Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. We have a lot of problems in animal husbandry. Above all, we have a huge problem with the small pet owners who suffer from the price pressure. On the other hand, we have an increasing concentration of livestock farming on fattening farms – with consequences for the environment, for groundwater, but also for animal welfare. We still have, and I repeat, we still have big problems with too much use of antibiotics in animal fattening – more than in normal medicine. Animal diseases are a problem. And what do we need? We really need the support of those who only bring their animals to the pasture. So more support for grazing animal owners is a core point of what we need in the future. But this report leaves all this on the sidelines. If you read the report, you get the impression that vegans are the biggest threat to animal owners. Animal welfare groups are the biggest threat. And that's just absurd. We could have made this report very serious and addressed all the problems of animal husbandry in Europe. But to blame groups that are also concerned with animal welfare for the fact that animal husbandry in Europe is no longer growing, but rather shrinking, is simply absurd.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. There are wild farmers driving through Brussels, and what does the Commission do immediately? She says that under the guise of de-bureaucratization, many environmental regulations will be abolished. This is a de-greening of the CAP. Commissioner, you yourself were the rapporteur of the ENVI Committee when the new CAP was drawn up. Didn't you also say at the time: Was that a good reform? I forgot. We will miss the biodiversity targets, we will accept grassland upheaval, which harms the climate and the environment. Commissioner, your proposal for the next CAP is unacceptable renationalisation. We have to pay farmers for their environmental performance, not according to the size of the farm, not according to the hectares. At one point, we agree: We need to strengthen the rights of farmers in the chain. That, I think, is a common goal. What I hear from Germany, especially from the German Farmers' Association, is adventurous. They actually say it's the way to socialism. You can only say: How far is this farmer's association from reality? We support that. It could have gone even further, because we cannot actually accept the exception of cooperatives either.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, We need to spend the money better. What have we been doing in recent years? We promoted land ownership. The more land, the more money. No, we have to support farmers who do something for the environment, for the climate, for biodiversity. That's where the money has to go. I think we agree on this: We need a strong second pillar. We need rural development. We need to maintain infrastructure in rural areas. This also includes bakers, crafts, and this also includes a good internet. We need greater support for young farmers, including new entrants. What do they need? They need capital, they need access to land and, above all, support for disadvantaged regions. This must be a core concern of European agricultural policy. We need to work towards that together. What we do not need to promote is intensive animal husbandry. What we do not need is agriculture based on genetic engineering – without labelling – and we do not need patents on genetic engineering either. That makes no sense for the future. Mr Commissioner, don't just listen to the farmers' association, listen to the results of the strategic dialogue. Then we move forward, not backward.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament has objected 84 times to the import of genetically treated maize, soybean in particular. There was no qualified majority in the Council. Nevertheless, the Commission has wiped all these concerns off the table with egregious ignorance, as if what Parliament is saying is worthless. Highly problematic maize has been imported and soybean made resistant to glyphosate – banned in Europe – and to dicamba. This ends up in our feeding troughs. This ends up in our stables and ultimately also with the consumer on the table. Another aspect is important: We cannot accept that what is prohibited in Europe is then imported into the European Union. We must not allow double standards. If we continue to do so in the way that the Commission is now doing, we will destroy citizens' trust in the institutions. That is why, dear Commission, put off your pink spectacles in relation to genetic engineering and finally take your concerns seriously.

Mr President! Commissioner, I am honest: I would have expected more from the vision. The Strategy Commission has presented it. We have set targets in the Strategy Commission: Fighting climate change, strengthening and not weakening biodiversity, empowering farmers in the chain. Where has the promotion of sustainable production gone? Where are the 25 % organic farming, which is once in the Farm to Fork Were they named? I miss all that. I think we also need to talk clearly about pesticides because, strangely enough, it's in the strategy: Pesticides are only taken off the market when others are there. What does that mean in concrete terms? Are we turning away from science? Unfortunately, the vision is far too little concrete for me. Farm to Fork The Green Deal will not be named, the Green Deal will not be named, and instead will be set on voluntary instead of setting clear goals, and of course the focus on export again. We need to focus on strengthening regional food chains. We also do not need to understand genetic engineering as a solution to many problems in climate change. You have a good approach, and that is where I find the strengthening of farmers' rights in the chain; I think we are in complete agreement on this. But the Commission has yet to explain one point: In the end, your budget means that the second pillar of development is also at risk.

