Speeches

Madam President, Vice-President, ladies and gentlemen! I think it was an important sign in November that we were able to reach an agreement on LULUCF and ESR before or during COP27, sending a signal to Sharm al-Sheikh. I would like to reiterate that agriculture and forestry is the only sector that not only generates emissions but is also capable of sequestering carbon. This takes place in the forest, this takes place in grassland, this takes place in arable farming in many ways in the European Union. In the field of forest management, I would stress in particular that active, sustainable forest management is the one that ensures CO2 storage, that ensures sustainable wood products and can thus ensure climate protection in the long term. The agreement at 310 million tons is very ambitious. Member States will have to make great efforts to achieve these objectives. I would also like to emphasise once again: For me, forestry, agriculture, agriculture belong together. I think it is right that the Commission wanted to think it together. I also think it is important that the review clause is in place as far as AFOLU is concerned by 2035. In other words, the merging of agriculture and forestry is important, even if it has not now found a majority, neither in the Council nor in the European Parliament. I believe our teaching must be: We need to listen more to farmers, to foresters, to those who can actively ensure that we achieve carbon sequestration. However, it is also important to me that we do this now, especially in the process. carbon farmingbetter achieve the certification proposed by the Commission and incentivise farmers there to move forward on carbon sequestration. Natural sinks, however, have a limit. That's why we quickly need a framework for CCU and CCS. Technical methods will continue to be important in the future.

Dear Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the situation we have just experienced – that is, that we now have a few colleagues here who are already there – is very welcome! – and the Commissioner is there too – it shows just a little bit of the situation we are in in terms of food security and food supply, not especially in Europe, but in terms of our global situation. I think we are sleepwalking into a catastrophe and somehow don't even notice it or take it really seriously or at least not as seriously as the situation actually requires at the moment. Commissioner, yesterday I saw the new figures from the World Food Organisation again – I was at a meeting with the Chief Economist of the World Food Organisation – and I have to say: We cannot in any way give an all-clear on the issue of food security: In the world, 839 million people are starving or don't have enough to eat. Last year's figures have worsened again. The number of people who do not have enough calories has increased once again compared to the situation a year ago. That's why I think we need to act in many places. I don't think it's a time of concern, but it's definitely a time when we have to act and not just react. And I think we need to react quickly in different places. This applies on the one hand to the situation of our farmers, especially in the border regions with Ukraine, and on the other hand to our Polish farmers, Romanian farmers, Hungarian, Slovak and Bulgarian farmers. I think we need to help quickly. And, Commissioner, I thank you for making proposals there, but they must now also be enforced soon, so that there are compensations for the situations that have just arisen as a result of the faults. And then there is also a lot of need for action in the field of fertilisers; This is what our resolution, which we are going to adopt today, is about. I am optimistic that we will adopt them by a good majority. I believe that your communication is pointing in the right direction, but that different decisions are still pending at crucial points. For example: Why do we need or why do we still have anti-dumping duties in the current situation, although fertiliser prices are still high, sometimes very, very high in some regions in Europe? Why are we not moving forward to become more independent of fertilisers – I mean in particular the better use of organic fertilisers? In the end, too, many, many approvals from the European Commission are still pending; There are many concerns. I think we have to realize that organic fertilizers and the animal husbandry that is behind them are one of the solutions that we have to draw, that we have to lift in order to make us more independent of chemical-synthetic mineral fertilizers. There are actually a few decisions on the table. It is clear that one must and can meet these now in order to have to use fewer mineral fertilizers in the future in order to be able to use more organic fertilizers, which can also be better distributed within the European Union where it is necessary. Therefore, in the area of RENURE In my view, what is happening very quickly and in the area of anti-dumping duties, in the area of compensation, especially for the farmers who are now exposed to the faults. I believe these are the very important, necessary decisions that must come soon. And we need to think about how we are positioning ourselves for 2024 and 2025, Commissioner. I believe that we cannot afford to make larger set-asides in 2024 and 2025, to have too restrictive regulations than the European Union, but we must see that we at least maintain our production in order to be able to make our contribution as a basis for food supply in the world.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Stronger, connected, resilient, prosperous: These are the Commission’s buzzwords on its new ‘rural spaces’ website published on Friday. I am pleased that the Commission has recognised these challenges. For me, the decisive factor in this discussion is the place in society and the acceptance of rural areas. There must be no class societies here. Rural areas must be supported, they must be able to keep pace against the background of climate change, social and economic challenges. The main issues need to be addressed. It is about transport planning, mobility, school, education, demography, services of general interest, broadband expansion, social cohesion and civic engagement. And that is why I would like to thank Mrs Carvalhais for the very good report, and in particular for the fact that the issue of predators has been taken up. This is also an important part of ensuring that rural areas are protected and can be managed in rural areas. This is also part of acceptance and life in rural areas.