What Eric spoke about.

Madam President, Commissioner, your action plan on fertilisers partly responds to the difficulties of our farmers. However, that time wasted since February 28, the beginning of the war on the Strait of Hormuz. Faced with low grain prices, they needed a strong signal to offset rising fertilizer and fuel prices. I listened carefully to your speech. I didn't hear any numbers. Loving farmers is good. Proofs of love are better. Beyond the short term, we also need to increase our production and strategic storage capacities. The carbon tax at the borders must help us, but we must already study its suspension for a year, the time to be in a better position. The Action Plan contains other relevant proposals, such as trade diplomacy and the use of agroecology, legumes and digestate. However, it misses an essential point: How will our farmers be able to bear the long-term effect of carbon allowances if they are left exposed to unfair competition? That is why we must also increase the level of CAP intervention prices.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, rapporteur, the Baltic Sea is dying. We're looking at her. This Baltic Sea is small. But it matters to all of us. Not only is climate change more intense, faster, leading to eutrophication of water already degraded by land-based pollution of watersheds. But in addition, it is draining its wealth as a result of our inability to regulate human activities, including fishing. It must be admitted that a neighbour who is not very sympathetic does not help us much. But let’s be honest, the multiannual plan has not met its objectives. While small-scale fishing accounts for more than 90% of vessels and more than 60% of jobs in the Baltic, it captures only 7% of landings by weight and 22% by value. Let's finally ask ourselves the right questions: When is a global approach? When is the questioning of an industrial and financial model? Let us act with determination now for a living Baltic. Let's dare!

Mr President, Commissioner, dear rapporteur, maritime spatial planning is not just maps, it is not just figures, let alone financial statements. Maritime spatial planning is about men and women living, working and protecting maritime territory. So, when we consider a strategy to reconcile uses and plan new ones, the least of things and associate them. Be careful, associating does not mean vaguely consulting, but to consult, that is to say to really decide together. That is the whole point of this report and the reason for the elements of my proposals for this report. Let's decide together which areas will protect diversity, which will produce energy, which will feed us. Because often, when we focus only on numbers or maps, we forget those who work at sea to feed us: fishermen and aquaculturists. This is a major public interest. Let us not be mistaken, they are in favour of protecting the environment, the energy transition and a healthy and diversified diet. But simply, decisions cannot be made without them. This text also profoundly questions Europe's ability to sustain its democracy. The institutions to propose a framework with headings, to use a marine vocabulary, and the Member States, regions, local authorities and local coastal communities, to decide to implement it. Because these choices will condition our common destiny. That is the ambition of my contribution to this report. Thank you again.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the report we are voting on today is an unequivocal message to farmers in Europe: We continue to need you. The history of humanity is intimately linked to breeding and it has structured our relationship to nature and the organization of our societies. Livestock farming and its complementarity with crops is the basis of agronomy; This is the basis of the life cycle. Certainly, meat must have a reasonable place in our diet, but we certainly cannot do without the many environmental services that animal husbandry provides us, especially extensive animal husbandry, which shapes our territories. In short, our food will not be sustainable if it is not able to rely on sustainable livestock. That is why we need to defend our farmers against unfair competition from free trade agreements. Livestock should not be a currency of exchange. That is why we need to mobilise the Competitiveness Fund to develop the production of vaccines and additives on European soil. There will be no strong Europe without sovereign agriculture, nor agriculture without strong livestock.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, monitoring the application of EU law is not an administrative formality; This is the beating heart of our common project, because in these times of geopolitical crisis and profound uncertainty, it is obvious: One of the greatest strengths of the European Union is its legal framework. A solid, stable framework that protects our citizens and ensures that law always prevails over arbitrariness. There is an essential condition, a fundamental principle, that of the primacy of EU law, enshrined in 1964 by the Court of Justice of the European Union. This principle is neither a legal abstraction nor a constraint. It is a very condition of our unity and, in this, it must be a compass. If primacy exists, it is because of the will of the Member States, it is because of their will to exercise their sovereignty and to delegate part of it. Our second and equally essential strength is our unique democracy in the world, which is based on a demanding balance between our institutions. But this democracy is also today contested, questioned, attacked by the extreme right. Faced with this, one of our responsibilities is to defend the role of the European Parliament with determination. To weaken Parliament is to weaken the voice of European citizens. That is why the report we are debating today, for which I am shadow rapporteur, sends a simple message to the Commission: Do not abandon the democratic demand on the altar of untimely deregulation whose aim is short-term profit. For, let us be clear-sighted, strengthening our competitiveness and sovereignty will not be achieved by giving up our principles. It will be done by affirming them. Resist external pressures, defend our standards, consolidate our legal framework: This is the way to build the Europe of tomorrow, which chooses rigour over ease.

