Speeches

Mr President, high-quality seeds are fundamental in any agri-food, productive and competitive system. They offer higher yields, ensure plant health, provide resilience against pests and diseases and improve the efficiency of water and fertilizer use. This – we all know – is crucial for farmers regardless of the size of their holding or their geographical location. In Europe, more than 30% of crop yield loss is attributed to these pests and diseases. The vote scheduled for tomorrow on strengthening phytosanitary requirements for agriculture highlights the importance of plant health. However, the proposals that are being put forward reduce – in my opinion – the guarantees for farmers and reduce those very important controls. Leaving the door open with the excuse of biodiversity to unchecked and uncertified seeds is an unnecessary risk. I also take this opportunity to say from here that it has been a privilege to work in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and to meet so many good colleagues, such good professionals and extraordinary people. And, of course, they have represented a privilege and an honor to defend the interests of Spain's farmers and ranchers.

Mr President, since 4 March, the Polish Prime Minister has been calling for sanctions on agricultural imports from Russia and Belarus, with the aim of ‘unlocking the export capacities of Ukrainian agricultural products to third countries’. And that's what's important for Europe: maintain an efficient export route from Ukraine and avoid market disruptions, which are causing the amount of tonnes remaining in the Central European region without reaching its natural market in third countries. Europe must be concerned about maintaining Ukraine's grain exit corridor to these third countries, about their strategic importance and for global and regional food security. It is true that we criticize and condemn the entry of Russian cereal, but let us not forget to mention gas and oil.

Mr President, tomorrow in this Parliament we are going to vote on an agreement reached with the Council of the European Union on new legislation that will strengthen the protection of geographical indications. It shall also regulate the use of products with a designation of origin which are ingredients in other processed products. These changes are a significant step towards ensuring the authenticity and quality of European agricultural products, protecting the interests of producers and preserving the reputation of designations of origin on the market. As shadow rapporteur for this report, I can only be satisfied with the agreements and progress achieved because the final approval of this agreement will reflect, for once, the European Union's commitment to protecting its agricultural heritage and promoting internationally recognised quality products. I express my sincere congratulations to the rapporteur, Paolo De Castro, the other shadow rapporteurs and all those people who have helped to obtain this magnificent and wonderful news, finally, for the primary sector.

Madam President, new genomic techniques are a great opportunity for farmers to improve productivity and increase crop yields. They can reduce the need for pesticides and other chemical treatments, which not only helps reduce costs, but also reduces environmental impacts. The promising future that new genomic techniques have is not without challenges, and one of them is to ensure that they are not only in the hands of large biotechnology companies, but that we are able to make them reach most farmers. Ultimately, the development of these new genomic techniques and the adaptation of European regulations to differentiate them from traditional genetically modified organisms will not only result in immediate economic improvements for the farms that incorporate them, but will also pave the way for more sustainable and efficient agriculture in the long term.

Madam President, Commissioner, German farmers are collapsing with their tractors the traffic of cities because their government intends to take away their diesel subsidy. And these protests are going to spread, because the European primary sector can't stand it anymore and is fed up with the fact that in recent years the European Commission has legislated again and again against it. Sometimes under a salon environmentalism and sometimes under a green ideology that wants to limit production, freedom of what to produce and food sovereignty. A Commission that has not wanted to see, or does not want to see, that agreements with third countries are nothing but unfair competition that always harm the agricultural sector because it is the currency of exchange. And that's how it goes. And this situation of deterioration in the primary sector has also been reached because governments have not been able to defend these farmers and ranchers, being complicit in this deterioration. And the main problem of our rural people is not the lack of rain or the health of livestock, which also, the main problem is Brussels, the European Commission, which seems to have forgotten who it should always be defending. And, as one of the German farmers' banners says, "If no farmers, no food, no future."

Mr President, Commissioner, the amnesty law that President Pedro Sánchez wants to approve is a betrayal. Betrayal of the Spanish people, of the Commission, of the separation of powers, of the independence of the judiciary. In such a way that judges, when issuing sentences, if they are not to the liking of the Government, will be persecuted. And, in order to remain president of the Spanish Government, Mr Sánchez has not hesitated at all to align himself and agree with Spain's enemies. With the Catalan separatists who staged a coup d'état. And if this Law goes ahead, that crime will not only not exist, but they will persist in having their independence, which, by the way, we will pay for the rest. And also with the Basque separatists, heirs of a terrorist gang that took the lives of hundreds of Spaniards, including socialists, and who will now want to be an independent republic, also at our expense. Democracy in Spain is in danger, and the European Union has to learn – what the Spanish people have done – and realise that this law not only wants to destroy Spain, but will be a torpedo under Europe's waterline. And I guarantee you, don't hesitate for a moment.

