Speeches

Mr President! Commissioner! Colleagues! The European Union can, of course, evolve if it takes on new tasks, and then it must also finance these new tasks. But I remain convinced: The Union will not develop further if successful joint tasks are neglected or even thrown overboard in return. Unfortunately, this is exactly what is happening with this proposal in areas such as agriculture, regional policy and fisheries policy. And I think it is difficult to underline the strategic role of agriculture over and over again – this is what has happened here today – and to leave it financially in the rain at the same time. I remain convinced that Single Fund It is a wrong approach in approach. He's not going to take us any further, he's not going to simplify things, he's going to make them harder. But last week's concessions are heading in the right direction. The architecture of the proposals is now the right one. And I believe, Commissioner, that the next consistent step would be to implement these concessions legislatively before Parliament starts work. In any case, my group will work very hard, as far as agriculture is concerned, to improve these proposals and make them a good common agricultural policy.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner! The regulation on the simplification of the CAP takes up an excessive bureaucracy which we have experienced in recent years and which, unfortunately, we have created ourselves in this House. Simplification does not mean deregulation. Simplification means reducing bureaucracy where it only becomes a burden, only generates more costs and no added value. As a rule, farms do not have an office staff that ensures that the papers are in order all day long. This is especially true for small businesses. That is why it is good if we start there now, and this also applies to organic farms. I think it is right that we simplify there, even for those farms that are on their way to organic farming. Why should conditionality be checked there if it is already checked by the certification body? I also believe that the flexibility for more grassland makes sense, not because we want less grassland, but because with the previous regulation hardly anyone is dedicating a field to permanent grassland, knowing that the way back is no longer possible. Farmers are usually well-educated people. We don't have to tell them what to do every step of the way. We also support the changes in the Common Market Organisation. Any scheme that ultimately supports the position of the farmer in the value chain is, in my opinion, worth supporting. If farmers join together in cooperatives, then they should have additional opportunities. That's why I think: Both regulations will make the lives of our farmers a bit easier. That's why they both have my support.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! In a few days, we will have on the table a proposal for the CAP and its financing by 2035, and I have the impression that the signs are not the best, to say the least. It is obvious that the policies that have hitherto been at the heart of the European Union – agriculture, but also cohesion, cross-border cooperation and others – are planned to become a kind of stew, where you can no longer see what ingredients are really in the pot. I have the impression that it's like cooking a stew like this: You want to have the pot full, but don't show that you have too little meat. Only two numbers: If we leave the financial endowment of the common agricultural policy unchanged in absolute terms in relation to today, then in 2035 this policy will have about a third less money, measured in purchasing power, than in 2020. If we cut by 15%, then half of the money we had in purchasing power in 2020 remains. We are systematically starving politics. However, safe access to food will be a key challenge for tomorrow's society. If we in the European Union are no longer willing to invest in this sector, to attract young people who are willing to go to agriculture, then we will gradually lose our food sovereignty. Of course, Commissioner, that does not mean that you do not have to make changes in politics, and my group is prepared to discuss this and also to look at how to spend money more efficiently. But we do not need a stew of financing, we need a secure and sufficient budget for agriculture. Above all, we need independent legislation for the common agricultural policy and not general guidelines for national agricultural policies. We do not need a renationalisation of this policy, which in the end would also weaken the regions' competence. I really hope that next Wednesday we will see a self-confident Commission, a Commission that defends its competences and also defends its policies and fights for them to be financed. Commissioner, rest assured, we will fight with you. But I will not be prepared to agree to a common agricultural policy that puts European agriculture at risk.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The European Union, and therefore this Parliament, has grown over decades through one principle: The Member States have given us competences that we exercise, where we create laws, rules, and which we then finance. This applies to agriculture, cohesion, cross-border cooperation, research and much more. If I can now trust the signs, then the Commission plans to pool these key competences, to partially return them to the Member States and at the same time to cut funding. At the same time, however, we should finance other things in the future where this Parliament has no competence. But if we starve the powers, we starve the European Union, and above all we starve this Parliament. Do we want that? A word about agriculture. Safe access to food will be a key challenge for tomorrow's society. If we are no longer willing to invest in this sector, to bring young people into agriculture, then we risk our food sovereignty. We need an independent budget for the European Union and, above all, we need independent legislation for the European Union. I expect the Commission to fight for this next week.