Speeches

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, what is an environmental label? It is really a question of a producer being able to show the consumer that he is making efforts to be more virtuous in his practices. The label generates value for businesses, processors and farmers. It is therefore important to have more structured legislation to protect citizens and producers from any greenwashing, which would blur the cards and make labels known for their seriousness lose their value. Be careful, however, not to set up a gas plant: this text should be an opportunity to allow farmers to see their efforts rewarded, especially if they are committed to an environmental approach, for example through the CAP eco-schemes. In this sense, I believe that there is still room for improvement in this text, particularly as regards the recognition of carbon credits. Yes, farmers must have the possibility to communicate about this without any administrative burden. I hope that tomorrow's vote and the trilogue will give us the opportunity to make these improvements.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, finally, good news for the agricultural world is really what this reform of geographical indications represents! Because, yes, geographical indications are a success, a success of the European Union which shows that by promoting the indication of origin as a sign of quality, Europe can strengthen local production essential for the development of territories. And since their creation, they have continued to grow on the continent and to the conquest of European and international consumers. Europeans are proud to be able to consume authentic products from European regions. There are more than 700 appellations in France, more than 3,500 in Europe, which generate 65 billion value for our territories and for our jobs. These are products that are exported, valued, appreciated around the world, and that many would like to reproduce as they please. However, geographical indications are the fruit of a land and know-how that is often old and cannot be reproduced as a mark. And that is why we fought here in the European Parliament for the European Intellectual Property Agency not to review itself and not to be responsible for the specifications, because GIs are not trademarks. They're very different. This is why the European Commission must remain competent in this area. On the wine-growing issue, we have managed to maintain consistency between the wine-growing policy in the common agricultural policy and the rules on geographical indications. This is essential to ensure consistency. Finally, I would add that with this text, our indications will be better protected, because here too, there is a real challenge if we want to keep this value creation in our territories. It is a text that makes it possible to consolidate, clarify, simplify and make greater use of our specific features.

Mrs García Muñoz, you are right: in this debate and in this agricultural crisis, there are now national responsibilities and European responsibilities. It is true that, in France, our farmers are experiencing additional difficulties, because we are used to over-transposing a number of European rules. But I believe that here we also have a responsibility to ask ourselves the question of the same rules across Europe. It is now clear that farmers are not subject to the same rules, which creates additional distress and very unfair conditions for practising this fine profession as a farmer. So let us mobilise to ensure that the rules are the same in Europe, but also vis-à-vis the rest of the world.

Madam President, Commissioner, today farmers are at the centre of our discussions. Too bad they had to wait until they took their tractors out by the thousands on the streets of Europe for attention to be paid to them. Some seem surprised by this crisis, which we would supposedly not have seen coming. So it is true, from the left of the Chamber to the macronie, we turned a blind eye and pushed towards more regulatory overbidding. On the far right, on the RN side, we are absent from the debates, as we are today. It is true that the EPP has been alerting to the distress and disarray of the agricultural world for a long time. So today I turn to the European Commission and say: There's an emergency. Urgency to put in place a break in the regulations, urgency to put in place mirror clauses, urgency to simplify the CAP, to rework the 4% set-aside. Quite simply, there is an urgent need to act to ensure our food security, everywhere in Europe. (The speaker agreed to answer a blue card question)

Madam President, Commissioner, everywhere in Europe, in Germany, yesterday in Toulouse, in France, tractors parade to show the exasperation of the agricultural world and to show that we are walking on our heads. Walking on the head is also what young farmers in France wanted to show by turning around the signs of towns and villages. So instead of improving access to land and making the profession more attractive to young farmers, we are now witnessing an avalanche of new rules supported by followers of punitive ecology – and there are some in this European Parliament. The choice is simple. The choice we have today is either to support a degrowth model that aims to produce less to combat climate change, or it is the choice to produce more to produce better, to use innovation and new technologies to ensure our food security – that food security that is taken care of by the agricultural world. Well for me the choice is clear: I am clearly in the camp of those who trust farmers.

Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to welcome this text, which will make it possible to highlight all the efforts in which producers have invested and will invest even more to make the environmental transition. The carbon certification mechanism presents a double opportunity. First, it will be a lever in the path towards the decarbonisation of the agricultural world. Producers are entrepreneurs like any other and they have to ensure the viability of their farms and that is why they need to be encouraged and not penalised. They are also key players in climate change and that is why they must be supported. This text is also a financial lever for the agricultural world. But of course, the pitfalls will have to be addressed in terms of administrative burdens, but also in economic terms, since the remuneration of certificates, the cost of carbon, will have to really allow farmers to make the most of them. And if we want an effective mechanism that will lead European agriculture to be a leader in decarbonising its production, this mechanism must be as inclusive as possible. I would already like to welcome this, because the text we are going to adopt will take into account both emission reductions and stockpiling actions. This is an added value brought by Parliament and it will have to be defended.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today, through this report, we want to say 'no' to the demographic decline of European agriculture. And there is urgency, because in France alone, almost 45% of farmers are over 55 and will retire by 2030. This represents, in France, almost a quarter of the utilised agricultural area. Yes, these figures must make us react, because agriculture is not just an economic sector, it is a guarantor of our food security. This is a key area in the environmental transition and, of course, territorial development. And we cannot leave these missions to others. So what to do? I think we first need to change the way we look at farming. Being a farmer today always means being passionate. It also means having skills in agronomy and the environment. Above all, it means being a business leader, an economist and having digital skills. And that is what needs to be shown. This is also why, given all these skills, good life-long training is needed for the agricultural sector. Ensuring generational renewal also means – and above all – enabling young people to settle down. We need access to land and access to finance. It is also necessary to allow the right to the test. Renewing generations means ensuring that those who move in today can live off their work tomorrow. Concretely, this means reducing costs and burdens on farms. This means creating a level playing field for European producers, within Europe, but above all vis-à-vis the rest of the world. Finally, it is essential to ensure a much more stable legal framework in public policies – and in particular European policies – by analysing the impact of new legislation on the setting-up of young farmers. Finally, let me say that, in order to maintain the beating heart of our territories, which are farmers, it is really urgent to act.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today the observation is clear: Europe is totally dependent on imports for its protein needs. The European Union, for example, produces only 3% of the world's soybean production, but the world consumes more and more soybeans every year. It is therefore essential to have this strategy, a solid strategy for plant and animal proteins. Protein production also means producing the energy that people need and ensuring our independence from the rest of the world. The European Commission must therefore make us concrete proposals - very quickly - to move in this direction, for example by ensuring a favourable framework for the development of new varieties. It will also have to ensure that production conditions are fair, especially with products imported from the rest of the world. Finally, let us be clear – here – and remember once and for all that we say ‘yes’ to animal proteins from our farms, and ‘no’ to synthetic meat.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, yes, we want fewer inputs in our ecosystems, and yes, we need to adapt uses and limit certain uses. But yes too, we want more food security. And right now, we cannot afford to take decisions that would jeopardise our European production or push up prices even more, those food prices that are already subject to high inflation. It would therefore be totally unreasonable to ban molecules in our country by letting in products from the rest of the world which, for the time being, do not meet any of our standards. So yes, we need mirror clauses. We need the same rules vis-à-vis the rest of the world. But we also need the same rules for all our farmers, our producers in Europe. With every ban decision we take, we have to face an alternative solution. However, in today’s debate, there is no such accessible alternative. So here too, let's be reasonable, invest in research and make pragmatic decisions.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am happy that firefighters are back at the heart of our discussions, because it is with unremitting dedication that firefighters ensure the safety of Europeans. They were there all summer, volunteers and professionals, all over Europe to fight forest fires, to intervene also when there were floods or other disasters. More interventions, more risks, more dangers. So yes, we must more secure the interventions of our firefighters, better equipment, better standards. The European Civil Protection Mechanism is working, and it is a success that we must welcome. So inevitably, difficulties also arise from these meetings of firefighters who have different intervention cultures and who can sometimes put them at risk. There may also be an urgent need to work towards better harmonisation of the qualifications and training of firefighters at European level, for example through the creation of a European Skills Passport. I would also like to recall that it is increasingly difficult to recruit and retain volunteer firefighters, who are the backbone of our protection system. So, again, questions about the status and the link with the Working Time Directive. That is why I would like to turn to the European Commission and ask: When will there be a European volunteer or rescuer status that would perhaps also secure our civil protection?

