Speeches

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, The pollution of our freshwater resources by industrial, chemical, pharmaceutical, cosmetic and agricultural inputs is worrying. Municipal wastewater is one of these sources, with micropollutants from residues of pharmaceuticals and cosmetics being a major problem. The revision of the 30-year-old directive is overdue. New goals need to be defined and challenges adapted to our time. If we now adopt a position of Parliament, it is also important to emphasise that it cannot be that some Member States are still reluctant to comply with the old requirements. I welcome the extended producer responsibility, which could and should be even stricter. This would create a necessary incentive to be more careful with our resources and raw materials and to avoid contamination.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, The current discussion about the prolongation of glyphosate justifiably heats up the minds once again. The citizens’ initiative ‘Stop glyphosate’ managed to collect over 1.3 million signatures from the then 28 Member States in less than five months in 2017. The EFSA website states that the assessment of the effects of glyphosate on human, animal and environmental health identified ‘no critical areas of concern’. The EU Environment Agency published that 20% of cancers in Europe are caused by environmental toxins - a number that is worrying, a number that for me cannot be defined as ‘no critical problem areas’. Taking into account the existing data on the precautionary principle, the many voices of European citizens' initiatives for sustainable agriculture, which have been very successful, and our common European objectives - "Farm to Fork", The Commission's Biodiversity Strategy and Pesticide Reduction Target clearly reject prolongation of glyphosate. People want healthy food without residues of disease-causing pesticides. In any case, more funding is needed for research into effective, sustainable and ecological pesticide alternatives. We lose far too much time in which nothing or clearly too little happens here. The point is that we can offer meaningful alternatives to agriculture. This requires a joint effort.

Madam President, Commissioner! The increasing challenges of climate change and pollution from industrial, chemical, pharmaceutical and agricultural activities are truly worrying. I assume that you will agree with me that both our groundwater and surface waters need to be better protected, and this report is also tackling this. The report before the vote supports these challenges and also supports the Commission's objective of the Zero Pollution Action Plan. I very much welcome the fact that we are also addressing the large group of so-called perpetual chemicals, the PFAS. In doing so, we are also sending an important signal regarding the upcoming revision of the REACH Regulation. I am also very satisfied that we are tightening limit values for certain pollutants, such as glyphosate, in view of the upcoming discussion on glyphosate extension in this House. In the coming months, it is also an important sign that we are setting clear and strict standards. In any case, we need a European research strategy for real, effective, ecological and sustainable alternatives to the environmental toxins used so far.

Mr President, Commissioner! The results of the negotiations on the Fit-for-55 dossiers, which are due to be voted on this week, bring us a bit closer to a climate-neutral Europe by 2050. We can be satisfied with the outcome of the negotiations, even if I personally would have liked a more progressive outcome on one point or another. In the reform of emissions trading, we have achieved the inclusion of additional sectors and the gradual dismantling of the supply of free allowances. We create the necessary incentives for companies to invest in climate-friendly technologies. Because practice has shown us in the past that the deletion of such free certificates invests more in innovation and research and that the idea of savings and sustainability also drive the necessary implementation better and faster in industry. After all, it is also about a strong and competitive European industry and real and very efficient climate protection with common sense.

Mr President! The now banned CFC is certainly still a term for many. It has been banned in the EU since 1995. Here, the ban has shown very impressively that this is the most effective way to advance research and innovation for real alternatives. F-gases can be found in air conditioning systems, heat pumps, switchgear or as propellant in asthma sprays. But they have a particularly high global warming potential. At the same time, they can be avoided relatively well in almost all fields of application. The EU has therefore already taken an important step in 2014 with the F-gas Regulation. And it is now a matter of reinforcing the present report and bringing our claims to the level of time. I understand that any change leads to uncertainty at first. However, we rely on European know-how and we want to strengthen research and innovation here. Our main concern is to promote and support European companies, which is why we need a sense of proportion and planning certainty. This is certainly the case here in this report. As a result, we have also collected some safety nets. What we certainly do not want are expensive interim solutions that can be used for a short time and the greater use of other chemically toxic substances - we certainly do not want that.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Pesticides are partly responsible for the decline in biodiversity and thus also for bee mortality. This is more than scientifically proven. Unfortunately, when it comes to a real reduction of conventional environmental toxins, many leave the courage, and it often remains only in symbolic politics. However, this is clearly not enough in view of the dramatic situation. The title of the highly successful citizens' initiative is: "Save bees and farmers". This is precisely why we need real, effective and ecological alternatives to the pesticides used so far. This requires a research strategy at all levels in the Member States and in Europe. Agriculture relies on the best sustainable alternatives to ensure the security of supply of our food production and biodiversity across Europe. This requires a bold policy and the massive acceleration of research for real ecological pesticide alternatives.

Dear Mr President, Commissioner! We are once again experiencing a very emotional debate about the return of the wolf to our habitat. What I really criticize, however, is the way in which a debate has been raised by some political forces in recent years, which has acted and worked in the first place with fears, detached from facts and without concrete proposals for action and solutions. In the end, it just hangs: The wolf is a great danger for humans and animals. As a Member of Parliament, I have already criticised this in relation to a regional Parliament, and I am doing so here today. And yes, if there are problem animals, then one must also proceed consistently. It is perfectly clear that we must support grazing and alms farming in this great challenge – for our landscape, for our ecosystem – and that freedom of movement in nature must continue to exist. Agriculture needs all forms of support, including financial support. We have enough funds and programs to make this possible and even to distribute additional funds. This resolution, supported by six political groups, is a good example of a factual and good resolution, and I therefore ask that it be supported and that any further amendments be rejected.

