Debate contributions by Martin HÄUSLING

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. There are wild farmers driving through Brussels, and what does the Commission do immediately? She says that under the guise of de-bureaucratization, many environmental regulations will be abolished. This is a de-greening of the CAP. Commissioner, you yourself were the rapporteur of the ENVI Committee when the new CAP was drawn up. Didn't you also say at the time: Was that a good reform? I forgot. We will miss the biodiversity targets, we will accept grassland upheaval, which harms the climate and the environment. Commissioner, your proposal for the next CAP is unacceptable renationalisation. We have to pay farmers for their environmental performance, not according to the size of the farm, not according to the hectares. At one point, we agree: We need to strengthen the rights of farmers in the chain. That, I think, is a common goal. What I hear from Germany, especially from the German Farmers' Association, is adventurous. They actually say it's the way to socialism. You can only say: How far is this farmer's association from reality? We support that. It could have gone even further, because we cannot actually accept the exception of cooperatives either.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, We need to spend the money better. What have we been doing in recent years? We promoted land ownership. The more land, the more money. No, we have to support farmers who do something for the environment, for the climate, for biodiversity. That's where the money has to go. I think we agree on this: We need a strong second pillar. We need rural development. We need to maintain infrastructure in rural areas. This also includes bakers, crafts, and this also includes a good internet. We need greater support for young farmers, including new entrants. What do they need? They need capital, they need access to land and, above all, support for disadvantaged regions. This must be a core concern of European agricultural policy. We need to work towards that together. What we do not need to promote is intensive animal husbandry. What we do not need is agriculture based on genetic engineering – without labelling – and we do not need patents on genetic engineering either. That makes no sense for the future. Mr Commissioner, don't just listen to the farmers' association, listen to the results of the strategic dialogue. Then we move forward, not backward.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Parliament has objected 84 times to the import of genetically treated maize, soybean in particular. There was no qualified majority in the Council. Nevertheless, the Commission has wiped all these concerns off the table with egregious ignorance, as if what Parliament is saying is worthless. Highly problematic maize has been imported and soybean made resistant to glyphosate – banned in Europe – and to dicamba. This ends up in our feeding troughs. This ends up in our stables and ultimately also with the consumer on the table. Another aspect is important: We cannot accept that what is prohibited in Europe is then imported into the European Union. We must not allow double standards. If we continue to do so in the way that the Commission is now doing, we will destroy citizens' trust in the institutions. That is why, dear Commission, put off your pink spectacles in relation to genetic engineering and finally take your concerns seriously.

Mr President! Commissioner, I am honest: I would have expected more from the vision. The Strategy Commission has presented it. We have set targets in the Strategy Commission: Fighting climate change, strengthening and not weakening biodiversity, empowering farmers in the chain. Where has the promotion of sustainable production gone? Where are the 25 % organic farming, which is once in the Farm to Fork Were they named? I miss all that. I think we also need to talk clearly about pesticides because, strangely enough, it's in the strategy: Pesticides are only taken off the market when others are there. What does that mean in concrete terms? Are we turning away from science? Unfortunately, the vision is far too little concrete for me. Farm to Fork The Green Deal will not be named, the Green Deal will not be named, and instead will be set on voluntary instead of setting clear goals, and of course the focus on export again. We need to focus on strengthening regional food chains. We also do not need to understand genetic engineering as a solution to many problems in climate change. You have a good approach, and that is where I find the strengthening of farmers' rights in the chain; I think we are in complete agreement on this. But the Commission has yet to explain one point: In the end, your budget means that the second pillar of development is also at risk.

Mr President! Commissioner, you know this: The frustration in agriculture is huge. But not only among the farmers, but also among the 4 million workers – migrant workers, it must be said – who bring in crops in Europe and work in poor social conditions. This too urgently needs to change. The frustration among the farmers is also so great because they actually see: Others make big profits in the agricultural sector, the big trading companies, and nothing gets stuck with the farmers. Farmers often produce under price, which also needs to be changed. The dependence on subsidies is increasing among farmers. This is frustrating, and that is why many farmers close their doors – hundreds of farms every day. There must be an end to this! There must be an end to ‘waxing or turning points’! Always cheaper, always more production is not a solution, but better production, that must be the goal, and not more and more in ever worse conditions. I still have to say one thing. What makes a lot of frustration in Europe among farmers is simple: The impact of the climate crisis is becoming more and more noticeable for every farmer in Europe. Floods, heat, droughts – these are challenges that agriculture has to overcome and where it often leaves society alone. We also have to find answers there, otherwise many farmers give up their work for these reasons.

Mr President, Commissioner! First of all, I would like to thank Mr Strohschneider. Who would have thought recently that 29 associations would find themselves and sign a paper that is truly groundbreaking for sustainable, more ecological agriculture. The paper clearly shows: Agriculture is only possible together with a sustainable environmental and climate protection policy, and unfortunately many farmers have resisted this spring, especially against environmental regulations. I think we need to come back to a consensus that we're thinking this back together and not saying: With fewer environmental regulations, things get better. More animal welfare is needed, but there is also a need to strengthen farmers in the chain – this is clearly stated in this report. Now, of course, it comes down to implementation. The Commission is now called upon to do so – and above all it must do so in the next few years. mission letter The new Commissioner or the new Commissioner. And quite clearly: After all, we are once again facing the new CAP debate – this must be reflected in it. The worst thing would be if this paper now rotted in some cabinets, but we have to implement it. And I also warn those against it – especially the German Farmers' Association and, in some cases, the colleagues from the EPP are already beginning to talk about it, because too little is being done for the farmers: No, let's work together at that point, that's the most important thing.