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! First of all, Commissioner, I would like to thank you for taking up our suggestion to take care of the fertilisers and for presenting the communication today. Unfortunately, I see more shadow than light in this message. In the short term, I see little effort to improve the fertiliser situation in Europe. The anti-dumping duties on Trinidad and Tobago and the US could have been suspended; Unfortunately, this is not part of the communication. I see many good long-term approaches that you have also described – so far, so well – in particular the increased use of organic fertiliser. Only the possible solutions already on the table are mentioned only in a footnote, such as RENURE, struvite, stripping or regional flexibilities under the Nitrates Directive; they are either only mentioned incidentally or in a footnote or not at all. I would say that the Commission has unfortunately fallen short of what I would have expected from this Commission. I appeal to you: Look again at the situation in Europe, in the world and act accordingly not only in the longer term, but now also in the short term in the interests of food security and our agriculture in Europe.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen! October is the month of Thanksgiving. Last Sunday was World Food Day. There is a reason why we celebrate these occasions every year, namely that our daily bread and the availability of fresh and healthy food are not taken for granted. I know I repeat myself, but at this point I want to thank once again our European farmers. They showed first during the pandemic and then with the Ukraine crisis that they can ensure our food supply, despite all the difficulties. In the Commission, the issue of food security still does not seem to me to have gained the importance it deserves. Just think of the months-long struggle to suspend GAEC 7 and GAEC 8 standards for crop rotation and set-aside for next year, so that our European agriculture can make its contribution to food security in the world. With the SUR and the nature restoration law But the next two chunks are already waiting for the farmers, who unfortunately mean less than more food on our tables in the long run. In other words: No matter what food security could have been done this year, the Commission still does not seem to want to put food security at the top of the agenda. The rest of the world will be astonished to see this. Positively noteworthy are the Solidarity lanes. The Commission must see to it that the expansion of the latter is being pursued. Because whether the grain corridors, which have enabled the export of grain from Ukraine by ship for almost three months, continue to function simply like this, is, in my view, in the stars. The international community should ensure that this continues to be possible. But I wouldn't rely on it.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I might like to say at the beginning, as we get a bit of the analysis: And it is moving, the Commission. In the words of Galileo Galilei, it is clear that little has been done by the Commission for a long time on the issue of fertilisers. But I very much welcome, Commissioner, that you have announced a communication by the end of October that the Commission will address the issue of fertilisers. Of course, it is related to the energy price situation, but it is also necessary to recognise the systemic importance not only of the agricultural sector, but also of the upstream and downstream sectors. If I look at the fact – as Mr Dorfmann said earlier – that there are, of course, many possibilities to see how we can maintain yields in the European Union or increase yields again, then of course, in addition to fertilisers, ammonia, urea and nitrogen play a role. There are a few concrete measures that I naturally hope will be included in the Commission's communication, such as suspending all anti-dumping measures, including concrete measures such as helping the European fertiliser industry, but that in the medium term we will also recognise that in Europe we have a little too many animals in some regions, but that in many regions in Europe we have too few animals, that exactly organic fertiliser makes us more independent, including in agricultural production, and that the policy of animal reduction in Europe must come to an end and that we must recognise that organic is not always the solution. In my region, we have 15% organic food, which accounts for 5% of people's food supply. This means: There is still a great way to go towards more productivity. And ... (The President withdrew the floor from the speaker)

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! In principle, my committee supports the regulation on deforestation-free supply chains. It is undisputed – and most imported food, raw materials have already been mentioned with soy, coffee or palm oil – that they have also contributed to deforestation in highly sensitive areas and, of course, accelerated climate change, which is beyond question. But the question is whether we always use the right means in this regulation, whether we do not build up partial hurdles, whether in the end we can really achieve the goal we are right to have. I don't think this regulation is the panacea. It's a good step for us to move forward there. I believe, however, that the main task will be, and it has been said beforehand by Mr Hansen: How do we compensate, how do we finance, how do we provide for other perspectives in these regions? I believe that the issue of compensation, climate finance, including through carbon certificates, is a major issue that we should approach in order to have a multiple approach to solving this issue.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! There are a lot of catchphrases in the debate: Multifunctionality of forests, economic, social, ecological function, contribution to the fight against climate change. Commissioner, we have a forest week this week, now the forest strategy, then deforestation-free supply chains and on Wednesday the renewables, the renewable energy directive. And it is precisely in these three proposals that one notices: You have to bring a lot of things together and not divide them. Multifunctionality simply means not only emphasizing a function very strongly. And, of course, it is also important to make it clear that we have a common agricultural policy, but not a common forestry policy. We have a very great diversity of forests, structures, ownership, unlike in agriculture. There are also different answers to be found. I believe that, with Mrs Müller’s report, Parliament has found this to be a good thing – better than the Commission, I think. We can build on that.