Mr President, Commissioner! The biggest problem for our prosperity and cohesion in Europe is dependence on imports. We see this in many areas: energy supply, the problems of global supply chains, but also in the agricultural sector. Russia, which has already been mentioned, is the world’s largest exporter of fertilisers. Up to 60% of fertilisers used in the EU come from Russia or Belarus. We all know about the burdens on farms. The price of keeping the problem of products does not stop there either. And it must be a joint effort of all of us that we intervene here in support. After all, it is about supplying citizens with food, but also about the existence of many businesses. So far as the current situation is concerned, and I think we all agree here. On the other hand, it is a fact that the reckless use of pesticides and fertilisers entails a massive pollution of our soils, our water and our air. And as shadow rapporteur in the Environment Committee on the regulation on the reduction of methane gas emissions, it should be mentioned that the unnecessary use of synthetic fertilisers and mineral fertilisers also leads to an increase in methane emissions. We can, of course, continue as before, but it's really about changing things here. We need to move forward faster with the self-imposed goals we have, 50% fewer pesticides and 20% fewer fertilisers. It has been proven that pesticide use and over-fertilisation cause problems here in the soil in the area of nutrient supply and also in soil fertility. Therefore, a profound change is needed. We have certainly missed an opportunity in the common agricultural policy. Because that we have given up the obligation to grow legumes in crop rotation, we can certainly call it a mistake today. That's why we use this challenge as an opportunity to drive change!

Madam President, Commissioner! The coronavirus pandemic has shown that nation states are completely irresponsible in such a situation. They do not make sense in normal times, but a common crisis requires more solidarity and cooperation. However, it has also been shown that the European Union clearly has too few competences in this area. People have looked to Brussels for answers and solutions, but Europe has had too little room for action, and we need to change that. We will now take steps with these regulations to better prepare for and respond to future pandemics. We will also invest in research and development, reduce our dependencies and facilitate joint procurement. And one thing is very, very important to me personally, and that is where we must also get there, namely to strong public health systems in Europe. They are the central anchor for people in times of crisis, and this must also be linked to a real precautionary thinking in the health sector.

Madam President, Commissioner! For more than 40 years, the Environmental Action Programmes have defined European environmental and climate policy. The proposal for the now-negotiated Eighth Environmental Action Programme was presented by the Commission in 2020, a year in which we were in the midst of the pandemic. The current vote now strikes us at a time of great geopolitical crisis. We have war in Europe, and security of supply in some areas of our lives no longer seems to be 100% guaranteed. This leads to sharp price increases in the energy sector, in other products for daily use and in food. As at the beginning of the pandemic, there are voices again that we have to sacrifice ecological focus in the current situation. The argument is that this is the only way to ensure the economic viability and survival of our industry. But if the livelihoods of millions of people are destroyed, for example by rising sea levels and devastating droughts, social conflicts and migratory flows will be the result. Climate change also poses security problems. Reducing reliance on fossil fuels and promoting and greening industry and sustainable food production must be at the heart of our joint policy action. Ladies and gentlemen, we are on the right track.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen. Batteries are a key technology for the energy transition in Europe. They are essential for sustainable mobility and for the storage of energy from renewable sources and are also an integral part of our daily lives. It is estimated that the total volume of industrial batteries, including those for e-bikes and electric vehicles, will increase from the current 0.7 million tonnes to almost 4.4 million tonnes in 2035. I am very pleased with this report, as many important issues have been re-regulated along the entire life cycle of batteries, and not just along the supply chain, but along the entire value chain. We are setting new standards for clean batteries. For the first time, batteries must meet minimum requirements for sustainable and socially responsible extraction of raw materials. Consumer rights are also being massively strengthened. Products with everyday relevance should also be covered by the new regulations. These include, in particular, products with built-in batteries such as mobile phones or tablets. These batteries must be replaceable in the future to extend the life of products. In this sense, I trust in your support so that this report is not diluted in the vote.

Dear Mr President, The objectives of the new common agricultural policy would have been very, very important for all of us, as the largest budget item of the European Union, to ensure that the CAP makes a decisive contribution to combating climate change and ensures greater sustainability and biodiversity, that we in Europe become more independent from food imports and that regional development and regionality are strengthened. We would have needed a systemic change in our food production, with more organic production and far less pesticide use, as well as more animal welfare. Unfortunately, this common agricultural policy is a collection of opportunities. The Parliament's draft, which could have been more ambitious anyway, has been consistently softened and watered down by the Member States. Too bad, because you could have really shifted a lot in a positive direction here.

Mr President, dear Commissioner! The loss of biodiversity and climate change are unfortunately clearly documented, as well as the constant contamination of our water and soils by environmental toxins such as pesticides. As European leaders, we must consistently reduce the risks to our health and our ecosystems. We also received this mandate from so many voters in the last European elections. Unfortunately, in the current negotiations on agricultural policy, we have seen that certain areas do not want to contribute – a thinking of the past that I think is wrong. However, this Parliament is still ambitious and progressive, and I therefore welcome this Eighth Environment Action Programme, which aims to: Green Deal build up. And I also welcome the fact that we rely on measurability and comprehensibility. Because we can't improve what we can't measure and what we can't constantly measure and check. This is the honest way for the future, and it will pay off.