Speeches

Mr President, the change in the multiannual financial framework proposed by the Commission compared with the past is significant and therefore an open debate is needed. In an unstable world, security of supply and security are more than just iron at the border. Now, the Commission's recent proposals for amendments give hope for something better. It is important that we take care of a vibrant region and European food security. It's the whole thing that counts. The 10% funding target, in addition to the funds already earmarked, is good for rural development, but does not remove the fact that direct agricultural funding is being cut. Reducing funds must now be allocated wisely and fairly. Now rural areas are given with one hand, taken with the other hand. As a result, the countryside and its livelihoods will disappear. The increased decision-making power of the Member States creates opportunities, but displaces the regions from decision-making. Overall safety should not be compromised.

Mr President, Commissioner, the strengthening and flexibility of the EU's common agricultural policy are fundamental pillars of our security of supply. We must not make farmers and the whole sector unprofitable, and that is why the simplification of agricultural policy is welcome. Our aim must be a well-targeted simplification with a focus on future regulation. In addition to reducing the administrative burden, it is important that farmers receive more income from the market. This can only be done by strengthening the position of the farmer throughout the food chain. The reform under discussion is moving in the right direction. I am in favour of written agreements, but laying down the details of the agreement here at EU level goes far too far. The challenges in the food supply chain vary from one Member State to another, so even one solution cannot work for everyone. I am sure that in the further negotiations this unbalanced set-up will divide the different Member States. Hopefully, the solution will support a stronger position for farmers in the food supply chain.

Mr President, the financial framework proposed by the Commission is changing EU cohesion policy in a worrying way. In the interests of simplification and efficiency, the Commission is proposing cuts in funding for both regional development and rural development, as well as increased national decision-making powers in the Member States. The regions themselves are therefore no longer in a position to plan the use of funds on a long-term basis, which is contrary to the very idea of cohesion policy and also to the principle of subsidiarity. With this proposal, the Commission is seriously undermining regional development. I am particularly concerned about our eastern borders. They have borne a heavy burden since the start of Russia’s war of aggression and should be provided with adequate funding for necessary vitality investments. If the eastern border weakens, the security of Europe as a whole will suffer. A prerequisite for overall security is that the regions are kept in the process of development. Instead of the Commission's empty promises, we now need clearly earmarked funds for the eastern border.

Mr President, Commissioner, this period began very strongly with regard to agriculture and food policy. The strategic dialogue and the vision of agriculture made it clear that the importance of agriculture in this critical time of the world has finally been understood. However, it now appears that the Commission is drastically cutting funding for our food security. One of the cornerstones of overall safety is self-sufficient food production. Farmers in charge of production face uncertainties about climate challenges and geopolitics, especially on our eastern border, all the way to profitability problems. The EU must therefore secure the conditions for a sustainable and profitable agriculture. A stable political environment and investment security must be created. Uncertainty is also brought about by the unacceptable threat of double standards posed by free trade. Enlargement of the EU also brings a lot of foggy prospects before us. Simplification of agricultural policy will also support environmental and climate action. Taking digital tools and climate-smart solutions to the farm level is already commonplace. It needs to be promoted. However, much needs to be changed if we want young people to seek rural livelihoods. We need to create a supportive climate, funding and education for them so that they can continue to develop profitable and sustainable agriculture. Commissioner, I appreciate your efforts and I also hope, on behalf of our group, that these priorities will be reflected in the future agricultural policy.

Mr President, Commissioner, due to the changed geopolitical situation, cohesion policy is also, quite understandably, under severe reform pressure. However, it is important that the EU continues to strive for the well-being of the regions, the equalisation of development disparities and the subsidiarity principle. They in themselves contribute to security, peace and stability. Cohesion policy must be effective and take into account the different needs of the regions. Strong investment is needed in regional competitiveness, infrastructure and support for entrepreneurship. Unfortunately, internal segregation is still taking place and needs to be tackled even more vigorously through cohesion policy. Due to Russia's war of aggression, our eastern border regions also deserve special attention. Thank you to the Commissioner for this, because well-targeted cohesion policy and preparedness are of great importance for the security of Europe as a whole. Europe will be smarter and safer if policy responses are equally responsive to the needs of the energy transition and education. Therefore, the role of cohesion policy in its traditional sense should not be weakened. So for simplification and efficiency, yes, but for weakening, no.

Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for presenting the vision for agriculture. The vision is a welcome and positive opening and we support your work in its implementation. It is important that the Commission has finally put farmers at the heart of agricultural policy and that the agricultural sector is seen as a strategically important factor for Europe in terms of competitiveness and security of supply. We look forward to seeing what action the Commission is taking to make this vision part of legislation and practical food production. In this period, the balance between economic, environmental and social objectives must finally be found. I hope that simplification will really make regulation more reasonable and make the sector more profitable so that young people can seize the opportunities of agricultural entrepreneurship. Otherwise, our security of supply is gone. All these measures will inevitably need strong EU funding, without which we will be putting more than food security at risk.

