MIL OSI Translation. Region: Germany / Deutschland –
Source: CDU CSU
Mister President! Ladies and gentlemen! With this law, we are cutting direct payments from farmers by 6 percent in the 2021 budget year and shifting this money from the first to the second pillar of the CAP. In 2022, a total of 295 million euros will then be available for promoting rural areas. The federal states can thus provide their support programs in the field of nature and environmental protection with sufficient financial resources. “More measures for environmental protection and climate protection” is the central demand of the public. We are hereby sending an effective signal.
It is important to us, however, that the funds remain tied to the allocation of agricultural funds.
(Albert Stegemann [CDU / CSU]: That’s how it is!)
Because this amount, which we take from the first pillar and which should benefit our environment, will initially be missing on the farms, in the businesses, both for income security and for risk protection.
At this point I would also like to point out that there are already many measures in the first pillar of the CAP that our farmers are taking to protect biodiversity and ecological habitats. For this they deserve our recognition and our respect.
(Applause from the CDU / CSU and Deputy Michael Theurer [FDP])
In contrast, the FDP shows no respect for the farmers with its proposal.
(Michael Theurer [FDP]: Don’t lie! Unbelievable!)
Dear colleagues, you are fooling the farmers with your application for an open-ended dialogue on the fertilizer ordinance. There can be no more open-ended dialogue after we were finally sentenced by the European Court of Justice and after 29 years and several attempts, we finally got a fertilizer regulation off the ground. There is no open-ended dialogue; there is an implementation.
(Applause from the CDU / CSU as well as from MPs of the SPD and the BÜNDNISSES 90 / DIE GRÜNEN)
To say that there are still alternatives to avoid infringement proceedings is simply dishonest. They use the farmers to somehow politically suck nectar from them. It doesn’t work that way.
(Applause from the CDU / CSU and delegate Rainer Spiering [SPD])
Regarding the application of the left for a grazing animal premium – it is brought in again and again – I would like to say the following:
(Dr. Gesine Lötzsch [DIE LINKE]: Until it is decided! We’ll do it that long!)
We generally reject coupled payments because in the past they have led to market distortions in Europe, but also to false incentives. Most of the shepherds have grassland. You benefit from the direct payments in the first pillar, where the premiums have increased significantly. But they also benefit from the payments in the second pillar, which is currently being financially strengthened by this reallocation.
(Dr. Kirsten Tackmann [DIE LINKE]: Then why are you poor?)
In this context, to be honest, we have a completely different impression. The recurring demand for a grazing animal premium seems to us to be linked to a promise made by certain groups to the shepherds,
(Dr. Kirsten Tackmann [DIE LINKE]: That was good! That’s ridiculous!)
with the promise to keep silent about the actually big problem for this grazing animal premium, namely the increasing threat from wolf cracks. We don’t support that.
(Applause from the CDU / CSU)
But I am quite prepared to visit a full-time sheep farm with you, provided that all the figures are then put on the table, that the figures are all completely disclosed. Conversely, however, you will have to take me to a company that has been damaged by wolf cracks.
(Dr. Kirsten Tackmann [DIE LINKE]: I am constantly in such companies!)
And then we see what comes of it.
We are voting in favor of the federal government’s draft law, but rejecting the FDP’s motion and the left’s motion for a resolution.
Thank you very much.
(Applause from the CDU / CSU)
EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is a translation. Apologies should the grammar and / or sentence structure not be perfect.