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I am convinced that we are at a historical crossroads. The balances in the world are rebalancing, and the next few years will show whether we, the European Union, emerge from this development as a strong partner or as a meaningless partner. But if we want to remain significant, we need not only lip service, but also concrete facts about the financing of the European Union. This also applies in particular to agricultural policy. This is a sector that we have been financing together for years. In these years and decades, we may have forgotten a bit about the importance of security of supply, sustainability, and also profitability of the sector. But the crises of recent years have made us aware: Without strong agriculture, without young people in agriculture, without people who also earn money in agriculture, we in Europe risk security of supply and security overall. We should bear this in mind in the next MFF. We need to adjust to inflation. We don't need any Single FundWe need a strong agricultural budget in the European Union.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Farmers are the ones who feed us every day. This is actually logical – we may have forgotten something in the decades of abundance. The aim of a sensible agricultural policy must be that farmers, together with our food industry, try every day to produce sustainably high-quality food for us, for these 450 million Europeans. I am grateful to you, Commissioner, for putting this issue at the heart of your vision once again. In this House, we manage around EUR 60 billion a year, which goes to European agriculture. That's a lot of money, and I think if we use these 60 billion euros, which go to 9 million farms in Europe, wisely, then they can really be a driver for future-oriented, productive, sustainable agriculture. They can be: by helping businesses – you said it, Commissioner – in those areas where it is more difficult to produce. If we do not take these into account, they will be phased out of production and we will lose these areas, as has unfortunately happened in many regions of Europe, especially in the mountains. By helping farmers to realize their ideas. We have many innovative people in agriculture, but sometimes our agricultural policy does not necessarily help to really get to the bottom of these innovative ideas. By helping farmers who are committed to sustainability. Here, too, we have many people in agriculture who have very good ideas that implement sustainability in their business. I believe we should help them, and of course those young people who want to start farming, and also those farms that are fighting climate change by actively or passively trying to deal with climate change. I believe, Commissioner, that this is now a vision; We must now implement this vision. My group is ready to do so. We need money for this, and I believe that the biggest challenge that awaits us in the next few years is that we all stand together here to get a decent, reasonable agricultural budget for the next few years.

Madam President, Colleagues! With the Mercosur agreement, the EU is planning for the first time a trade agreement with a partner whose primary interest is, of course, the export of agricultural goods. Not that we wouldn't shop there today: We buy food from Brazil by EUR 17 billion a year and from Argentina by EUR 5 billion, which means that they are already important trading partners. But, and this was also said today, the agreement could, of course, affect some sectors of agriculture: Beef, poultry meat, sugar, bioethanol, rice or citrus fruits, to name a few. Of course, there are also opportunities for other areas of agriculture, there is no doubt about that. And of course there is a geopolitical interest in this agreement, which I strongly support. The European Union is rapidly losing partners and friends around the world – and even faster in recent hours – and our lack of decision-making – and 25 years of agreements and speeches on Mercosur are perhaps a symbol – shows that we cannot allow ourselves to slam the door in the face of partners, potential partners. But we need a strategy for agriculture, and the strategy cannot simply be the promise of €1 billion. We need a concept, guarantees for farmers, measures to open up new markets in the world. And then we need funding for this concept. But first we need a concept, and then we need the necessary money. I would ask you, Commissioner, to move quickly to put forward such an approach and to remove the concerns that exist in agriculture.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. Of course, NGOs are important in a democracy, and of course NGOs can also be supported with public money and should be supported with public money. Of course, they also have to be transparent, otherwise they lose their own credibility. Let me give you an example: For several years there have been NGOs that have declared the protection of the wolf to be the mantra of any environmental policy in Europe. They do so without any respect for those who believe that in some parts of Europe we can do quite well without wolves. And they do so with the active support of the LIFE programme. If you want a special treat, read a letter – which is viral on the Internet – from the President of the Alpi Cozie Nature Park in Italy, Mauro Deidier, who already presented these machinations in 2021: always the same conferences, always the same experts, no access for those who hold a different opinion, always the same research institutes that get money and finance themselves from it. Just read this and think about whether we are really promoting democracy here. And for those who have said here today that we would harm Europe and democracy with our opinion here, read also the article today in the Telegraph by Frans Timmermans. I think it hurts the European Union more than we do.