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen! It is true, Commissioner, that we have achieved something in recent weeks through the solidarity corridors. The latest figures from Ukraine this morning are 2.17 million tons exported in June. But if we look closely at which grain, which sunflower oil has been exported, then we see quite different and, in my view, very depressing figures, namely that essentially exports lead into the European Union, but that hardly any exports lead as transit through the European Union to third countries. Only 138 000 tonnes of wheat – that is the bread grain par excellence, which could then also go to Africa or the Middle East via the European Union – were exported in June. A lot of livestock feed – this is not immoral, but the priority must be wheat and our concern about how to ensure food security, how to satisfy world hunger, how to at least mitigate the famine. This concern must be a priority for us. That's why we need a lot more in the supply chain. Much more needs to happen, from leaving Ukraine to the destination. That's why I was with my committee on the Polish-Ukrainian border and looked closely at it. Tomorrow I will go to Romania with colleagues to see exactly what is happening, what is good and what is not yet good. I think we need insurance guarantees. I think we need more storage capacity. But I also believe that we must consider buying wheat from Ukraine as a European Union or as a world food programme. We must also take farmers' concerns seriously in neighbouring countries. The cereals must not only arrive and remain there, but must continue, especially to third countries. So: Much done, much more to do.

Dear Mr President, Mr Vice-President, Madam Minister, ladies and gentlemen, This week is about the triad of achieving our climate goals, living conditions for future generations and the competitiveness of our economy. By 2050, we want to become climate neutral, i.e. reduce CO2 and remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Our goal is balance. Our forests, soils, bogs actively contribute to this balance by absorbing and storing CO2. The use of sustainable raw materials in products extends storage even further. I want to promote this positive climate effect, empower our agriculture and forestry to continue to do more for climate protection and against climate change. What I don't want is to create a climate policy that looks good on paper, but will only shift emissions. Everyone and everyone is talking about carbon leakage, but it is also about wood and food leakage. We want to replace fossil products with sustainable ones, i.e. to promote a bio-based economy. We need local wood for that. It must not be easier and cheaper to import timber from Canada than to promote the local economy. Therefore, with regard to the ENVI decision, we have tabled some amendments to further improve LULUCF.

– Madam President, Commissioner, dear Minister, ladies and gentlemen! I look forward to meeting you at 60 today. Celebrating the anniversary of the Common European Agricultural Policy. Today we celebrate the farmers who order their fields every day, care for their animals, process products and strive for even more sustainability, high quality and new innovations. We take our hats off to the hard-working Europeans who, in the crises of recent years, ensured that our food shelves were full, while at the same time adjusting to the challenges of the times to come. I want to use this day to say thank you. We all say thank you to our farmers who deserve praise and recognition. I hope this applause is yours. (Applause) When the CAP was launched 60 years ago, the signs of war, suffering and destruction were still clearly visible throughout Europe. Hunger was well known to many people. We grew up aware that these times were long past us, but Russia's war in Ukraine shows us: Our European values, our freedom, are anything but a matter of course. Of course, we cannot compare today's situation with that of 60 years ago. When the CAP was established, its objectives were clear; they have already been set out: It was about sufficient food at fair prices, it was about promoting agricultural productivity, it was about stabilising markets, and it was about a decent income for the agricultural population. These goals have remained. They were and are at the heart of the common agricultural policy. But new challenges have also emerged, such as combating climate change or the loss of biodiversity. Today, there is a balance between the economic, social and environmental pillars of the common agricultural policy. But the risk of a supply crisis on our European doorstep – and by that I mean not only Ukraine, but of course also our neighbourhood in North Africa – is growing. Putin is blackmailing the world by depriving it of wheat. We have a responsibility to act quickly to ensure food security, sustainability and affordability in the future. Sixty years is an age at which people were not long ago sent to retirement in some parts of Europe. And even today, voices are heard again and again that want exactly that for the common agricultural policy. However, even if the CAP sometimes acts as a massive, perhaps cumbersome tanker, it has proved its worth in times of crisis. The importance of the CAP has been made clear by the fact that we have managed to provide fast and targeted assistance. Just again, Commissioner, with the Commission's response to the Russian attack in Ukraine and the threat to security of supply, we were able to take swift action to also increase production in 2022. We must now do the same for 2023, so that we can turn what we promised to help our neighbourhood into reality. This must be our goal, that we create the conditions in the coming weeks, that we can also ensure a good harvest in Europe in 2023 and that we can contribute to our security of supply and also to our neighbourhood. Ladies and gentlemen, you may have noticed: Some colleagues have dressed in more traditional clothes today, not only to present themselves, so to speak, but to express their region and to make the motto of unity in diversity visible here in the plenary today. I would like to ask the colleagues who have made the effort to wear traditional clothing from their region today to stand up to express the importance of this diversity – unity in diversity – and thus also to express the various agricultural structures in Europe.