Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner! The people in the regions with wolf presence do not expect long discussions from politics, but decisions and actions. This applies not only to large carnivores, but in some regions also to species such as cormorants or otters. People are tired of being held up with the eternally same statements and endless debates about the favorable state of conservation. The example in the Swiss canton of Uri, in which a popular initiative for the regulation of large carnivores was adopted with over 70 percent, speaks volumes. We have finally reached the point where more flexible management, adapted to the real situation, must be made possible. We owe this also to our regions, which have to make decisions and are regularly exposed to lengthy legal disputes. Now the Council is on the move. I call on you to find a fact-based majority to lower the protection status in the Berne Convention.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr Vice-President. We are currently seeing the largest farmers' demonstrations in Europe in a long time. Why? Because farmers feel overwhelmed by more and more, sometimes contradictory requirements and requirements, while real incomes have been falling for years. Farmers receive too little recognition for their contribution to society and are often patronised by politicians. The strategic dialogue, Mr Vice-President, demonstrates the raising of awareness, which is a good thing. However, the chosen top-down approach in the back room is bad. This is certainly not the way to reach the farmers who are currently on the road. Dialogue with us MEPs must build on regional conferences. All farmers must have the opportunity to participate. The regional experience must be brought together, only then can the right conclusions be drawn for reforms. This is our proposal. We reach out to you – grab it and let us work together to build prospects for Europe for farmers and consumers!

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Did you have breakfast this morning with fresh bread, butter, milk, cheese, sausage or cereal with fruit and juice? Everything from us farmers freshly produced every day, of the highest quality and available at all times. Yes, in Germany we have the biggest protests since 2008. It is no longer just about agricultural diesel tax refunds. The problems go deeper – and the trail leads via Berlin to Brussels. Bureaucratic requirements and administrative madness mean that planning security has become a foreign word for our companies. Investments in the future are hardly possible. We have only now the first year of the CAP and not even all parts of the CAP. Green Deals implementation in the Member States. Farmers in Europe will not survive this in the long run – and they will no longer accept it. We must admit here that we have failed in the old agricultural policy, and it is time for us to think seriously about a new agricultural policy. Germany is still an industrialized nation. The current protests make it clear that farmers, craftsmen and the middle class are still the foundation of society. We must not further destabilise this foundation.

Dear Mr President, Commissioner! By taking a one-sided look at the protection of species, we have created the absurd situation in some regions of the European Union that a predator that is not threatened with extinction threatens habitats and biotopes that are absolutely worthy of protection. The wolf is a cultural follower and can basically survive on garbage dumps. Countless plant species cannot do this, for example, rare orchids need certain habitats that must be kept open by grazing animals. Our President of the Commission addressed biodiversity and biodiversity explicitly today, pointing to 6 500 species that exist only within the European Union. Here we are all jointly responsible. Brussels has to act itself if, in some Member States, the true stocks of predators are not reported for ideological reasons. Mistakes that have already been made to suffice with pointless and expensive herd protection measures do not have to be exercised in all other regions. Unspeakable suffering in grazing animals does not have to be multiplied thousands of times. Now is the time to act. The EU itself must take action and provide legal certainty to the regions.

Madam President, Commissioner! This summer has once again shown us that prolonged drought has a massive impact on our agriculture. Agriculture is one of the most important consumers of water. Yes, it depends on a stable water supply to provide us all with the highest quality food – we must not forget that. With the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture, we were able to make a contribution to ensuring that farmers are not just seen as a problem in water policy. The important role of agriculture in water policy is recognised. We call for measures to improve water efficiency within agriculture. But there must still be some criticism, Commissioner: Pollutant limits shall be objectively justified and proportionate. Where limit values go beyond the requirements of drinking water standards or are now to apply to non-relevant degradation products of plant protection products, this may well be meant, but it puts even more pressure on agriculture, which is already working at the limit, without any factual basis.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Vice-President Timmermans! I welcomed the Green Deal from the outset. But we need to turn the transformation of the economy into a growth strategy. This is what our future prosperity depends on. What we have, however, is a puzzle with 1000 pieces without a template – a difficult matter. Your job is to make the puzzle pieces fit. Unfortunately, absolutely nothing fits together here anymore. This threatens to overburden all key players. Understanding of EU policy is lost. Businesses are threatening more and more bureaucracy – keywords supply chains and industrial emissions. We have long since lost farmers – keywords SUR and NRL. We also threaten to lose a lot of people. They will not be awarded to the loss of industrial sites, and the German heating dispute gives a foretaste of the implementation of the Building Energy Efficiency Directive. If the Green Deal forgets the people, we'll get the bill very soon.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! Our Vice-President Timmermans never tires of explaining that the Nature Restoration Ordinance is a law that helps farmers and foresters. I'm sorry to have to say this so clearly, but that sounds like an educational approach from the last century. The kids don't understand it, but it's all for their own good. Sometimes you just have to force them to their happiness. Only: Farmers and foresters are not children. They are experts in their field and can very well understand the consequences of new laws for their professional practice. Yes, we need a law to strengthen the resilience of our nature. Climate change is taking place. We just have to adapt ourselves and nature. But this can only succeed if we take people with us, especially those who work every day in nature and with nature. The Commission has failed in this respect.