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I and my group support animal welfare in the European Union. I believe that animal husbandry is associated with an ethical responsibility for animals, and that is what society and consumers can demand. But I also believe that farmers take care of their animals for the most part. Anyone who does not do so should also be punished according to the rules of the law. However, we also support the fact that animals can be kept in the European Union. I sometimes have the impression that this fact is being called into question. If you look at the European Citizens' Initiatives that we have had so far – 118 in number – then ten revolve around the issue of animal welfare, more or less brought in by the same organisers, and probably more or less signed by the same citizens. For the most part, this amounts to making animal husbandry impossible in the European Union. Of course, one can already demand that there should be no more tethering of cows, but I myself come from the middle of the mountains and I have to tell you: If you do that, then many small dairy farms, which still have a few cows that take care of these cows day and night, will call them by their own names, then they will get out. They cannot and do not want to make the transition financially. We want and can – and I am also in favour of demanding that poultry should no longer be kept in cages. But then we also have to make sure that no imported eggs and no imported poultry meat comes from this cage farming. Otherwise, as with the last changeover, we are doing it by building up the old cages in Europe, the same European companies, partly over the border away, reinstalling these cages, producing expensive eggs there today and chicken meat and then importing it duty-free. And we are currently in the process of importing 180,000 tonnes of chicken meat duty-free from the Mercosur countries, so there is also a need for a level playing field. I think that when we are dealing with this issue, it is simply important that we, Commissioner, speak to farmers and that we continue to make animal husbandry possible in the European Union.

Mr President! Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Work in agriculture is exhausting, and work in agriculture and especially in forestry can unfortunately also be dangerous. I would like to focus here above all on this issue of occupational safety, which you, Commissioner, have raised. Work in agriculture takes place in the wild, takes place in any weather, takes place very often on slippery surfaces. This is especially a problem if the areas are on slopes or often even on the mountain. Occupational accidents are therefore unfortunately particularly frequent and often particularly tragic in agriculture. Very often the farms are family farms, and if the farmer becomes temporarily or permanently incapacitated or even dies as a result of an accident, then the future of the entire farm is often at stake. I think you don't do justice to the issue by simply pointing your finger at agriculture and pretending that workers are being systematically exploited there. I believe, and I agree with you, Commissioner, that a package of measures must be put in place to improve working conditions for managers and also for employees. First of all, these are investments in training and further education on the subject of safety at work, especially for employees and, in particular, for short-term employees and so often seasonal employees in agriculture. Then, and this should not be underestimated, unfortunately, outdated machines are often used in agriculture that no longer comply with safety regulations. I think we must do everything we can to ensure that companies have the necessary financial resources, that they can adapt their technical equipment, that they can renew tractors and machines and replace them with safer equipment. Above all, it must be guaranteed that everyone and everyone who works in agriculture also has sufficient insurance cover. Therefore, it is necessary to take decisive action against undeclared work and exploitation. Our CAP can certainly contribute to this. But above all the Member States must do so, and I am reluctant to let the Member States send the Black Peter to Brussels. I believe that the fight against undeclared work is a task that the Member States must tackle. Because agriculture is only fit for the future if it can offer safe and interesting jobs.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! This is what scientists have warned us about, Mrs Arndt. What you have just said is not exactly what scientists have been saying for years, namely that extreme weather conditions will increase, that drought will increase and that, unfortunately, floods will also increase. We see this these days and unfortunately we have also seen this summer. Above all, I would like to take this opportunity to express my solidarity with all those affected. Unfortunately, what we see is no longer extraordinary, it is unfortunately the new normal state. This has an impact on agriculture and production. The harvest of soybean flowers and maize, for example, will be reduced by around 5% across Europe this year. This is a problem, a big problem, of course, for the farmers who are affected by it, but it is also a problem for the entire population. This is a problem for food security in Europe, and this will have an impact on food prices and will ultimately affect all people. That is why I believe that we must prevent this, fight climate change, of course, but also adapt, and above all agriculture must also adapt. Today, Commissioner, you have outlined a number of measures that we can tackle. There is, of course, crisis management, but we must also have more stable risk provisioning in the CAP, and we must invest above all in irrigation. 95% of fresh water still ends up directly in the sea, and I believe there is still much that can be done to improve the water supply to agriculture. So, we need to tackle these measures urgently, and then we will be able to continue farming successfully here for the next few years.