Madam President, Commissioner, agricultural sustainability is crucial to ensuring our food sovereignty and the survival of farmers. And no one like them to protect the environment. But who protects them? Farmers are constantly facing economic difficulties and significant losses of their crops and we are constantly putting obstacles in their way, such as reducing plant protection products – which, however they do, are nothing more than medicines for plants – without taking into account that this reduction can pose serious problems for their production. And that's unreasonable. The sectarian behaviour of so-called environmentalists puts the economic survival of farmers and food security at risk. But the great paradox is that, at the same time, our borders are opened to productions from third countries that do not comply, by far, with what we demand of our producers. Should strategies be developed that promote sustainable practices? Of course I do. But without compromising the ability of farmers to maintain their livelihoods and the production of food necessary for society.

Mr President, Commissioner, the problem of generational renewal is a tremendous and terrible reality. The report by my colleague Isabel Carvalhais sets out the keys that have a direct bearing on this issue: lack of infrastructure, hospitals, schools and roads, access to land, the role of women in rural areas, the low level of digitalisation. To see this magnitude, in this problem that we are debating here today, allow me some data of what happens in my nation, Spain: 31 % of the farmers owning their holding are over 65 years of age; only 4% are under 35. About 70% of applications for credits to buy land are rejected and applicants are under 40 years of age. Abandoned areas exceed 2 million hectares. 98% of our farmers do not have complete agricultural training and 22% of family landowners are considering abandoning them. From the institutions we have the responsibility to provide solutions, but truly real solutions that are not difficult to implement or involve large investments or excessive bureaucracy for the agricultural sector. If this generational shift fails, the primary sector will have a very uncertain future and Europe's economy will suffer. I'll tell him.

Madam President, Commissioner, I was at the public hearing a few days ago in Parliament, in Brussels, and I have to say that it was a very biased debate, with only eleven MEPs present. From the outset, the fur industry could not be there, it was not invited, so it did not have the opportunity either to respond to these attacks, or to explain its arguments. And that is how we want to legislate in this House? I hope we can discuss the fur sector based on scientific evidence and data collected from fur farms. We need to stop listening to claims and perceptions that are not based on any scientific study, but on an ecological and animalistic ideological current. We need to make sure that those who set the rules do so also on a scientific and not just ideological basis, and listen to animal behavior experts. I recommend that you read the program on the animal welfare certificate "Welfair", developed by seven different European universities. This programme has evaluated all farms in Europe and collected data from more than 15,000 visits to these farms. These data should be analysed by independent scientists and should guide us in developing correct animal welfare legislation that also includes fur animals. And for what? Well, to ensure that in the future the furs produced in Europe follow the rules of that correct legislation that we all want. Because if we do not do so, that trade will not cease, and the furs will come from other countries, let us not have the slightest doubt. But under what conditions?

Mr President, glyphosate has been in operation for forty-nine years and, in all this time, there have been no contraindications to health or scientific reports that have shown it to be harmful. On the contrary, glyphosate has contributed, inter alia, to improving soil biodiversity, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing the need for ploughing and avoiding an increase in farmers’ production costs. And besides, it's cheap. In addition, it should be recalled that, without glyphosate, the production of vines in the European Union could decrease by up to 4.7 million tonnes and costs for the sector would increase by up to 4.2 billion euros. Wheat production in the European Union could decrease by up to 24 million tonnes and costs for the sector would increase by up to €10.5 billion. Can you imagine that drugs should be banned, regardless of their benefits, simply because they are not natural products? Therefore, it is not understood that, despite EFSA’s strong scientifically based conclusions on glyphosate, the Commission has allowed itself to be influenced by environmentalists and left the door open for the use of this herbicide, during the 10-year extension, to be reviewed at any time. Nonsense.

