Az ülések szó szerinti jegyzőkönyve

2016. június 6., Hétfő - Strasbourg

18. A fenntartható uniós mezőgazdaság technológiai megoldásai (rövid ismertetés)

Puhemies. – Esityslistalla on seuraavana lyhyt esittely Anthea McIntyren mietinnöstä Kestävän maatalouden tekniset ratkaisut (2015/2225(INI)) (A8—0174/2016).

  Anthea McIntyre, rapporteur. – Madam President, let me start by saying how much I have really appreciated the support and cooperation of all the Groups and the shadows in producing this report. It is estimated that there will be nearly 2.5 billion more people on the planet by 2050 than there are today, so satisfying the demand for safe, healthy and nutritious food is one of the biggest challenges facing our world. Land availability is shrinking; we have environmental degradation, shortages of water and increased energy demand, not to mention the emergence of new pests and diseases – all of which are putting real pressure on the natural environment. So we need to develop technological solutions not only to increase production, but to improve the means of distribution and to tackle food waste, and the benefits of innovative technologies need to be applicable and available to all our farmers whether they are conventional or organic, livestock or arable, small scale or large scale.

Concern about food security has brought a new focus to public sector research and development in recent years, but European agriculture continues to trail behind many of its international competitors. What we need is sustained and prioritised investment in applied and translational research. Not enough research is commercialised, and that means that farmers are not able to take advantage of the opportunities that innovation could provide, Take precision farming, for example. My report calls on the Commission and the Member States to work in partnership to improve the performance and adaptability of PF techniques.

Agriculture accounts for 70% of the world’s freshwater use – 70%. Now this can be significantly reduced by the use of precision irrigation techniques. My report welcomes the inclusion of PF robotics in Horizon 2020 and encourages the uptake of GPS-driven machinery and drones. It welcomes the development of controlled traffic farming technologies which reduce soil damage. It welcomes efforts to integrate high-resolution remote sensing technology into organic farming.

The report also covers the need for continuous progress in innovative breeding aimed at increasing not only the range of pest- and disease-resistant traits in crops, but also the range of food raw materials with nutritional and health beneficial characteristics on the market. The loss of genetic diversity over the past century threatens our food and feed security, so all plant varieties, animal species, land races, wild and semi-wild relatives, they are all essential for maintaining genetic diversity. And we should be encouraging an open and transparent dialogue among the stakeholders and the public on responsible development of high-precision innovative solutions for breeding programmes, including risks, hazards and benefits. We need to raise awareness and understanding of new techniques among farmers and the general public, and we have to make sure that consumers and farmers are sufficiently educated about new breeding techniques to ensure that open and informed public debate can take place.

Europe should be a world leader in agricultural technology. Farmers are the major stewards of our environment and they need continued access to innovation, new technology and research in order to produce food in a sustainable way. So we need all to work together – the EU and the Member States, academia such as Harper Adams University in my region, the industry, breeders, agro-chemical sectors, all work together to make sure that we have the best research and we translate it practice, from lab to farm to fork. That will unlock a new phase in agricultural innovation in Europe.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Norbert Lins (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Damit die europäische Landwirtschaft im globalen Vergleich weiterhin eine herausragende Stellung in Technologie, Innovation und Nachhaltigkeit einnehmen kann, müssen wir sie für die Zukunft fit machen.

Dafür bedarf es meiner Meinung nach: Erstens: Ressourcen schon in der Präzisionslandwirtschaft, welche die Wirksamkeit der eingesetzten Mittel verbessern. Zweitens: Der Einbeziehung aller Landwirtschaftsformen und aller Regionen, also Gunstlagen genauso wie benachteiligte Gebiete sowie große und kleine Betriebe, um die nachhaltige Entwicklung des gesamten ländlichen Raums zu garantieren. Drittens: Einer besseren Zusammenarbeit zwischen Landwirten, Agrarunternehmen und Forschungseinrichtungen. Was die strittigen Punkte betrifft: Neue Züchtungstechniken sollten nicht von vornherein als negativ abgestempelt, sondern erst einer fundierten wissenschaftlichen Analyse unterzogen werden. Deswegen finde ich es gut, dass in der Ökolandbauforschung auch eine kontroverse Diskussion dazu stattfindet. In diesem Sinne herzlichen Dank an die Berichterstatterin für die gute Zusammenarbeit.