Mr President, Commissioner, it is clear that the Mercosur Agreement is a legitimate and important objective in many ways. Europe needs to reform the market and strengthen its independence. That's why we need Mercosur. But it is also good to consider whether one of the cornerstones of our competitiveness – our self-sufficient, top-quality food production – is at risk at the same time. European farmers produce the best quality, but suffer from poor profitability because we have set very high production standards for our farmers. Standards are European responsibility, and we must also take responsibility for the profitability of our agriculture at all times. We cannot operate in a Union of two standards, even when Mercosur is in force. The Commission has promised to support European farmers and protect our consumers from food saturated with hormones and antibiotics through checks and thresholds. But is that enough? So you are going to prevent unfair competition from European family farms and to defend the self-sufficiency of European quality food, even at a time when Mercosur is important to us?

Mr President, Commissioner, Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine is almost three years away. Of course, the Ukrainians have paid the highest price for the attack, but the effects of the war are very wide-ranging. One third of EU Member States share land borders with Russia, Belarus or Ukraine. Some of these countries are in the outpost against Russian aggression. A new iron curtain has risen to the east. For my country, Finland, it is about 1343 kilometres long. Thank you, Commissioner Fitto, for taking into account our difficult situation at our eastern borders. For example, because of instrumentalized immigration, our border has been closed for more than a year. Conventional interaction and trade are at a standstill and Eastern Finland has been hit hard. We need targeted actions to help regions and investments in clean transition, security, infrastructure and vitality. The development of Eastern Finland will improve Finland's security, and Finland's security will improve the security of the EU as a whole. It is common to all of us, from east to west and from north to south.

Mr President, Commissioner, the activities of the Russian shadow fleet in the Baltic Sea are a prime example of hybrid influencing. Our submarine infrastructure has been an easy target for sabotage also from Finland's point of view. Large areas of the sea are difficult to guard, and it is difficult to catch the culprits in the act. The strengthening of NATO's presence and increased control in the Baltic Sea is a good step in the prevention of hybrid influence. With the Baltic Sea Guard operation, the area is monitored both by ships and by various technological solutions. Despite these efforts, we cannot fully safeguard our submarine infrastructure. Rapid response and cooperation between authorities is therefore essential. We must also be prepared for the environmental threats posed by shadow ships that are not suitable for winter navigation. We must be prepared to prevent, for example, oil accidents that may have been caused intentionally. It is very important that the Commission supports the national authorities in their work and that the functioning of the infrastructure is also ensured.

Mr President, Commissioner, farmers' resilience and good working conditions are the cornerstone of food security in Europe. These are now under threat, as the economic profitability of the farms has been weak for a long time and it will inevitably also be reflected in coping with heavy work. In agriculture, the number of accidents is also significantly higher than in other sectors. Efforts have already been made to remedy this situation. In Finland, for example, the ‘Take care of the farmer’ project started already in 2017 and has now been established as a permanent operating model. Similar examples can be found, for example, in Belgium and Ireland, which would serve as an example to other Member States. The good thing about the social conditionality of the common agricultural policy is that the situation of workers in the agricultural sector is actually being improved. However, it is not self-evident whether linking CAP subsidies to labour law is the right way. When social conditionality becomes part of the CAP conditionality, it must be ensured that farmers have the necessary know-how and advice on employment contracts and occupational safety, so that cuts in subsidies are avoided.

Mr President, Commissioner, the effects of climate change are becoming increasingly apparent in our daily lives and in line with forecasts. The objectives of the Green Deal are therefore even more important. The complexity and scope of the package is unprecedented in the history of the EU and covers almost all policy areas. Last year, we adopted a huge amount of legislation, the implementation of which in the Member States is only just beginning. However, we already know that targets such as clean energy, transport and the decarbonisation of industry are truly ambitious. As pointed out in various reports, the funds needed for the implementation of the programme are far from being available. The question then arises as to where the necessary funds will come from. When money is tight, it is necessary to carefully assess how it can be used as efficiently as possible. In particular, care should be taken to ensure that all proposals contribute to the objectives in the same direction, improving both the competitiveness of the EU and the sustainability of the activities carried out. It is quite possible that the effectiveness and efficiency of horizontal legislation may be undermined by cross-regulation and also by duplication. An overall assessment should have been made in advance. For this reason too, continuous critical evaluation is in order.

