Speeches

Mr President! When we walk through many European cities, we see something that should alarm us all: In front of schools, in parks, on playgrounds, everywhere are empty metal cartridges. At first glance, they seem harmless. But they represent a growing problem: The consumption of nitrous oxide as an intoxicant. This substance is used sensibly in medicine, but today it is increasingly becoming a cheap and quickly available kick for young people, available with coconut ‑ or strawberry flavor. And that's why we have to ask ourselves some uncomfortable questions now: Why does it all happen? Why are more and more young people turning to nitrous oxide? Is it downplaying on social media? Is it the apparent legality or easy access to it? Or maybe it shows us something deeper: a generation that is looking for short moments of intoxication because orientation, security or perspectives are missing? What we do know, however, is that the health consequences are real, and they are very serious. Doctors are already reporting permanent neurological problems caused by a substance that is still considered harmless to many. That is why we no longer have to watch as politicians in Europe. First, we need: clear rules for the sale and marketing of nitrous oxide; secondly: a Europe-wide protection of minors in sales; Thirdly: Awareness-raising campaigns that truly reach young people – honest, understandable and without any trivialisation. And fourthly, we must also look at the ecological factors: Millions of empty cartridges and balloons now end up in parks, meadows and waters. They pollute our environment, and they also endanger animals.  That is why, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner: We must act now for the health of our youth, for animals and for the environment.

Mr President! The reports on EU ‑ enlargement rightly assess democracy, the rule of law and the economy. However, it ignores almost entirely key European concerns – animal welfare and environmental protection – in all candidate countries. These issues are not only morally relevant, but also relevant to health, tourism and social development. In Georgia, animal welfare laws are weak, street animals suffer, and cruel killing methods are still used instead of proven castrations. While there is progress in animal welfare legislation in Moldova, implementation remains weak and insufficient. Both countries also have massive proven environmental problems with water and air pollution, and this underscores the urgency of an EU ‑-compliant environmental policy. Such maladministration affects not only animals, but also the economy and people's quality of life. At the same time, the situation is deteriorating in Turkey, where thousands of street animals continue to be killed. Animals and nature have no voice. We people, we MEPs, must raise our voices and denounce and improve the grievances there.

The more helpless a living being, the greater its right to human protection from human cruelty – Theodor Heuss. I mention such a quote here, because here there is an explicit demand for fewer controls. And for me it's not a simplification, for me it's dangerous. Of course, inspections take place in Germany, often only every few years or even more rarely, because capacities at veterinary offices are limited. And what should be found in the case of checks that are notified in advance? Animal welfare scandals are more the rule in factory farming and not the exception. And again and again, for example, undercover footage of animal welfare organisations reveals blatant new grievances in mass animal husbandry, including on farms that advertise animal welfare labels. These immense problems arise due to the exclusive focus on profit in this industry. Animal welfare standards are often undermined. We want to achieve a fundamental change in the CAP and not small rum doctorates and a stay on the status quo. We need to move away from intensive agriculture and towards systems that are in harmony with nature, so that sentient beings are not treated as commodities.

Mr President! How can it be that a butterfly that occurs only in one place in the world, namely in the hills around the North Macedonian village of Pletvar, can be legally traded online? The habitat of the Macedonian blueling covers only 1.5 square kilometers. This butterfly is crucial for local biodiversity, and there are only around 1,000 specimens left. While North Macedonia radically bans catching and exporting, intra-EU trade is legal due to gaps in the CITES system. In the run-up to COP20, many states have made proposals to protect their native, often endemic species. Therefore, my question: Will the Commission support these efforts and recognise that international cooperation outside the EU is essential to effectively control trade and protect biodiversity? We must not allow legal loopholes to endanger species that are relevant to entire ecosystems. CITES needs to be further developed to protect even more species worldwide.

