Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, As rapporteur in my group in the Committee on Development, I would like to focus on the international dimension of the Renewable Energy Directive, which is crucial for the EPP. For us, it didn't take an energy crisis to realize: If we want to move quickly to a ramp-up of renewables and, above all, hydrogen, in order to advance the energy transition and protect the climate, then we need to look not only at densely populated Europe, but where the conditions for renewables are ideal and unlimited. We have great potential to work with our international partners in this area. At least in the case of hydrogen, we are still technology leaders. And especially in Africa, which we also want to pursue politically, there is great interest in opening a new chapter in the field of energy cooperation with the EU. I would like to emphasise: For mutual interest, because the production of green hydrogen requires the expansion of renewable energies in the partner country and leads to new revenues in the country of origin. However, what is poisonous for imports of renewable energy in the form of hydrogen is the current regulatory setting by the EU Commission – too complicated, too detailed, unfeasible in practice and thus a huge obstacle. What we need instead: a European import strategy with clear objectives and definitions. Please accept our amendments in order to make them possible.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Energy efficiency is the stepchild of energy policy. For years, far too little has happened here, which is now bitterly avenging itself in the energy crisis. That is why we also agree to increase ambition and set binding targets. But: We take into account the current situation. Public budgets are empty, and companies often lack the money to invest after the pandemic. At least in Germany, skilled workers and the hardware for large-scale refurbishment measures are lacking. That is why, as rapporteur for my group in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection, I advocated clarity on objectives, but flexibility and feasibility in implementation by the Member States. I am pleased that at least the colleagues in the industry committee, which is the committee responsible, have seen this the same way and that there is now a broad majority for adapted and realistic measures as well as justified exceptions and conditions, for example for social housing. It is now extremely important that we apply the same realism and pragmatism as the Energy Efficiency Directive when revising the European Buildings Directive, which will affect millions of EU citizens.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, When it comes to protecting the world's forests, we are running out of time. They are the lungs of the earth, and with less lung capacity we will breathe harder. It is therefore good that we will vote tomorrow on a legislative proposal with the aim of entering into force at the beginning of 2023. What were and what are the key points of the EPP in this regulation? We want a regulation that guarantees legal certainty, which can be implemented, and which, above all, effectively and effectively prevents further deforestation. As the EU, we balance our market power with 450 million consumers. In the future, certain products such as soybeans and cattle will only enter the internal market if producers demonstrate that they do not come from geodata-monitored areas after 31. December 2019 was deforested. This makes our contribution as an EU to halting global deforestation very concrete. However, the Committee on the Environment has made some changes that need to be considered with caution. An extension of the area of application of forests also to meadows and bogs, which would correspond to a quadrupling of the scope, will only be possible after an impact assessment. Our rapporteur Christophe Hansen has made a very important point here. He also rightly stated that we need to help local producers meet the new requirements for EU exports. However, the fact that reporting obligations for companies are not bundled from the outset, that financial institutions are to be included, that the facilitations of the classification system are to be softened again, that the issue of certification – and I mean that in the sense of an EU seal – does not matter, are minus points that will not lead to the support of the companies concerned, in particular SMEs, on which we are dependent, however. I hope that we will be able to correct one or the other in the plenary vote, and I wish our rapporteur a happy hand in the upcoming negotiations with the Council and the Commission.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! Discussions about the ReFuelEU Regulation were not easy. Because it's about a lot: new obligations for airports, airlines and fuel manufacturers. It is about mobility in Europe, especially for more remote regions. It is about competition from different sectors, about the scarce supply of alternative fuels and about Europe's position in international competition. Above all, however, it is a matter of taking the decarbonisation of the aviation sector seriously. By 2030, European aviation will have to save 55% of CO2 emissions, with Europeans continuing to enjoy flying. So we need a revolution in aircraft production, in the materials used, in the engines and in the fuels. The EU has supported research in this area with billions of euros in recent years and the industry has now also presented prototypes. From my point of view, the production of synthetic fuels must be at the centre of attention by 2030, because biokerosene will always remain limited in terms of quantity and entails conflicts of use. That is why we urgently need the following signal: E-fuels are the future, and early movers They can benefit substantially from European funds. And as always, the faster the scale, the faster... (The President withdrew the floor from the speaker.)