  Ricardo Serrão Santos (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, a inovação deve estar ao serviço de todos os tipos de exploração agrícola, incluindo as de tamanho mais modesto ou familiar, para o que as regiões ultraperiféricas podem constituir um bom laboratório.

Soluções inovadoras podem contribuir para uma agricultura mais eficaz no uso dos recursos que melhorem a competitividade dos agricultores.

O texto que debatemos inclui referências a novas técnicas de melhoramento, new breeding techniques. Relativamente a estas, entendo que não podemos adotar uma posição obscurantista porque devemos e temos a obrigação de criar um ambiente propício ao desenvolvimento da ciência, mas sempre, e repito, sempre, com medidas de precaução poderosas e muito precauciosas no que diz respeito ao impacto no ambiente e saúde dos animais das pessoas.

Exige mais debate e mais informação para não adotarmos posições demasiado apriorísticas. Não devemos impedir o desenvolvimento e o trabalho dos centros de investigação nestas matérias, mas reforço, devemos ser muito precauciosos na passagem à produção e ao consumo.

  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, στην έκθεση που συζητούμε τίθεται το πρωτεύουσας σημασίας ζήτημα της επιβίωσης της ευρωπαϊκής γεωργίας, δηλαδή της προσαρμογής της στα νέα τεχνολογικά και οικονομικά δεδομένα. Δυστυχώς όμως διαπιστώνουμε ότι δεν υπάρχει καμία σαφής αναφορά στις απειλές που αντιμετωπίζει σήμερα η γεωργία μας. Πώς θα νομοθετήσουμε για την προστασία της αγροτικής οικονομίας χωρίς να έχουμε προσδιορίσει τους κινδύνους; Ο κυριότερος κίνδυνος αυτή τη στιγμή είναι η λογική που καταργεί τις ονομασίες προέλευσης, η λογική που στηρίζει την εισαγωγή γενετικά μεταλλαγμένων τροφίμων στις αγορές και φυσικά η λογική των επιδοτήσεων της μονοκαλλιέργειας, της εντατικοποίησης της γεωργίας και των μεγάλων λόμπι του αγροτικού τομέα. Άλλωστε η Επιτροπή δεν χρειάστηκε παρά να κάνει λίγες σκέψεις προκειμένου να δώσει φερ’ ειπείν στην Τσεχία τη δυνατότητα να παράγει ελληνικό γιαούρτι, κύριε Επίτροπε. Εκεί φτάσαμε! Ελληνικό γιαούρτι «made in Τσεχία»! Προστασία λοιπόν του αγροτικού τομέα και της βιώσιμης γεωργίας σημαίνει επιδοτήσεις στους σωστούς αποδέκτες, σημαίνει ήπιος και δημοκρατικός εκσυγχρονισμός της παραδοσιακής μικρής και βιολογικής καλλιέργειας.

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – (Početak govora se ne čuje) poljoprivredi, jesam za korištenje satelita, za korištenje digitalnih metoda, ali nisam za to da svi jedemo isto, nisam za to da imamo situaciju u kojoj će se naše zdravlje, naš okoliš dovesti u pitanje. Pogotovo, nisam za to da onima koji ribu trebaju, a to je Afrika, to su neke zemlje koje su siromašne, oni trebaju ribu, ali ja nisam za to da im damo ribu, nego sam za to da im damo udicu i da nauče loviti ribu.