Madam President, For many months, citizens and students in Serbia have been protesting against corruption and the increasing autocracy in their country. How does the government react to this? With violence and arrests. Students are still in detention. The situation of the media is also alarming. Reporters Without Borders have documented 76 physical assaults on journalists since January, 34 of them by the police – the highest figure in two decades. Air pollution is one of the worst in Europe. Recycling paper and plastic is almost impossible. Smoking in restaurants is allowed. In addition, over 20,000 stray animals suffer in Belgrade alone. Funds for animal shelters and castrations are almost non-existent. Is Vučić leading his country on a European course? It doesn't seem so. In the meantime, the President of the Commission is meeting with him in Belgrade as if everything were in order. This image sends the wrong signal. Our support belongs to pro-European citizens, students and journalists, not to an autocratic regime that oppresses its own people.

Thank you for this important question. Medical progress, the protection of people, of citizens all over the world, can be ensured, and at the same time animal welfare can be granted. As has been mentioned several times before, the vast majority of animal experiments – there are figures, I believe, 80, 90 percent or even higher – cannot be transferred to humans. We're just not monkeys, rats, dogs and the like. And despite all this, these tests are often prescribed without really having any effect. There is really broad, comprehensive research on alternatives, called NAMs. There are many approaches, AI comes into play there, there are different cell cultures, there are many possibilities.

Mr President! More than 1.2 million citizens in the EU call for the citizens' initiative Save Cruelty Free Cosmetics An end to animal testing. Did you all know that in the EU, rats still have to swallow new detergents for weeks just to check tumor safety? Or that fish die in toxic substances just to test the environmental compatibility of new perfume ingredients? This is despite the fact that data is often already available and modern animal-free alternatives are also available. The ‘One substance, one assessment’ package aims to create a common data platform and more transparency between authorities. Unfortunately, this is not yet the case in practice, and animals are often tested several times for the same chemical, because the data is not exchanged. This reform is a real step forward, but it can only be the beginning. The implementation of the chemicals package and the focus on reducing the burden on industry – these things must not lead to under-protection of consumers within the EU or even to a departure from the plan to abolish and replace animal testing wherever possible.

Mr President! Directly in advance: I'm the next one who wants to talk about it. Ladies and gentlemen, have you seen the headlines lately? Hundreds of Europeans, seriously ill after accidentally buying a vegan bratwurst. Have you seen these headlines? I don't. Dear Ms Imart, an initiative such as your amendment 113 would completely ignore a judgment of the European Court of Justice stating that the current legislation is already completely sufficient to protect consumers. Product names such as vegan soy schnitzel are well introduced. And surveys show that around 80 percent of consumers have no objections when using such well-known terms. The aim of such designations is simply to make it clear what it tastes like – for example, schnitzel. Plant-based foods are crucial for achieving EU targets in areas such as climate, health, animal welfare, but also food security. Europe is the world leader in the market for plant-based meat products – with a market volume of €2.7 billion in 2024. And this sector promises long-term opportunities for farmers and also more choice for consumers. Therefore, tomorrow, please vote against this amendment and against the patronage of consumers.

Mr President! The export of pork to China in 2024 was 1.15 million tonnes – tonnes! We are not talking about trade goods such as coal, steel or wheat. We are talking about formerly sentient beings. Pigs feel pain, suffering, joy and grief as we humans and also feel empathy with each other. And these intelligent creatures spend their short lives of mostly only 6 to 8 months crammed on crevice floors in box stalls and, contrary to their instincts, are forced to sleep, eat, vomit and urinate in the same place. Pigs have different characters. They recognize themselves in the mirror. Pig mothers sing something to their children during lactation. Dear colleagues, do not see these animals as a commodity, but as what they are: sentient beings. At this minute of my speaking time alone, 421 pigs were killed within the EU – not counting, of course, the countless piglets that died on their way to slaughter.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, In Serbia, the press, students and many others stand up for our European values, and how are these protests answered? With blinding grenades, tear gas and arrests. These people, as well as colleagues from this House, were insulted and attacked in the worst possible way by President Vučić. The EU and this House cannot tolerate such behaviour. Novi Sad is the twin city of my hometown Dortmund, and Germany, as an important EU partner, must not remain silent about the situation in Serbia. Instead of strategic interests, lithium deals and the like, we have to put people and the environment above profit. The situation of animal welfare is equally alarming: Animal shelters are overcrowded, state support almost non-existent; yet committed people fight for animal rights, for human rights on the ground, and thus embody all our European values. We must act decisively: impose targeted sanctions on those who suppress democracy, support courageous pro-European voices and make it clear that Europe stands for common values. The spiral of violence in Serbia must be broken.