Mr President! Commissioner, you know this: The frustration in agriculture is huge. But not only among the farmers, but also among the 4 million workers – migrant workers, it must be said – who bring in crops in Europe and work in poor social conditions. This too urgently needs to change. The frustration among the farmers is also so great because they actually see: Others make big profits in the agricultural sector, the big trading companies, and nothing gets stuck with the farmers. Farmers often produce under price, which also needs to be changed. The dependence on subsidies is increasing among farmers. This is frustrating, and that is why many farmers close their doors – hundreds of farms every day. There must be an end to this! There must be an end to ‘waxing or turning points’! Always cheaper, always more production is not a solution, but better production, that must be the goal, and not more and more in ever worse conditions. I still have to say one thing. What makes a lot of frustration in Europe among farmers is simple: The impact of the climate crisis is becoming more and more noticeable for every farmer in Europe. Floods, heat, droughts – these are challenges that agriculture has to overcome and where it often leaves society alone. We also have to find answers there, otherwise many farmers give up their work for these reasons.

Mr President, Commissioner! First of all, I would like to thank Mr Strohschneider. Who would have thought recently that 29 associations would find themselves and sign a paper that is truly groundbreaking for sustainable, more ecological agriculture. The paper clearly shows: Agriculture is only possible together with a sustainable environmental and climate protection policy, and unfortunately many farmers have resisted this spring, especially against environmental regulations. I think we need to come back to a consensus that we're thinking this back together and not saying: With fewer environmental regulations, things get better. More animal welfare is needed, but there is also a need to strengthen farmers in the chain – this is clearly stated in this report. Now, of course, it comes down to implementation. The Commission is now called upon to do so – and above all it must do so in the next few years. mission letter The new Commissioner or the new Commissioner. And quite clearly: After all, we are once again facing the new CAP debate – this must be reflected in it. The worst thing would be if this paper now rotted in some cabinets, but we have to implement it. And I also warn those against it – especially the German Farmers' Association and, in some cases, the colleagues from the EPP are already beginning to talk about it, because too little is being done for the farmers: No, let's work together at that point, that's the most important thing.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen! I think if we remember: Ten years ago, the Commission's proposal for a new seed law failed. Why? Because here, I think, many have found it has gone too far in the direction of industry. The Commission's new proposal was and is better. I believe in the negotiations with Herbert Dorfmann – we made him even better than he was. Why? Because we need more diversity in the future, because in the future we need even more growers who deal with this diversity in the field. Why? We have already lost many varieties in recent years – an increasing concentration on a few seed companies. We have to counter this. This is also important because we need this diversity to tackle climate change. We have to face this challenge. That is why it is so important that we make conservation breeding easier and do not put stones in the way of those who have been trying for years. Seeds are also a bit of a cultural asset, and that's why we have to do everything we can to strengthen these conservation breeds. Herbert Dorfmann rightly pointed out: We have already shown a way in the eco-regulation, and we should not question this, but should also extend this to those who breed in the conventional sector. We also strengthen the opportunities for farmers to engage in exchanges. This is also important. I don't see the danger of parallel markets. I say this very extraordinarily, and I do not see any danger to the health of the seeds. All of this is maintained in the existing rules. I would like to express my sincere thanks to Herbert Dorfmann for the constructive exchange, to the colleagues who have contributed to it. We support this proposal and I hope that it will contribute to greater diversity and security.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. It must be said that these were five lost years for animal welfare in Europe. 1.4 million people have demanded that cage farming be abolished. What happened? Nothing. There was a demand for a ban on fur farming, which was really very painful. What happened? Nothing. And now, at the end of the legislature, the Commission is coming up with a proposal on animal transport. Now that everyone knows: We can't get through this anyway. So, I would like to see a little more commitment from the Commission on many points. I would also like to see allegations against Member States that violate the right of the Commission to act; That's not what she does. Animal welfare and animal welfare costs money, especially for farmers, yes. But I think we must also say goodbye to the fact that our goal is to produce as much and as cheap meat as possible, because that creates animal suffering. Let's help the farmers when it comes to remodeling their stables in an animal-friendly way! I think we can all agree on that. I also hope that the words of the citizens will finally be heard, otherwise the citizens will no longer take us seriously.