia má eminentný záujem rozvíjať. Čo požaduje táto petícia, alebo, pardon, táto iniciatíva? Dva základné ciele: má sa ukončiť chov a usmrcovanie zvierat na výhradnú produkciu kožušín a takisto žiada ukončenie uvádzania kožušín zo zvierat a výrobkov z týchto kožušín na európsky trh. Dôvody na to sú veľmi pragmatické a vážne. Chov kožušinových zvierat je vo svojej podstate nehumánny. Držíme zvieratá v rozpore s ich ekologickými a etologickými nárokmi. Ja si myslím, že to naozaj nesie mnohé aspekty týrania takýchto zvierat. Navyše je to obrovské riziko šírenia a prenosu infekčných chorôb ako COVID-19 a vtáčia chrípka a v neposlednej miere je veľmi významný aj vplyv na biodiverzitu, kedy úniky nepôvodných druhov z takýchto zariadení spôsobujú vážne škody na pôvodných druhoch fauny. Teší ma, že táto iniciatíva naozaj nie je osamotená v tom európskom priestore. Už Rada Európskej únie vyzvala Komisiu v júni, aby ukončila chov kožušinových zvierat v Európe a preskúmala podmienky, ako zamedziť obchodu s nimi. Štrnásť členských krajín v Európe už zakázalo na svojom území chov kožušinových zvierat a ďalšie sa pridávajú. Zatiaľ jediná krajina na svete, a to je Izrael, zakázala predaj kožušinových výrobkov. Preto si myslím, že tento apel je naozaj veľmi výrazný a Komisia by mala adekvátne reagovať, a tou adekvátnou odpoveďou je legislatívna odpoveď. Potrebujeme implementovať legislatívu, ktorá umožní takýto zákaz, a dúfam len, že sa vyhneme tomu trendu, ktorý vidíme od Komisie, kedy odsúva takúto legislatívu naozaj do neurčita alebo do veľmi neskorých termínov. Chcem veriť, že výrok prezidentky Komisie Von der Leyenovej „If it matters to Europeans, it matters to Europe.“ nebude naozaj v tomto prípade len prázdnym gestom.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the directive is good, but regarding the woody biomass, I have to be critical. What started as a policy construct in 2009 on how the large scale burning of wood is sustainable and allegedly does not result in carbon emissions only continues with the recast of this directive. The text strengthens the sustainability criteria on burning woody biomass yet it allows massive derogations. With this directive, massive burning of wood will continue, and heavy subsidies will continue, and Member States will still claim that they protect the climate by burning more and more of the wood. It negatively affects the wood processing industry and market competition, and it will trigger large-scale deforestation in the last complex remnants of the primary forests of the Carpathians. This directive introduced rules with loopholes only to satisfy the growing demand for wood of an industry built around very harmful greenwashing. We are burning down the forest whose biodiversity, resilience and capacity to withstand climate change are by no means renewable.

Madam President, without restoring ecosystems, without restoring ecosystem functions and without restoring biodiversity, agriculture, forestry and fisheries simply cannot cope with the climate crisis. If I were not a Member of this House, I would have signed an appeal by thousands of scientists who are appealing to Parliament to reflect on science and reflect on the horrific state of our nature, of our species, of our ecosystems, into which we have pushed them. Science has always been a reliable companion and navigation for me in a complex world. However, we see a rampant partocracy that tries to distort the facts and bend reality, and even does not hesitate to defend its members from voting freely. I want to believe that there is enough reason, conscience and courage left in this House to overcome this problem and to vote for an ambitious restoration of nature. It's important, it's about life and it's about the future.

Madam President, tomorrow we vote on the Industrial Emissions Directive. Despite tough negotiations, we agreed on a complex position with a solid von der Leyen majority. The report found a good balance between ensuring a high level of protection of the environment and human health and balancing the burden imposed on business. We have strengthened the cross-border elements of the file and general management of water within industrial use. We significantly improve the aspects of environmental performance and emission limits and provided the public with easier access to justice in those cases where an IED permit was breached and caused human health harm. Please vote in favour of the report and against the amendments which weaken the report, including on environmental performance limit values. The only main question that remains open is the inclusion of intensive, large scale cattle farming into the scope of the Directive. And I believe we will approve this important element as well. With the adoption of the ambitious Industrial Emissions Directive, we hold to our goals and priority towards the European Green Deal.

