Speeches

Madam President, Less chemicals in agriculture, fewer plant protection products, fewer artificial fertilisers – this is, of course, a goal that is in the interest of everyone, not least the farmers themselves. After all, these products are also cost factors. Some, even in this house, imagine things a bit too easy. Farmers don't treat their plants because they want to. Plants become ill, are attacked by pests, must be protected. And unfortunately, it is often not about treating a little less to harvest a little less. It is often about losing the entire crop and thus the income of the farmers. But, of course, one can reduce, and if there is a long-term perspective, there will also be incentives for industry, for research and development, to show new ways for farmers to have a real alternative. We in the Committee on Agriculture, in good cooperation with most of the House's political groups, have come up with a good compromise that takes into account both the desire for reduction and the need for farmers to protect their production and their plants. And I think we should largely restore this compromise of the Committee on Agriculture in the vote tomorrow.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. We have set ourselves an important goal: We want to become climate neutral in the European Union in about 25 years. If we want to achieve this goal, Commissioner, you said it, then we will not only have to emit less, we will also have to absorb more. The storage of carbon in our soils can become an important component in this project, and it can develop into a real win-win situation, because every ton of carbon that is absorbed from the air and stored as humus in the soil is a gain for our climate. Every ton more humus that comes into our soils is a gain for our farmers. And carbon farming can ultimately also become a business model in agriculture. Agriculture and forestry is a very important part of the solution on the way to more climate protection. Wherever plants grow, where photosynthesis takes place, carbon is stored and oxygen is generated. If this process did not exist on this earth, we would not only get it too hot on this planet, we would also suffocate within a very short time. With this new regulation, we are taking an important step towards creating an incentive for farmers to make their contribution to climate protection even more efficient than before. That is why we should support Mrs Pereira's proposal in the vote tomorrow.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Agriculture in Europe can only have a successful future if it succeeds in attracting young people to this profession. This challenge is already great today and it will become greater. Even the age pyramid in Europe will mean that capable young people in Europe will have many opportunities in the coming years. Many sectors will rally around young people and therefore we must remain attractive with agriculture. Our report shows the necessary steps. We need to invest in education and training. We must also make it possible for young people who want to enter agriculture to join us. It needs access to land, it needs financial start-up help. And I'm also wondering: The CAP – as it works today – is it a real incentive for young, innovative people with good entrepreneurial instinct? Or is it sometimes better for established companies that have a lot of land and often fewer ideas? We need more incentives in the CAP for young people, for innovation and also for entrepreneurship. Above all, however, we must guarantee that young people are given opportunities to invest in technologies in order to be able to produce efficiently and sustainably. And young people need a vibrant rural area. If you want to live in the countryside with your family, you not only need income, you also need a school, a kindergarten, a daycare centre, roads, a doctor – all that makes a living rural area. Above all, however, agriculture must become attractive again, a sector that is cool for young people. In order to achieve this, we must once again value farmers, especially young farmers. If, as is unfortunately often the case, we all pretend to know better than anyone else how agriculture works and fall for agriculture and farmers on a daily basis, we will certainly not inspire young people. And without these young people, there will be no future in agriculture.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Proteins are of outstanding importance for the nutrition of humans and, above all, of animals. Unfortunately, the European Union is miles away from being able to supply itself with proteins. We now import more than three quarters of the high-quality proteins mainly from North and South America, especially of course soy. The reasons are manifold. There are historical reasons, the Blair House Agreement, but also – this is the main reason: The cultivation of soy and partly also rapeseed is simply less profitable than the cultivation of other crops. We will therefore only really increase protein production if it is possible to bring protein crops into our crop rotations on a larger scale. This requires incentives and probably also commitments under the common agricultural policy. We should also make better use of our set-aside areas for the extensive cultivation of protein crops. But we should also consider how to use less high-quality protein for animal nutrition. And by making better use of our cattle farming land, we can make better use of permanent grassland, consume less imported protein and thus also make a contribution to climate protection. A word about human nutrition: It makes sense if we incorporate more plant-based protein into our diet. This is healthy and also efficient. But we must not set ourselves the goal of replacing animal protein and milk and, above all, meat with synthetic products. If you don't want to eat real meat, you shouldn't eat any. If you think that you can solve our lack of protein by eating clusters of cells grown in the biogenerator, you are probably on the wrong track. Sovereignty is also a piece of security in difficult times like these. This is especially true for the diet, and we still have a long way to go with the proteins.