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, The fact that we are talking today about the fact that the adoption of the post-Cotonou agreement has to be postponed for the third time by another year is an absolute testament to poverty for the EU. I have never been a big fan of continuing the ACP format, because the three regions have very different relations with the EU and we better need our own genuine governance, especially for Africa, which best relates to the whole of Africa. But this circus about a mixed or a pure EU agreement, which the Council, and in particular a Member State, lists, really puts the crown on the whole. We must not get bogged down in the face of an energy and hunger crisis. All that matters is securing livelihoods, creating jobs, infrastructure projects and climate and energy partnerships. With this latest manoeuvre, ladies and gentlemen, Europe will make no geopolitics and, above all, no credible Africa policy. I appeal urgently to the Presidency of the Council, the High Representative and the President of the Commission: Get involved at the highest level, put an end to this unworthy game and work on Europe's ability to act.

Dear Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, We met with citizens for a year. 49 recommendations and 325 measures have emerged as a result. All institutional actors involved have committed to review the recommendations for their implementation. And we, as the European Parliament, are taking the ultimate step today, calling on Article 48 to formally open the way to Treaty changes as well. From my point of view, defense and foreign policy are at the top. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has shown us how badly we are militarily positioned and how little together we as the EU still speak with one voice to the outside world. Secondly: energy policy. Our energy supply must be ensured, diversified and climate-neutral across Europe. Thirdly: Health, Crisis and Civil Protection. The sensible European measures taken during the pandemic need to be safeguarded. Fourthly: Our decision-making procedures. With unanimity, the slowest always determines the pace. We can no longer afford this, including in view of the enlargement of the EU through accessions. We need qualified majority voting as a standard, even when it comes to initiating consequences when a Member State violates our fundamental values. Finally: We as the European Parliament and we as the EPP want to make our unique peace and economic project future-proof by exploiting all reform possibilities. But a convention will take years. It must not be an excuse not to use the many existing practical and pragmatic possibilities to make the EU more capable of acting. Just imagine that the war in Ukraine becomes a war of position. Imagine that a famine is spreading. Imagine that the energy is running out. Imagine two years from now, Donald Trump is back in power in the U.S. and China is increasingly determining global value chains. We cannot wait for the results of the Convention; Above all, we need responsible pro-European leaders in the Member States and in the EU who are flexible and quick to come up with solutions. That is why, Minister Beaune, you will put the Convention on the agenda of the European Council on 21 June.

Mr President, Commissioner! As the vice-coordinator of my group in the Committee on Development, I welcome this Commission proposal because it addresses phenomena that are burning on our nails: illegal migration, the fact that people cannot bring their labour force into their country because of lack of prospects and embark on a dangerous, sometimes deadly journey. It addresses the apparent labour shortages in the EU and demographic trends, as well as the need for the EU to position itself as an attractive labour market in the world. The proposal will make application procedures more rational and effective. Long-term resident rights are strengthened and legal stays can be added together. I believe that the talent pool presented and the talent partnerships are good ideas, because above all they offer the chance that we will not only reach high-skilled people, but people with all levels of training and also the self-employed, and also that we will be able to better match the needs of employers with the qualifications of migrant workers – before leaving, Mr Zimniok! We already have pilot projects. What can we learn from these pilot projects carried out by Belgium, France, Lithuania and Spain with African countries? It is very important, I agree with my colleague Lenaers: We must take account of the individual situation in the Member States. They must be individually equipped. We need structures, and we need trust. This will take time. I believe that at a time when we want to make the EU as a whole more competitive and resilient, we are sending the right signal with this communication. We need the best talent from all over the world for these tasks. We have to be attractive for that. I am also convinced that mobile people can build bridges that can help solve a wide range of problems, including diseases, food supply, unequal treatment and climate change. I think we need to turn migration into real mobility, and this proposal contributes very well to that.