Madam President, Commissioner, first of all, I would like to express my full support and that of my group for the farmers affected by this new epizootic disease, which is on top of a long list for French livestock farming. For many, this episode is one too many. Behind lumpy skin disease – the DNC – there is a profound agricultural malaise that needs to be addressed, particularly in the beef sector. As regards the health approach, my priority is to eradicate this disease in order to prevent it from becoming a permanent part of the French agricultural landscape. To this end, based on the experience of the first outbreak of LSD in Europe, in the Balkans, from 2015 to 2017, I trust the protocol drawn up by the health authorities, both at national and European level. The health protocol based on the depopulation of the affected livestock units, vaccination within a sufficiently wide surveillance radius and biosecurity measures now seem to be the most effective means. Beyond the issue of health management, there is the need to compensate farmers for the loss of their livestock and related genetics. The responsibility of the public authorities is also engaged in the replenishment of herds. Farmers need a vision, a long-term vision. I would also like to call on the Commission, Commissioner, to allow animals and their meat to be marketed from vaccine-free areas. So I know it is possible, but it is extremely complicated. We all know the obstacles that countries put in place to prevent their markets from competing with each other, to limit the functioning of the single market. This attention should also be focused on the non-closure of non-EU markets through effective food diplomacy. And let me: a real vaccine strategy needs to be developed at EU level, together with the Member States. Not just for DNC, but for all other diseases. We need a contract on antigen banks, on vaccine banks, which allows us to be more upstream in vaccination. Again, we lost time. Certainly a number of human tragedies would have been avoided if we had been able to do so. Finally, we believe that it is important to re-establish dialogue, because the success of prophylactic action will depend on the acceptance of the measures taken by farmers and our citizens alike. However, protocols can evolve and other avenues explored, provided they are science-based, in consultation with all stakeholders. This will require a real policy of support for livestock farming, which will involve a strong CAP, rejection of Mercosur and a better sharing of value for the benefit of farmers and stockbreeders.

Madam President, Commissioner, here we are at the end of this CAP simplification package. Faced with the movements of professional farmers returning to France and Europe, it will not come to anyone the idea of claiming victory with the adoption of this package. For farmers, the problem is always the same: They need economic security, they need stable and decent incomes. We need to find structural solutions. It is certainly not by taking a step back from environmental ambition that we will achieve this. This simplification package ends in a lesser evil – I would like to thank our colleague André Rodrigues for his work on this – and the worst in terms of deregulation has been avoided – and that is fortunate. But, Commissioner, we urgently need to get out of the way and talk openly about the regulation of markets. All countries on this planet protect their agriculture from dumping and unfair competition in international markets. It is time to change the paradigm in Europe. No, markets are not self-regulating.

Mr President, we take note of this rejection vote and, together with my co-rapporteur, on the basis of Rule 60, we ask that the text be referred back to the committee responsible for re-examination, pending the Commission's reply.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, dear Emma, for several months we have worked tirelessly to seek the path of compromise, to advance this eminently perfectible text, in a context where the pressure on our forests has never been greater. We thought we could do it, we thought we could do it, because forests are part of the solution to the challenges we face, both environmental and economic. The rejection vote in committee was a failure. Ours as rapporteurs, but above all that of our Assembly, which is unable to build a balanced compromise position to negotiate with the Council and the Commission. In short, we have collectively decided to relinquish our role as legislators. Our EPP colleagues preferred compromise rather than compromise. I do not dare to hope for a jump in fidelity to their long political heritage. Alea JactaNow let's vote.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we are not mistaken in our fight. The vast majority of farmers and our fellow citizens do not want simplification that rhymes with deregulation. What farmers do not tolerate is that they are set high targets without sufficient means to achieve them, and we can understand them. It is therefore necessary to move from coercion to incitement; It's imperative. This requires an adequate budget and protection against excessively low prices and unfair competition. Céline Imart's report goes in this direction by strengthening producer organisations in particular. But what will happen if, in the next multiannual financial framework, there is no longer an envelope reserved for this purpose for fruit and vegetables, viticulture and other sectors? Europe cannot come empty-handed. Farmers cannot depend on the will of states alone. Commissioner, this is a sword of Damocles above what the CAP has done best to develop cooperation between farmers and strengthen the upstream in the face of downstream. We must find solutions to address these legitimate concerns, so that the work that has been done by Céline Imart, by our comrade André Rodrigues and by this Parliament is respected.