Madam President, Commissioner, today, I believe, is a great day, because not only is the President of the European Commission talking about agriculture for the first time in her State of the Union address, but we also have the opportunity today to put the status of the wolf back on the table. Commissioner, I would like to thank you for this, because we cannot continue to ignore the anger and dismay of farmers. For years we have been calling for a moratorium on the wolf in Europe with a view to its decommissioning. Wolf populations have flourished in Europe and their territory has increased by 25% in ten years, increasing interactions with humans, as well as the predation of European farms. In ten years, the number of attacks has doubled, decimating a number of farms. The current status quo of wolf protection is a punishment that extends far beyond the financial aspect for farmers. How can young farmers be encouraged to settle, especially in mountainous areas, but beyond that, in areas whose economies and landscapes will also suffer from the gradual loss of pastoralism? Biodiversity itself could be called into question, a direct victim of the wolf. That is why I really thank you for opening the discussion. We must now move from words to deeds. This is urgent and we look forward to a proposal from the European Commission.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, protecting ecosystems and restoring them is a necessity that we fully share. But restoring nature must not lead to the death penalty for all artisanal, industrial, forestry or agricultural production. No, producing is not a dirty word. However, with the proposal on the table today, despite the health crises, despite the geopolitical situation, the Commission and part of this Chamber do not care much about the reality in the world. They believe that simply freezing 10% of our agricultural land is not a danger to our food security. However, reducing agricultural production will not make us better students of environmental protection. On the contrary, because we may reduce emissions at home, but Europeans and the rest of the world will continue to be hungry and will need to consume. Then we will have to import food from all over the world, where production standards are far from our own. The environmental benefits will then be negligible. So yes, Mr Vice-President, Mr Timmermans, withdraw this proposal completely above ground and come back with a pragmatic proposal that will really defend and restore nature.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, appellations of origin are the soul of our territories, and they reflect it. So we want to protect them. The very idea that a region, a climate or know-how gives its characteristics to products is quite unique. Our designations are not reproducible to the envi. They are not transferable from one place to another, they are well linked to a terroir. I would really like to acknowledge the work of Parliament’s negotiating team in raising the bar, and to change the Commission’s initial course, which ultimately wanted to equate them with trade marks by entrusting their examination to the European Trade Mark Office. I would also like to recall that they are powerful tools for the economic vitality of rural areas, accounting for EUR 75 billion each year. Finally, I would like to recall their fragility and say that through this text we will be able to improve their protection, especially on the internet, and thus fight counterfeiting more effectively. This is a good text, congratulations to the rapporteur.

Mr President, Commissioner, lastly, this morning, the leading role played by farmers was the subject of a priority debate. And yet, ladies and gentlemen, since the beginning of our mandate, despite the unprecedented crises we have had to face, a great many proposals have been put on the table, bringing with them a significant number of new constraints, new obligations without any counterpart for the agricultural world, and above all without worrying either about food security or energy security. Pesticide Regulations, Nature Restoration Regulations, Inclusion of Cattle in the Industrial Emissions Directive: so many texts that give pride of place to theagri-bashing, which are synonymous with additional punishments and constraints for agricultural sectors. How to make young people want to settle in these conditions? All these texts advocate degrowth and try to make us believe that to save the planet, it is enough to stop producing. On the contrary, I believe with the elected representatives of my political group, the EPP, that we must bet on 'producing better'. We must bet on solutions that value the work of farmers for the planet. That is why we are waiting for concrete and positive proposals on NBTs, in the area of the protein plan, on carbon certification. It is time to move in a positive direction and stop these initiatives completely above ground.