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I and the European People's Party, my group, welcome the initiative of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen for strategic dialogue. I have now read with interest the result of the work of the 29 representatives of organizations, associations and associations, and I would also like to thank you for the work that has been done here. The Commissioner has succeeded in adopting a single document, a final document, by unanimity. I believe this is important because I believe that strategic dialogue can provide important input for the future debates that we will have here. But it must also be clear: It is then up to this Parliament to decide on the common agricultural policy, on the elements of the common agricultural policy. Here, the ideas that come from the strategic dialogue can certainly be interesting. I believe that the path proposed by the strategic dialogue is the right one. We need to reinvigorate the role of agriculture, the role of farmers, especially in the value chain. We are constantly demanding that agriculture invests: more animal welfare, precision farming, more sustainability and much more. But there's gotta be money for that. This requires money that costs, and the money can only come from the value chain. It is too easy – as has unfortunately happened in recent years – to get this money through economies of scale, i.e. simply making farms bigger and bigger. The perpetual growth or turnout ultimately damages the rural area. And I think we need to think about it – and here I find interesting other points in the strategic dialogue: What kind of agriculture do we want? Which farmers and which farms do we want tomorrow? And then we have to use our money – our common agricultural policy – to support precisely those farms. We can then really discriminate positively and help to ensure that the farms we need in rural areas survive – where real agriculture takes place and where food is produced. So, we are now waiting for the Commission's proposals. I hope that they will come quickly and that we will deal with them very constructively in this Parliament, at least as far as my group is concerned.

Mr President! I would like to conclude by thanking all those who have helped us in recent months to get to where we are today: the draftsman of the opinion in the Committee on the Environment, but also in particular my shadow rapporteurs, who have now also taken the floor here during the debate. I think we now have a good parliamentary position. Hopefully, we will vote on this tomorrow in the really final hours of this mandate and thus create a good precondition for a trilogue result and agreement with the Council to be found in the next mandate and for Europe to have a modern seed law. I believe it is ultimately important – as many colleagues here have said – that farmers have good seed and plant reproductive material and forest reproductive material at their disposal, but on the other hand, those who care about biodiversity, who care about old varieties, can do the same. I believe that this is ultimately also in the interest of the breeders, because biodiversity is also the starting point for new breeds. I am very confident, and I do not see at all – I have said this before – that parallel markets are emerging here. You have to look at the crowds we're talking about here. There is no risk of parallel markets emerging. And with all due respect, seeds are also not necessarily something where phytosanitary problems can be spread further. I don't see that danger either. Whether this is my last speech from this podium, I do not know. I know that this is my last speech in this term of office, and I would therefore also like to thank everyone very much for the constructive and friendly cooperation in recent years.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Ten years ago we failed here in this House when we wanted to give the European Union a modern seed law. We started with a bad proposal from the Commission at that time and the whole thing ended badly. This time we started with a better proposal. A proposal that brings together ten existing regulations into a single, legible text. I believe that we have done a very constructive job in recent months, and I would like to thank all those who have worked together that we have come so far as we are today for this cooperation. Agriculture needs high-quality, certified seeds, and I believe the new control mechanisms and the new certification pathway set out in these two regulations are a good way to get there. Good seeds, good young plants are a prerequisite for successful agriculture. Sustainability tests such as VSCU tests make sense where they also bring real added value. I believe that in the area of fruit and vegetables, these tests should remain voluntary for the time being. Similarly, in the regulation, in the proposal, we provide that the propagating material for organic farming should continue to be regulated in the organic regulation, where it is regulated today and where we launched a new organic regulation only a few years ago. However, the politically sensitive issue – and this was also the case ten years ago – are the exceptions in the field of conservation and reproduction of old varieties, conservation of biodiversity. The Commission has proposed a way, and I would say that we have now further refined this way, these exceptions. To be clear: Saving genetic material from extinction, increasing old varieties and landraces is an important task for biodiversity in the European Union, and it also protects the culture of a region and the diversity in a region. These people and also the networks do not have unnecessary beatings in the way, they belong promoted and not filled with conditions and bureaucracy. Of course, these regulations must not be exploited to create parallel markets. But I think my amendments 353 to 355 will further minimise this risk. Or do we really believe that someone who sells 500 grams of seeds a year, in maximum quantities of 20 grams per pack, creates a parallel market there? I don't think so. I also ask that Renew's Amendment 352 not be supported. This would ultimately destroy this approach to biodiversity. Let me say two more words about forest reproductive material. Our forests are currently under pressure. Storms, parasites and especially bark beetles are destroying forests, and we will need a lot of forest reproductive material in the next few years, also because we have stipulated in the forest strategy that we want to plant 3 billion new trees. That's why we need the material, and we need to support the states when they produce this material. In contrast to plant reproductive material, forest reproductive material has hardly any internal market relevance. This means that the young trees are usually planted where they are produced. That is why I believe that we should not hinder good practices developed in the Member States, but only reinforce them further. We should do everything we can to enable our forests to defy climate change, adapt and become resilient. I am very confident that the new regulation will follow this approach.