Madam President, Commissioner! Our support in the export of grain is vitally important for our Ukrainian partners. This support is a European task; We must therefore be able to answer them together and with clear European answers. The biggest challenge, of course, is this Black Sea agreement, this logistics, this reduction in transport costs. Everything is pretty clear to me. But, of course, what we are now also noticing is that the situation in these five countries is very, very serious. We can't put that on the side. We really need to think about how to get real solutions. It is not our task, Commissioner, to temporarily store Ukrainian grain here in these countries, to reduce prices within the EU and to provide traders with additional money. I think we should have an honest debate. If Spain and some European countries need this grain from Ukraine, then we must set the framework for it, and that is the Commission's task. DG MOVE, DG AGRI and DG Trade need to work together to find solutions.

Mr President, Commissioner! As an active farmer, I travel a lot with the farmers and try to explain the politics around the , um and. What I experience above all is frustration, incomprehension and anger about a lack of appreciation, paternalism and prohibition policy. The title of today's debate is well chosen, because it is the farmers who have to implement everything in the fields and pastures. Unfortunately, our policy is not at all in line with this. The challenges are enormous, and to overcome them requires openness to technology and scientific freedom. In fact, however, we are experiencing ideologically shaped prohibition policy and non-reality requirements. How are we supposed to give the people in the sector such a sense of legal certainty and perspective, I ask you all here. Our farming families and the food industry have proven to be reliable partners for citizens in our Union. They have maintained supply chains in the most difficult times. These people deserve our trust and support. Just as plants and animals need air to live, so too does this industry need significantly more air to develop. Dare more freedom, instead of regulating an entire industry to death. I would like my colleagues in this House to have more courage for freedom, not only, but especially in agricultural policy, in order to ensure security of supply in the EU.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, The digital green transition is fundamentally changing the lives of consumers. In particular, I would like to raise three points that are relevant in this regard. Firstly: Consumers should be able to make informed purchasing decisions. Something that is sold as environmentally friendly is actually supposed to be environmentally friendly, and for that we have to change in part the current system of sustainability labels, Commissioner. Secondly: Businesses, and especially small and medium-sized enterprises, must be able to implement bureaucratically what is required by the European Union. Supportive measures for SMEs are therefore urgently needed. Thirdly: Special features of second-hand goods should be paid special attention. Second-hand sellers do not always have all the necessary information to make it available to the consumer. Manufacturers should make this information accessible, but not the sellers in second-hand shops. Empowering consumers for the green transition is extremely important, but it must not become a burden. Consumers should not be overwhelmed with information. A balance between sufficient information and necessary load should therefore be established. I would like to thank everyone who has worked here. Consumers finally need clarity and education.

Madam President, Mr Bundeskanzler! Shaping Europe? Yes, but you are judged by your actions in Germany. Here I can say: Too little and too late. A good year ago you started with the turn of the clock, which is correctly recognized. However, our Bundeswehr is not yet a piece of defence-capable, actually even defence-incapable. The same applies to energy supply. Although the self-destructive dependence on Russian gas is finally reduced, the turbo for self-sufficiency with decentrally generated energy has still not started. Instead, sustainably produced wood is banned as an energy source. Our innovative SMEs and craftsmanship have always been the backbone of our growth. Instead of effectively defending technology openness, your government here in Brussels is supporting the creation of ever-new bureaucratic monsters, such as three different supply chain laws. As a dairy farmer and representative of agriculture and forestry, I have to say that you have missed the turning point in terms of security of supply. Faults in the supply chains show us how important reliable food production in Germany and Europe is even today. But instead of helping to overcome the challenges, acknowledging their outstanding social importance, farmers and foresters are getting ideology coupled with reality repressions and mistrust in the form of more and more bureaucracy, control and prohibitions. Dear Chancellor, who should provide high-quality food in the future if the rural structures are broken?