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! No pesticide used in agriculture has heated minds like glyphosate for years. There are reasons for this, not everyone has to do with scientific findings and scientific facts. In this House, we proposed five years ago that the active substance should only be extended under certain conditions. This includes, in particular, a clear ban on the use of the active substance for pre-harvest treatments. Only then and only then can the active substance enter the food chain. Late, but the Commission is now taking up this proposal. Agriculture needs – perhaps unfortunately – glyphosate as a herbicide. A real alternative is not available to agriculture to this day. Above all, one must not forget that many practices of low-carbon agriculture such as minimum or no tillage This is only possible if an efficient total herbicide is available. But it must be clear that only this use as a herbicide will be prolonged and that Member States will no longer be able to allow exceptions to it. There are alternatives for pre-harvest treatments, and they should also be used. This also requires a clear mirror clause, the residue value MRL must be adjusted accordingly for food in Europe and for imported food. What applies in Europe must also apply to imported goods. Above all, it is important that alternatives are explored. These include substances such as pelargonic acid. These substances need to be improved and approved quickly. My group therefore supports the Commission's proposal for a restricted re-authorisation of the active substance.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! For example, no authorisation for cross-border tram drivers, requirements and problems with cross-border mountain rescue services, ambulance transport, lengthy procedures for the recognition of professional qualifications – all examples that show where existing legislative and administrative hurdles may exist that citizens face at the border. There are, of course, instruments of European regional policy, there is Interreg, there are EGTCs, but they are not sufficient, especially if there is a need to change the legal framework or administrative provisions. The Commission – you mentioned it, Commissioner – has already put forward a proposal for a solution to this problem in 2018. Unfortunately, the Council has not adopted it to date and has not progressed in the debate. With this proposal, and I would like to thank our rapporteur in particular, we are now trying to get started. The mechanism on which we will vote tomorrow gives citizens and institutions the opportunity to report legislative and administrative hurdles to a central coordinating body with the guarantee of feedback and then also to receive assistance. It was particularly important to us that the affected regions and authorities were involved. We need a mechanism that integrates border actors, communities and regions closely into decisions. We have addressed the Council's reservations. The sovereignty of the Member States remains untouched. Activation of the mechanism is voluntary. Now it is up to the Commission and, above all, the Council to show that they are serious and that they are really working to build European integration, to remove obstacles and that the whole thing does not remain an empty word for the citizens of the border region. Cross-border cooperation is an important part of Europe. If we expand and facilitate them, we will also advance the European Union.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Last 24 November, in this House, we voted by a large majority in favour of adapting the protection status of the wolf and the large predators in the European Union to the current situation. Today, there are around 20,000 wolves growing in the European Union. This is the result of 30 years of strict protection under the Natura 2000 Directive. And even the IUCN now classifies the wolf population in Europe as no longer threatened. We should take note of this success of the directive. This applies not only to wolves, but also to other large predators and many other species. But we must also take note: The conflicts between wolves, bears, humans and especially farm animals are increasing every day. I come from South Tyrol, a country in the middle of the Alps. We still have a vibrant rural area where people live, farming, breeding animals, often cultivating and grazing extreme mountain slopes. This is also a basis for biodiversity. An unmanaged alpine pasture is unequally less, has unequally less biodiversity than a managed one. In the region, unfortunately, a 26-year-old man has been killed by a bear in recent months because there are now more than 100 brown bears living in the narrowest space, and there is no way to reduce this population. Attacks by wolves on sheep and goats – and more and more often on cattle – are now almost daily. In my region alone, 500 animals were torn this