What Martin spoke about.

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.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. We've kind of been arguing about wood for a long time, and we've found a compromise that ended up saying that not every wood burning is equal to carbon neutral, but that we need to see that we basically need to look more critically at primary wood biomass, that we need the cascade principle. Unfortunately, this compromise has now been lifted. Colleagues, I'm not happy about that. We need to be more careful about burning wood. The burning of wood has doubled in recent years. And, Mr Pieper, whole tribes are also being burned in power plants, which is not climate-neutral. We must put the protection of forests first. We must not make the same mistake we have made with agrofuels that we thought vegetable oils could achieve new mobility. We now have the same problem with the use of wood. We have to be careful with the forests. We lost 600,000 hectares of forest this year due to forest fires. We can't burn an extra square meter of wood now. We can't do that because we never achieve our biodiversity goals.

Mr President! With this regulation, we are taking a very important step forward and Europe can send a signal that we are really ready to assume our responsibilities. Europe is also responsible for illegal deforestation by importing soy, beef and palm oil. Actually, it is no longer possible for us to feed our pigs with soy, where we know exactly that a lot of wood has been illegally cleared for it. I also like that we have expanded the list to include rubber and corn. What I regret is that we have not extended the scope, because it is precisely the CerradoThe dry forest is one of the hotspots where soy is now grown. We need to expand this list, and I also think we need to take responsibility for the financial institutions. It can't be a matter of relieving them, and I don't understand why the right side wants to kick this out. Protecting indigenous peoples is very important. 150 people were killed last year. We also stand for the protection of indigenous peoples in their struggle to preserve forests. One last sentence: If we fail to stop deforestation, we lose control of climate change. That is why it is so urgent that we act as Europeans and make a statement here.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. The climate crisis isn't coming anytime soon, the climate crisis is here. And we now see what happens at 1.5 degrees warming. What will happen if we move towards two or more degrees of warming? This planet is already burning. Not only the crisis in southern Europe, but also in the middle of Germany, forests are burning. Even worse is the impact of the climate crisis in North Africa, where people are actually starving and don't know what to eat tomorrow. What conclusions do we draw from this? We made a fatal decision yesterday. We need to limit CO2 at last. That's the answer, not genetic engineering or firefighting aircraft. We have to work on that. We need a different way of dealing with agricultural systems. We need a different way of dealing with water. And we must also make it clear that not only agriculture is affected, but also forests in Europe are disappearing, which also contributes to aggravating climate change. I think we need to think seriously now: Let's adapt agricultural policy, let's adapt our approach to water and let's finally work seriously on reducing CO2. That's the only answer.

Madam President, Commissioner, do you think the Member States are going along with you? For years, the Member States have been refusing to reduce production, as is already the case in integrated agriculture. There are no reports from the Member States and no plans are being put on the table to reduce pesticides in the Member States. So do you believe that the member states are playing along? Seriously?

Madam President, Yes, Commissioner, you believe in genetic engineering. But do you also see that the use of pesticides has increased in genetic engineering in South America and the USA? Do you really think the opposite is true with the new genetic engineering? What is sustainable use of pesticides? Sustainable use of pesticides It's a term that doesn't work for me. We need to use fewer pesticides. But what does sustainable mean? The loss of biodiversity is truly dramatic. And therefore: Do you really manage to reduce pesticides by 50% – against the enormous resistance of the agricultural lobby? Are you sure you will get a majority in the Commission? There is a lot of resistance, as you can hear. A question about the admission process: For years it has been said: Neonicotinoids are completely harmless. Then, after 20 years, you realize: No, the opposite is true: Neonicotinoids are extremely dangerous. How do you actually want to guarantee that the approval processes for pesticides in the future are such that we can hope for non-hazardousness? Example of glyphosate: The fact that the Commission now wants to allow glyphosate again is actually a scandal, because all scientific studies show: Glyphosate is also toxic.