Madam President, Commissioner, yes, bees are essential to life on earth and to maintaining biodiversity, and we must work very hard to halt their decline and reverse the trend. We have also integrated it by reforming the common agricultural policy and allocating additional resources to the beekeeping sector. I would also like to welcome all the initiatives that are taking place locally. I'm thinking about what's happening at home in Alsace. These initiatives are multiplying and involve the agricultural world in a very close way to work with beekeepers and test new ways of doing things. As legislators, we must be realistic and admit that we will not change all industrial, agricultural and human practices as quickly. We will not return to the industrial era with a snap of our fingers. Nevertheless, we must think together, and I insist on the together, pragmatic measures. I also insist on pragmatism to improve biodiversity and bee life. It goes through research, it goes through innovation, it goes through new technologies. But in any case, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, this necessarily involves all the players and involves farmers. This will not happen against them and I believe we must all be aware of it.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, for several years now, voluntary firefighters have been living in uncertainty. Indeed, the Court of Justice and its particularly broad interpretation of the Working Time Directive could endanger volunteering in Europe, by equating standby time with working time. European justice thus weakens a functioning system. It is true that these 3.5 million volunteer firefighters are the backbone of civil protection in Europe and in my country, France. The extreme weather events of last summer are proof that this commitment is a pillar of our society and that we need to protect and encourage it. This mobilisation of volunteers generally benefits society as a whole, thanks to the social link it provides in addition to security. Our societies are rich in these voluntary commitments. So, together with my colleagues Sylvie Brunet and Sylvie Guillaume, as well as many other colleagues in the European Parliament, we ask the European Commission whether it intends to promote an initiative on citizen engagement in Europe for the benefit of volunteer firefighters, but also of all European volunteers.

Madam President, Commissioner, more than just the issue of fertilisers, I believe that this morning's debate really revolves around food security in Europe, but also in the rest of the world. And to ensure this safety, we need fertilisers, fertilisers available in sufficient quantities and accessible at the right price for the agricultural world. So, how? How to ensure this availability of fertilizers in a particularly complicated international context? I believe we need to focus on three types of tools. First of all, we need additional financial support at a time of mounting difficulties. Production costs are skyrocketing, inflation is affecting existing aid, and farmers are caught in the crosshairs. We also need a framework to go further in our practices, and I call for a clear and swift commitment from the European Commission to explore new genomic techniques. Finally, Commissioner, the agricultural sector offers many solutions, and we must encourage their development: we need to invest heavily in precision farming, we need to think about the use of frass or digestate from methanisation. Solutions exist, they are within reach, but today we need massive investments.

Madam President, Commissioner, rural areas are the beating heart of European territory. In my region, they represent 40% of the population. However, these territories face major challenges and difficulties, such as access to services, infrastructure development, generational renewal and access to education. Even today, inflation, energy poverty, fuel costs and the risk of electricity shedding weigh even more heavily on our rural areas. However, they are the ones that will be able to provide us with an answer to the major challenges we face, be it food security, energy independence or, of course, environmental challenges. As large providers of wealth and jobs, the agricultural and forestry sectors must remain at the centre of these territories. I would like to welcome the test mechanism for rural areas that needs to be put in place, because by assessing the new policies and their effects on these rural areas, we will hopefully avoid them being harmed by policies that have been put in place in a negative way. This is a real challenge for the whole of Europe.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, our hospitals and carers are under very heavy pressure on their shoulders and, today, a new difficulty is added to this with regard to the supply of medical equipment. Respirators, defibrillators, prostheses and many other devices, essential to the health of all, are likely to be missing, with all that this implies in terms of patient care. Industry and our Parliament have repeatedly alerted the European Commission in recent years. In addition to the current economic situation, these companies are subject to heavy administrative burdens and sometimes, today in any case, impossible to fulfil due to the lack of a sufficient number of certification bodies. These companies now need security. So we turn to the European Commission, which we ask to find concrete solutions quickly.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that action is really urgent. Jura, Doubs, very close to here. Well, in recent weeks, wolf attacks have multiplied. Here as elsewhere in France and Europe. So we need to intervene quickly because today wolf populations are moving and causing priceless losses, economic losses, but also psychological losses for our herders and their families. And beyond that, the preservation of pastoralism and the maintenance of certain lands are clearly at stake. So yes, we must clearly rethink the classification of the wolf in our regions, because this species is definitely no longer threatened today. There is also a need for better monitoring of wolf packs, particularly through a cross-border approach. Better management is needed and the ball cannot be sent back to the Member States all the time. Preventive measures are no longer enough, action is needed. It is also the renewal of our generations of farmers that is at stake.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today the Commissioner announced a communication on fertilisers, which I am so pleased about as it is an explosive subject for our European farmers. You recall the measures that already exist: prioritising gas supply for the fertiliser sector, flexibility in terms of State aid, etc. All this is obviously going in the right direction. However, these are essentially measures that have already been taken. They are also measures that refer to the Member States. My question is therefore simple, Commissioner: What is a truly European strategy, what new measures to deal with this explosion in costs and to promote the accessibility of fertilisers for farmers? The risk, with this reference to the Member States, is a risk of renationalisation, but also of fragmentation and competition at the level of the market and at the level of European farmers. Finally, Commissioner, you did not want to lift anti-dumping duties on fertilisers produced by third countries. Here too, I believe that we need a measure that goes in that direction. Beyond a fertiliser strategy, we need a food security strategy.