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I have the impression that we have a debate here this morning, which is probably due to the upcoming election campaign. When it comes to animal welfare, I think there are three aspects, and you, Commissioner, have also raised them. There is one aspect, first of all, the transport of animals. There has been a special committee, there is a final report, we as a group have played a decisive role. We are ready to translate the outcome of this special committee into a legislative regulation. There is a Commission proposal in this regard, and we are working constructively in the House to ensure that this happens. Second, there is the well-being of pets, especially dogs and cats. There is a need for catching up in the European Union, there are many grievances. We have a proposal from the Commission – we will work on it, and I think it is urgent that we put in place better conditions for the approximately 150 million dogs and cats in the European Union. It would be good if we did the same for other pets. Thirdly, there is the well-being of animals kept in agriculture. There is extensive legislation in the European Union, and yet there are always terrible images. But these terrible images would not exist if states complied with and enforced the legislation that exists today. That is why I believe that before we make new legislation, we should make sure that the states – and all of them – comply with this legislation. Then there are new developments; You, Commissioner, have also mentioned: Animal welfare label. Labels shoot out of the ground like mushrooms, and it would be urgently time to make a European label. We will participate in this work. We, as a group, were also in favour of letting cages run out, but only if it is guaranteed that imported goods do not come from cages. This brings relatively little to the chickens if they are no longer kept in cages in Europe, but our discarded cages are behind the border and the eggs and the chickens are produced there. So, here we are expecting a proposal from the Commission, and we will then work constructively to ensure that we find reasonable arrangements here, too.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! In November 2022, we spoke in favour of lowering the protection status for the wolf in the Berne Convention. Now the Commission is finally responding and, as I have just said, it is proposing to the Council to decide on this in the coming weeks. I hope and call on the Council to do the same and not leave this decision to the environment ministers alone. This is about an overall interest and not just an environmental issue. We have put a question to the Commission and the Council in this debate. I do not know how the Council will respond to this question when I look at the Council Bank here. It is really a scandal that the Council is not here tonight and does not live up to its obligations here. I think this is a disrespect for us parliamentarians here tonight. I would ask you, Madam President, to report this to the Council as well. It is not a question of exterminating wolves in Europe. It is about recognizing the facts. When the Bern Convention was adopted 45 years ago, the wolf had virtually disappeared in the then European Union. Today we have over 20,000 wolves in Europe again and the conflicts are increasing year by year. The wolf no longer needs the protection status ‘strictly protected’. It will also spread if it is only ‘protected’. But our rural areas need this reduction. They need more flexibility in the management of populations, otherwise the sheep and goats will disappear from our mountain pastures. Whether we have more biodiversity, I dare to doubt. I don't think so. The same goes for the brown bear. I think we shouldn't make it impossible for people, especially in the mountains, to live in the mountains. They have a right to safety and a right to keep their animals. We have a duty to guarantee them the right.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Since the coronavirus pandemic, food prices have risen by almost 30 per cent since the beginning of 2021, while inflation averaged 15 per cent in the European Union over that period, i.e. half. That is, in the end, the consumer has to pay more when he goes to the supermarket, and probably the consumer also thinks that the farmer will then get more money. But do you really think that farmers are currently taking to the streets because they are getting more money? It is far from being possible for them to get more money – on the contrary. In some cases, for example with cereals, wheat, for example, the price is currently lower for farmers than it was two years ago. So something doesn't work here. It is relatively clear that there is someone in the middle who earns well, and that is probably the trade. Unfortunately, the Commission, Commissioner, has been watching so far – just watching. Only in the document that the Commission published a few days ago on the farmers' protests does it come to the small-scale admission that perhaps in the trade chain, in the distribution of the value chain, something does not work exactly. The concentration of food retailing has led to excesses that are no longer acceptable and where only more speculation is the result. Food is a means of life. Everyone has the right to access these foods, those who earn more, and those who earn less. I think we have a duty to take a closer look at food retailing. Speculation in recent years is no longer acceptable.