Madam President, "Everyone in the world has their dreams," said Albanian writer Ismail Kadare. My dream is that Albania sees environmental protection as a bridge on its way to the EU and not as an obstacle. However, recent developments such as Vlora Airport, which was built in the Vjosa Narta Protected Area, are of concern and are in breach of EU environmental law. We also need stronger measures to protect endangered species, especially the Balkan lynx, whose survival depends on intact habitats. I expressly welcome steps such as the designation of the Vjosa National Park, but environmental protection in the tourism boom country of Albania must be consistent and not selective. Let's not forget about animal welfare: In every Albanian city, thousands of stray dogs live on the streets. This challenge should be tackled holistically! But the solution chosen is to kill many of these animals publicly in a cruel way. The few shelters are overcrowded, and castration programs are too seldom carried out and then financed not by the state, but by private NGOs. Yes to Albania's membership of the EU, but not before all conditions, including environmental and animal welfare standards, are met.

Madam President, I refer to Articles 61, 73 and 75. In the last plenary session, Parliament voted in favour of new rules for the protection of dogs and cats. One of the most important measures of the Plenarabstim was the microchip identification of all dogs and cats. After the vote, however, the AGRI rapporteur, who will lead the further negotiations, told Euractiv: We do not need to introduce a full-scale chipping at EU level. She added that she would like to change this point in the upcoming negotiations. This statement by the rapporteur is completely at odds with the position of the plenary. In accordance with Rule 73, the position adopted by Parliament is the mandate for the negotiations. That is why I would like to ask rapporteur Vrecionová for an assurance: Will you take back your statement that we don't need microchip identification for all dogs and cats? And will you instead carry out the mandate of this House in accordance with the rules? I'm asking for an answer.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, We are here today to commemorate the worst atrocity in Europe since World War II. Thirty years ago, more than 8,000 people were systematically executed, including many minors, some only 12 years old, just because they were Bosniaks. But this is not about numbers. Even a single life lost under such circumstances would be a life too much. In addition, many of these people have never found their last rest. Even today, new mass graves are constantly being discovered. But even the forcibly displaced will never forget July 1995. Those responsible were officially found guilty of genocide. The UN acknowledged their grave misconduct, and the Netherlands also apologized. But the young, inexperienced soldiers deployed there were mostly victims themselves. They still suffer from post-traumatic stress disorders today. It is extremely difficult to ask for reconciliation in this region, which has been so badly wounded in the past. Reconciliation is the only way. Only through acknowledgment, remembrance and the lessons of this terrible experience can we move forward together. We must learn from Srebrenica's case that humanitarian crises – as they are now in Gaza – cannot be ignored. That is why, ladies and gentlemen, ne zaboravimo Srebrenicu!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Honey bees have no relevance for biodiversity. Even if textbooks and media often give us a different picture and most people think directly of the honey bee by the word bee: This is not threatened; In Germany alone, around 100,000 beekeepers are looking for them. On the other hand, half of the 561 wild bee species are on the Red List as threatened with extinction. When we talk about pollinators, we have to focus on wild bees, wasps, butterflies and flies. Honey bees can supplement these as much as possible, but never replace them. When companies put honey bees on the roof, it's more greenwashing than contributing to species conservation. Many people have recognized the problem and want to help insects. They buy in good faith so-called insect hotels, filled with wood wool, with pine cones, with tree bark, because this conveys naturalness. But these are quite often a case for organic waste, are not accepted and can even harm insects in the worst case. Here, very urgently comprehensible seals for orientation must be created. Forget Bee Maja, take care of the Horned Wall Bee, the Dark-fransed Trouser Bee, create habitats and flowering stripes, and ban pesticides like glyphosate!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. When we talk about EU enlargement strategies, we need to talk much more about environmental, climate and animal welfare. It is shocking that in many reports on candidate countries these issues are only mentioned in passing or, as in the case of animal welfare, not at all. It goes without saying that all candidate countries must meet criteria relating to the rule of law, the fight against corruption, etc., but it is unacceptable that dogs and cats stray in countries such as Turkey, Albania, Kosovo, Moldova, Serbia or Bosnia are brutally killed. There is a chronic shortage of shelters, no population control measures such as castration programmes and no education and awareness campaigns for the population. In addition, waste management and environmental protection must not be neglected in candidate countries. Profit there must never be before the environment, as is the case with lithium mining in the Jadar Valley in Serbia or the construction of the airport in a nature reserve in Vjosa-Narta in Albania. We need to send a clear message to these countries that animal welfare and environmental standards are equally important. They should also be given this status here in Parliament.