Mr President, Commissioner, since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, we have remembered that eating enough must be our priority. During the 2008 crisis and the outbreak of the first hunger riots in Arab countries, the food weapon had already shown its major power of political destabilisation. This threat to the world should therefore not be taken lightly. In Europe, we have long forgotten this reality. However, if Europeans now have enough to feed themselves, it is the result of an agricultural policy, which has been strongly criticised. And from the very beginning of the Ukrainian conflict, Europe was once again able to find concrete solutions by helping to liberate cereals that had hitherto been blocked in Ukraine. These are emergency measures that have been taken, but we now need long-term solutions to ensure food security for the poorest countries. I would therefore like to endorse one of the stated ambitions of the Director-General of the FAO, who supports the need to develop the use of new technologies, in particular genetics. This is an important lever to make our agri-food systems more resilient and increase production in the countries that need it most. I therefore call on the Commission to show courage on this subject and to rise to the challenges ahead by making us proposals quickly.

Mr President, Commissioner, our debate is taking place in a difficult context in France, as a social conflict threatens our entire economy, leading to a shortage of fuel. This is a real blow for workers and businesses, already plagued by the energy crisis and inflation. In the current situation, in France, but also elsewhere in Europe, supporting employment is essential and is our first lever for action to fight poverty. In the past year, unemployment figures in Europe have fallen slightly. However, young people are still the most affected and find it difficult to integrate into working life. It is therefore more imperative than ever to focus on training to develop the skills of today’s and tomorrow’s workers. Matching training with business needs is really essential for a well-functioning labour market: this is the best way to fight unemployment. As the spectre of recession looms over Europe, we need to redouble our efforts.

Madam President, Commissioner, on this day for the eradication of poverty, I would first like to recall a very sad reality: in Europe, just over 10% of citizens live below the poverty line. The European policies we have put in place in recent years, in particular with initiatives such as the mobilisation of EUR 80 billion under the European Social Fund in 2014, have nevertheless made it possible to record some successes and reduce this trend. This is proof that our European model of social market economy has a number of weapons to fight poverty. For my part, I consider that work, a paid job, is arguably the best safety net. But we can see today, with COVID and the war in Ukraine, that this safety net is no longer sufficient because even those who work face serious difficulties, especially because of the cost of fuel. So, more than ever, it is our responsibility, at European level, to find solutions, in particular to combat the price of energy.

Mr President, Commissioner, today more than ever the agricultural world needs us to act at European level to help it. In addition to the immense distress of some producers, who are facing, who have faced drought, we are at the heart of a major crisis. Energy prices are skyrocketing, leading to the price of fertilisers. While some farmers, forced and forced, limit their use of fertilisers and industrialists reduce or even stop their fertiliser production, disastrous consequences for Europe’s food security and autonomy are to be feared. We now see a real political will emerging to protect Europeans on energy issues. We must show the same courage on the issue of fertilisers. European inaction on this issue would be a serious mistake. I therefore propose that, in the short term, the Commission lift anti-dumping duties on fertilisers produced in third countries, and that, in the long term, we invest heavily in research to support innovative European manufacturing. You have already lifted tariffs on ammonia and urea to reduce the pressure on farmers; we now need to go much further and change our ambition.