Mr President, Russia is committing terrorism and ecocide in Ukraine. The destruction of the Nova Kachovka dam released a mass of water that took possessions, lives, absorbed pollutants and transported them to the Black Sea, degraded agricultural land and destroyed protected areas. Thus, biodiversity and the environment of the entire area are fundamentally endangered. This catastrophe, ecocide and thousands of other crimes against nature would not have happened without the Russian invasion and occupation of Ukrainian territory. I firmly believe that we will see a day when the Putin regime will be held accountable fairly for these acts against people and nature. To remedy environmental damage, we must ensure a strong action plan and support from the European Union. The reconstruction of Ukraine without the restoration of its amazing ecosystems and environment will not be possible.

Madam President, when I first saw the document about the slaughter of day-old chicks, I was shocked. The natural tendency to protect a tiny chick was confronted with the harsh reality of how that tiny beeping bird was thrown into a grinder and crushed in a fraction of a second. One male after another, half laying just because they did not fit into the breeding. I still remember my wife's words. If only they'd kissed them before they were thrown in. She had tears on her shoulder. And from that moment on, I am convinced that the cruelty and suffering of this practice is something I will never cope with. We don't have to talk about the suffering of chickens. They probably won't even realize it when they become chopped into pieces. They don't know what's going on. But in this act of destruction of a hatched life, people also suffer. Those who are involved in the act. Even those who are his witnesses. At this sight, the soul suffers and tears are pressed into the eyes. No wonder we hide it from the public. But this does not solve the problem, on the contrary, it deepens it. Good Things Happen, Good Things Happen. In 2021, both Germany and France passed a law on banning the practice of culling of male chicks from 2022. In Austria, killing of male chicks without a specific reason was recently enforced. Luxembourg ordered systematic destruction of chicks. In Italy the ban is expected to apply in 2026. France and Germany submitted a document to other agriculture calling for the EU—wide chick-culling ban and we are very grateful for the response of the Commission, and Commissioner Kyriakides in particular, who is ready to propose to phase out this practice. This will most likely happen within the animal welfare legislation revision to be tabled this year. Talking about improvements, the alternatives to chick-culling need to be noticed. First of all, we have the alternative to really stop regarding male chicks a mere waste of the meat and industry. Let us exploit possibilities for raising males or switch to dual—purpose breeds that produce both meat and eggs. Yes, they all need inserts and compensations. That is why sexing technologies to determine gender before eggs hatching represent the best workable solution. There is a number of safe methods accepted biomarker method, PCR technology, MRI spectroscopy: these methods can distinguish between female and male hatching eggs from the ninth day of incubation. Their accuracy is way above 98% and they can process tens of thousands of eggs per hour. Some new problems, however, have arisen which need to be tackled because the ban on chick—culling is not yet EU—wide. Hatcheries in countries where killing male chicks is started to export day-old chicks to kill them in neighbouring countries. It is not justified to add additional suffering by transportation to the killing itself to the day—old chicks. The EP must call on the Commission to propose an EU—wide ban with a minimal transition period in order to stop current disadvantage met by countries which decided to ban this cruelty. The case of chicks being released to be killed must warn us about the importance of having mirror clauses. Should an EU—wide ban be adopted it should include the prohibition of export of live chicks meant for elimination and a prohibition to import eggs or hens which have not been sexed. I firmly believe we have to broaden the ban also on one—day—old ducklings who suffer the same way due to the production of foie gras. If we are to reduce suffering both of animals and those who witness this cruel practice, we have no more time to waste. It is normal to protect a freshly hatched bird. It's normal to be humane. Let us act now. All we need is love and compassion.