Madam President, colleagues, in November 2022, we adopted a resolution on livestock farming and large carnivores in Europe. We ask for the review of the protection status in the Bern Convention. So far, this has not been implemented. With more than 20 000 wolves in almost every EU country, the Commission has now finally acted. And now it’s up to the Member States to adopt the Commission’s proposals, and this needs to be done during the next Environmental Council meeting on 25 March. It would be important, I think, to hear the position of the Council and the Commission on this topic and to have a debate about this. Furthermore, we should draft a short and concise resolution in order to make clear the position of the European Parliament to the Council. Therefore, I propose to add a debate with resolution to this week’s plenary session.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. What is sustainable? What is a sustainable farm? This is when it is possible to bring a business from generation to generation. Of course, this has an ecological element, but this also has an economic element: Farmers will eventually have to make do with their income. Why should a young person who enters agriculture accept that he earns less than his colleague who sits in an office? In virtually all Member States of the European Union, agricultural income is well below the average income of the population. That is why I believe that we need a CAP that looks more closely at farm profitability. We must stop telling farmers when to plough their fields, what to grow, what to set aside, or leave them alone when the wolf eats their animals. Commissioner, I would have expected you to make a few proposals in this regard today; There was nothing in your five-minute speech. We need vibrant rural areas again, not only in favorable locations, but also in the mountains. I come from the Alps – in the European mountains, entire valleys are now depopulated. It has been shown everywhere: First the farmer goes, then the others go. Without farmers, there will be no flourishing rural areas in Europe.

Madam President, Minister, ladies and gentlemen! I very much welcome the fact that the Commission has presented an amended proposal for the mechanism to revise cross-border barriers; He also takes this house seriously. We adopted a legislative own-initiative report here in September last year – I was able to work on it together with Mr Gozi. Unfortunately, the Council has sent out the old proposal for years, and I hope that we will now have a new activity as a whole. This shows that the Council – the Member States – does not always take the situation at the borders very seriously. This is also evident in other things, such as Interreg. But I think – and I say that as someone who lives on the border and also on a very special border like the Brenner border: Europe begins above all at its borders. I think we need to protect cooperation at borders and we need to improve it. There are minor bureaucratic and legal differences on both sides of the border, and it often leads to major obstacles when administrations, if the population wants to work together. This applies to different requirements in cross-border public transport, access to health systems, mutual recognition of training and much more. Now we have a new, amended proposal from the Commission. I think that this proposal, Minister, takes into account the guidelines and the ideas of the Council, especially with regard to subsidiarity and proportionality. I would really like it to be fast, especially faster than last time, so that we can really get this regulation off the ground. I think that would be a real step forward for our European cooperation.

This question is, of course, open, and this is, I believe, also one of the important issues that the Commission has not addressed at this stage and which, I fully agree with you, must be resolved. Of course, it must be clarified, especially in the case of varieties where the varieties are just important – in viticulture, in fruit growing – whether this is then a new variety or whether the old variety name, the conventional variety name, is still used. Unfortunately, we do not yet have an answer to that question.

