Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, over time, many of the plant's natural properties, its defence mechanisms, have been crossed out of our food crops. Defense mechanisms against, for example, diseases, pests or even drought resistance. By means of classical breeding, we could regain these defence mechanisms in, for example, our plant varieties and cereals. Unfortunately, this takes decades. And then there is the question of how long these defense mechanisms can withstand the whims of the outside world. With new breeding techniques we can achieve this within a few years. This way we can better protect our food crops in a natural way. This means less use of plant protection products, but also a lower risk of crop failure in, for example, dry and warm areas. Especially now that climate change is becoming more and more tangible, this is an absolute must. For ten years I have been working to make the application of these techniques possible in the EU. Meanwhile, breeders move abroad, where the legislation has gone with the times. We do not have the luxury to leave these innovations unused on the basis of a gut feeling. I therefore welcome the new proposal from the European Commission, because this is an important piece of the puzzle towards a more sustainable agriculture.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I do not know anyone who is opposed to reducing environmental impact. And I also don't know a farmer who doesn't want less pesticides to be used. It is important that we ensure that the risk of crop failure is reduced. This is not only in the interest of the farmer, but it is also in the interest of the environment and our living environment. Because it is pure waste if we use our seeds, diesel and other forms of energy throughout the season to grow that plant and then find out at the end of the season, in August-September, that the harvest has failed. Pure waste and also a pure waste of the food crops that are rotting on the land. What we have to take care of when we want crop protection products to be reduced is that there are also alternatives for farmers to continue to protect their crops. These include integrated plant protection products, the use of new genome techniques, but also low-risk products and, for example, biological products. And that's what it's all about. These means, these alternatives, are not yet available to a large extent and this is mainly due to the authorisation procedure of, for example, those low-risk means and those biological means. If we look at human health care, then the admission of new drugs is a Swiss timepiece. Unfortunately, this is not the case when it comes to the authorisation of new plant protection products. This has to be different. We cannot aim to reduce the use of plant protection products by 50% by 2030 if farmers do not have the alternatives available.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, no one is against nature. I grew up on a farm and grew up with nature. We need to stop biodiversity loss in Europe and in the world. So the question is not why, but how we can best restore nature. The European Commission's proposal reads great on paper, but in reality it will unnecessarily slow things down, including when it comes to nature restoration. Countries like the Netherlands are already locked. The Netherlands is slowly creeping out of a legal swamp, but with this proposal the Netherlands is being pulled back into this swamp. Licences for housing, infrastructure, farms and even climate projects are not issued or are difficult. A National Programme for Rural Areas promises to provide a solution for this for the coming decades. If this European proposal is adopted, this promise will be broken after just one year. Of all the legislative proposals that I have dealt with here in the European Parliament, this has the greatest impact on people at home. We cannot approve this proposal without facing the negative consequences, even when it comes to nature restoration.

Mr President, Commissioner, being a farmer is not just a way of putting bread on the shelf. It's a passion, an identity. And perhaps the most important thing for farmers is the continuity of their farm. Sicco Mansholt once said: If you take a farmer off his farm, primordial forces come loose. Farmers are confronted with the challenges of the environment, nature and climate every day. They are diligently looking for a green business model for the continuity of their business. In recent years, you have already seen great improvement when it comes to the use of plant protection products, antibiotic use, animal welfare, but also investing in agricultural nature management. But farmers and women farmers must participate in a rat race of ever-changing laws and regulations. Each time a card is removed from the house of cards, and no card is placed back. This is not sustainable. If you ask for sacrifices from farmers, give them something in return.

Mr President, Commissioner, Members, the new proposals of the Farm to Fork Strategy are being presented slowly: proposals for a new nature restoration law, sustainable use of plant protection products, the Industrial Emissions Directive, the Soil Health Directive, etc. They just leave a heavy mark on farm families. Money is often mentioned in the common agricultural policy as compensation for this increase in the burden. However, these funds are already intertwined in the system and we cannot spend those funds twice. In addition, I believe that subsidy is just a wipe for bleeding. What farmers and gardeners are really helped with is a good revenue model. In this case, an green revenue model. This is the only way to make the sector more sustainable. Allowing fertiliser substitutes made from animal or human manure is such an example that contributes to a green revenue model. It saves farmers fertilizer costs, contributes to circular agriculture, makes us less dependent on natural gas and prevents CO2 emissions. In fact, the European Commission's research institute has already drawn up criteria that these fertilizer substitutes must meet. These products are called ‘RENURE’. Today, for the third time, the European Parliament approves the call to allow RENURE as a fertilizer substitute. It is high time that the Commission puts forward proposals for this at the latest by the summer.