Mr President, it is to be welcomed that the European Commission, through Mrs von der Leyen, is launching an initiative to amend the European Union's wolf protection status, recognising that, and I quote, 'the concentrations of wolf packs have become a real problem for livestock and, potentially, for humans'. Look at you guys: in Spain, since 2021, wolves have been protected, having been included in the List of Wild Species under Special Protection Regime. And farmers are forbidden to defend themselves against these attacks. The wolf population in Spain has grown by 20% in the last ten years. Just one example: in the regions of Castile-Leon, Cantabria and Asturias, the number has increased from 400 to 2 000. And, if we talk about attacks on livestock, in 2021, in the region of Castilla y León, 4 256 heads were lost; by 19% more in 2022: 5 080. And, if we talk about losses, in 2022, in this same region, 2 million euros; and in 2023 it is expected to be just double: EUR 4 million. In high wolf-dense areas, extensive livestock farming is practically a miracle, and it is unsustainable. It is necessary to make a real population control. And for this we must start with an evaluation of this wolf population. A neutral, rigorous evaluation without spurious interests. So, in this way, we can have a reliable way of knowing if the population is increasing, decreasing or stable. Hence, we can make balanced management strategies. Because the current ones are of hyperprotection of the wolves, to the detriment of the farmers, and of scarce and late compensations for the loss of their animals. Let's not get confused: the wolves, in the reserves. Because those who have to be protected are the farmers.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, when we speak in this House of the Green Deal, everything is tinged with ideology, even in an imperative way, as when Mr Timmermans says that Europe will be green or it will not be. But let's talk about the facts: The JRC, the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission itself, issued a technical report in 2021. It was ready in January, but it didn't come out until August; It must be that they did not like the conclusions drawn in the report. This report talked about the Green Deal and the impact of the Farm to Fork Strategy, and this report noted, among other things, that there would be a huge increase in operating costs and that the profitability of farms would therefore be put at risk; that there would be a sharp decline in production and that farmers' incomes would therefore also follow that decline, and that this lack of production would lead to an indiscriminate increase in imports from third countries. And despite this devastating report, is the European Union really still thinking about the Green Deal? With a war that has turned agriculture upside down in Europe? Does the Commission not understand that it is time to achieve food sovereignty? Our future is to take care of the primary sector, not to attack it, and the law of restoration of nature will not take care of it, but quite the opposite.

Madam President, I still do not understand how, after three committees – Agriculture, Fisheries and the Environment – reject this law, it will still be voted on tomorrow. This law is nonsense and a danger to farmers and the fishing sector. All this, in addition, they intend to finance it with the funds of the common agricultural policy or the Maritime and Fisheries Fund, which would also lead our farmers and fishermen to a very drastic reduction in income. If food production is limited, what will Europe eat? Imports from third countries? And while trying to limit the spaces for crops and livestock, are the land for mills and photovoltaic mirrors being reclassified? Is this the ultimate goal of this folly? Tomorrow we must vote in defence of our private sector and fisheries. And forgive me for this paragraph that I'm going to include: The Socialists in Spain must see things badly in the face of the next general election, when their leader of the ranks has allowed himself the luxury of using this lectern to attack the Popular Party and Vox.

Mr President, this initiative, which is part of a large number of citizens of the different states, is calling on the Commission to protect and strengthen the ban on animal testing for the cosmetics industry, but it is also calling for the modernisation of science in the European Union, phasing out all animal testing before the end of the current legislature. From a scientific perspective, especially in relation to brain diseases and, in particular, Parkinson's disease, a total ban on the use of animals in biomedical research would be a mistake. Although considerable progress has been made using alternatives to these trials, most of what can be learned about the brain and its behavior continues to depend directly or indirectly on research in animal models. The elimination, even if progressive, of the use of animals in medical research would have very important negative consequences and would affect advances in improving the quality of life of the many patients of these brain and neurological conditions. We need to ensure that the ban on animal testing for cosmetics does not extend to medical research.

Mr President, Mrs Mortler, Commissioner, we all agree that ensuring food security must be a top priority. But some forget that those who provide this food security are our farmers and ranchers and, therefore, our main objective should be to help them and not to legislate against them. Of course I support Mrs Mortler's report, as we have done almost by majority in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, because it focuses on the main threats to our agricultural sector. Threats such as dependence on imports from third countries or the need to diversify the supply of fertilisers, feed and raw materials, which are critical for production. We must support our farmers and ensure the survival of farms, because the increase in the costs of agricultural inputs adds to already enormous production costs and endangers the profitability of farms. And, without profitability, there is no sustainability possible. We cannot continue to legislate non-stop and turn our backs on our primary sector, because if we continue like this, it may happen that when we turn around there will be no farmers capable of producing under these conditions.