year. And I was unfortunately with flocks of sheep, where the wolf had raged the night before. I collected dead, half-dead and shocked animals. And I wonder every time about so-called animal rights activists who defend every wolf and every bear with claws, but who obviously don't care about hundreds of cunning farm animals. Is it any wonder people don't dare to go into the woods anymore? If animal breeders leave alpine pastures, get out of sheep breeding? Let's ask ourselves the question: How much biodiversity does the wolf bring? How much biodiversity does it destroy? The Commission's response to this question has so far been more than meager. The animals should be protected and pasture protection measures implemented. Well-meaning, sometimes badly possible. Maybe you should just look at the situation more often on the spot. There are areas where pasture protection is possible, but there are also areas where it is difficult, with only very high effort is possible. And I wonder for what? So that a species that is not threatened also colonizes the last corner of Europe? We must not make a mistake in this debate. We must not pretend that our rural areas, our villages, our meadows and pastures, our forests are pure natural spaces. They are human-influenced spaces, they are cultural landscapes. If we want to preserve these cultural landscapes, then there is not only the interest of nature, there is also the interest of people. There is the interest of the farmers, who farm these lands with a lot of effort and often little pay. There needs to be a balance between the two. A strictly protected wolf and an unprotected sheep simply do not fit together. This is an unfair balance. Therefore: A new approach is needed, and I would like to thank Commission President Ursula von der Leyen for taking the issue into her own hands last week. The protection of the wolf and the large predators must be adapted to the current situation. It's not about putting the wolf at risk again. It's about making interventions possible where necessary so that both have a chance. The farmers, the farm animals and also the big predators. I would like to thank the President of the Commission for taking up the democratic decision taken by this House six months ago. And I hope that we will now really come to act quickly and thus give a swift answer.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. The Solidarity Lanes should actually serve to bring grain and oil fruits from Ukraine by EU land route to where they are needed: Africa and the Middle East. I was about a year ago on the border of Ukraine with Poland and Romania and even then it was clear that this cannot work. In the penultimate week, Commissioner, you reported in our Committee on Agriculture that less than 5% of the cereals produced by the Solidarity lanes Come to the European Union and leave the European Union. This is a crash landing. This is a bankruptcy declaration for the Solidarity lanes. The success you have presented here does not exist at all. The grain ends up in the European Union and not in Africa and not in the Middle East. And now, of course, one can suggest that one should finance the export. But Commissioner, you know exactly that the money is not there. And once again, there are promises that do not benefit anyone and certainly not the farmers. So yes to solidarity with Ukraine, yes to duty-free import, but also yes to new agreements with friends in Ukraine to guarantee that at least some of this grain does not come to the European Union, but really ends up in the world – where it is needed.

Mrs. Colleague! In the context of the long debate on the common agricultural policy, I have been very active in ensuring that the CAP includes elements of sustainability, that we incorporate eco-schemes, that we support the agri-environmental programme. We now spend around a third of the total Common Agricultural Policy money on sustainability programmes each year. I think we should continue along this path efficiently in this reform and also in the coming reforms. In doing so, we will create more opportunities for farmers and also help nature more.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I believe that whenever we make new legislation here in this House, we should ask ourselves a central question: Does this legislation add value and respect subsidiarity? With regard to the Nature Restoration Regulation, the answer is very clear: No. Our states, regions and municipalities are responsible for the protection of the landscape. A general prohibition of deterioration will seriously violate this competence. I very much doubt whether Brussels authorities can weigh a future better than a single municipality, whether an intervention is reasonable or not. Then, of course, once again in agriculture, we identify those responsible for the destruction of nature and the landscape. 10% of the land is to be taken out of production. Food safety, the Commission says, is not affected by this. This will be true if you get more intense on the remaining 90%. Does that make sense? I think it makes sense to find ways in agriculture on all lands so that we can produce as sustainably as possible. To this end, we have the common agricultural policy, we spend around 20 billion euros a year, and we will jeopardise these voluntary programmes if we introduce minimum standards, legal standards. Then, of course, there is the question of property rights. This, too, is badly hurt. This law belongs back to the Commission. (The speaker agreed to answer a question on the blue card procedure.)