Madam President, The 25% target for organic farming is important. And it is more important now than ever, because the invasion of Ukraine has shown us how dependent conventional agriculture is on energy to produce mineral nitrogen, but how dependent many are on feed imports. And then you can clearly say: Eco is not a luxury, but more urgent than ever, also with regard to a different agricultural model. Leguminous farming, as organic farms do, produces nitrogen itself – it does not depend on soy imports, and that is an important objective. I can and must also emphasise here that the goals of the biodiversity strategy and the goals of climate protection can only be achieved with organic farming. However, like many others, I would like to point out that 25% does not have to be achieved only in the field. We also need 25% in the canteens, in the schools, in the kindergartens. This must not be a luxury, but it must be taken for granted that we offer organic food. And one more point, Commissioner: We need more money for research, more money for innovation in organic farming. And this is an urgent demand that the sector has on you.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Helping Ukraine must be our first and most important action. Our full support belongs to Ukraine, and we must now help with seeds, fuel and everything we can provide in technology. But the important thing is the fight against the global hunger that threatens. The countries that no longer receive grain from Ukraine will suffer from hunger. Russia will use its exports as a weapon to those countries that are sympathetic to it. We have to see that. Russia is also attacking Europe's grain chamber, and it is also a fight for food reserves. But are we really giving the right answer, Commissioner? We need to rethink our entire agricultural policy and what we do with our grain. 60% of cereals migrate to the trough, 20% to industry and the fuel industry, and only 20% to human nutrition. Can we really give an answer for the future? Can Europe remain the meat counter of the world in the future? Can we feed people with it? No, no! I think we need to rethink that. We really need to give priority to grain production for the poor. First of all, we do not have to look at ecological priority areas, but firstly, we have to consider that we no longer allow the use of biofuel fuels. The climate crisis and the biodiversity crisis are not taking a break. That is why, ladies and gentlemen, all those who are now questioning all the green measures here, I can only appeal to them as a matter of urgency: We need sustainable agriculture. We need more greening to become independent of imports of fertilisers and also independent of imports of soya. This must be our task, and not to turn the wheel back to a policy of the 70s, 80s.

Ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! I think that today is a black day for European climate policy, but also for environmental policy. But it is also a black day for farmers in Europe. Because nothing is changed great. It continues as before: with new headings, but without any real changes in content. The main point is not the Eco-schemes; the key point is that 75% of the money continues to be disbursed because people own land, and those who own a lot of land get the bulk of these agricultural payments. Industrial companies will be pleased, but Mr Orbán and Mr Babiš will also be pleased. Remuneration continues. The Eco-schemes – the alleged core of the new agricultural reform. The main mistake is that they are voluntary for the farmers. Who will take part in the end? What is offered? Probably only improved technology again, but no real change in the environment, not even in the environmental ambitions that farmers have to develop. It feels a bit like Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale: The Emperor's new clothes. No, the emperor really has nothing to do with it, but only beautiful new stories of an old agricultural policy are told here. What bothers me the most is that we have a Green Deal They have decided to have a Farm-to-ForkStrategy, ambitious biodiversity targets – none of this can be found in any word in this common agricultural policy. Maybe someday, but not at the moment. And therefore: If there is no new agricultural policy, the Green Deal That is why, dear Commission, we should really work to seize the opportunity again, at least in two and a half years' time. Are the farmers the winners of this agrarian reform? No, no! Farmers have been suffering from miserable prices for years. They have been pushed into the world market with dumping prices. We are ruining farmers in Europe, and we are ruining them in countries of the Global South. Why have we lost half the farmers under this agricultural policy in the last 20 years? This agricultural policy is wrong. If it goes on like this, then there will be no hope for farmers, but also no hope for the environment.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Without another agricultural policy, there will be no Green Deal and therefore the Farm to Fork Strategy is the right answer to the future. 50% fewer pesticides, 50% fewer antibiotics, Commissioner, and 25% fewer fertilisers - that is a response; but also: 25% organic farming as a new agricultural model. What we also need, however, is a different trade policy – to make this clear. We must move away from the export orientation of European agriculture. Nor do we need a Mercosur agreement, and that must be clear. However, we need qualified external protection for our farmers.What we also need to address is that we are wasting 30% of our food. We will no longer be able to accept this in the future. The new CAP will essentially be the continuation of the old CAP. Therefore, let us swiftly integrate the Farm to Fork Strategy into a new agricultural policy. It's no wonder there's resistance from the food industry. If the pesticide industry, the chemical industry, earn less from agriculture, that is a good sign for me. What we do not need – and that is what I and all those who have said it say very clearly here: What we don't need are new GMOs. There is no room for that in Europe.