Dakle, nisam za to da Europska unija, zato što na svijetu rapidno raste broj stanovništva, postane jedini proizvođač hrane, kao što se na neki način sugerira u ovom izvještaju. Nego sam za to da zaista svatko ima udicu i svatko može uloviti ribu i prehraniti samog sebe, odnosno da svaka zemlja, svaki kontinent, svaka obitelj to može učiniti. Zato, ja imam rezerve prema ovom izvještaju i neću ga sutra podržati.

  Miguel Viegas (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, o relatório contém aspetos positivos e relevantes, contudo passa ao lado da realidade e a realidade diz-nos que hoje, no mundo ocidental, produz-se comida a mais, paga-se para eliminar produtos alimentares. A tecnologia aplicada hoje à agricultura tornou-se num problema e não em qualquer solução milagrosa para um problema que é político e que só acabará com um novo modelo económico de produção e distribuição.

A tecnologia está hoje na origem da produção intensiva que coloca em perigo a biodiversidade e o equilíbrio o nosso planeta. Os OGM, o glifusato que a Comissão entendeu prolongar por mais sete anos, são filhos ilustres desta tecnologia. Não negamos a necessidade de maior investigação ao nível das práticas agrícolas, mas também temos que nos entender.

Uma agricultura sujeita às leis do capitalismo e da acumulação máxima de lucro só pode suscitar tecnologias cada vez mais intensivas e produtivistas. Antes de falar de tecnologia, importa, por isso, reverter a nossa PAC hoje completamente liberalizada.

  Molly Scott Cato (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, the EU faces a plateau in productivity and fertility caused by soil degradation and loss of ecosystem functions. Intensive farming and climate change have caused this, so continuing down the same intensive path is not a solution – technical or otherwise.

Soil health was in the UK news last week as our Environmental Audit Committee argued that CAP cross-compliance rules for agricultural soil health need greater scope, force and ambition. So we need more, not less, soil protection. But Tory Brexiteers, like George Eustace, wish to see these rules scrapped. Now this report claims to reduce inputs, but then calls for less regulation, the fast-tracking of approvals and so-called ‘enabling implementation’, which may enable agri-businesses to sell more and more quickly, but does little to help farmers, their livelihoods, or the soil.

Many of these so-called solutions are financially impossible for most farmers caught up in high input costs and low farm gate prices. Big businesses’ talk of robotics and satellites is distracting and so far removed from the realities of small farmers that the agri-business lobby and our Tory rapporteur really should get back to Earth.

  Jonathan Arnott (EFDD). – Madam President, of course post-Brexit we will want an agreement with the European Union. Of course we want to continue improving our technology, including robotic techniques, as mentioned by the rapporteur. Of course we want to cooperate in research in a way that is sustainable in the long term.

But the problem with the common agricultural policy is that it is just not fit for British farmers. We are already sending pre-accession agriculture funding to Turkey. We are putting in EUR 4.6 billion and getting EUR 2.9 billion back every year from the common agricultural policy. We are not producing enough food ourselves, and of course there is the perennial problem of red tape. So maybe those are just some of the reasons why a recent poll found that 59% of British farmers want to leave the European Union.

  Marijana Petir (PPE). – Gospođo predsjednice, tehnološki napredak ključan je za održivu poljoprivredu u Europskoj uniji. Poljoprivredna proizvodnja zasnovana na industrijskim principima proizvodnje rezultira štetnim učincima na sve sastavnice okoliša i zato su nam nužni novi načini promišljanja tehnološkog napretka poticanjem onoga što snižava ulazne troškove i cijenu proizvodnje uz minimalne utjecaje i rizike na okoliš, zdravlje, sigurnost hrane i bioraznolikost. Ali treba nam i nova, odgovornija regulacija zasnovana na poštovanju načela predostrožnosti, pogotovo kad se radi o novim tehnikama oplemenjivanja i uzgoja bilja.

