kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
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
it welcomes the development of controlled traffic farming technologies which reduce soil damage.
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.
seventy now this can be significantly reduced by the use of precision irrigation techniques.
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.
that will unlock a new phase in agricultural innovation in europe.
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.
europe should be a world leader in agricultural technology.
my report welcomes the inclusion of pf robotics in horizon two thousand and twenty and encourages the uptake of gps driven machinery and drones.
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.
it welcomes efforts to integrate high resolution remote sensing technology into organic farming.
two five billion more people on the planet by two thousand and fifty than there are today so satisfying the demand for safe healthy and nutritious food is one of the biggest challenges facing our world.
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.
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.
but european agriculture continues to trail behind many of its international competitors.
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.
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.
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.
the report also does not address issues of food waste estimated to be in the region of thirty of production globally.
no matter what advances we make the farmer seems to end up with less.
we have one such company castlemaine farms in my constituency and people are benefiting from it.
madam president for decades agricultural science has focused on boosting production through the development of new technologies.
nor does it address the imbalance in the food chain or the weak position of the primary producer.
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.
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.
i have seen many good examples of innovation and the outcomes of research and i can see the potential of such developments.
traditionally we link knowledge generation also to research.
farming is changing and will continue to change and like many other sectors it is becoming an increasingly knowledge based industry.
the outcomes of that conference will certainly be taken into account both for research programming under the remaining part of horizon two thousand and twenty and beyond.
they want to retain ownership of their own data and they want to see whether an application has added value before they invest.
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.
there are a number of aspects of the report that i welcome including precision farming soil and nutrient management skills development and knowledge transfer.
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 cop twenty one targets the focus on sustainability is now more important than ever.
what is particularly important is that the report focuses on the need for sustainable agriculture in the european union.
i welcome too the emphasis on reducing bureaucracy and red tape all of which is consistent with my commitment to simplify the cap.
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.
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.
we have several tools to prevent this such as support for in situ conservation under rural development and support for research in this area.
knowledge transfer and knowledge generation are key and we should constantly ask ourselves whether we can improve our policy in this area.
finally let me thank ms mcintyre again for the report and for the very many very relevant issues that were raised.
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.
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.
it seems that we all share similar concerns regarding genetic diversity.
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.
we are not producing enough food ourselves and of course there is the perennial problem of red tape.
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.
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;
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.
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.
the only way forward is to look more intensely at what is happening in libya at what is happening in the north of africa at what is happening in sub saharan africa.
the problem is much wider much deeper much more complicated if you look at places like libya and perhaps egypt and subsaharan africa.
but all those years when we sort of felt comfortable by ignoring them but not engaging with them have done nothing to improve the situation in turkey on the contrary.
because now and let me be very clear on this the distance between us and turkey is not decreasing it is increasing because of human rights the media and what is happening in civil society.
i think opening chapters twenty three and twenty four would be a huge opportunity for us to take the turks to task on human rights on the judiciary and the independence of the judiciary on the freedom of the media etc. this is what we need to do.
i would argue let us engage with the rest of the world let us bring development to africa let us bring stability to our wider neighbourhood.
and step one is to engage with turkey.
yes we need to do more as i said in my introductory remarks but one aspect i would like to come back to which was not mentioned by all of you is the need for member states to do their part.
there is still a war in syria people are still fleeing and people deserve international protection.
that this uncontrolled irregular arrival of refugees in europe is no longer happening on the scale we saw before so there are many things that need to be improved and there is a long way to go but let us at least acknowledge
on turkey should we engage should we not engage?
even without the need to tackle this issue jointly which we could not tackle without turkey and by the way turkey could not tackle without us what have those years the past years the years of not engaging with turkey the years of standing back to back the years of not talking to each other
it is our moral duty and legal duty to provide that protection and now that we have ways of bringing people to europe in a safe and legal way member states should deliver on what was agreed.
that human suffering has been limited through joint action with turkey.
it is now that member states should take in people in a legal way those who have the right to asylum and should be coming to europe.
the question for us is are we going to help bring stability to other parts of the world or are we going to sit and wait for instability to come to europe?
that is the only answer to come to terms with this huge question.
and if they want to come closer to europe which is what they state they should improve the situation of the media of human rights of civil society let us be very clear about this.