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. A frequently asked question: Where's Wojciechowski? He doesn't show up, he's not in debate. For months there have been polemics against the import of Ukrainian grain. European farmers’ associations claim that the fall in prices was due to the duty-free import of Ukrainian grain, even though Ukraine has been exporting again via the Black Sea since January – it has had to fight its way, so to speak. And yet Polish farmers are blocking the border and destroying Ukrainian grain. I do not think we can accept that under any circumstances; There's only one person who's happy, and that's Putin. Since the beginning of the war, Putin has been using wheat as a weapon – first through blockades and now by deliberately destabilising markets with dumping offers and trying to drive Ukraine away from ancestral markets. It is time that Europe finally gives an answer and stops this import and stops this policy, and that we finally take consistent action and take measures so that European markets are not destabilized by Russian cheap imports as well.

Madam President, Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that we all have a great understanding of the farmers’ protests; There is no need to burn trees in front of Parliament. The economic situation of farmers is catastrophic in many areas, especially in the case of small and medium-sized farms, and prices are falling. And the fatal thing is that the price range between what the farmer gets and what the trade takes is getting bigger and bigger. We do not have to limit the power of corporations in trade. And we have managed to make an entire sector of the industry, the food industry, dependent on subsidies, so to speak. It doesn't go on like that. On the CAP: Dear Norbert Lins, you have ensured that two thirds of the money continues to go into land subsidies. They have ensured that the large farms continue to operate (incomprehensible). Now Norbert Lins stands up after saying “this was the biggest reform since MacSharry” – now everything is suddenly bad. So, you have to stand by what you once did. And now you cheer every single measure when environmental measures are abolished. No, agriculture only works with environmental and climate protection for the future. And those who now cheer for the fact that these measures are being abolished are causing lasting damage to agriculture.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. There was once great hope: the strategy. Fewer pesticides, fewer antibiotics, fewer chemical fertilizers. What has become of it? Nothing. What do you do now? liberalise genetic engineering; There is no other way to call it. This sounds like an aid program for Bayer-Monsanto, which is currently being launched. The EU is abandoning its precautionary principle. It leaves a principle regulated in the EU with this proposal. There is no risk check. They just say: There is no risk at all. Who has ever proven it? There is no traceability, and the best thing is: You can't even withdraw permits. And now come again the usual promises of salvation of genetic engineering. Yes, it should fight hunger, it should provide for fewer pesticides. Take a look at South America – the old genetic engineering has brought more pesticides, and this will happen with the current one. Now comes the climate change argument. Of the 50 things that are on the table, there is only one plant that has to do with it; Everyone else has nothing to do with it. There is the famous GABA tomato, which lowers blood pressure. That's what the world was waiting for, isn't it? We need clear labelling so that organic farms continue to have the choice; Because they don't have that. But Mr. Lins wants to abolish even now that the non-genetic labelling is abolished. So you turn the whole thing back insane. And a word about patents. It is claimed that there are no patents now. Of course, patents will continue to exist! This is the business model of the industry. You have to change the European Patent Convention, and there is no mention of it here at all, here you are scattering sand in the eyes of the citizens.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Tomorrow we can send a good signal for Europe if we accept this proposal from Mrs Wiener. It is about protecting biodiversity, but it is also about protecting the health of European citizens. This is also part of the truth: In the long term, we need to do a different kind of farming, with fewer pesticides. Those who say that it is only possible with pesticides should also look at many areas where it is possible without pesticides or with much less. It is quite clear: If we follow the rules and take integrated farming as a precondition, we can already save 30% on pesticides. We need independent advice, not from chemical companies. And, of course, nature reserves must remain free of pesticides – this is logical, since we want to protect nature. We need a clear signal to European citizens that we take biodiversity protection seriously. But, Commissioner, if the Commission sends a fatal signal precisely in this situation and allows glyphosate to continue for 10 years, that is exactly the wrong message that is being sent now. We need to take glyphosate off the market.