Speeches

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.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Geographical indications – they are a success story. They have been protecting our traditional specialities in Europe for over 30 years – and that's a good thing! But unfortunately, the Commission and some regular parliamentarians threatened to exaggerate the report massively. They wanted to introduce mandatory indications of origin for ingredients that did not come from the production area. This would have created a bureaucratic monster. Then we would probably need a leaflet in the future, for example for our Nuremberg gingerbread. Because almonds, which is a main ingredient of gingerbread, do not grow in Nuremberg. In the end, however, we were able to prevent the leaflet and instead find compromises that are practical. But it shows what catastrophic effects supposedly well-intentioned laws can have. We have to stop losing ourselves in the small. This is the only way to protect our unique products and their producers in our home regions in the future.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, While we are discussing here in the hemicycle, farmers are standing outside the parliament and protesting. I can understand them very well, because political goals are always set, but these goals are to be implemented exclusively through prohibitions and conditions. We rarely focus on innovation and technology in the discussions, but it is precisely with this bill that we are trying to close the technology gap, we are trying to give farmers hand tools to achieve the goals. And honestly – new breeding technologies: It's nothing else that breeds have been doing for hundreds of years in the classical sense. And it is also nothing else that happens uncontrollably in parts in the great outdoors. We want to increase yields, but we also want to protect resources, which means reducing the use of plant protection products and fertilisers. At the same time, we take into account the concerns of organic farms by labelling the seeds. We have the right solutions for the challenges of the future with innovation and not with fear-mongering as you operate it.

Mr President, Commissioner! For me, the discussion about glyphosate today is a perfect example of what is wrong with us, partly in society, but also here in the political house. Almost every discussion when it comes to plant protection products is conducted emotionally. Facts play less and less a role, but instead some doomsday scenarios spread here again, should the approval of glyphosate be extended. That is why I would like to briefly recapitulate what this is about. Glyphosate is a plant protection product that allows our farmers to ensure food security. The use of glyphosate is already subject to strict regulations. In protected areas, glyphosate must not be applied at all. We've never had better data than we do now. And our independent scientists from EFSA even recommend an extended authorisation. Without the use of glyphosate, drastic crop losses are looming, especially now that food affordability is becoming a growing problem for many people. That is why I ask all those involved: Stop this fear-mongering and let's return to a fact-based discussion. Of course, we have to work on working alternatives. But it is only when these are available that we can discuss further steps. Therefore, we should advocate for an extended restricted approval of glyphosate.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. Prostitution is not a profession like any other – exit is the goal. I can only subscribe to this quote from our Commission President. As political leaders, but also as a society as a whole, we must not turn a blind eye to the suffering that people experience through prostitution. That is why we must give a voice to all those affected, especially girls and women. They need our protection. And that's why I support the Nordic model. It decriminalises prostitutes and holds accountable those who make prostitution possible through their actions and thus actively support sexual exploitation, human trafficking and organised crime. My goal as shadow rapporteur in the EPP Group is that we do everything we can to reduce demand and provide real exit aid and concrete alternatives for prostitutes. I hope that the Member States will do everything they can to get prostitutes out of their inhuman situation. We must not abandon the women who have resigned and the many children who are forced into prostitution. We have heard many reports from survivors, and they must be a reminder to us that we must not let go of this issue. I would like to express my sincere thanks to our rapporteur, Maria Noichl. She did not have easy negotiations on an issue that affects us all very much. Thank you very much for the work and the collegial cooperation.

If it is falsely claimed, I would like to make it clear again here: We as the EPP stand by the objectives of the Green Deal, and yes, we want the Montreal Agreement to be implemented worldwide. We agree on the goal, but not on the path. There are completely different ideas and the Commission's proposal is heading in exactly the wrong direction. The protection of biodiversity can only work hand in hand with the population, not by unilaterally blaming farmers, foresters and fishermen for the loss of species, not by taking more and more land out of production and thus endangering food security and affordability, not by pitting nature conservation and sustainable management against each other. To date, the Commission has not provided reliable, sustainable, complete data, even though we have been promised it for a year. The financing of the measures and the impact on the Member States are also unclear, and it is completely unclear how the Nature Restoration Regulation will be aligned with the already existing 23 EU regulations that already protect our nature. One could get the impression that the Commission has strayed along the way. By stubbornly sticking to a badly made proposal, the Commission has wasted unnecessarily valuable time and support is not gained by putting pressure on individual MEPs. As a result, Vice-President Timmermans has divided Parliament. Three committees have already rejected the Commission's draft, and tomorrow there will still be a fight vote here in Parliament. Let me therefore conclude by stressing once again: We as the EPP Group stand by the Green Deal. But the law is badly done, and it is up to us, as Members of Parliament, to name it. In the end, that also means voting against it. Our demand remains unchanged: Make a new, better proposal. Again, take such a path that there is a broad majority here.