Mr President, we are on track to exceed 1.5 degrees in the next decade and 2 degrees by mid-century. Of the 15 massive ecosystem tipping points that will be exceeded at two degrees, some of them are dangerously within sight. And yet we are only at around 1.1 degrees of warming. The IPCC finds that all pathways that effectively limit warming depend on some quantity of carbon removal. Many carbon—removal interventions are already well known: strict protection of forest, agroforestry, peatland rewetting, holistic grazing. They require concerted public—sector efforts to become widely adopted. Others must be tested and if found effective, funded and deployed at scale in the next few years. We critically need to avoid tendencies where the role of carbon storage in ecosystem is purposefully devaluated only to further justify the mass use of forest biomass. We need effective solutions and we need them now. No time to hesitate.

Madam President, let us save bees and farmers. A very clear call for another successful citizens' initiative on the environment. It's also about saving farmers. The practices that we are still mass-promoting are destroying bees, depriving the country of life and threatening the very nature of agriculture. Let's talk about how many pesticides need to be eliminated, but let's not argue that reducing them is necessary. Let us discuss how much and what soil we will regenerate, but let us not pretend that this measure is not critically important for the conservation of pollinators. Let us look for ways to educate farmers and help them in the transition to organic farming, but let us not pretend that the current system is beneficial for them. We have a spring weekend ahead of us. Snowdrops, willows bloom, there will be bees on them, certainly not only honey bees. Stop by them. Enjoy this spring phenomenon and think about why and where it happens. I hope you will understand that where bees thrive, people will thrive. Let's save the bees and the farmers. It can be done.

Madam President, the shortage of fertilisers and their high price is closely linked to the Russian aggression in Ukraine and the disruption of traditional gas supplies. We have managed gas shortages, cut ourselves off from Russia and diversified our suppliers, but at the same time we have targeted savings and significantly deployed alternatives. We need to apply the same procedure to the issue of fertilisers, but I cannot get rid of the feeling that we are only staying here in the first phase of the solution. We diversify suppliers and eventually produce more, just to keep agriculture on track. We have little thought about savings, and alternative practices run counter to the resistance of the agro-establishment. But this crisis is an opportunity. An opportunity for alternative practices, for consistent work with soil and soil life, for the promotion of natural nutrient cycles, for organic alternatives, for nature-based practices, for organic farming or for regenerative tillage, where artificial fertilisers are not needed to ensure quality production. We have all these practices embedded in the Farm to Fork strategy. What we need to improve the situation is consistent implementation on the ground.

Madam President, the objective of a complete reduction in emissions from passenger transport is indeed a huge contribution to the climate and, at the same time, a strong modernisation stream in road transport, with benefits for air quality, noise and public health. Believe me, especially for Slovakia, the country that produces the most cars per capita, this is a very fundamental shift, but not at all easy. From the beginning, I insisted that we have a plan and funding to retrain employees across the board in this sector. I am very pleased that this request has indeed been included in the text of the final agreement. It ensures that the transition to e-mobility is not only green, but also fair. The creation of a robust battery production system without over-reliance on third countries remains to be addressed. It is crucial that this critical industry also meets high environmental standards. An exception is not possible. The principle of no harm to the environment must remain the principle of a just transition.

Madam President, renewable energy sources are indeed crucial in combating climate change, in lowering energy prices and in ensuring a seamless energy supply to the European Union and, ultimately, in breaking away from the dictate of fossil fuels. This is why we really need to remove the administrative barriers that prevent us from making the most of them and developing their full potential. However, it should be borne in mind that even the production of renewable energy can and does harm protected areas and is therefore in conflict with the protection of nature, and therefore its production and development must a priori be concentrated on areas where such conflicts do not occur. I am particularly critical of this in connection with the production of energy from water and biomass, where excessive benevolence in the exercise of overriding public interest will inevitably lead to damage to rivers and the disappearance of rare forest areas. We already had enough of the felled protected forests and the concrete fragmented living rivers to understand that the further destruction of the natural environment is simply unacceptable.

