What Michal spoke about.

Mr President, the reform of the common agricultural policy should be systemic and green. At the beginning of this process, I was really looking forward to it. Unfortunately, in the end, today, I am rather disappointed in this process. Eco-schemes, climate objectives, the promotion of biodiversity, support for small farmers or the harmonisation of payments, all these powerful instruments have ultimately remained insufficient and formal, and in vain we would look for measurable and binding targets for them. Unfortunately, we continue to largely support intensive agriculture, damaging the climate, soil and biodiversity. Large corporations and oligarchs will continue to receive the most subsidies without any added value for diversity, local production or even transparency. The capping of subsidies that could have done something about this unbalanced system also remains voluntary. The foundations of the reform were laid before the European Green Deal, and unfortunately, in this set-up, the reform has remained and remains largely so. It completely ignores and does not refer to key strategies such as the Biodiversity Strategy and the Farm to Fork Strategy. We are living in a climate and biodiversity crisis. The reform had, and could have, turned agriculture into a system that is not the cause, but the solution to this crisis. Unfortunately, the fundamental attributes for this aim are lacking in the reform.

Madam President, in the context of today's debate, I expect the European Union to recognise the right to a favourable environment. Environmental protection is still not successfully integrated into the policies of the European Union. Lists of extinct species are growing steadily. The climate crisis is getting serious. Nevertheless, the President of the National Parliament will find himself able to label nature conservation as eco-terrorism. Hate speech and aggression against advocates of nature protection and the environment are threateningly widespread. In policies, as a kind of tax on progress, we accept actions that harm the environment and threaten our own survival and prosperity. We must guarantee the right of all citizens to a favourable, healthy, varied and stable environment, both now and for future generations. This is a fundamental human right, which is inherently a right to life. The EU must have this right enshrined and be able to secure, defend and enforce it.

Mr President, first of all, I didn’t plan to speak in plenary this week, but I had to replace a colleague of mine, to whom I wish a full and fast recovery from his injuries. But now to the topic. Commissioner, without a doubt, the Commission has been investing significantly in very promising, innovative research projects. They have shown the possibilities of advanced non-animal models. At the same time, however, the investments in these innovative methods are still dwarfed in comparison to the current investments in animal studies. In 2017, over 23 million animals were impacted by science. The majority of them were bred and killed without actually being used in the experiments. It all happens despite specific provisions in REACH to promote alternative methods and to only use animals as a last resort. Today, the EU has major challenges to face: infectious diseases, the fight against cancer and ensuring a clean and safe environment. These challenges are complex and the EU is addressing them on many fronts, one of them research and testing. The rapid emergence of advanced non—animal models offer immense opportunities to replace animals and improve research. The Joint Research Centre has listed many of these methods for several disease areas, but they have not yet been followed by concrete measures. What we are asking from the Commission is to do more of what it already does, but in a coordinated manner and with concrete goals that can replace animals in specific scientific areas. Targeted funding, education and broad collaborations are key to making innovative advanced models and technologies the new normal. The Commission should work towards inter—agency alignment by setting up a dialogue on the regulatory use of non—animal models in anticipation of the ‘one substance, one assessment’ approach, and to ensure a proper share of the agency’s budget is dedicated to these models.