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! This Directive mixes industrial emissions with emissions from agriculture, which in itself is quite peculiar. But what is more, the Commission wants to make farms industrial farms, which in many Member States are quite normal family farms. This is especially true for cattle breeding. Of course, emissions from agriculture can also be problematic. But the question of whether they are problematic or not clearly depends on whether there is a reasonable relationship between forage area and kept animals. If this ratio is correct, then even a larger operation is not problematic. If this ratio is not correct, then even a small operation can be very problematic in terms of emissions. That is why, I think, it is reasonable that tomorrow we accept the amendments of the Committee on Agriculture, that we then consider how to find a reasonable criterion to identify those farms that are really problematic in terms of emissions and that we do not create a general problem for small farms as well.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The Pandora Papers have revealed a construct of over 29 000 tax avoidance and tax evasion accounts. And the goal is clear: It is about avoiding taxes, enriching oneself at the expense of the states and thus the general public and thus simply stealing money that would be due to the people of Europe. That can only be condemned, and that is what we are doing with this report. But it's not necessarily about pointing fingers at individuals, but simply analyzing what happened and looking at where we can start in the future. In this respect, I think it is much more about the future than the past. Of course, we must also critically question our own rules and tighten our own rules where necessary. Tax havens, systems on the fringes of legality - and also ethically justifiable - unfortunately do not only exist anywhere in the world, they unfortunately also exist within the European Union. We are in favour of fair tax competition based on the principles of transparency, fairness and cooperation, which is also compatible with the European internal market. That is why honest and fair cooperation between national tax authorities in the European Union is needed, but also stronger international cooperation, more exchange of information, comprehensive mechanisms to combat tax evasion. The report also highlights the role of intermediaries in facilitating tax evasion. Consistent action is needed against tax advisors who develop and sell systems of evasion and aggressive tax planning. But there is no point in simply condemning large consulting firms or demanding their dismantling. I think we also need a framework for withholding taxes. The significantly different tax rates in the Member States and in third countries will always favour a capital shift where low or no taxes are to be paid. This has to be tackled. Capital gains should be taxed at least once. It is now up to us - here in the European Parliament, but above all in the Member States - to finally put aside our own selfishness, to implement effective rules that lead to more justice in taxation and that finally take the wind out of the sails of the clever.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! This European Union has also been set up to provide people in Europe with a safe diet. Over the decades, we have forgotten a bit about this mission and, unfortunately, a war in the middle of Europe had to intervene to remind us once again that we also have a responsibility to provide our citizens in the Union with sufficient safe food on a daily basis. Now there are always those who play off food production and sustainability against each other: Land must be set aside, extensification, production shut down in order to produce sustainably. Probably a nonsense. Is it sustainable to give up land in Europe and to bring our food from all over the world? Is it ethical for the European Union, with all its agricultural advantages, to buy food all over the world and buy it away from others in front of its nose? Sustainable Development Goal number two is to end hunger worldwide. Unfortunately, we are far from that. We have to assume our responsibility in Europe. We have to see that our farmers produce the food we need and possibly help feed people in the world. The report we are voting on tomorrow contains many important points in this direction, and we will support it. We need a future-oriented, knowledge-based, modern agriculture that simultaneously produces sustainable and intensively high-quality food in Europe.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen. Food with geographical designations of origin is a cultural asset of our Union, of the regions and, above all, of the people who produce it. Of course, these foods are also important from an economic point of view. Every year in the European Union, we produce food with geographical indications of origin worth around 75 million euros, and the trend is increasing. 15% of the food we export is labelled as such. But it's about more: What products from Europe do people around the world appreciate? wines, cheeses, spirits, charcuterie with a designation of origin or any skimmed-milk powder, or No-namepork? These products are spearheads of our exports, and that's why we have to make sure that our names are protected from abuse and imitation in Europe and worldwide. However, these products also shape regions throughout Europe: Imagine the Champagne, Barolo, the Moselle without vineyard, the Comté without cheese. Tomorrow we will vote on an ambitious reform of our legislation. With this reform, we will have even better protection of designations in Europe and in the world. And we should agree with that, as we have already done in the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we have witnessed and unfortunately are witnessing in Emilia-Romagna a catastrophe that has destroyed lives, families, well-being, homes and agricultural land and has taken away the livelihoods of thousands of people. I want to express first of all my solidarity with the people affected, and we too should do here, in Brussels, what we can do to activate all the European solidarity systems. When, and I hope soon, the most serious consequences of this disaster are removed, the population will also have the right to know the causes of what happened, and it is too easy to identify, as often happens, how climate change alone is responsible, as the title of our debate today suggests. There is no doubt that climate change accentuates weather extremes; a long drought throughout northern Italy followed this catastrophe, caused by abundant and torrential rainfall, but it is more than evident that once again very important civil protection structures were either not there or did not work. The expansion basins did not work, there were no hydraulic works, which should have been built long ago, the sealed surface has increased from year to year, many farmers in the mountains and hills have abandoned activities, accelerating hydrogeological instability, creating erosion and landslides. Climate change is a fact; Even if we achieve all the objectives that we have set ourselves in this House, it would be absurd to think that in the coming decades we will be able to resolve the changes that have now been caused. At best, we can curb the changes that are taking place. We must therefore also prepare for events such as the one that unfortunately happened in Emilia-Romagna. Civil protection will have an increasingly important task at European, national and above all also at local level.