Madam President, unfortunately we have it again. The need to reduce the protection of the wolf has been mentioned in the rural development plans. It is said that we should be consistent with Parliament's previous rather unfortunate position. At the Bern Convention Standing Committee on 2 December 2022, all 27 Member States unanimously rejected Switzerland’s request to reduce the protection of the wolf, thus clearly declaring the need for its further strict protection in the European area. So if we are to be consistent, let us start by aligning ourselves with the position of our own countries. Demonizing the wolf and asking for non-systemic and apparently dysfunctional steps to hunt it in the countryside will not help. Nature is not an enemy of the countryside, on the contrary, it is its ally in the fight against climate change and the decline of species wealth. So let's start working with her, please. It is also the instrument with the greatest potential for developing underdeveloped and declining rural areas.

Mr President, it is indeed a strange resolution that calls for what has long been legally possible. All the instruments we are asking for are long in the hands of the Member States, including killing problematic individuals of protected wolf, bear or lynx species where this is really the last and only option. It really needs to be made clear that this initiative was taken by the AGRI Committee, but the original intention was to open up the Habitats Directive, reduce the protection of wolves, bears and lynx and allow them to be hunted across the board. I do not understand such ambition, mainly because of the enormous importance of these species for ecosystems and biodiversity, as well as for the great public support. I am therefore pleased that we have a negotiated text on the table, which I fully support, and I also invite all of you to do so: Let us stop or end this chapter, let us commit ourselves to really important things, such as finding compatibility with this planet, which, however, will not be possible without coexistence with wild unregulated nature.

Mr President, the reform of the directive was supposed to be about reforming the use of biomass for energy, so that in the vain attempt to save the climate by burning wood, we would not destroy our forests. Subsidies for wood burning had to be reduced and the inclusion of wood burning in renewable energy sources had to be prohibited. This was the position of the ENVI Committee. Instead, however, we have a compromise proposal that, while defining primary biomass for which subsidies cannot be received, at the same time applies a huge exception to primary biomass that is salvage harvested, which represents more than half of the volume of wood for which we can receive subsidies. We will also include the rest of the primary subsidy in the share of consumption based on the years 2007 to 2022, which we do not know and which allows increasing timber harvesting. For me, this is a red line. The red line behind the reform, the well-meaning reform for renewables, which takes a number of good steps for wind, sun, geothermal, but opens the way for a European biomass producer, and I do not intend to support that.

(start of speech off-mic) global deforestation that cannot be done without Europe. And in that regard, I am very happy that this House is ready to acknowledge our responsibility in tackling this issue. The final text is very well balanced. It is based on solid science, and all we need is to support it. What I am, however, concerned about is a lack of coherence with other legislation, and in particular the Renewable Energy Directive, and the way it treats woody biomass. We cannot fight deforestation and at the same time ask for increasing wood harvest and burning of wood, relieve the criteria of sustainability and allowing massive subsidies and distortion of market. We are losing forest carbon sinks, forest resilience and biodiversity, all because we are putting too much pressure on our forests and we might be proposing to push even more. The critical condition for sustainable forest management, however, is based upon the premise that we also have to allow the forest to rest, grow and adapt. Please keep this in your mind during the crucial votes this week and stop burning trees for energy.

Mr President, the role of the Green Taxonomy was a completely clear, unambiguous and precise list of green, renewable and sustainable technologies. There is a great interest in investing in such technologies and there is a great need to invest in such technologies as they define our path to save the climate. The inclusion of gas and kernel in the list weakens the list, confuses the user of the list and introduces it. I am therefore voting in favour of the objection. It's not a vote against the plan or the core. We do not want to ban these sources in any way, but it is a vote against the greening of these technologies. Every single euro that we deceive ourselves into devoting to these technologies as green will ultimately be missing in the promotion of the truly green technologies that are at stake in the first place. That is why we are voting for clear rules. We vote in favour of the facts, in favour of the green solution and not in favour of greenwashing, I vote against taxa.