Mr President, Commissioner, our forests are burning and we are looking elsewhere. My thoughts go out to the families who lost a loved one, to the residents of the areas affected by this summer's severe fires. Spain, Portugal, Greece, France, it is our whole continent that burns, more than a million hectares. In this House, we have a responsibility to bring about a European forest monitoring system to better anticipate the various dangers that climate change poses to them. The European Commission has made an ambitious proposal in this area in order to develop cooperation between the Member States and the European Union. But today, on the benches of the right, the PPE, and the far right, I hear voices opposing this project. I say it with seriousness, it is not hearable. Let's stop the crocodile tears. Forests are also a European competence. What will you say to your children who will ask you why you did not act? So, as co-rapporteur for this regulation, I call on all groups to take responsibility for finding a way forward and setting up this European forest monitoring system.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in fisheries agreements, we talk about fish, but almost never about the men and women who brave the ocean to live and feed others. The resolution I am defending today is a strong signal. Driven by an almost unanimous consensus of our Committee on Fisheries, it puts people back at the heart of the agreements. Yes, ecosystems must be protected. Yes, we have to track down illegal fishing. Above all, we must change our minds, build a partnership of equals, give local communities fair access to resources, involve them in decisions, comply with ILO, FAO and UN standards, and recognise the central role of women through training and by improving working conditions in the cold chain. European funds must serve them as they must serve seafarers. The Commission must hear this message and integrate it into its ocean diplomacy. Finally, this resolution is a tribute to Mrs Adama Diallo, who inspired and accompanied us, and who passed away in January. With this text, her fight continues, for her, for them, for us.

Mr President, Commissioner, the vision for agriculture and food is a very comprehensive overview of the challenges we must face to ensure food security for Europeans. To do this, we must close the liberal parenthesis opened in 1992. Without regulation, no food security or sovereignty. Our world is changing fast and we need to adapt our policy to it. We need to address at least two major challenges that hold both ends of the chain: ensuring an income for our farmers and tackling food insecurity, which affects 20% of Europeans and has only increased under the pressure of food inflation. For this, we must find instruments for regulating and stabilizing prices. I am thinking in particular of strategic stocks and the revision of intervention prices. Europe was created on a twofold promise: peace and prosperity. Failure to ensure food security is a betrayal of that promise. Commissioner, let us give ourselves the means of this vision, so that it is not a mirage, just another illusion.

Madam President, Commissioner, a lot has been said. I will focus on the conditions of reciprocity and, as a central issue, fair trade, both in terms of unfair competition and in terms of public health, environmental protection and social rights. In terms of health security, if we ban health products in Europe because they are CMR - carcinogenic, mutagenic, reprotoxic - proven by science, then it is our duty to make this ban an absolute obligation. Because the guarantee of health is a matter of public order, here and there. It must be binding on every decision-maker, every treaty, every agreement. This requirement must lead to the obligation of conformity of the products we import, beyond random customs controls or maximum limits of pesticide residues, of which we all know the flaws. These products must be the subject of a genuine certificate of conformity issued independently, in accordance with specifications drawn up by the European Union. In the absence of such a guarantee, Europe will incur its responsibility for endangering the lives of others, here and there. Trust does not exclude control. For now, the conditions for confidence are not there, even for a hypothetical billion.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, have you ever heard a farmer complain about the difficulty of his work, isolation, fatigue and stress? No. In the fields, we remain silent about his personal situation. We suffer in silence from the look that society puts on you, from being the one who pollutes, who poisons, who makes meat that must no longer be eaten, or even wine that must no longer be drunk. Of course, he will talk about issues of income, value sharing or Mercosur, but it is also a problem of recognition that he suffers. What is its role? What is its social utility? Like the worker, the peasant struggles to find his place in our social contract. Yet security, precariousness, food sovereignty, climate change, geopolitical situation: everything should be in the direction of an agriculture that is at the centre of our concerns. Because it is the first of the vital functions: food. Our European project, our common agricultural policy must put people at the centre – farm workers, landowners, peasants – otherwise we will end up submissive and consumers rather than citizens and producers. How much work ahead of us, Commissioner Hansen! We're ready.

Madam President, Commissioner, avian influenza, bluetongue, epizootic haemorrhagic disease, swine fever: livestock farming is under severe strain across Europe. In the face of the disarray affecting our farmers, it is time to react and adapt health strategies. On my territory, the Landes, in south-west France, we had to wait six years before we could have a vaccine against avian influenza. All this to be able to export. In vain. This cost public finances tens of millions of euros, and one sector almost disappeared. This is absurd. We need to prevent rather than cure, because it costs less. We need a real European vaccination strategy. It is an economic, social, animal health and public health imperative. We must also guarantee our farmers that their vaccinated animals can be marketed within the European Union, but also in countries with which we have trade agreements. So, Commissioner, I would like to know: What is your strategy so that our single market can function in a context of zoonotic outbreaks, if each of our countries closes its borders?