Madam President, Commissioner, Minister, colleagues! The solidarity lanes, these solidarity corridors, have in reality never existed, and they do not exist to this day. Or it was only in the Commission's imagination and communication. By definition, a corridor starts somewhere, for example in Ukraine, and ends somewhere, for example in Egypt, Lebanon or even Spain. In reality, however, only the borders between Ukraine and the European Union were opened, a few border infrastructures improved, and the whole thing was then simply called solidarity corridors. The problem we have today in the EU's border states with Ukraine was clearly foreseeable. I was at the border a year ago. I even wrote a letter to the Commission, warning against this development. Nothing happened. Some border states have now introduced unilateral restrictions on imports, contrary to the rules of the single market. By the way, the country most affected – Romania – has not done so. What is the Commission's reply? The measures are simply legalized. The consequences are, in my opinion, perfectly clear. The problem is simply shifted by a few 100 kilometers to the west, and unfortunately the development is likely to repeat itself there. Or what would you do tomorrow, Commissioner, if Germany, France or Belgium introduced unilateral and illegal import bans on Ukrainian products? Just legalize them? A corridor is a corridor. The Commission finally has acceptable proposals to make so that there are really green corridors from Ukraine and not just open borders.

Mr President, Mr Minister, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Sustainability is a term that we now use all the time and everywhere. It actually comes from agriculture and forestry, and rightly so. I think there is no industry in which the principle of getting, managing, passing on from the ancestors is lived in the same way as in agriculture. You really just have to look at it. We just need to look: How many farms are there in the rest of the economy that have been run by the same family for centuries, and how many are there in agriculture? That's why it's a bit on the edge of the absurd when everyone seems to know better than the farmers themselves how to run an agricultural business sustainably. This does not mean that everything is perfect in agriculture. Of course, as everywhere else, there is clearly room for improvement in terms of sustainability. But we all too often fail to recognise that on our farms, fortunately, there are many educated, highly motivated farmers who have little desire to be called out on a daily basis for what they are doing wrong – often by people who have neither an education in agriculture nor have worked a single day on a farm. Therefore: If we want to improve things, we have to do it together with the farmers. This is a matter of respect. It is a matter of dignity towards those who make sure that we all have food and drink on a daily basis. And it is precisely this debate on an equal footing, Commissioner, that has not yet taken place in the proposals for the reduction of plant protection products and the restoration of nature. That is why the Commission's proposals have been so incredibly bad, and that is why my group does not support them, not because we do not share the objectives or, as the Left and Greens have tweeted so diligently in recent days, because we are the eternal yesterdays. Agriculture, food supply is a strategic issue for the Union. We need excellent and also young farmers who are trained and who are enthusiastic about farming. This is the basic prerequisite if we want to implement the Green Deal in our fields as well. But we will certainly not get them if we criticize the farmers on a daily basis, but only if we value them and treat them with respect.