Mr President, it is clear that Europe's competitiveness must be strengthened, as well as our independence and resilience. The EU's climate objectives must be maintained and regulation must be put into practice, taking into account the different natural conditions in the Member States. With regard to the agricultural and natural resources sector, the implementation must be fair, as they are the ones who have long been blamed in the climate debate, while at the same time they are struggling with profitability. I would therefore like to ask how the Commission intends to ensure that, in the future too, we have food security farmers all over Europe. How can we ensure that farmers' contribution to promoting the circular economy, for example, is also taken into account in EU decision-making? Farmers must continue to be able to make economically and environmentally sustainable investments in the future, in which the Capital Union and the financial markets also play a responsible role.

Mr President, I would like to thank President Niinistö for his impressive report, on the basis of which it is good to continue the debate. The essential idea of comprehensive security is that everyone has a role to play in building the security of our societies. All actors in society must be involved in: the authorities, the business sector, the third sector and, of course, the citizens themselves. The means are often very practical if there is not enough food, no electricity or water in the home or the information network does not work. Preparedness is wisdom. In addition to military preparedness, comprehensive security also includes a regional dimension. Many European regions are becoming depleted as the population ages and young people move to growth centres. Regional inequality has increased. This development is particularly worrying at the EU's eastern borders, where the threat from the east is greatest. So we must remember that vibrant areas and the people living in them are the backbone of our overall security.

Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner, both on my own behalf and on behalf of my Renew Group, for the final report and its presentation. It is good that the position of the food supply chain and farmers is now firmly embedded in President von der Leyen's new term. The working group's report is a comprehensive and good basis for starting a dialogue towards the new financial framework and the new CAP period. For example, the European Board on Agri-food, or the creation of an advisory committee, is a good idea if its composition is comprehensive and if it is certain that the Commission will also genuinely listen to its expertise. Otherwise, it would be just another piece of bureaucracy. The role of agriculture and food production as a strategic part of Europe's security of supply must be recognised and safeguarded also in the future. Food is part of overall security and therefore the vitality of rural areas must also be taken care of more broadly. Of course, there are also solutions to the challenges of climate change in the fields and forests. The crises have raised our concerns about food security and I would like to hear how the Commission intends to ensure that agriculture and rural development will be a strong part of EU funding in the future. Already in the last round of the MFF, there was pressure to cut funding for agriculture. In what direction are the funding priorities now developing?

Mr President, the continuous improvement of road safety in the EU is essential, and this is where the review of the driving licence directive is at the centre. The legislation affects a large number of EU citizens and it is therefore important for Parliament's position to be balanced and rational. The rules can be harmonised where it makes sense, for example in relation to a digital driving licence, but Member States must also have room for manoeuvre and discretion regarding, for example, mandatory medical checks or rules for category T tractor cards. I would also like to highlight the mobility of young people in sparsely populated areas. There is no public transport available in more remote areas, and light-duty vehicles are a key form of mobility that enables safe mobility to, for example, schools and hobbies. I am therefore pleased that light-duty vehicles are included in the text, as the opportunities and mobility of young people in rural areas need to be further improved.

Mr President, it is self-evident to me, as a former farmer, that the farm will be left in a better condition for the next generation than we received it ourselves. We decision-makers need to learn from this and do everything we can to improve the competitiveness and attractiveness of the agricultural sector. You cannot demand endlessly from farmers without a guarantee of subsistence. It is ultimately a question of food security for Europe as a whole. A comprehensive impact assessment must be carried out for current and future regulation. There is a need to avoid duplication of legislation and administrative burden. There is also a need to evaluate the UTP Directive, its effectiveness in the Member States and also its strengthening in order to strengthen the position of farmers in the food supply chain. There must be a better price for the products and the financing of the cap must be maintained. I hope that the Commission will take the plight of farmers into account in its future proposals.

Mr President, in general, such a patient agricultural sector has risen to barricades across Europe, and not without reason. Part of the reason is the green transition agenda, whose fair promotion is important in itself. It should be remembered that farmers and the natural resources sector must not be penalised by the transition. On the contrary, we need to incentivise, because the natural resources sector is the only sector that sequestrates carbon, and it also has innovative solutions to accelerate the transition. However, the most important thing is food production, and we cannot take food security for granted. That is why only agricultural enterprises, and especially young farmers who believe in the future and whose business is worthwhile, need to be supported. The agricultural sector is already heavily regulated and future decisions need to pay more attention to the fact that legislation also provides economic security for farmers. Revenue from the market must also be strengthened with all efforts.