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Some of those present have talked about a plant protection product. That's nonsense! It is a plant destroyer, total destroyer. That's why you're being honest. Also, be honest about why glyphosate is used so much: It's easy to use, it's cheap, it's made for agro-industrial agriculture. And how is it done? All syringe, sow, done. We are told that there must be alternatives. Yes, there are hundreds of thousands of organic farms that show every year that there is no glyphosate - with reasonable crop rotations, with good soil management. What I find is that EFSA and the Commission are really negligent at this point when, despite these massive data gaps – it's not just a data gap, it's massive data gaps on soil, water or our microbiome – they still say: "Well, we don't know everything, but let's keep going." This is really completely incomprehensible. I also find: To be honest, what does EFSA have to rely on? To the studies of the industry! Has EFSA done any study of its own? No, she didn't! That is why, ladies and gentlemen, if this is actually allowed to continue for ten years, it is a slap in the face for all those who are committed to the environment.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! We are, of course, really behind this agreement on many points, especially on raising the target. Only goals can be increased quickly, the implementation, that is now the difficult task. That's why we really agree on one point: We need to accelerate the expansion of renewables. For six months, for new wind turbines one year. This must be the aim, without us therefore disclosing any environmental guidelines here, but we must simplify and summarize the procedures. I think that would be a big step forward. It can't be that we need five years to approve wind power in some areas. It must be a thing of the past. For solar panels three months on buildings, this is a big step forward. What we do not welcome, of course, is what came out in the end on the topic of biomass, especially on the topic of wood. I think, dear Mr Pieper: Yes, wood grows back, but we also have to face the fact that wood is not infinite. 70% of the wood in the European Union is already being burned. We can't keep that. And we certainly cannot accept that power plants that were fired yesterday with coal will be fired tomorrow with wood. That's the wrong way. We have to take a different approach. We really have to rely on solar and wind and not burn more wood now. In Germany, 600,000 hectares of forest are already gone, damaged by climate change. And we have to look in the eye of the future, where we have to get by with less wood. And we have to make better use of that, we must not burn it.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! We welcome this proposal from the Commission, because it is in fact urgently needed: We must protect the source of all life, we must protect the water more and more intensively. We also need to ensure that certain products, which may not have been so central to the discussion in recent years, are supplemented. We talked for a long time about nitrate, about heavy metals, about microplastics. But we need to talk more about pesticides, such as glyphosate, and about drugs that damage our water. Getting water clean is harder than avoiding bad water. That's why it's important to talk about PFAS, the eternal chemicals, bisphenol A, and antibiotics that are in the water. And most importantly, we have pollution with antibiotic-resistant germs. We have therefore submitted a request that we check slaughterhouses, that we know exactly what comes out of these slaughterhouses of antibiotic-resistant germs. And one more point, Commissioner, we do not understand one thing: Why different limit values should apply to glyphosate, both for drinking water, but also for supposedly normal water. It can't be. Water is water, and we can't make any difference.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, It is a good day today – I think many agree on this – not only for the environment, but we can finally implement our commitments under the Montreal Agreement. Europe is once again at the forefront – hopefully. I think we should also mention one point here: The EPP has once again chosen agriculture as the main battlefield to fight against the Nature Restoration Regulation. Agriculture is the main driver of climate change. Agriculture is the main victim of the biodiversity crisis. How can such measures be opposed? We have to rebuild agriculture, there is no way around it. We need to reduce pesticides by 50% to protect biodiversity. Anyone who thinks that this can only be achieved with genetic engineering is on the wrong path. We need to take agroecological measures to actually secure long-term agriculture. And, Mr Timmermans, we must not let up on many points. We need a really ambitious soil protection law. We need more and better animal welfare laws in Europe. I hope this is still to come. We need to revise REACH. Let us not be intimidated by the EPP's negative campaign. Let's continue to be ambitious with the Green Deal. It is indeed one of the greatest tasks of the European Union.