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! First of all, I would like to thank Mrs Schmiedtbauer for her report. As you can see, it was adopted unanimously. This shows, on the one hand, how important the promotion of organic farming is to us across the political groups and, on the other hand, of course, the high quality of Simone Schmiedtbauer's report. Now to the content: In recent weeks, we have been reminded of the importance of stable and regional food production. Organic farming plays an important role here, especially in terms of climate and biodiversity services. When we talk about organic farming in Europe in the future, one thing is very important to me: Organic farming is important and needs to be encouraged. However, conventional cultivation is just as important. Both forms can be sustainable and are important for food security and affordability. In my opinion, these four points must therefore be at the heart of the promotion of organic farming: The promotion of organic farming must be market-compliant. Organic farming must be worthwhile, needs incentives, must not be forced and does not require quotas. It needs acceptance by the population, and goals must be realistic. Secondly: Organics need to be more productive. The current uncertainty in the markets and the rising hunger in the world make an increase in production also necessary for organic farmers. Thirdly: Bio needs to become more innovative and open-minded, including when it comes to technologies. There must be no formal exclusion criteria in terms of resilience and resistance. Fourthly: As a result of the war in Ukraine, we are experiencing a shortage of organic protein feed; Organic farmers need to use conventional feed. It shows that not only does conventional agriculture need to become more independent, but we also need a pan-European protein strategy. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to stress once again the quality of the report and ask for your approval.

Madam President, Commissioner, Secretary of State! The situation in Ukraine is dramatic, not only for people's lives, but also for agriculture. Ukrainians fight for their freedom during the day and for their food security at night. None of us can imagine the suffering on the ground. And we need to help – we need to help where we can help. The global consequences of the war on security of supply are also significant. The World Food Programme warns of a hunger crisis like we have never seen before. In the current situation, we do not have the choice between bread and cake. Many have understood that it is now a matter of supplying other regions of the world with the necessary raw materials. We have a global responsibility, especially for our neighbourhood. I therefore welcome the Commission's proposals to make food security and production a priority now. But we also need to think about 2023 – not just for us, for our food security in Europe, but for our partners, and against Putin, who uses hunger as a weapon. Let me repeat it again in the end: Every ton of wheat in Europe that is grown more is a ton against Putin and for democracy and freedom.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! As the European Parliament, we are always good at setting ambitious goals. However, I would now like to talk about concrete measures, especially with regard to methane emissions in agriculture, because there is positive news. A study shows that technological progress alone can significantly reduce emissions in agriculture through three possible instruments. Firstly: The use of additives in feed, an adaptation of the diet of cattle could significantly reduce methane. There is a lot of research on this. We should just demand it in practice. Secondly: Breeding for low methane emissions could significantly reduce emissions. And thirdly, as some colleagues have already mentioned: The conservation of grassland is not only important for carbon storage, biodiversity or beautiful grazed landscape for tourism, but above all climate-relevant through the feeding of ruminants and the significant CO2 avoidance performance through the provision of climate-friendly biogas as an energy source. In addition to the innovations, I think we should have a debate on the different calculations of fossil and biogenic methane. I call on the Commission to examine this closely.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! First of all, I would like to thank you, Commissioner, for being here. I believe that this debate would also have merited the presence of the Commissioner for Agriculture and also of the Vice-President of the Commission. I think it is an important debate that we are having here. Actually, today we should discuss what a sustainable agriculture, a sustainable food chain should look like. We should talk about how we can support a reduction in plant protection products with alternatives and innovations, new breeding techniques and digital technology without losing crops, reducing the quality of our products, increasing hunger or losing farmers' incomes, or also about how we can support farmers on their way to greater sustainability and create intergenerational justice for younger farmers. I would also like to discuss with you how we can maintain a sustainable production of good, healthy, safe food here in Europe and avoid displacement effects. I would also like to emphasise the good cooperation between the Committee on the Environment and the Committee on Agriculture. I believe the result shows that compromises can be found if agriculture, the environment and climate protection come together well. But I think that this debate is instead overshadowed – let me put it diplomatically – by an unfortunate approach taken by the EU Commission, which for months withheld information from us and did not publish a study that was already there in January. I tell you quite frankly: I am disappointed, and I urge you to: Change something about the situation, get better, submit a comprehensive impact assessment as soon as possible.