Madam President, Commissioner, I still do not understand why the Commission is committed to proposing a reform that adds more bureaucracy to a perfectly functioning system of geographical indications that is very important for the agricultural sector. And as some of my colleagues have already heard me say, I always say that, if something works, it is not touched. The possible handover of the management of these EU schemes to the European Union Intellectual Property Office, the famous EUIPO, is not a good idea. It must be and must be DG AGRI, which is well aware of the products and the agricultural reality, which must remain the valid interlocutor for these geographical indications. The Commission fills its mouth talking about sustainability, but I would like to remind you that, without cost-effectiveness, there can be no such sustainability. And that need not be reminded to the producers, most of whom are small and medium-sized enterprises, who know very well what this means, because, otherwise, they should close. The report by my colleague Paolo De Castro has faithfully taken up the concerns of all the members of this working group of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and corrects the Commission document which, as usual, departs from the reality of the countryside and farmers. I would also like to thank the rest of my colleagues for their willingness and for having reached a point on which we all agree.

Madam President, Commissioner, it is true that the corridor that has been enabled to take grain out of Ukraine has caused a huge movement of these grains in the neighbouring countries. That is why the European Union, having fallen prices brutally in those neighbouring countries, has given EUR 100 million in aid to those countries. We are talking about Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia. That's all very well. But what about the countries that are the final destination of these massive grain exports from Ukraine? According to the United Nations, the second country after China that has received the most grain through these corridors is mine, is Spain: 4.8 million tonnes. It is followed by Turkey with 2.9 and Italy with 1.95. And this entry of those 4.8 million tons has caused the prices of Spanish cereal products to fall by 28% since the summer of 2022, despite the enormous drought that my country suffers. We can and must stand in solidarity with Ukraine, but who is with my Spanish farmers? How long will the Commission look the other way?

Mr President, no, it is not true that the wolf is an endangered animal. In Europe, this year alone, 21,500 copies have been counted. But what is true is that farmers are unprotected and are being ruined by these attacks that do not stop. Therefore, they demand protection, more fair compensation, covering both direct and indirect damage, and, of course, a more exhaustive population control of the wolf. Either we protect our farmers or they will not be able to continue with their farms. Of course we know that this conflict is a social conflict. But you know what? The cattle have to be safe, the wolves, in the reserves, so that the farmers can be calm and can continue with their farms. And let me insist. The wolf is not in danger of extinction, but, as we go, the farmers are.

Mr President, because I am very concerned about the Commission's new forestry strategy, and I am concerned because it lacks an understanding of the broad role played by forests and the forestry sector and because, in addition to ignoring the competence of the Member States in this regard, it reduces the role of forests mainly to environmental considerations, forgetting the very important socio-economic aspects. According to the Treaties of the European Union, the responsibility for forests lies with the Member States, and all initiatives relating to forests must respect the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality and therefore the competences of the Member States in this field. No matter how hard you try, there is no single European forest: There is a French forest, an Italian forest, a Finnish forest, a Swedish forest... In short, there is a great diversity. The Commission, in seeking to introduce a single forest strategy for the whole European Union and not taking into account regional differences, does not understand that forests in the European Union have different ages and therefore different levels of biodiversity. The European Commission, and also the European Parliament, in small steps, of course, invade the rights of the Member States. The measures adopted by the Union must be proportionate and limited, that is the meaning of the Treaty: We are not a federation. The European Union should merely lead the way at a very general level by leaving the decision on what to do to the Member States.

Madam President, Commissioner, I agree with Mrs Schmiedtbauer when she sets out in her report the reality of the situation of organic production and points out that the measures and instruments proposed by the Commission must be based on impact assessment and in-depth analyses, giving priority, of course, to the scientific basis over political ambition. Because when the Commission says that, for this action plan on organic production, the basis is the European Green Deal and the Farm to Fork strategy, it is wrong. The basis, in my view, for the reasonable development of this plan of action is common sense. And common sense tells us that in order to advance the European food system we must prioritise the profitability of agricultural production and therefore a fair life for farmers. So I firmly believe that organic farming can coexist with traditional farming without the need for us to impose quotas or targets that strangle the profitability and survival of our farms and our farmers. Thank you very much, Mrs Schmiedtbauer, it was a splendid report.