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Yes, we are dealing with a very serious problem. One third of humanity is already suffering from water shortages, and soon it will be half of humanity. We also have a similar situation in Europe, and we need to rethink in many areas. Above all, we need to rethink agriculture. Do we really need to drain wetlands to grow strawberries and avocados? That's a question you have to ask yourself. How does agriculture deal with soil? We need to improve the water storage capacity of our soils. We need to rethink. We need to create sponge landscapes. And we need to focus on permaculture and agroforestry. But we also need to stop the sealing. And we also urgently need to stop illegal water abstraction, which is a problem in many regions, and optimise irrigation systems. But one point has been discussed far too little here: We need to protect our forests. Forests are the largest reservoir of water. If we don't set out to transform forests in a natural way, we will also lose this water reservoir. But the core of the policy is: We have to stop CO2 emissions very, very urgently, otherwise we will not be able to get out of the disaster.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I must say, for example, that Mrs Mortler did not take into account any request from the ENVI Committee at all. It's a bad style, I have to say. I was also a shadow rapporteur. But if you read your report correctly, it actually reads according to the motto: "Environmental measures jeopardise food security", as can be seen from their campaign against "farm to fork", against the Green Deal. This is nonsense, this is nonsense. Our food security is threatened by the rapidly advancing climate change, by the loss of biodiversity. And you take that into account with a few dry words. You didn't say anything about it here in the speech. 3,300 scientists have said: We need to take these measures now to protect food security. You're not saying anything about that. Of course, they rely on genetic engineering. They believe the fairy tale of fewer pesticides, they rely on chemical-synthetic agriculture. But what we really need is a food system that produces food and that puts it first - not feed production and not agrofuel. You are not going to tackle this change, but there are the greatest reserves to produce good food in the long term.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. What the EPP has been doing here for days is a frontal attack on the strategy. This is where the policy of the Committee on Agriculture continues, as we have all seen for months: Either Timmermans is to blame for the decline of agriculture, the wolf or the greens. It's unbelievable what's going on. Not a word, Mr. Dorfmann, about the climate catastrophe, not a single word. The colleague said yes: Let's take a look at Spain, Italy, or let's look at the forest fires in Canada: What is going on in a climate catastrophe? This threatens our food security and not the European Union's legislative process. And you are still slowing down an ambitious climate policy. Not a word about the biodiversity crisis. Of course, agriculture also has a responsibility: Cleared landscapes, too many pesticides – this is also a driver of the biodiversity crisis. Not a word about it from the EPP. A loss of biodiversity also threatens our food security. What you are doing right now is pretending to be the patron saint of an agriculture that you haven't been for a long time. Why don't you just say: This wonderful agricultural policy has cost the existence of 5 million farms in the last 15 years. Is everything wonderful? They talk about food security, but they don't talk about the fact that 30% of food is still thrown away, that 60% of food is still thrown into the feed trough. You're not talking about that. It's not all wonderful in agricultural policy! We need to change it, and the Commission has provided answers that we support. We need an agroecological shift, not at some point, but now. I can only say: If we don't get it right now, we'll miss an opportunity we can't get back so quickly.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, PFAS have come to stay – unfortunately. They are highly toxic and should have been removed from circulation long ago. But you can't see them, you can't dodge them, both in products and in water, air and soil. But what is actually being done? In Germany, 1,500 locations are polluted. However, we still have six factories in Germany and the largest number of factories in Europe producing PFAS – in Bad Wimpfen, in Frankfurt, in Leverkusen, in the Gendorf chemical park near Burgkirchen. What's going on there? A huge area will probably be polluted by continuing to produce. And the cost of rehabilitating encumbered land alone will be €17 billion, and the health follow-up costs will likely be much higher. But this is also, if you see it now, actually a failure of the European Union's Chemicals Agency that you haven't done anything for years. Therefore: All non-essential PFAS must be phased out as soon as possible and the chemicals strategy must now be adopted. We no longer have time to wait until after the summer, but now we have to act. Therefore, the urgent appeal to the Commission: Act now!