if they want to come closer to the european union so badly let them prove that they can.
so i would say let us engage with them.
we need to engage.
the only way forward is to make agreements with our neighbours;
the refugee problem is a global problem and it is a huge problem and it will be with us for a generation at least.
but have no illusions turkey is only one part of the issue.
of course i would have preferred the borders not to be sealed off.
when you speak to the refugees as i did last saturday it is clear what they want first and foremost is for their children to be able to go to school.
they are clear they are legally framed and we will report on them with precision.
with all the problems that we face i think this cooperation is of a quality we have never seen before and also the cooperation between greece and turkey is something to build on also in other areas.
i have seen a lot of comments also in the press about this.
initial results show that we have succeeded in that.
so our efforts to support the international community to find peace in syria should be doubled to make sure that people can start rebuilding their own country.
we need to make sure that member states increase their efforts to take in syrian refugees via legal ways into the european union.
many children have not gone to school for two or three years.
those who criticise the agreement have never ever given me an alternative we could work with under the conditions we are in and cannot change which is the closing of the borders in the balkans.
greece is not alone in this.
this means that we need a number of legal guarantees both on the greek and turkish side.
if we are to have a sustainable deal with turkey we also need to do our share in making sure that syrians who flee from war and persecution have a safe harbour also in the european union and in member states.
so my primary objective is to make sure that all syrian children can get a decent education.
still a lot needs to be done.
i shall not repeat everything minister dijkhoff said but since the agreement has been in force unprecedented resources have also been provided by member states to support greece in dealing with the issue in terms of logistics and of expertise on the ground.
i think this is also a welcome development in the implementation of the eu turkey statement.
we will see and we will draw our conclusions and submit these conclusions also to parliament.
another important contribution and a result of this statement is better burdensharing with turkey in protecting those fleeing the horrible conflict in syria.
but this is the situation the commission has to deal with. of course i would have liked another situation. of course i would have liked all member states to share the burden.
but we will not play around with those benchmarks.
we needed to do two things immediately to break the business model of the smugglers and to prevent greece from becoming the victim of this situation.
we were criticised initially by the turks for not doing enough.
turkey has also amended the regulation on temporary protection to ensure that syrians who are returned from greece can benefit from temporary protection in turkey.
we have a lot of work to do.
but at the same time we need to make sure we comply with our humanitarian and legal obligations as the european union which means creating legal pathways for people to come to europe and which also means making sure that people who are in greece are treated according to the rules and that we make sure that
we all know that if you give them a decent education once there is peace in syria they can go back and build up syria again.
i think it is important to recall that turkey takes care of almost three million refugees which is an incredible burden for that country and are dealing with it rather well.
both sides have undertaken all necessary changes and made additional efforts to ensure that asylum seekers receive the protection and that international law is being fully respected.
i think member states should double their efforts because it is not going in my view fast enough.
we need to make sure that the business model of the smugglers is broken.
and by the way the syrians you speak to in turkey have one dream and that is not to go to the european union but to go home.
just imagine the problems you create for families if their children cannot go to school.
so we need to do two things.
calls made by easo and frontex have been answered and already around one zero staff have been deployed to greece.
i want to repeat that we want to do these things in strict accordance with eu and international rules.
that is the other side of the coin.
of course we would have preferred a different situation but we do not have that situation. and there is no use continuing pretending as though we could bring it about immediately so we have to solve the problems we face now and the agreement with turkey in my view is the only way forward to solve that problem.
that is what they want.
but i also add that i would welcome the situation where those turks travelling to the european union travel with modern biometric passports and i would say that it is probably better to check who comes into the european union with
all member states are working together to help greece and to work also with turkey.
what we are doing is speeding up something that we were doing already namely working towards the possibility for turks to travel without visas to the european union.
i think it is quite obvious what we need to do about the refugee crisis.
we need to learn from australia which built a ring of steel around their country to ensure that the boats stopped coming and people stopped dying in the sea.
it does not seem to me that europe is really functioning.
and where is the solidarity with greece that you mentioned?
the legal access of refugees that you mentioned really is a sham.
again what about nonsyrians how are they supposed to find protection in the european union?