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I expressly welcome the new Battery Regulation, which we are adopting today, because it contains important strategic positions from us, the European Parliament, on the circular economy and on critical raw materials. Above all, however, it takes into account the life cycle approach, and thus the Battery Regulation can almost be regarded as a template for further regulations. With this regulation, we have made the adjustments to the current requirements. This will make our goals of sustainable product design and more independent supply chains a reality. Especially in the field of recycling, we have made concrete progress, which is particularly important to me as a raw materials rapporteur. Empty batteries and batteries that are no longer functional are not just garbage, but important raw materials that we want to keep, collect and recycle in the EU in the future. We need to build reliable secondary raw material circuits. Therefore, with the new regulation, we are not only increasing the proportions of recycled materials, but also the collection quotas. That is why we are calling for more collection points and special and better information for consumers. Personally, I am one of the colleagues who also think it is necessary to reflect on the establishment of a European deposit system in this context, so that we can really create the best conditions and the highest incentives for the collection of batteries, which will come on the market in ever greater numbers throughout Europe in the future. The audit request to the Commission, which we currently have in the voting text – to analyse all outstanding issues of feasibility, security and costs and to make appropriate proposals – is a first important step in this regard. I hope that this will also encourage Member States to reflect. Fortunately, at least from my home country Germany, I have received indications that at least one would like to deal with a national battery deposit system. A happy note.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, We understandably talk a lot these days about Ukraine and Russia, but also Africa, our neighbouring continent, deserves and urgently needs our attention. Mr Tomas Tobé made it clear: Population growth and the corresponding job requirements alone are an enormous challenge. The European Council is still stuck in the post-Cotonou logic, but the von der Leyen Commission and we as Parliament have set out in recent months to redefine our partnership with Africa. What is important about this new partnership? acting together as an EU, as Team EuropeMore visibility and more communication. Better working structures and a coordinated investment package are also important. While a summit with Heads of State and Government is beautiful, it is even better to have continuous, institutionalised cooperation at all levels that produces concrete results, for example in the further development of the African Free Trade Area or even an African internal market. The geopolitical situation in Africa has changed significantly. China, Russia and others are pursuing their own ruthless policies in Africa. We as Europe want a partnership with Africa that benefits both sides. Above all, we want to achieve the goals for which the people of Europe and Africa have chosen us: Safety and health, a job that secures a livelihood, political participation and freedom, and a clean environment. The European Commission is now programming cooperation with Africa for the next seven years, then it is time to take stock. We have a responsibility to make it a good one.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I visited this COP with three hats: as a member of the Committee on Industry, as a member of the Committee on Development and as a member of the Committee on the Environment. In terms of industrial policy, I was particularly impressed by the conversation with the Chinese delegation. Of course, the set climate neutrality target of 2060 is too late, but they have dealt with quite concrete measures. They have recognized emissions trading as an effective tool, and China has global leadership in many areas of future technologies. I therefore believe that cooperation with China on environmental protection is worthwhile, that we should continue to cooperate closely and intensify our work. In terms of development policy, it was of course important that there should now be a real focus on adaptation to climate change. Mr Vice-President, you said: We need to work more closely with Africa. Speaking to Commissioner Lenarčič yesterday, it was clear: There are now also humanitarian emergencies. So we must now adjust our development policy accordingly. We have committed to spending 30% of our money on environmental and climate action; We need to implement that now. The environmental policy measures are: Methane, industrial and deforestation strategies are very important. Overall, I believe that the EU can draw a positive balance. She was very well prepared. It was credible in terms of its objectives, concrete actions and funding. I think we can really become a role model for others.

, . – Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! A European strategy for critical raw materials – this is what we are discussing and voting on this week. My group, the EPP, has deliberately taken the initiative and brought the issue to Parliament – because we firmly believe that this is an essential, strategic issue for the European Union, where all institutions – the Commission, Parliament, the Council – but also the Member States and financial and research institutions need to pull together more closely. This is the only way we will achieve our common goal, the Green Deal, which includes meeting the Paris climate target as well as maintaining our competitiveness and jobs in Europe. We're not talking about cacao and coffee, which you could do without, albeit hard. We are talking about rare earths: Lithium, borate, bauxite, tantalum and 25 other critical minerals essential for renewable energy technologies, energy efficiency, e-mobility, more digital applications and better medical care. For these raw materials, we are highly dependent on a few, or even only one supplier country or company. This year we have tightened our 2030 climate targets: Climate neutrality by 2050 at the latest. Against this background, all studies and forecasts assume that we will need much more critical raw materials here in Europe for the green and digital transformation in a very short time. It is therefore high time that we examine our supply chains and put them on a more stable footing. The Commission has proposed ten measures, which I can fully welcome. But they are not enough, and that is why I propose to supplement them: The European Raw Materials Alliance needs to be further strengthened and its projects in the field of permanent magnets must now be implemented and new initiatives in the field of storage and recycling supported. In addition, better coordination of national raw material activities through a new strategic working group was important to my S&D colleague Chahim; I gladly accepted this request. Above all, we need clear positive signals when it comes to financing sustainable raw material projects: in the national reconstruction plans, in the taxonomy, for investments in the development of recycling and secondary raw material markets, for projects in former mining regions, for materials research, as well as for an IPCEI, an important project of common European interest. We also need faster and more transparent authorisation procedures and, instead of new ones, the implementation and enforcement of existing European legislation. Of course, we need to exploit the full potential of the circular economy: from product design, to waste collection, to strict control of our waste exports, to recycled content, to the reduction of the overall material footprint. Colleague Matthieu from the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection has contributed important elements to this. Just like the colleagues from the Trade Committee who supported the launch of new strategic partnerships, the review of our trade agreements and the push for sustainable mining measures in third countries through the introduction of due diligence. Unfortunately, however, a fundamental conflict has persisted until the end, and this concerns the question of whether we in Europe are willing to contribute our share with European mining projects under high environmental and social standards and high technical requirements to meet the great additional demand for critical raw materials and thus ensure at least a little more independence of our industry from unpredictable third countries. We in the EPP are clearly saying yes to this. Raw material deposits are located in the earth where they are. We firmly believe that we can and must resolve conflicts of interest between nature conservation and economic activity with the help of our European rules, because the permanent outsourcing of responsibility abroad and the current constant blackmail and uncertainty about prices, shortages and supply chains are simply no longer an option. Our Green Deal must be firmly grounded in industrial, environmental, strategic and ethical terms. With our EPP amendments, we are making this report on raw materials an important contribution to this. Please agree with them!

Mr President, Commissioner! Important decisions need to be taken in Glasgow on binding CO2 reduction targets, financing and adaptation to climate change. But even more important than the mega-conferences every two years, in the EPP's view, it would be to make international climate protection a permanent issue and to appoint a climate commissioner with cabinet rank within the EU, who is constantly working with government representatives from the other 160 countries to bring climate protection forward. Because only if we create the coal phase-out, the expansion of renewable energies, energy efficiency and hydrogen all over the world and jointly operate civil protection, will we be able to stop global warming. The United States understood it. Yes, we also need a John Kerry, and no, a Vice-President Timmermans for climate policy is not enough, because, as we see, he has his hands full to move the Green Deal forward properly within the EU. With the new budget, we have set ourselves the target of spending 30% of our expenditure, for example in development policy and agricultural policy, on climate action. The taxonomy is also intended to channel financial flows sustainably. Here, there is an urgent need for someone who pays attention to coherence and efficiency. Otherwise, our efforts will fail. Otherwise, we may not become a role model in the world, and otherwise we may learn too little from our partners. So please: Let's look at good examples and finally better position the EU with a high-level climate officer in international climate policy.