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! We've been talking for years about finally having to do something to stop species loss. We're talking about drastic numbers: 70% of insects disappear, field birds disappear. As soon as the Commission comes out with the first initiative to reduce pesticides by 50%, then the agricultural industry runs, then Copa-Cogeca runs, and then some conservatives run too high to prevent this. That's not really acceptable. Of course, you also need to know why. There is a billion dollar business in pesticides, and we shouldn't forget that. That's why many are interested in doing nothing to reduce pesticide use. To make this clear: If then some colleagues still come and say that everything should stay as it is, we would then only have to have genetic engineering on top of it, then I find that very brazen. I also find it fatal that a European Court of Justice must finally force the Member States to refrain from the emergency use of neonicotinoids. Mrs Colleague, neonicotinoids are not medicines, but highly toxic pesticides. I'm curious to see what comes out of the re-evaluation of glyphosate, whether we actually have environmental interests that prevail or economic interests. So we finally do something and don't wait any longer! It's high time.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! We agree on many points: We need to accelerate to reach the renewables targets – no doubt about it. We need to grant permits more quickly, renewables need to be given priority – clearly, we agree on that. And we need a priority above all for wind and solar. These are our greatest potentials. But we must not forget, Commissioner, that you mentioned it: We also need to talk about energy efficiency, renewables and savings. We miss that in many ways. We still have problems – and I remain very critical – with biomass. As far as the expansion of wood biomass combustion is concerned, we cannot increase this even further. With biogas, we have to recycle residues, clearly, and not rely on building corn energy plants. This is not a future. Unfortunately, the EPP wants to eliminate a few environmental laws in all this legislation. They will have to face our resistance. And clearly: Natura 2000 sites may and must have special protection. Dear Markus Pieper: Not only environmental associations are hindering the expansion, but also excessive distance regulations in some federal states such as Bavaria.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. 828 million people are hungry and don't know what to eat tomorrow. Our primary task must be to equip the World Food Programme to provide acute assistance. But we also need to address the long-term causes – why are so many people starving? One reason is the climate catastrophe. You only look around in Africa. Many countries no longer have harvests. That is why the fight against climate catastrophe is our primary task. Putin, yes, uses hunger as an instrument in war. But we also need to see clearly: Poverty is the main cause of hunger. Inequitable distribution of food is a core problem. And that's why we have to deal with it: How do we deal with food in Europe? We're still putting grain in the tank. We are still putting a lot of grain in the feed trough – that needs to change. Above all, we need to make our systems sustainable. This is only possible with agroecological systems. We must stop the fact that our agriculture is extremely dependent on fossil energy in many areas. We have to get away from that. And then we have truly sustainable agricultural systems, including in Europe.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I am surprised at this debate. For years we have accepted that the fertilisers come from Russia, from Belarus, for years we have done nothing against the fossil dependence in agriculture, especially from Russia. And now there are people here in Parliament calling for subsidies to the fertiliser industry. Mr. Lins, let me tell you: Yara, the largest nitrogen producer, has made a jump from 775 million to 1.5 billion profits. Why should we support this company? Kali + salt has made a profit jump. So this is the completely wrong way. We need to get away from these fossil structures and not subsidize them retrospectively. The Commission itself has stated in its Farm to Fork Strategy: 20% fertilizer reduction. Why? Because in many regions we have a problem with over-fertilisation and not with too little fertiliser – too much fertiliser in many waters and too much nitrogen in agriculture. That's why the 20% less fertilizer strategy is right. We must also recognise that the nitrogen industry alone contributes to 2.4% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and nitrous oxide emissions are also rising. That is why we need to switch to agroecological systems. Every farmer can grow legumes, everyone! I do not understand why the Commission then suspends crop rotation, why this possibility is not used for every farmer to grow legumes. We need to have reasonable crop rotations, but we also need to deal better with organic fertilizer. We have a problem with too much fertilizer in many regions. That's why our answer can't really be: more chemical subsidies, but: Towards agroecological systems. They are future-proof, and they make us independent, both from Russian gas and from major chemical companies.