or the asylum officers interpreters judicial officers promised by various member states? very few have actually been sent so far.
madam president first of all i think we all agree that something has to be done about the migrant crisis.
so you would think we would run a mile but no part of this deal includes an agreement to quicken up turkish accession to the european union.
that will alter the balance of power within the european union not only economically but also culturally.
if turkey does eventually join the european union and it is a position supported by every other british political party then i believe it would be a disaster.
we have a referendum on twenty three june and i honestly believe that the threat of turkey becoming a member of this club will encourage the british people to say enough is enough' and we will vote to leave and take back control.
however where i fundamentally disagree with you all is in making such a multibillion pound deal with a country like turkey.
it is a country that has a disgraceful human rights record it is a country that is accused of aiding and abetting islamic state and it is a country that is going through the process of creeping islamification.
this deal simply reinforces that perception.
i am sure that is something that we can all agree we do not want to see. but there is a light there is a beacon because we the british have an opportunity to put a stop to this.
i remember at a press conference in two thousand and seven sitting there in disbelief when the then president of the european commission jos manuel barroso spoke about the eu as the first nonimperial empire.
indeed by the time turkey joins it will have the largest population in europe and it is predicted that within the first ten years of being a member fifteen million turks will drift west.
the scale of the numbers coming this year will no doubt reach biblical proportions.
first vice president timmermans has declared and i agree that europe will not be held hostage by the turkish government over visa liberalisation.
if you check the website of the european commission you will note that they have quietly replaced the term agreement' by statement' and this happened sometime between nineteen april and twenty april so the legal status of this whole thing has now been downgraded to basically not much more than a joint press release.
my group is in favour in principle of visa liberalisation but do not expect a rubber stamping exercise from our side because if the turkish government intends to convince parliament to vote for visa liberalisation cracking down on journalists is not a very good strategy.
this agreement is extremely fragile both legally and in practice and it is easy to criticise turkey or the agreement.
as to the implementation of the agreement statement minister dijkhoff seemed to be quite positive when he says things are getting better but that seems to clash with the reports we are getting for example from amnesty international and human rights watch about people not being allowed into turkey from syria or even being returned; reports about people not having the right to apply for asylum; reports about detention conditions in greece and people not even having enough food.
we outsource our problems in the hope that turkey and other countries will keep refugees away from our doorstep because we failed to agree on our own policies here in the eu.
i agree with mr timmermans that this situation is the direct result of the inability or the lack of political will of european governments to agree on a fully fledged eu asylum and migration policy.
so what are you doing to actually verify the situation?
europe is divided paralysed and weak and erdoan knows it so the only answer to this is european unity but there does not seem to be a big sense of urgency.
as a signatory to the european convention on human rights turkey has to respect freedom of expression and the most recent violation the arrest of ebru umar an eu citizen and dutch turkish journalist will not bring visa liberalisation any closer.
next week the european commission will present a progress report on the fulfilment of the requirements for the visa liberalisation roadmap and i am interested to see if the commission will indeed assess progress as strictly as the vice president has stated.
in addition key elements of the so called agreement' or statement' or whatever it is like visa liberalisation require the formal approval of the european parliament and the member states in a normal legislative procedure.
and what about the waterbed effect because the commission seems to say that there is no shift from the flow of refugees towards libya and italy but there are more people coming in through that route so how can we verify that the flow is not simply shifting?
i hold that it can protect refugees in a safe manner.
it's only a start for the necessary deeper and more conclusive engagement with turkey that the european union is engaging in.
i would like to ask the gentleman given that wages in turkey are so low probably a quarter of the average across the eu does he agree with me that turkish accession could replace the migration crisis that the eu is currently failing to solve with a migration crisis every bit as big?
your question seems to contradict the first part of your statement.
but as i said we get reports from human rights organisations about people who are in detention centres so they are unable to leave and what we hear is that they do not have enough food.
what good is the talk of democracy human rights and good governance which the eu is going to have with african interlocutors if meles zenawi the dictator of ethiopia is the interlocutor for africa?
for example much of africa does not have electricity so africa does not have the proper education or the proper computers or the proper infrastructure for economic growth.
i think commissioner piebalgs struck the right note when he said that we need concrete action at a regional continental level.