Mr President, Commissioner! We agree on the goal: We want strong agriculture and forestry, yes, and we want resilient agriculture. We want long-term food security, but yes, we also want short-term food security, because if we only focus on long-term food security, our farms will no longer be here. And those who are no longer here cannot ensure the food security of the future. This is the first difference. We want to meet the objectives of the Green Deal. Agriculture wants to reduce 50% of pesticides, and yes, we want to preserve biodiversity. We agree on the goal, but not on the path. Agriculture – it is part of the solution. I say it very clearly, Commissioner McGuinness: If you had written the proposals, I think we would have a good basis for discussion. But the Commission's proposals on the nature conservation package divide this Parliament because they do not provide answers to our questions on how to proceed with the expansion of renewable energies. That's the problem. The problem is in the Commission's proposal.

Madam President, On behalf of the EPP Group, I would like to change the proposed title of the ECR for the debate. As an EPP Group, we request the following title: . We as the EPP Group do not support individual actions against certain Member States. A one-sided focus on a particular Member State, as in the case of the Netherlands, is disproportionate and ineffective. Nature conservation policy must ensure that food safety and the development of renewable energies and energy security are maintained in all Member States. And this is precisely what the Commission is currently putting at risk through its proposals in the EU Nature Conservation Package with the Nature Restoration Act and the Regulation on the sustainable use of plant protection products. We request that the vote be taken by roll call.

Madam Vice-President, Commissioner! Almost one in four women in the European Union is affected by poverty. Poverty means more than material deprivation. Poverty also means social exclusion and social isolation. We must effectively tackle the root causes of poverty and social exclusion. We must finally overcome the structural gap between men and women in the economy, in the gender pay and pension gap. And we need to create synergies between social policies in the Member States to promote gender equality, employment and education. Unfortunately, there is no solution according to the motto One size fits all. The problem is far too complex for this. The work of women must be rewarded, even if it is not done in a traditional employment relationship or in the informal economy. We need to encourage women to balance family life and their careers. Most female graduates in the EU are women, but they are under-represented in the labour market. And despite their higher qualifications, women are more likely to work part-time, especially for women with children. We need to promote the opportunities of education and training, including the digital revolution and the promotion of STEM professions among girls and women. This includes female entrepreneurship. Finally, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her work and for the truly fair and constructive exchange.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, No one thinks directly of women in the common agricultural policy, but women play a crucial role. This role is often ignored, let alone honored. Women make a very, very important contribution. I would even go so far as to say: Women are the backbone of our family-run farms in rural areas. It is our rural women who have been fighting for many years for our agricultural products to be valued more. We need to recognise better their work in the field of nutrition education, the education of our children, village coexistence and even further education. That is why it is important that we continue to strengthen and perpetuate farmer support. But we should also focus on the female junior staff. We need them for our farms, we need them for food security and for securing the future of our rural areas. In doing so, women will make a decisive contribution to leading our agriculture into a successful future.

Madam President, Commissioner! Over the last few months, in the Committee on the Environment and Agriculture, we have taken a close look at the proposal for the Farm to Fork Strategy and put together a compromise package that paints a picture of how we envisage the European food supply in the future. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs for their work. I can say: Yes, we are facing a Herculean task in achieving the objectives of the Farm to Fork Strategy. We only achieve these goals together with consumers. Ultimately, they play a key role, because with our purchasing and consumption behaviour, we shape our food production in Europe. However, we can only live up to this responsibility if we know how to eat a healthy, balanced and sustainable diet. That's why we need consumer education and education, starting at daycare. They are essential for a healthy lifestyle. But we also need good information so that we can assess whether we are eating a healthy and safe diet. This includes a set of mandatory information. I have also proposed the introduction of a QR code, which allows us to receive additional voluntary information. The Farm to Fork Strategy provides incentives and is not a banning strategy. We send a clear message to our consumers. Ultimately, they decide on the change in sustainability. It also offers a great opportunity for our agriculture. However, legal impact assessments are essential for this. They are a necessary confidence-building measure. Commissioner, Vice-President Timmermans has lost all confidence in this. With the withholding and non-publishing of the study, all the confidence of farmers, but also of many of us here in Parliament, has been destroyed. We need the information, and the reluctance was a failure and destroyed much, much here in Parliament.