Ovo izvješće promovira nove tehnike genetskog inženjeringa te zaziva izmjenu zakonodavnog okvira EU-a za GMO s ciljem da olakša njegovu autorizaciju, čemu se odlučno protivim. Promovira sintetičke kemijske pesticide klasificirajući ih kao nisko rizične iako nisu prošli detaljan postupak procjene rizika, što smatram neodgovornim.

Poštivanje načela predostrožnosti smatram ključnim u sprječavanju šteta koje mogu biti daleko veće od planiranih dobiti i o tome bi političari trebali voditi računa kada predlažu izvješća ili zakone.

  Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Elnök Asszony! Én egyetértek azzal, hogy a népességnövekedés miatti intenzív élelmiszertermelést fenntartható módon kell kialakítani. Ennek egyik fontos eleme az élelmiszerhulladék csökkentése, amely különböző mértékben, de kritikus méreteket ölt az egyes tagállamokban. Ennek megoldására szociális szempontokat figyelembe vevő eszközök kialakítását javaslom EU-s szinten.

Másik fontos elemnek tartom az innovációt, amely véleményem szerint akkor lesz sikeres, ha a tényleges gazdálkodók kapnak lehetőséget. Az európai innovációs partnerséget jónak tartom, de jó lenne látni a konkrét eredményeket. Mindehhez persze forrás szükséges, addig csak elméleti vita folyik itt. A Bizottságot kérem, hogy javasoljon erre megoldási lehetőségeket.

  Franc Bogovič (PPE). – Vsekakor podpiram tehnološki razvoj na področju kmetijstva, kajti v nasprotnem primeru kmetijstvo ne bo moglo izpolniti osnovnih pričakovanj, se pravi prehraniti ljudi, dati kmetom dostojanstven in dostojen prihodek, prav tako pa tudi zagotoviti varno hrano in ohraniti zaupanje potrošnikov.

Zato sem trdno prepričan, da je nujno potrebno posvetiti pozornost in se usmeriti predvsem v raziskave, ki so usmerjene k prenosu znanja v prakso. Takšne raziskave bodo imele veliko prihodnost, v kolikor bomo znali zainteresirat mlade ljudi, kajti ti so nosilci tudi sprememb.

Vsekakor pa podpiram raziskave, ki bodo šle v smeri novih novosti na področju varovanja rastlin, raziskave, ki bodo zagotovile varnost živil, in hkrati raziskave, ki bodo tudi odgovorile na veliko vprašanje klimatskih sprememb, ki se nam dogajajo. Vsekakor pa te vse raziskave rabijo veliko transparentnost, kajti ključno pri vsem tem je tudi, da ohranimo zvestobo potrošnika, ki bo verjel v varno evropsko hrano.

  Paul Brannen (S&D). – Madam President, as regards the McIntyre report, I think it is one thing to support innovation and new technologies for the agriculture sector, but I think it is quite another thing to do that with rather a disregard for farmers’ independence, environmental sustainability, and European rules on food safety.

I am completely in favour of new technologies for agriculture and I am convinced that farmers themselves are very much in favour, too. But I do not understand why modernisation of European agriculture is deemed equal to the genetic modification exceeding the boundaries of the established EU GMO assessment framework; deemed equal to a fast-track approval process for new pesticides, potentially putting human health and the environment at risk; and deemed equal to entrenching a misguided rationale that the EU should feed the world, despite the clear logic in favour of the developing world feeding itself and ensuring its own food sovereignty based on agro-ecological approaches.

We need to make clear, and ensure, that the common agricultural policy does not stifle innovation and modern technology; but the process must not compromise human health, environmental sustainability or animal welfare.

  Luke Ming Flanagan (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, for decades agricultural science has focused on boosting production through the development of new technologies. It has achieved enormous yield gains as well as lower costs for large-scale farming and improved the working conditions of many farmers. But this success has come at a high environmental cost. Furthermore, it has failed to solve the social and economic problems of the poor in developing countries, which have generally benefited the least from this boost in production. Increasingly the power of the retailer in the food chain is eroding the margins of even the most efficient and modern producers, as seen now in the crisis in the dairy sector. No matter what advances we make, the farmer seems to end up with less.

