Debate contributions by Christine SCHNEIDER

Mr President, Commissioner! The agreement at COP 16 is an important signal, especially in times of global uncertainty. Two points are particularly important to me. Firstly: International cooperation works. Rome has shown this, even if the world situation is characterized by conflicts and tensions. And we can only solve the challenges in environmental policy together. And that is why we should do everything we can to take as many states as possible along our way. And I wish, yes, I call in particular on the United States to return to the negotiating table. Secondly: Implementation must not come at the expense of our competitiveness. Especially in geopolitically difficult times, Europe needs an environmental policy that protects biodiversity and at the same time maintains our economic strength. We must not leave those affected by this policy behind on the way, otherwise they will turn away from the whole goal. And what would happen if we no longer fought for ambitious climate protection on the international stage? That's why sometimes it's better to take a step slower and reach the goal than to start rushed and fail in the end. Europe can be a key pillar for achieving our global climate and biodiversity goals and thus also a role model for others. But only if we actively involve international partners and motivate them to cooperate. And in the end, this will only succeed if we maintain our economic strength along the way.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Desertification is a global challenge and Europe is increasingly affected. Our food security, which we took for granted for a long time, is under threat. A solution can only be found with and not against our farmers. What happens when we decide over their heads has been shown in recent years. In the meantime, peasant protests have become everyday life in front of this house. Hence my urgent appeal: Involve the profession from the outset, especially in the announced Water resilience strategy. I would like to highlight three aspects: First of all, we need intelligent water management. Let's use artificial intelligence to efficiently distribute water resources. Let's focus on the reuse of grey water and wastewater, and expand water-saving infrastructure. In this way, we can use water sustainably between regions and sectors. Secondly: drought-resistant seeds. It is essential to ensure yields even under extreme climatic conditions. To this end, we need new breeding technologies and the blockade in the Council must be ended. Thirdly: Innovative irrigation solutions, droplet and precision irrigation use sensor data, use water in a targeted manner and thus avoid losses. We need to promote these technologies more strongly in order to make our agriculture even more efficient and sustainable. In a nutshell: If we want food security, we need new technologies and innovative solutions in close cooperation with our international partners, with our farmers, but also with us consumers.

Mr President! Commissioner! The costs increase, but the revenues do not. Instead of balanced reporting, we only talk about pollution and destruction of nature. It rains, and the field is not passable, the harvest: there. Your child is bullied and hostile as a farmer's child at school. Unfortunately, this is often the reality of farmers, for many years. It is therefore no wonder that the suicide rate of farmers in the Member States is 20% higher than the national average. Agriculture is also one of the four sectors with the highest rate of fatal accidents in the European Union. In 2022, 389 EU farmers died at work. In order to avert further personal suffering, we must finally be honest with the burden and pressure on the people in agriculture. We must take responsibility towards the profession and inform about the risks and take protective measures at an early stage. Mental health needs to get out of the taboo zone, and more counselling and therapy services need to be created, especially in rural areas. We need an honest dialogue to enable farmers to live a good and healthy life.

Mr President! Ladies and Gentlemen, The Green Deal is a decisive step for the future of the European Union. Our goal of achieving climate neutrality by 2050 must not be called into question. This is our promise to the next generation: a climate-neutral Europe that ensures prosperity and competitiveness. At the same time, it is right to carefully examine the forward-looking path we want to take towards success. A central role is played by legal impact assessments, which must take into account not only environmental but also economic effects and competitiveness. This is the only way to determine whether the measures actually contribute to the achievement of the objectives and what burdens, such as costs and documentation obligations, are placed on companies. Unfortunately, in the past, impact assessments were often inadequate and the influence of green NGOs was too great. That has to change in this legislature. Too much bureaucracy jeopardizes the implementation of the Green Deal. Excessive reporting and documentation obligations overwhelm our companies, which means they lack the time and energy to innovate and grow sustainably. We need to strike the right balance between protecting the environment and a strong economy. Because it can only be done together.

Mr President! Rules are meant to provide guidance, but too many rules only create a jungle to get lost in, and a fitting example of unnecessary requirements is the law on deforestation-free supply chains. The aim of the law is to combat illegal deforestation, but with a jungle of regulations and documentation, it completely overshoots the target and puts jobs at risk. I choose this example consciously because we are currently discussing this law. Because those who need to implement it share the goal of advancing forest protection and strengthening forest protection, but they despair of implementing it; These are, for example, the coffee farmers in our developing countries, but it is also the baker and furniture retailer around the corner. And they don't because they don't want to protect our environment or clear forests. No, on the contrary, the protection of nature and forests is very, very important to them. But they do it because the jungle of regulations and reporting requirements is pushing their operations to the brink of resilience, and many are risking access to the European market because they cannot meet the requirements. Do you see in this example what causes too much bureaucracy? A law with the right objectives is losing acceptance and, in the end, everyone – businesses, jobs, but also the environment – is losing out. And that's what we need to do better in the future. Let's create an environment in which we promote innovation, secure jobs and at the same time enable the protection of nature!

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. Almost exactly one year ago, farmers stood here in front of the European Parliament for the first time. They have clearly given us the message that they want to be heard, that they want to have a discussion when it comes to decisions that affect them, that they want people to talk to them and no longer talk about them. It is therefore good that there is now a report on the strategic dialogue on the future of agriculture; It is in the nature of things that they are interpreted differently. But what is important is that the report concludes that our farmers need a better position in the food value chain and that we also need to properly shape generational renewal. Because we consumers, we decide with our purchase decision what the agriculture of the future looks like. It is not our job as politicians to tell consumers how to feed themselves. Our task is to provide appropriate nutrition education so that they can make an independent and responsible decision. That is why we must take a close look at the decisions we will make in the future in the field of consumers, but also in agriculture, the future of agriculture.