Mr President, first of all I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs who have conducted these negotiations with me. I would also like to thank all the colleagues who have spoken here today in this debate. I want to start by debunking perhaps a myth. Indeed, quite a few colleagues have said that they want to make room for the hydrogen cars, which is included in this proposal. I think it's important to mention that. What also strikes me is that a vast majority also want road transport and the use of cars and vans to be climate neutral and that fossil fuels are not used. I think that's a good thing. But where I think the shoe wrings, is that a lot of people like to keep the internal combustion engine in place and wring themselves in all kinds of turns to keep doing that. It seems like it has become a goal in itself. They are looking for arguments that I understand at first. For example, it is said that electricity is expensive (for example by Jens Gieseke) and that we become dependent on raw materials. It seems important to me to mention that people who would like to maintain the internal combustion engine would want the option for the use of synthetic fuel. It is important to mention that the production of synthetic fuels requires electricity, precisely that expensive electricity, and this in a very inefficient way. One unit of synthetic fuels requires five units of power. If you want to be climate neutral, that electricity must of course also be generated renewable by, for example, windmills and solar panels. Then I come to my second point, namely the dependence on raw materials, about which I am really seriously concerned. Critical raw materials are important for the entire energy transition. Not only for batteries, but also for wind turbines, solar panels, chips and so on. If you want to use synthetic fuels, you need five times as many wind turbines, solar panels and raw materials. I think that's the wrong way. I think that it is precisely passenger cars – which have shown that they can be plugged directly into the power grid and start using the power directly – that are much more interesting and that this is a much more efficient way. Another point is that, in my view, synthetic fuels are needed for means of transport where the means of transport cannot be equipped with, for example, a battery. This could include lorries, tractors (from my own sector), ships and also aircraft. And perhaps we also need those synthetic fuels for the existing fleet that is still equipped with an internal combustion engine. I have done a lot of work visits and what I found interesting is that car manufacturers also see absolutely no benefit in synthetic fuels. That is also logical, because that would mean that we would have to set up a credit system and that car manufacturers would have to pay CO2 allowances for every new car with an internal combustion engine throughout the life of such a car. No car manufacturer will do that. And then Last but not leastWe must put in place a watertight legal system to ensure that this credit system and the use of synthetic fuels are actually carried out without fraud. I think the diesel scandal has taught us that we need tough, clear European legislation.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. It was a great honour for me to lead these negotiations on behalf of the European Parliament. This regulation is the first in the Fit for 55 package where the European Parliament has reached an agreement with the Member States and the European Commission. The negotiations ended on 27 October 2022 and in the meantime the Council of Ministers also approved the deal. For the European Parliament, the following matters were of enormous importance and, in my view, they were also clearly included in the outcome of the trilogue. It is important for the European Parliament to achieve the Paris climate goals and the goals of the European Green Deal. Road transport still emits a significant amount of CO2 and this amount is still increasing. That is why the European Parliament insists on the objective of only allowing new cars to enter the European market that do not emit CO2 by 2035. For example, electric, battery-powered and hydrogen-powered cars. In addition to the climate, the European Parliament attaches great importance to consumers and workers in the automotive sector. Many people need a car. Fossil fuels become more expensive due to dependency on third countries and are taxed more. In addition, consumers will have to pay a tax on the CO2 emitted by their cars. A climate-friendly and affordable alternative is therefore of great importance. Already today, the operating and maintenance costs of, for example, an electric car are lower than those for the version with an internal combustion engine. With this legislation, the focus for investment and development will be on the further development of zero-emission cars and it is therefore predicted that the purchase price of these cars will fall and that a second- and third-hand market will be created more quickly. Every year, the European Commission must draw up a progress report that provides insight into how the transition in the automotive sector is taking place. Where necessary, the EU will need to invest in, for example, reskilling and training of workers, necessary charging infrastructure and Last but not least the availability of critical raw materials needed for this transition. All in all, this new legislation will be a boost to the shift that has already been initiated by the market. It will help consumers to continue to drive in an affordable way. It gives employees new opportunities and provides manufacturers with investment security. It is an important climate measure and will make us less dependent on fossil fuels from third countries.