Madam President, Commissioner, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has revealed the huge shortages in European agricultural production to ensure the supply of much-needed products not only for people, but also for livestock. Rising commodity prices are hurting our farmers, who see their production costs skyrocket. And, to all this, the crisis has been aggravated by the immense drought in countries such as Portugal, Spain, Italy or France. We have learned today about the measures taken by the Commission, some of them temporarily, such as the use of fallow land. But what the Commission really should have done was to paralyse and amend the Farm to Fork and Biodiversity Strategies in the face of this crisis before us. Because what cannot be temporary is that Europe's agriculture depends on energy or feed imports. Our farmers know how to do their jobs very well. Let them do it. There is enough land to avoid such extreme dependence. Let's put them to work, let's take advantage of this opportunity to be self-sufficient. Food security is a priority; But the most urgent thing, ladies and gentlemen, the most urgent thing at the moment is supply, and for this it is essential to increase the area of land in production.

Mr President, Commissioner, good morning to you all. If all the omens are fulfilled, the worst fears that the European rural environment in general and the Spanish in particular have will be fostered. That is to say, the change of a professional agricultural model that will turn farmers into mere gardeners subject to the interests of the offices in Brussels will be implemented. I will be critical of the Strategic Plans Regulation: 40% of the CAP budget is going to be dedicated to environmental and climate issues, marginalising other needs of the sector, and our farmers cannot be expected to make a green CAP when they are in the red. Production costs have been able to increase and even triple in some cases. The bureaucracy continues to grow like a weed and takes us away from the simplification we were looking for and aspired to at the beginning of this process. In light of all this, what message are we sending to our farmers – by the way, our other heroes in this pandemic? For none, none that gives them a minimum of hope or that provides solutions, instruments for agriculture to be profitable or against the rural exodus. This CAP has plenty of ideology and lacks agriculture.

Madam President, a strategy is defined as a series of very thoughtful actions aimed at a certain end. In the case of the Strategy at hand; These thoughtful actions are nowhere to be seen. Moreover, I would stress that this is an unprecedented exercise in improvisation in Community legislation which can have very negative consequences in a strategic sector such as food. Commissioner, we are legislating on the future of millions of farmers without a clear idea of the consequences that this can have. I would say it's like a sophisticated type of Russian roulette that we're exposing to the sector. Many reports point to weaknesses in this strategy. Some were unsuccessfully concealed - as my colleague, Mr Dorfmann, has already said - and, of course, they have achieved the opposite effect to what was undoubtedly sought. Today we are all aware that the transformation of the agri-food model posed by the Commission poses more threats than opportunities. Experts point out that in the short and medium term there will be an increase in costs, a reduction in production and an increase in the price of food. Over the last year many farmers have told us that eating is not a game and have lamented the lack of plant protection products. They denounced the hypocrisy of a trade policy that encourages imports from third countries and called for a fairer and more bearable transition. It is our duty to listen to them and to provide ideas so that the Commission's legislative proposals are realistic and do not sacrifice the socio-economic fabric of our rural areas. If we are wrong, if we are wrong now, we will never be able to stop the rural exodus and we will condemn our peoples to abandonment.

Mr President, Commissioner, there are many expectations set at the United Nations Food Systems Summit, but if I am honest, I have very few, and in a minute I will try to explain it. Firstly, because the European Union, despite being the world's leading exporter and importer of food, has recently shown that it lacks a real strategy to guarantee the principle of food safety. I know we have the Green Deal, the Farm to Fork Strategy, the Biodiversity Strategy, but the Commission scientists in the JRC report clearly warn that these policies are going to increase food insecurity and exodus in many rural areas of the European Union because of higher costs and lower prices for the producer. And I wonder: How will the European Union ensure food security if, at the same time, it is on its way to becoming a museum of agriculture? Globally, we discuss the same topics every year. We have a responsibility in what is happening. The trade concessions of the European Union to Morocco have not only sunk part of our sector, but have encouraged our Moroccan neighbour to abandon productions that are key to feeding its people and to focus on producing, in areas of the north of the country, products of high added value for export and for the benefit of only a few. And this is just one example. Let us not fight for European responsibility in the climate fight, but for the unreasonableness of our trade policy, which has pernicious effects outside and within our borders. And I, from here, call on the United Nations Summit not only to praise the supposed benefits of agroecology, but to take seriously the new pests and diseases and bet on innovation in agriculture through all the tools offered by biotechnology.