Madam President, Once again, a bay on the Faroe Islands has turned blood red in recent days. At least 245 pilot whales have been slaughtered in the most brutal manner, including 25 pregnant females and 13 juveniles, where whales play a central role in the ecological balance of our seas. In Ocean Pact There is no mention of animal welfare. Concrete measures for marine protected areas are also lacking, as well as any efforts to phase out offshore oil and gas production in the face of the climate crisis. However, a welcome approach is to prioritise the impact of underwater noise on marine biodiversity, as underwater noise pollution needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. However, these bright spots cannot hide the fact that the pact as a whole is rather disappointing. No new legally binding targets, no concrete timetable for protecting 30% of our marine areas by 2030, no ban on harmful activities in protected areas. Instead, vague promises and with the Ocean Act A law of the sea in two years. Overall, too little, too unambitious, too late and too inconcrete.

Mr President! If the main objective of CBAM is to reduce CO2If it is to be emissions, then why does it not apply to agricultural and food products? It must simply be noted that our citizens consume significantly more food than things made of steel, for example. In addition, the import of food from some third countries poses a risk to consumers because of lower food safety and hygiene standards. On the other hand, animal welfare standards outside the EU are significantly lower – even within the EU, they are not high enough. In addition, the environmental aspect also plays a role. The CO2The tax is intended to shift CO2-prevent emissions, but at the same time agriculture, in particular industrial livestock farming, contributes the most to greenhouse gas emissions with 13 to 21 %. Commissioner, it is not honest and it is not transparent to say that we are going to reduce CO2 emissions.2-Introduce a tax to protect our environment when the biggest climate killers are ignored. And a word about competitiveness: Without the CO2-Tax is still cheaper to import low-quality products from abroad, and this is also detrimental to European agriculture.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I would like to take a moment to look at the animal welfare situation in Turkey. Last year, the Turkish parliament passed a law that could result in the deaths of millions of stray dogs. The situation of these animals worsens dramatically every day. Every day, countless dogs are caught, taken to completely overcrowded animal shelters or killed directly on site. Video footage of animal welfare organizations document the dramatic and cruel conditions there in the few urban shelters and show dogs being buried alive or disposed of in garbage bags. Others are poisoned, gassed or killed. Hardly any dog in Turkey is neutered, not even domestic and farm dogs. Against this background, the population there has been growing rapidly for years, while comprehensive castration measures are the only long-term and also animal welfare-compliant solution to get populations under control. For this, and only for this, the Turkish government must provide funds. Ladies and gentlemen, please support my call to the Turkish Government to end the massacre of stray dogs immediately.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I am clearly referring here to Rule 170 of our Rules of Procedure, because, on the one hand, there is no reason to support the urgency of this process. On the other hand, the competence under Article 19 of the Habitats Directive is clearly vested in the Council and not in the Parliament. Could it perhaps be that in some minds the idea has arisen that the strict requirements required by Article 19 of the Habitats Directive – namely unanimity – are to be circumvented by reducing the protection status by a simple majority? Science is absolutely in agreement: The recovery of the wolf remains fragile. And before you even begin to think about lowering the protection status of a key species, the conservation status must first be scientifically confirmed. We are still a long way from that, ladies and gentlemen. In addition, there are also numerous legal experts who say that we will use the wrong approach here. Therefore, thank you very much for taking into account my objection and that this is not an urgency and that, in principle, we do not vote on it.