Dear Mr President, Mr Vice-President, dear colleagues! If you think you can solve complex challenges with simple answers, you are usually wrong. The de facto ban on the internal combustion engine and the unilateral political constraint on battery-electric propulsion are a prime example of this. The necessary transformation of the automotive sector towards climate neutrality threatens to become unnecessarily inefficient and expensive. The efficiency potentials of alternative solutions are sunk without necessity. However, if we as politicians already know better than the engineers, then we should at least be consistent. On the one hand, we are forcing manufacturers to invest in battery electric drives, and at the same time, with the proposal on EURO 7, we are discussing a measure that requires high investments in the old technology that we are currently banning. The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. The invoice is therefore even higher; In the end, EU consumers have to pay.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Our goal must be to achieve an inclusive and attentive society for all people. People with disabilities have the right to live their lives the way they want. This includes: Relationships can live, acceptance and inclusion. This must be our common goal. Accessibility is central here. Even in the European institutions, we have not yet reached them, as we have just experienced. This is unacceptable, and it should be the first step for us to take here. In everyday life, we are all challenged, and more social attention is needed. Especially during the COVID crisis, depression and panic attacks have increased massively. In addition to physical and mental impairments, psychological restrictions can also represent and reinforce a disability. This is not perceived enough at the moment. To address these problems, we need a different way of thinking and different approaches, starting at the European level down to the administrations of the Member States and municipalities. People with disabilities need more support at all European levels.

–. Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, The return of once extinct species is a success of species conservation. But coexistence means that both sides have a right to exist. The farmers and especially the animals suffer massively from the attacks of wolves and in some places bears. The ever-increasing number of fatal attacks on sheep, horses, cattle and calves must no longer be silenced. Those responsible and conservationists will be all too happy to close their eyes to it. Of course, the pictures and the videos are not a nice sight. But for me, one thing is clear: When the wolf comes, the pasture goes, and with it go many plant species, insect species and also the bees. Farmers have been left alone for years. That shouldn't go on like this. I therefore appeal to you: We need to improve support for prevention and compensation, and that is not the task of the common agricultural policy, but of the conservation budget. Commissioner, review the Annexes to the Habitats Directive and revise the guidelines to use the flexibilities so that there is finally less confusion and more clarity here!

Madam President, Commissioner, thank you very much for this communication. It is a good sign – it has been recognised that the prices and availability of fertilisers on the EU market are a problem. The Market Observatory can also be useful. However, I do not have concrete steps to take to help farmers quickly. The reference to the CAP is, I think, well-intentioned, but it seems to me that the CAP will be hung like a Christmas tree with so many balls that the branches will slowly break us. What we need is reliability in production and the prevention of crop failures. Nitrogen and phosphorus must be considered in a differentiated way. Nitrogen is about energy dependence, phosphorus is about strategic dependence from third countries. It must be our goal to ensure the quantity, quality and safety of the sustainable supply of the highest quality food within the EU. There must be independence from imports of fertilisers. And for me, food inflation holds enormous social explosives. I do not really have the long-term strategy for fertilisers in Europe in this communication. Commissioner, we are happy to work on this.

Mr President! For the vast majority of people in Europe, the secure supply of extremely cheap and high-quality food has been a matter of course in recent decades. The COVID pandemic has threatened supply chains. A great effort was needed to ensure the supply of essentials throughout the country. First of all, it is important to praise all those involved in the food value chain, especially the farming families, without whose reliable work the supply would not be possible. Challenges can only be mastered through courageous and courageous action. And this is also necessary now with the war against Ukraine. In November, 50 agriculture ministers will meet at the OECD meeting to resolve the global food crisis. I would like to ask the Commission what the EU's answer is. We need to step up cooperation and coordination between G20 members – of course. However, we must also use all means to strengthen food production in the EU. Action is particularly needed in the field of fertilisers. The Urban Water Directive must separate phosphorus and recycle it in agriculture. We need more organic fertilizers and more production of biogas. There is also a need for correction in trade policy. Food security must be taken into account when using land. I would like to ask the Commission how it intends to reconcile the proposals for restoration, deforestation and the Soil Health Act so as not to jeopardise food security within the European Union.