The report also does not address issues of food waste, estimated to be in the region of 30% of production globally. Nor does it address the imbalance in the food chain or the weak position of the primary producer.

There is definitely one technology out there that can benefit farmers, and that is social media, which make it possible to connect with customers directly without having to pay massive costs for marketing. We have one such company, Castlemaine Farms, in my constituency, and people are benefiting from it. That is how they will benefit from technology; with quality food.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Phil Hogan, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur Ms McIntyre for the initiative to address many issues that have a profound interest for the agricultural sector. This report is one of two reports that we will be discussing this evening regarding the importance of innovation in the development of agricultural production.

I share many of the rapporteur’s views which she has set out and I would like to comment on a few of the issues raised. What is particularly important is that the report focuses on the need for sustainable agriculture in the European Union. The report identifies a number of the challenges facing European agriculture in the decades ahead, not least in terms of global population growth and the increasing demand for food. In view of these challenges and those posed by climate change and the European Union’s commitment to meet the COP21 targets, the focus on sustainability is now more important than ever.

There are a number of aspects of the report that I welcome, including precision farming, soil and nutrient management, skills development and knowledge transfer. I welcome, too, the emphasis on reducing bureaucracy and red tape, all of which is consistent with my commitment to simplify the CAP. There is little doubt that big data and precision farming hold significant promise for the future of agricultural production in Europe, and the report encourages the Commission to stimulate the development and uptake of precision farming and to remove the barriers to the integration of fragmented ICT systems. The Commission is in fact very anxious to encourage more precision farming, but the conclusions of a focus group organised by the EIP network recently were that farmers are hesitant in the use of precision farming for several reasons. They do not want to be locked in by a single supplier of software and/or machinery. They want to retain ownership of their own data and they want to see whether an application has added value before they invest.

In view of the sustainability challenges that food production is facing, precision farming technologies offer many possibilities and we believe that many EIP pilot projects under the Rural Development Programme will show the usefulness of precision farming. Later this month our EIP Service Point will host a seminar to bring together businesses, many of them start-ups, that based their business model on the use of big data in the agricultural sector.

It seems that we all share similar concerns regarding genetic diversity. It is in our common interest to have a wide agricultural genetic diversity, but farmers will opt for the highest-yielding varieties and breeds, and as a result, we have already lost genetic diversity and risk losing even more. We have several tools to prevent this, such as support for in situ conservation – under rural development – and support for research in this area. On top of that, we now have an interesting pilot project made possible by a budget attributed by the European Parliament, on the sustainable use of genetic resources, looking for new market opportunities for certain neglected varieties or breeds.

Finally, I would like to come back to the issues of skills development, knowledge transfer and research priorities. Farming is changing and will continue to change, and like many other sectors it is becoming an increasingly knowledge-based industry. As Ms McIntyre’s report says, we need the right skills for this. I note and welcome the importance you attach to the EIP and to on-farm demonstration. Knowledge transfer and knowledge generation are key and we should constantly ask ourselves whether we can improve our policy in this area. I have seen many good examples of innovation and the outcomes of research, and I can see the potential of such developments. However, I am only too well aware that this potential will never be realised unless we can translate the innovation into practical on-farm application, as you have recognised in your identification of the importance of knowledge transfer.

Traditionally we link knowledge generation also to research. In January we had a conference in Brussels to discuss with the sector what the priorities for such a long-term research agenda should be. The outcomes of that conference will certainly be taken into account, both for research programming under the remaining part of Horizon 2020 and beyond. Finally, let me thank Ms McIntyre again for the report, and for the very many very relevant issues that were raised.

Puhemies. – Keskustelu on päättynyt.