Madam President, colleagues, it was the EPP Group that insisted last week on a key debate on agriculture. Our proposal was to stress the need to listen and to respect farmers in shaping EU policies. But, The Left group as well as the Renew Group could not accept the concept of listening and respect farmers. As a result, the title of the key debate on agriculture as it now stands on the agenda, risks to change fundamentally the initial idea of the debate. Of course, our farmers play an important role in the green transition and the resilience of the sector, and there is hardly, I think, an economic sector like agriculture that adapted and modernised so dramatically and drastically over the past decade as in the context of the Green Deal and the current economic challenges. However, let us not give the impression that the main role of our farmers would be to enable the green transition. We have had countless debates in this Chamber on the need to be ambitious in addressing climate change. By fully respecting the objectives of the EU Fit for 55 agenda, it must be clear that our farmers are crucial for our food security and for sustaining our rural areas. The EPP Group therefore believes it’s high time to have a debate which expresses this respect to the role of farmers and the willingness to listen to them. So we want to achieve this objective together with farmers and not imposing on them our objectives. Therefore, the PPE Group moves the request to change the title as follows ‘Listening to and respecting farmers as enablers of the green transition and a resilient agricultural sector’.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The European Citizens' Initiatives are an instrument of direct democracy and, in principle, I think it is commendable for citizens to speak out. I also know how difficult it is to get the necessary signatures – one million – on paper. I myself have been at the forefront of a citizens' initiative in the past. The protection of bees, of insects as a whole, of biodiversity as a whole is undoubtedly a concern that is also close to the heart of farmers. After all, many agricultural crops also depend on pollination. There is also no question that the working conditions of the farmers, especially the occupational safety in the handling of chemical active ingredients, must be closely monitored and risks minimised. Less chemistry is therefore also in the interest not only of the bees, but also of the farmers, the farmers, especially in the interest of the farmers’ wallet itself – things also cost something. However, sometimes it is also done as if the farmers use chemistry so from juxtaposition and Tollerei and as if one could so easily do without it. It's not that simple. We need alternatives that you, Commissioner, have just pointed out. Unfortunately, many people who have signed the initiative will also want unlimited and unlimited access to food and often to food at very low prices in the same breath. If we want to reduce the use of pesticides, there will be a loss of production. Ultimately, the burden of this must not be left to the farmers; They no longer have any financial leeway. Little is done when everyone says they are willing to pay more. The current market situation clearly shows: In most cases, this is simply a lie. As a result of inflation, people are increasingly turning to cheap products. The organic products are currently piled up in the warehouses and find buyers only at prices that are then no longer acceptable for the farmers. I think if people in Europe buy sustainable local food and accept slightly higher prices, they are probably doing the best service to the cause, the better probably even than with a signature. Then you really help the bees, the farmers and the farmers in the European Union.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! For over a year, our farmers have been suffering from an explosion of costs on their farms, and these are only partially offset by higher product prices. Fertilizer prices are particularly explosive and important. And, of course, this is partly due to the high energy prices, but it would also be too easy to blame only on energy prices; It is obvious that there has also been and continues to be a market failure. Fertilizer manufacturers in Europe have experienced a golden year 2022 with exceptionally high profits. The increasing concentration of producers in Europe and the associated oligopoly in Europe leads to the fact that, in this crisis, once again the farmers are the varnished. In this situation, we need to find solutions and learn from them. Farmers need short-term support, and the Commission needs to monitor the situation on the market and, if necessary, activate the crisis reserve. We must also suspend import duties on fertilisers in the short term. However, the Commission must also monitor the market better and intervene if there is a market failure, and this is actually quite obvious in this case. And then we need long-term lessons. We need to reduce our dependence on mineral fertilizers. And this is especially in the interest of the farmers themselves. This requires crop rotations with more legumes, and the reformed CAP allows us to promote this as part of a new ecosystem. However, we must also note that the animals kept in Europe and thus the available organic fertiliser are decreasing. However, the animals we still have are concentrated more and more in very few regions of the EU, while in other regions there are hardly any animals left. This then creates zones with areas where there is far too much organic fertiliser – with all the associated negative consequences – and other zones where organic fertiliser is no longer there. And this also shows all those who criticize animal husbandry in Europe again and again how important animal husbandry is, especially for a reasonable fertilizer management. We need a better distribution of animals in Europe and thus a better distribution of organic fertilisers. Every crisis is an opportunity. The chance of this crisis, in my view, is that we will learn again to get better fertilizer cycles in agriculture on the way.