Mr President, Commissioner! I would like to thank you very much for these contributions to the debate. We have heard different perspectives and approaches. That doesn't surprise me at all. But there are actually two guiding principles that have supported me in this debate: Once it is the expectations of our forest ecosystems that are very broad. And the other is this appeal to the different experiences in the regions that forest management works from the bottom up and is different in each region. I think One-size-fits-all does not work at European level, Bottom-up This is the approach we want. Commissioner, I do not agree with you that we should use so much CAP money. The common agricultural policy only has to spend every euro once. If we take it for the forest, it's missing somewhere else. I am of the opinion: Ecosystem services must be funded externally. There are climate funds, there are people who want to invest a lot of money in green investment, and that includes ecosystem services for forests. I believe that what has borne us in this cooperation with all the rapporteurs, shadow rapporteurs, was the will to sustainably transform the forest, the will to bring near-natural forest management forward, and also the will that a forest must also grow and take time to do so. That united us. I therefore ask you once again to agree with this decision. And I would like to thank the 16 million forest owners who work every day in the interests of European citizens.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, The report on the Forest Strategy that we are discussing today focuses on the close-to-nature and sustainable management of our forests. It is designed to enable our forests to fulfil their diverse roles: Climate resistance, carbon sink, habitat for plants and animals, provision of wood as a plant and fuel and a place of work and recreation for people. People are primarily the 16 million forest owners with the 500,000 forestry workers. I would like to express my sincere thanks to all of you today. They have been managing our forests responsibly for centuries and ensuring that the necessary forest conversion takes place. Of course, our forests in Europe are facing huge challenges. On the one hand, the consequences of climate change make them: Drought, extreme weather make them difficult. This requires quick action by the foresters. Forests need to be rebuilt to be more resilient. Time is pressing. But this also means that you have to cut wood in order to be able to plant new trees. However, the forests are truly multi-talented. They are climate protectors by absorbing and storing CO2, but also by supplying sustainable materials. In doing so, they make irreplaceable contributions to green growth and jobs. They provide a habitat for biodiversity. They provide clean air and water. They are a place of recreation and secure income. Forests are multifunctional and we absolutely need to fulfil these functions. This requires balanced, sustainable management. This, too, is demanded by the foresters. The fact that different political levels are involved does not make things any easier in the EU, Commissioner. A coherent policy that provides the right incentives is therefore crucial. The new EU forest strategy was therefore also urgently expected by forest owners and foresters. This report sets out our expectations for the implementation of the strategy. My draft report is based on four guiding principles. Firstly: Europe's forests are multifunctional due to their historical development. It is therefore important to further develop them accordingly and to constantly find the right balance. Secondly: Sustainable forestry is the typical and most promising approach to forest management in order to achieve the various objectives in a balanced way. It is important that sustainable forestry is not misunderstood as a fixed, outdated system. It must adapt dynamically to the challenges in order to resolve trade-offs and create synergies. Thirdly: The owners and foresters are the pillars on which the strategy stands. They know their forests like no other, and they have a natural self-interest in sustainably healthy forests through decades of management periods. The strategy can only be successful if it sets the right approaches for foresters and supports them, instead of putting stones in their way through more and more constraints and bureaucracy. In doing so, we must pay particular attention to the fact that a large proportion of European forests are in the hands of small-scale forest owners with only a few hectares. A strategy which the owners of small forests do not take with them is doomed to failure, Commissioner. Fourth, and by no means last: The forests are local. It is therefore important to use local knowledge and experience in order to be able to manage forests appropriately. For this, the strategy must follow a bottom-up approach. Wherever possible, it must build on the existing and improve it, within the framework of subsidiarity and proportionality. We need to work with the owners and stakeholders in the regions so that our forests can meet the many expectations. Especially in terms of climate and species protection, but also in terms of the bio-based circular economy and green growth, the strategy must create policy coherence in the sense of these four guiding ideas. Multifunctionality, sustainable management, owner as main pillar and locality. I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to our shadow rapporteurs, who have worked so intensively here, and look forward to the debate in the spirit of European forests.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, First of all, I would like to thank Simone Schmiedtbauer for the excellent work. In the Committee on Agriculture, we unanimously adopted your organic action plan. In doing so, we have underlined that we are in principle in agreement that a higher proportion of organic farming can contribute to the objectives of the Green Deal and the Farm-to-ForkAchieve a strategy. The way there, however, should in no case be based on coercion and regulations. I am convinced that an increase in the production of organic food can only work together with an increase in demand. However, we also know that organic products are usually more expensive than conventional goods. And with current inflation, with higher energy prices and higher food prices, it is questionable whether consumers will increasingly buy organic products in the near future. I would also like to point out that we need to provide adequate support to farmers in the development towards more organic farming. The transition to organic farming remains a major challenge and entails many risks for the individual farmer. Better support during the conversion phase is therefore necessary, and one starting point would also be an improved strategy to market in-conversion goods, Commissioner. A clear logo for in-conversion goods, for example, would make it easier for customers to recognise this and thus also to buy in a targeted manner in order to support farmers in this phase. Together with the consumers at our side, we can succeed in bringing organic production forward. And yet, of course, we must not forget conventional agriculture, which produces regionally, seasonally.