  Pavel Poc (S&D), písemně. – Zprávu o technologických řešeních v oblasti udržitelného zemědělství v EU by bylo možné podpořit za předpokladu, že by brala v potaz nezávislost a rozmanitost zemědělců v EU, dopady na zdraví a životní prostředí, realitu klimatických změn a právo EU v oblasti bezpečnosti potravin. Nové technologie a inovace jsou naprosto jednoznačně tím, co zemědělci v EU potřebují, aby se adaptovali na nové a stále se měnící podmínky, a jako takové si zasluhují podporu. Nemám nicméně rád, když se do zprávy z vlastní iniciativy dostanou body, které nic z výše uvedeného nerespektují, neberou v potaz princip předběžné opatrnosti a vše se pak interpretuje jako jednotná pozice Parlamentu. Zpráva není v současné podobě akceptovatelná mimo jiné proto, že říká „A“, ale už nedoplní „B“. Zpráva hovoří o podvýživě, nedodává ale, že obezita nyní představuje ještě větší problém. Hovoří o nedostatku potravin, nedodává ale to, že plýtvání potravinami je stejně zásadní problém. Zpráva kolegyně McIntyreové rovněž tvrdí, že EU by měla nakrmit zbytek světa, přestože je jasné, že lokální a regionální produkce bude pro rozvíjející se státy mnohem důležitější. Zpravodajka si zjevně neuvědomuje obrovský problém současného zemědělského systému. Ten produkuje potraviny za cenu enormního zatížení planety a jako takový nemůže být aplikován i v budoucnosti.

  Carolina Punset (ALDE), por escrito. – Las soluciones tecnológicas en la agricultura siempre han creado mecanismos de dependencia del agricultor de las grandes compañías de producción y venta de fitosanitarios, semillas o abonos químicos. El reto de la alimentación de una población mundial creciente no pasa por aumentar los rendimientos de los cultivos mediante más aplicación de fertilizantes, organismos modificados genéticamente o más presión de insecticidas, sino por disminuir los alimentos que se tiran a la basura. La FAO estima que un 33 % de los alimentos producidos en el mundo acaban en la basura. La agricultura tecnificada tiene como resultado la deslocalización de la producción de los centros de consumo, por los requerimientos de extensión y abaratamiento de la mano de obra, lo que significa seguir destruyendo empleo local y aumentar las emisiones de CO2. En un mundo en transición hacia lo sostenible energéticamente, es hora de que la agricultura comience su andadura hacia una producción realmente sostenible, y la agricultura ecológica es el futuro de la producción sostenible. Además, crecer de manera continuada a pesar de la coyuntura económica, tanto en número de agricultores como en superficie, impulsada por una ciudadanía cada vez más responsable, por lo que la agricultura ecológica es la solución ambientalmente sostenible que Europa debe potenciar.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), par écrit. – Dans le contexte du changement climatique, de la hausse du besoin alimentaire résultant de l’augmentation démographique et des menaces pesant sur l’environnement, il est évident que l’innovation dans les technologies agricoles est essentielle pour relever ces défis, j’en suis parfaitement conscient. Toutefois, le texte voté ce midi n'est pas acceptable tant il met en avant une vision pro-industrielle, déshumanisée, pro-pesticide, pro-OGM.

Je suis, par exemple, particulièrement choqué qu'on y insiste lourdement sur le fait d'augmenter sensiblement la production de nourriture. Pour rappel, nous produisons aujourd'hui de la nourriture pour 14 milliards d'êtres humains alors que nous ne sommes que 7,2 milliards. Le rapport ne mentionne même pas la lutte contre le gaspillage, la question de l'obésité ou de la suralimentation dont souffrent de plus en plus de personnes. Rien non plus sur la crise agricole profonde, la précarité du travail de la terre ou encore l'état d'épuisement qui, eux aussi, mettent gravement en péril la production alimentaire pour les décennies à venir.

Par contre, proposition est faite de procédures light en matière d'autorisation de pesticides et des OGM déguisés .Ce texte donne l'impression d'avoir été rédigé par les industriels eux-mêmes. Je refuse de participer à cela!