Mr President, I fully subscribe to what my colleagues, Mr Ferber, Mr Pieper and Mr Arimont, have been saying regarding the effects of the revised state aid rules on SMEs. But, as the rapporteur for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) on the EU’s hydrogen strategy, I would like to comment on your proposal from a different, much more positive, angle. The draft guidelines are a big step forward because they support the uptake of renewable and low—carbon hydrogen in all types of activities and across the whole value chain, which is key to keep EU leadership and achieve scale—up in a synchronised manner. As additional food for thought, I would like to propose three ideas. First, it would be good to even better reflect the needed Operational Programme Innovation and Competitiveness (OPIC) support, which can go up to 90%. Second, it would be good to increase the percentages of aid intensities applicable outside of bidding processes to better take into account the different development of hydrogen infrastructures in Member States, and, third, facilitate cross-border renewable energy and hydrogen projects to bring down costs. I have more ideas, but my time is over. Please feel free to contact me.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Our discussions today in Parliament and among EU finance ministers show: Energy prices are extremely sensitive to both the population and industry. Affordable energy is part of the basic promise of the social market economy, and internationally competitive electricity prices for industry decide whether to continue producing in the EU or whether to relocate jobs and know-how abroad. We must therefore make every effort to make energy available reliably and at reliable prices. In order to tackle the current increase, EU Member States have the power to take action. Responsible Member States have also reacted – with tax cuts, tax cuts and also by issuing energy vouchers. The EU relies on the massive expansion of renewable energies, on storage capacities, on grid expansion, on green hydrogen and on energy efficiency. This is the right way to go in the medium and long term, because it leads us to more independence and stable prices. On the way there, however, we have to be careful with our instruments. Investors, businesses and governments need clear signals that investment in decarbonisation will continue to pay off, and our citizens need certainty that we are socially cushioning this transition. We must be measured against this.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Was and is the EU's commitment to supporting refugees in Turkey meaningful and successful, yes or no? My verdict is clear: Yes, it was and still is useful. EU funding stabilises the situation of refugees in Turkey and makes it possible to ensure different needs such as schooling, housing, healthcare, labour market integration and psychosocial care. EU funds go exclusively to civil aid organisations. In this way, we strengthen civil society vis-à-vis the authoritarian Turkish government and give it planning security. The EU Trust Fund as an instrument has expired with the establishment of the new financial instrument Europe in the world. Therefore, when programming this new instrument, we as Parliament must ensure that the needs for refugee care in Turkey are sufficiently covered and that, if necessary, we can respond quickly and flexibly to new needs. For the EPP Group, I agree with you that I will keep a close eye on this, including through the geopolitical dialogue. Because housing close to home offers the greatest chance of return that we all hope for the people affected.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner Urpilainen, who is unfortunately no longer here. Western troops have withdrawn from Afghanistan. The Taliban are back in power, and this is fundamentally changing the European Union's cooperation with Afghanistan. Afghanistan has been the country to which most development aid has gone. Now it is rightly suspended and only humanitarian aid is provided. But, of course, we must soon answer the question of whether and how we will continue with development aid in Afghanistan. I am in favour of linking development aid to Afghanistan to three clear conditions: Firstly: Security guarantees for foreign aid workers and their Afghan employees. Secondly: equal participation of women and girls. Thirdly: effective measures against corruption. Ladies and gentlemen, if we do not demand this in the talks with the Taliban government and do not comply with it in practice, then we are not only betraying our values, but we are helping the Taliban to establish that even more people want to flee, that Afghanistan can again be used more easily by Islamist terrorists as a retreat or even fall into their hands. So: We need European development cooperation for the Afghan people, but not for those in power. We need them as political levers in our talks with the Taliban and as stings in their flesh, but not as their stabilizers or even helpers. We must not give up the hope of an Afghanistan without oppression and poverty for the sake of Afghans who want to live in safety and dignity in their country.