Mr President! Of course, we all want progressive European suffrage. However, I do not yet see the added value of transnational lists for citizens. The future will provide us with answers. For me, however, the 3.5% blocking clause for small parties in Germany is unthinkable. Parties that are rooted in our local communities and have been actively elected to regional parliaments with more than 5% or are represented in state governments are to be excluded from the European Parliament in the future with a blocking clause. The Free Voters, in particular, were members of the European Democratic Party before they were elected to the European Parliament. All the parties represented here are doing solid democratic work here. I therefore ask you to accept Amendment No 26, which is to be added to the negotiated package. In the future, 5 million votes will be invalid. This is neither democratic nor European, but only helps the big parties.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine is drastically exacerbating the already tense global food security situation. The chairman of the UN World Food Programme expects a real famine in the third world in the course of the year. These are alarming statements. We in the EU have a productive agriculture. Our farmers produce the highest quality food. In the current situation, we have a particular responsibility to make the most of our opportunities. However, we must not lose sight of the long-term sustainability. We should not succumb to the temptation to turn back time. Instead, our farmers need perspectives and innovative solutions to produce more with less. Bringing these solutions to the field should now be our most urgent goal. This is even more true today than it was before February 24.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Textiles are one of the biggest drivers of our raw material consumption. The global textile industry ranks fifth in terms of CO2 emissions, roughly on par with the automotive industry. On the way to a climate-neutral circular economy, it is therefore necessary that we focus on a more sustainable textile industry. However, the announcements so far have focused mainly on reuse, recycling and reparability, Commissioner. The logic is clear. Reducing resource consumption is a great lever for more efficient use. However, the second major lever has so far been largely ignored – the promotion of sustainable materials. The common textiles have great negative effects on land use and the environment. Cotton, which accounts for 43% of all textiles, needs a lot of land and water, fertilizer and pesticides. Most of the production takes place in countries with significantly lower sustainability standards than in the EU. Polyester is derived from fossil raw materials and is a source of microplastics that enter water bodies. Today, Commissioner, I would like to draw your attention to the forests. They have the potential to make a substantial contribution to sustainable textiles. Textiles with wood-derived cellulose currently account for less than 10%. This European Forest Institute predicted that an increase of this share to around 50% would be realistic. Thanks to the three to five times lower CO2 footprint compared to cotton and polyester, emissions of more than 400 million tonnes can be saved. This example calculation makes it clear that the strategy is too short-lived if it does not also focus more on raw materials for textiles. I very much hope that the Commission will not abandon this potential.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank the rapporteur very much for his excellent work. The welfare of our farm animals is very important to me as a farmer. I support the report's call for updated rules based on scientific evidence. Uniform implementation of these rules in all Member States is also welcome. However, I fear that developments in Germany will progress faster than the development of these new rules at European level, Commissioner. In Germany, discounters have announced that from 2030, they will only market fresh meat from outdoor climate stables and premium farms. Discounts on milk from tethering must be accepted. The number of farms with livestock has decreased by 22 percent in the last ten years. Animal populations are falling drastically. This is also politically desired and not only visible since the new change of government in Germany. However, more animal welfare always leads to large investments in the farms. And I wonder how this is to be financed, without price increases for producer prices. At present, there is no signal from the LEH and the discounters to offset these additional costs by higher purchase prices. This creates additional pressure on German farmers. Many livelihoods are endangered, especially those of small family businesses. I hope that we do not lose sight of the human well-being of the farmers for the sake of animal welfare.