I have seen for myself, even as research has been done in my own region, that there are indeed ways to produce more robust plants. Let me give you an example: the grapevine. We have been crossing vines for decades, receiving so-called PIWI plants. After decades, we grow less than 1% of these plants throughout the European Union, because there are problems with them, because these plants do not have the quality standards that are just necessary. And it can succeed in achieving the exact same result as with a crossing over this technology. The plants are resistant to peronospora, and I think even organic farmers who do copper treatments 25 times a year will think about it. As for the import: You are fully aware that these products are not identifiable; We will be importing these products. The Agriculture Committee was in Israel a few months ago; We are already working with such products. So how do you want to regulate the import of products that come from such plants? (The speaker agreed to answer a question on the blue card procedure.)

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I was rapporteur for the farm-to-fork strategy here a few years ago, and the farm-to-fork strategy has internalised – and this is also part of the Green Deal – that new breeding methods can contribute to a more sustainable agriculture in the European Union. This House voted by a large majority at the time, and now it is time to implement it, and of course we have several options: We can't do anything – that would probably be the most pleasant thing to do. But we would also create a grey area with it, and we would just risk that the rest of the world precedes and then imports products. I think that's not the path that can be in the interest of farmers. Or we have to find a sensible way, and I think that the work that has been done in the Committee on the Environment and also in our Committee on Agriculture is a good work and that we have a good basis for the vote here tomorrow, because I really believe that these plants can contribute to less plant protection in agriculture. A word about organic farming: I have been very committed to ensuring that the organic farmers, as they themselves have decided, if they do not want to use these plants, they do not need to use them. But I now also expect organic farmers to respect that conventional agriculture just wants to go a different way. (The speaker agreed to answer a question on the blue card procedure.)

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! In recent years, it has become a bit of a popular sport to criticize agriculture and farmers. Many in politics and also in civil society seem to know very well how the farmers have to cultivate their fields. By the way, most of them never got up at 5.00 in the morning to go to the stable. And they've never seen pests and diseases destroy an entire crop in a matter of days if you don't do anything about it. Farmers are no longer allowed to enjoy this treatment. In the Netherlands, first and now in Germany, they show politics their limits, and many people now understand that the arc was probably somewhat overstretched. Many well-educated people work in our agriculture, who know much more about agriculture than those who think they have to cover it with regulations and rules, and who also understand that sustainability is important, and who are also willing to implement appropriate measures. This week the Green Week takes place in Berlin. For years, protesters have been shouting on this occasion that they are fed up with the farmers. And now all of a sudden the farmers, who, by the way, make these protesters tired, say that they are tired. And they're right. Agriculture and food safety are a great asset. We have forgotten that a bit in recent years. Now, in geopolitically more troubled times, many realize that eating and drinking is part of our sovereignty. We have experienced too bitterly in the last two years, for example in energy, which blooms when we become dependent on others. We need active farmers, especially young farmers, if we want to keep our agriculture alive. To do this, we need to make agriculture attractive and create income opportunities. Why should farmers earn less than other professions? We must preserve agriculture everywhere, not only in the favoured areas, also in the mountains, also in the disadvantaged areas. This requires a strong and well-funded common agricultural policy. We have to take our farmers seriously again, otherwise we will find less and less food from Europe on our tables.

Madam President, Farmers need bees and pollinators, but bees also need responsible farmers – and this is a mutual interdependence, not always conflict-free, but in the best case a profitable symbiosis, and we must also work towards this. It is also of no use at all if we simply go over agriculture and the CAP and hold them responsible for all conflicts. I myself come from a region where many apple trees need a lot of pollinators, and I know where the lines of conflict lie, and also how to find a solution. We need clear bee protection in the times of flowering, plant protection products should be applied as soon as bees do not fly out, drifting should be prevented. The CAP can also help with the second pillar agri-environmental programmes, if we promote species-rich meadows and fields, with the conditionality and eco-programmes of the first pillar, e.g. with flowering strips. However, we do not protect bees when we drive out farmers, but by raising awareness, promoting them, but also by intervening when pollinators are treated disrespectfully.