Mr President, we are indeed facing a huge challenge to save the climate, and thus ourselves. I am really pleased with the many objectives that this Parliament represents, proposes and supports in this fight. But at the same time, I watch with concern how reluctantly we admit that ecosystems and nature alone can work for our benefit. We literally don't give them a chance. We print technical solutions, which is fine, but at the same time we suppress the natural ones, the ecological ones. We reluctantly enable the essential property of soil and ecosystems, which is to bind and store carbon, to remove it from the atmosphere, and to incorporate it inside amazing processes in ecosystems. We have the biggest problem with LULUCF, and for me, unfortunately, it is a signal that we still do not understand the essentials: That being compatible with the planet and truly effectively addressing the climate and biodiversity crises is critically dependent on how well we interact with nature. Working with nature is clearly our biggest weakness. And that has to change. It is possible, and it must be possible, because it is about life.

Madam President, Europe's energy infrastructure, as the climate crisis shows and as the terrible war in Ukraine shows, is no longer just about connectivity, and it should be an infrastructure that allows and enables us to meet our climate goals and guarantees us security. What destabilises our climate, what threatens our security and ultimately threatens our future and survival, are fossil resources and this infrastructure must enable us to break away from fossil resources. What we see, however, is a huge package ready to build another gas infrastructure. Connecting Cyprus and Malta to our gas infrastructure will be neither cheap nor easy and will take a long time to complete. Already now I am afraid of the moment when it will be completed and we will see how useless it is, how useless and expensive the effort was. Please, the framework thus proposed has a systemic error embedded in it and I do not want to and cannot support it at the moment.

Madam President. Animal transport has two major problems. The first is a massive circumvention of existing rules to guarantee animals good transport conditions. And the second is even more serious. The ANIT Committee was indeed very thorough in questioning the experts and they were quite clear in this regard that it was impossible to ensure animal welfare for the selected types of transport. I am talking about transporting youngsters at a young age, when they are dependent on drinking milk, when we transport them already after two weeks from birth and do not provide them with the conditions for food intake, water during transport, which has a very serious impact on their active immunity. I'm talking about the transports of highly gravy females that we transport in the third trimester of pregnancy. The result is spontaneous abortions or childbirths on board trucks, where the only solution is then only humane killing, let alone continuation to the target, which is often a slaughterhouse. And I am talking generally about long transports, where we can forget that once the transport crosses the borders of the European Union, we are talking about some good transport conditions. ANIT strongly recommends to disable the first two transports. Unfortunately, at the third, he did not make a majority decision. I think that Parliament should at this point be even more ambitious than the special committee and ban these transports in general. This should be a message to the Commission. Unfortunately, we see a lot of resistance here and, I would say, allegations of ideology. Transports harm animals, but also our soul and our conscience, and I am not afraid to say that they harm the credibility of our legal norms, which we are not able to fully fulfill in the intent in which they were intended. Mass-tolerated transports, this illegal activity to a large extent has to stop. It is sensitively perceived by the public and I think it is our duty to really recommend to the Commission to end such activity.

Mr President, although the protection of climate and environment should not be subject to political discretion, the approved texts of COP26 are a compromise and reflect the political will of today. I however welcome the COP26 results, and in particular the pledges related to ecosystems. We so far have treated nature as the least important element of our fight to mitigate and adapt to climate change. As some think, when sacrificed should not have consequences. We replaced digging for coal by the burning of forests, started to call it a fight against climate change, and rewarded companies for burning wood despite the fact that wood seals more CO2 per unit of energy than coal, and despite the very poor shape of our forests. We cannot afford to go down this line. We have to strictly go the path of energy efficiency through renewables like solar, wind and geothermal, together with forest and wetland protection, to really improve the climate. Unfortunately, it is reported that the EU is proposing to expand the scope of the Energy Charter Treaty and replace fossil fuels by new energy sources such as biomass. The COP27 starts now and we have to act now. That’s why I hope that this Parliament is aware of the damage that the EU has cast upon forests with the Renewable Energy Directive and is ready to review it thoroughly.