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Our report reflects in detail the work of the Committee on Petitions last year. In addition to voting in elections, the petition is the most popular form of democratic action by citizens. We underline the great responsibility of our committee, especially in such difficult times as during the pandemic. We have received numerous petitions on COVID-19 and the protection of the rights and freedoms of our citizens and have dealt with them urgently. Every petition was taken seriously. Overall, more petitions were submitted by our citizens in 2020 than in previous years, with most coming from Spain and Germany. Unfortunately, the petitioners could only be connected via video. This was a challenge for us, as the right to petition is based on the presence of the petitioners in the committee. Petitions are therefore an effective tool for all those who want to play an active role in shaping politics. They give us the best overview of how laws work and what needs to be changed. Nevertheless, it is important to approach your petitions and complaints with realistic expectations. Unfortunately, we can't help every time, and the question remains as to what we can do better. For me, this means above all that there must be a concrete result in the end and not just discussions. That is why we must continue to work on the transparency and permeability of the entire procedure. I would like to thank the rapporteur and colleagues for the good cooperation and wish you a merry Christmas.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, We met here today to decide on the legal framework for the Common Agricultural Policy from 2023 to 2027. This proposal, which I have negotiated for Parliament, is the result of many months of intensive negotiations with the Council. And this proposal is more than just a step in the right direction towards a performance-oriented, transparent and effective agricultural policy in Europe. My group and I therefore vote in favour of this proposal. Briefly to the explanation: Today's decision concerns 10 million farms in the Union, including 8.5 million family farms, 27 national administrations in the Member States and 450 million citizens who need planning certainty and legal certainty, who want high-quality food, liveable rural areas and climate-friendly production and marketing. Before I get to the details, I want to ask the obvious question: Why only now? Why does it take three and a half years from the Commission's proposal to today's vote? The Commission's proposal was presented eight months too late. This delay has made it impossible to vote during the last mandate. This is irresponsible. I therefore urge you, Commissioner, to present the next CAP proposal in time! For a lasting process of development, draw on the expertise of this Parliament, Commissioner! As directly elected representatives of the people, we know what works on the ground and what doesn't. The COVID-19 pandemic in particular shows us all the economic and social performance of our companies every day. They ensure our daily supply of the best and safest food we've ever had. This security of supply does not come by chance, but is the result of the tireless commitment of our farmers and all those working in the food sector. In particular, the rapidly rising energy prices and the political choices in the field of Farm-to-Fork- and the biodiversity strategy, together with the current situation on the market, lead to increased cost pressure, which calls into question the security of production and puts farms in a state of existential fear. At the same time, agriculture is also obliged to accompany the transition to a climate-neutral Europe by 2050. I would like to point out that more than half of carbon dioxide emissions from the agri-food sector today are due to factors that have nothing to do with agricultural activity. That is why my approach is to agree on security of supply and climate protection in the new CAP. The National Strategic Plans allow more flexibility for Member States and thus the end of the "one size fits all“. Farming and rural populations must be actively involved in the ongoing preparation of the plans. However, the central point of the CAP proposal is the introduction of the new delivery model. The introduction of a results-oriented reporting and control system is the real innovation of this shortened programming period. Only then will they be Eco-schemes a promising instrument of the National Strategic Plans. At the same time, it is a step away from a simple game of numbers to a real evaluation of the results of the individual farmer. This will significantly strengthen the legitimacy of public funding for agriculture. However, this new system also entails a fundamental simplification of the reporting system. There is no longer any need to send detailed control reports to Brussels – a functioning governanceThe system is also sufficient. This single audit is fully applied. Double checks are eliminated. As in the new performance model, Member States will have the primary responsibility for control, we have strengthened the protection against misuse of EU funds. We have created clear structures with clear responsibilities. With regard to the much-discussed issue of transparency, we have ensured that information on the actual recipients of CAP funds is made available to the public. I am proud to be able to present today this fundamental reorientation with more responsibility for the Member States, more benefit for farmers and more transparency. All the critics of this proposal, both inside and outside this House, the associations, NGOs and associations: You all need to be clear: Anyone who votes against this proposal is in favour of maintaining the status quo. That is why I say very clearly: I am voting in favour of this proposal and from now on I will work to implement and critically accompany this new, performance-oriented and transparent agricultural policy. Today I would also like to thank my colleagues, the shadow rapporteurs and you, Commissioner, as well as the Council, for their trusting cooperation. It wasn't always easy, but we made a compromise. I invite all the Members of this House to give their approval to this proposal.