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! I think it is relatively obvious that the criminal activity of a non-governmental organisation plays a very important role in the corruption scandal that unfortunately shakes this House. And yet, for weeks now, the left side of this House has been refusing to talk with hands and feet about the transparency of precisely these non-governmental organisations. And I don't understand why. Those non-governmental organizations that do their job properly have nothing to fear. Quite the contrary. They are an important element of our civil society, and they themselves should have an interest in having the rotten apples sorted out of the fruit basket. And, moreover, it is exactly the same as for us politicians: Those who perform their duties properly need not be afraid of transparency. If non-governmental organisations are registered in a transparency register, if they are publicly supported, especially if they are supported by ourselves, by the Commission, if the representatives of non-governmental organisations enter this House, if they work in this House, then I believe that two transparency criteria must apply. Firstly: The non-governmental organization must effectively represent someone. It must have members. And secondly: We have the right to know where they are taking the money from and what they are doing with the money. I think that non-governmental organisations should not refuse this minimal requirement of transparency if they want to remain credible.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The war in Ukraine has also put the food supply in Europe and the world as a whole to the test. It is a good thing that the Commission has tried to open up new export routes from Ukraine, especially as long as the seaports in the Black Sea were closed. But the dismantling of all export tariffs and the new export routes directly to the European Union have also made it possible for farmers in the European Union, especially in the east of our Union, in the border countries with Ukraine. Only a very small proportion of imported agricultural goods, cereals and meat, are exported to third countries: Half of them are corn, and more than 60 percent of sunflowers remain in Europe. This, of course, leads to price pressure for us. Of course, we want to give Ukrainian farmers every opportunity to sell their products to the European Union. But on the other hand, we must not look the other way when our farmers come into trouble with it. We have to deal with this issue. We must help the affected farmers in the European Union. But then, especially in the coming months and years, we have to see that the standards of the European Union are also adhered to in Ukraine in a process of bringing it to the European Union.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! The inflation we are currently experiencing has basically two causes: Energy and, unfortunately, food. And the two are very closely related. On average, 11% of agricultural costs are energy costs. In addition, there are currently high fertilizer prices, which are also partly the result of high energy prices. As a result, many people are unfortunately trying to find cheap food, and the premium sector – high-quality and sustainably produced food – and organic farming are also suffering from this situation. That's exactly what we don't want. Therefore, we have to look more and more at the fact that speculators do not take advantage of such times. It simply cannot be that many of our citizens have to save on food, while energy companies, food retailers and fertilizer producers are improving their balance sheets. People don't know how to pay their bills, and we're talking about taxing special profits here. Something's not going right. That's why we basically need three things: We need a clear price cap on energy, we need a functioning fertiliser market again, and we do not need new legislative initiatives that endanger food safety and supply in Europe.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! Rural areas are habitats for people. And these people who live there have every right to quality of life, which may be different than in the cities, but must not be worse. People in rural areas have the right to healthcare, they have the right to safe roads, public transport, fast internet, child care centres, schools, retirement homes and much more. People in rural areas also have the right and probably the duty to operate the economy. Only if farmers and SMEs are in rural areas will there be jobs. And without jobs, there are no families in rural areas. Therefore, it must stop that people from cities tell the people in rural areas every day what they are doing and what they are not allowed to do. Rural spaces don't need cheese bells decided by others, among which every entrepreneurial idea often stifles. It is also a good thing that we are addressing the situation with the big predators in connection with this report. Many pay homage to a completely misunderstood idea of biodiversity and even accept or welcome the fact that wolves and bears walk through our villages and tear down farm animals there. We need answers here too. If the text is adopted tomorrow as we have prepared it in committee, then that is an answer. Rural spaces remain vital when people are ready and have the chance to shape them. I hope this report is a good step forward.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen! In 1992, when the Habitats Directive placed the wolf and other large predators – the brown bear, the lynx – under protection in the EU, these species were practically extinct in the European Union. Today, 30 years later, this policy has been successful. All these species are back in the habitats of the European Union – but unfortunately they also create problems. Coexistence between grazing animals and large predators is difficult and probably impossible in some rooms, such as alpine pastures. And all those who keep talking about these beautiful projects – including you, Commissioner, just said that – and say that there is great coexistence, I ask: Where are these? I've been asking about it for years, I haven't found it. And I have the impression that they simply exist more in the minds of those who do not have to take care of their animals day and night or who have to clean up a carnage after an attack. The completely protected wolf is confronted by the completely unprotected sheep or goat. Today's protection status is simply no longer necessary in many regions. We now have stable populations, and they will continue to exist even with a weakened protection, as experience shows. And we will only get a broad acceptance for these species if we also look these facts in the eye and do not prevent any management with ideological dreaming. And finally: Of course, there is also a need for increased commitment to coexistence and herd protection. That costs, and that cannot be paid for only by the common agricultural policy. If our citizens want wolves, bears and lynxes in our forests, then they have to pay for them and not pay the farmers these costs. They then have to stand up with their own tax money for the costs and also for the damages.