Mr President, ensuring the availability and affordability of fertilisers is not only in the farmer's interest. In addition to high energy prices, food prices are also a major driver of inflation in the European Union. Nevertheless, the Communication does not include a concrete commitment to increase the use of RENURE beyond the standard for the use of livestock manure. Only with such a commitment can RENURE do what it was developed to do, namely replace and save fertilizer. In 70% of the EU, farmers are restricted in the use of their own livestock manure. However, this restriction does not apply to the use of chemical fertilisers. Farmers, often even for a fee, have to dispose of their own animal manure and then buy expensive fertilizer to meet their crop needs. This is extremely illogical. Nevertheless, I am convinced that, with the adoption of the new action plan for integrated nutrient management, livestock manure, and therefore RENURE, will once again receive the recognition that livestock manure deserves.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, fertiliser is essential for our food production. High fertilizer prices have also led to high food prices. At the same time, the fertilizer industry is one of the largest emitters of CO2 in Europe, and one tonne of fertilizer requires more than a thousand cubic meters of natural gas. It is time to look at alternatives. As far as I am concerned, the key is in the manure cycle, and it is far from closed. We ask the fertilizer industry to make fertilizer, while valuable nutrients are still lost in the environment. An important leak is the nutrients in human feces, but also the nutrients in animal manure or digestate cannot be used as a substitute for fertilizer. I therefore call on the European Commission to work towards a circular agriculture, because this is better for people, farmers, the climate and the environment.

Mr President, I’m very relieved and happy with the outcome. I think it’s a good compromise. And so I would like to request that the report is referred back to the Committee for interinstitutional negotiations based on Rule 59(4) of the Rules of Procedure.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, many people are concerned about the climate and so am I. I'm very worried about that, too. I support the Paris Agreement and I also voted for the Green Deal to be climate neutral by 2050. In addition, as the European Union, we must be less dependent on energy imports. What the war in Ukraine is now showing is that we cannot supply ourselves with energy and that we are dependent on countries such as Russia. We need to put an end to that. We must therefore invest in renewable and sustainable energy such as wind and solar energy and hydropower, but also, for example, biogas from manure from agriculture, and nuclear energy. We need to stimulate innovation to ensure that companies produce more sustainably with less CO2 emissions. The European trading system for CO2 rights is a good system. It is a market-oriented system that has proven to work well. Only there's a leak. Companies are still confronted with imports of products that are not so clean, that are not so sustainable, but that are sold cheaply on our market here. That leak needs to be closed. And that is why I am a strong supporter of a new system, the Carbon Border Adjustment MechanismTo close that hole. But not just for imports. It is also important that our companies are protected in the same way when exporting to other countries outside the European Union. And I miss that in the proposal at the moment. I would therefore like the European Parliament and the European Commission to look into this. Climate action costs money. And we have already set up various funds to carry out that transition in a good way. We have several funds and now we are talking about a new fund. I understand that. But please look at the existing funds first and do not set up a new fund that has a completely different system than the existing one. It is also important that we invest money for actual CO2 reductions and not for direct income, for example. And then to the cars. On behalf of the European Parliament, I am the chief negotiator and rapporteur on the CO2 standards for cars. And what I have found very important from the start is that we do not make driving impossible for people at home. But if we're not careful, driving is going to be hugely expensive. Just look at what fuel prices are doing right now. In addition, de-incentive measures have been taken – for example through taxes – to make driving less attractive. We can only do that if there is also an alternative for people to drive clean. That's what I stand for. I want there to be an opportunity with innovations for people to drive cars and at the same time to do something about the climate. This proposal ensures that the 20% of European CO2 emissions caused by road transport can be significantly reduced. CO2 emissions from the transport sector are still growing. If we want to make the transport sector climate neutral by 2050, we need to take action now. And because the average lifespan of a car is fifteen years, we have to do that by 2035. Not only do we do this to tackle climate change, but investing in clean and zero-emission cars is also positive for air quality in cities, but also in rural areas. In addition, it affects the dependence on fossil fuels. We want to get rid of fossil fuels as soon as possible. This is a very important tool to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and energy imports. And burden but certainly not leastWhat is important to me is that driving is affordable. At the moment it is already the case that driving an electric car compared to an internal combustion engine on diesel and gasoline is cheaper in many countries. The maintenance of zero-emission cars is also a lot cheaper. The big problem at the moment is the high purchase costs of such clean cars, e.g. electric cars. However, recently this purchase price has already gone down enormously and in some countries the total cost of driving with a battery car is already lower than driving with an internal combustion engine and this will only be more favourable in the future. What I would like to do with this proposal is to create clarity for both industry and people at home, that our commitment is to develop clean cars and that there is also investment security for that, that we are going to stimulate innovation and that companies no longer have to bet on different horses, but that this is the way to get out of this, that we can therefore offer a cheaper alternative. It has been decided by a large majority in the European Parliament that we want to combat climate change. I think that is a large majority here, including among colleagues, but then we also have to make sure that we implement these measures. Tomorrow is a super important day and I want to call on you to take that responsibility tomorrow and also stand for the promise to do something about climate change.

Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, Brexit has hit our fishermen hard. As part of the Brexit deal, European fishermen have to give up as much as 25 percent of their quota in British waters. In return, our fishermen should be given stability and future prospects. But this is not always the case! We must prevent our fishermen from becoming the toy of international relations. All fishermen, be they European, British or Norwegian, benefit from the good management of our shared seas. The European Union must therefore continue to engage constructively with our neighbours in the North Sea. At the same time, we must not let ourselves be overwhelmed. It should never happen that countries designate areas at sea as protected natural areas in order to exclude fishermen from other countries. I also believe that we should not accept any further transfer of fishing quotas. It is now time to keep our backs straight and I call on the European Commission to do so.

Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for the communication on food security in the world, which describes the seriousness of the situation in a good way. First of all, for Ukraine itself: I am very pleased that the communication provides emergency aid and assistance to Ukraine. Secondly, for food-importing countries: that we, with our knowledge and expertise and also emergency aid, that the European Union also provides assistance in this area. And then, thirdly, for the European Union itself: that we will look at how we can be less dependent on Russia, on natural gas, on fertilizer and so on. I have long advocated that instead of fertilizer we use as much organic manure as possible, such as animal manure, but also the excrement of people in sewage sludge. Finally, the European Commission also sees that we need to start using this. I call on the Commission not to linger in research, but to take real action now – today. For example, for the use of animal manure, those criteria – those RENURE criteria – are already in place. We can use it tomorrow.

Mr President, there are several roads that lead to Rome. This is also the case with the greening of agriculture. Every road is different, every farm is different, every farmer is different. Brussels must set the goal, but the road to it is the farmer's responsibility. He knows his country, he knows his animals and he knows the local conditions best. I am pleased that, for the first time in the history of the European Parliament, part of the greening is not driven by generic measures imposed from above. The goal has become more leading. Part of the budget is now directly linked to actually delivered greening results, and this is the best guarantee for a successful greening. It is a first good step, because generic greening measures are still required that have been conceived from behind a desk, where the effect in practice is very questionable. Secondly, it is important that the greening programmes, the so-called eco-schemes, are not mandatory. Not because I'm against greening, just the opposite. But if there is no obligation, we have to make sure that the compensation is good. This compensation must come from the European agricultural policy, but also from the market. If we do this in a good way, it contributes to a green and sustainable revenue model. This means that the burdens of greening do not end up with one chain in the link, namely the farmer, but are spread throughout the chain.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the European Commission presented the objectives of the Farm to Fork Strategy before the impact assessment was known. It now appears that we as the European Union are becoming more dependent on other countries in terms of our primary necessities of life (namely food). And that while food prices are already rising and more and more agricultural land is being used for industry, houses, roads, nature and sunbathing. Every hectare of agricultural land counts. I am certainly not against the ambition to use fewer plant protection products and less fertilizer. But then it is important that we have alternatives to make optimal use of our agricultural land. An important alternative to fertiliser is – quite logically – animal manure. Yet there is European legislation that prevents farmers from using their own animal manure optimally for their crops and that forces them to use more fertilizer. That's the world upside down. My question to the Commission is therefore: When will this legislation be amended?

Mr President, I think it is extremely important that we make political decisions on the basis of scientific facts. I therefore think it is a very good thing that there is an international working group of climate scientists that advises us. It is clear that climate change is caused by humans and poses a major threat to humans, animals and the environment. The latest report indicates that the greenhouse gas dissolves methane in the atmosphere after 12 years. This is in contrast to CO2. With constant methane emissions, the methane blankets in the atmosphere do not become thicker or thinner. The report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also indicates that the impact of constant methane emissions on climate change is overestimated by three to four times. My question to the Commission is: What impact does this have on climate legislation for agriculture, for example? Shouldn't agriculture be seen as part of the solution rather than as a problem?