Mr President, Commissioner, representative of the Council, Russia has launched a new hybrid operation against Finland and, at the same time, against the EU as a whole. Putin's machinery is now threatening and using asylum seekers as a weapon, with the aim of creating a crisis that would turn our eyes away from Ukraine. The Russian FSB and border authorities transport refugees from far away to the Finnish border, leave papers unchecked and close the gates behind their backs to prevent their return. Such action requires the approval of senior management and shows unscrupulous disregard for human lives. Finland has responded decisively to the situation by closing four border stations in south-eastern Finland and restricting entry at northern border stations. Hopefully, this message will carry through a wide network of migrants in order to avoid a larger influx of refugees along the Finnish border. We do not want situations on the eastern border of Poland to recur anywhere else. A common European response to the threat at the EU's and NATO's external borders is now required. Assistance from Frontex is also needed to secure our eastern border of more than 1,300 km. As long as our common response falters, Russia will be able to take advantage of the situation. Strict response is the only correct message to send to Russia. Finland and the EU do not submit to hybrid influence.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is very important that the growing amount of packaging waste in Europe is contained. Practical solutions are needed and separate collection needs to be improved. It is therefore good that we have made significant improvements to the Commission's proposal. Nevertheless, the position of the Committee on the Environment on the table would undermine industry's efforts towards a circular economy. Today's recycling problems are largely related to the use of plastic. I cannot accept that the EU is now penalising fibre-based materials for which recycling works and from which we obtain valuable raw materials through recycling. No one is against reuse, but recycling must be an equal option alongside reuse. The Finnish bottle return system is a great example of this for the whole of Europe. At worst, because of the strict requirements and the ban on packaging, environmental benefits are not achieved and the amount of food waste is increasing. The balance between objectives and environmental impacts has not been properly considered here.

Mr President, Commissioner, it is a good idea to look at and assess the need to reduce plant protection products at EU level, but this must be done fairly and with the involvement of farmers. Unfortunately, the Commission's proposal did not take these into account, but improvements have now been made to the position of the Committee on the Environment. Thank you to the rapporteurs for this work, but there is still work to be done. It is important that local conditions are identified, for example when defining sensitive areas. In addition, moving the reduction targets by five years to 2035 will give the sector more time to bring new products to the market that can replace the chemical substances currently in use. To ensure food security, farmers need to have enough tools for farming. Finally, this legislation must not lead to Member States that have reduced the use of plant protection products in the past, such as Finland, being forced to further tighten their use levels, but to focus on those areas, those countries where the use is above the EU average.

Mr President, Commissioner, thank you to the negotiators for a good text. It is clear that without young farmers there will be no European food security or security of supply. It doesn't look good right now. There will be no successors to the farms if the operating environment does not change. Lack of incentives, lack of prospects for unprofitable farms, a climate of debate that denigrates and blames farmers – all of which make the sector less and less attractive. Living countryside needs action. The Commission must now finally take this matter seriously. Food security must be at the heart of the next Commission's work programme. We need to get a better price from the market. Therefore, unfair trade practices still need to be eradicated. Production costs must be controlled. At the same time, Member States must be given the opportunity to set up systems adapted to local circumstances to accelerate change. We all have a responsibility to ensure that young people can choose to engage in this vital agricultural entrepreneurship. Now we need action. Living countryside requires action.

Mr President, Commissioner, Russia does not want to put an end to the evil with which it threatens the very existence of Ukraine and also the West. The EU must remain united in its resistance, and each Member State also has a role to play. Pressure on Russia must be increased. We need to weaken Russia's power. The EU needs to tighten its stance towards third countries that in one way or another support Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. This requires more effective sanctions. The circumvention of sanctions must be prevented, in particular in order to block the oil, gas and technology cycles. The circumvention of sanctions must now be prevented. Russia is also using hunger as a weapon to destabilise the world's food system. The EU must therefore pay particular attention to ensuring that cereals are transported smoothly from Ukraine to the market. This is in the interest of Ukraine and the rest of the world. Arms assistance, as well as humanitarian, financial and political assistance to Ukraine, must continue until the victory of Ukraine.

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen of the Commission, I personally welcome the fact that the Commission has proposed to the Member States the extension of the authorisation for the use of glyphosate. I hope that this will also be supported by the Member States, as the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is also in favour of an extension. The problem is that no one has been able to properly assess the overall impact of the ban on the food sector and, despite many research projects, a very effective pesticide with a lower environmental risk is unfortunately not yet in sight. A key aspect of glyphosate is its safe and well-targeted use. With the help of glyphosate, it is necessary to say a steep no to the forced burning of grain. In Finland, such a crop would not even sell – but the targeted and responsible use of the substance must continue to be allowed for weed control or crop closure.

Mr President, Commissioner, it is truly reassuring that, after years of turmoil, the Commission has finally heard Member States' serious concerns about wolves. Parliament has taken a clear stance on the matter, so that a common solution must be found and there can no longer be any controversy about responsibility. No one should have to fear for their own safety, for their domestic animals or for their livelihood. Unfortunately, we are already partly late, because last year, for example, more than 500 sheep died in Finland alone as a result of predatory damage. Due to the wolves, separate school rides have to be arranged for the children, and cattle and hunting dogs have also been lost to the wolves. The Commission's consultation must not be limited to the level of data collection, but must lead to real flexibilities in wolf felling permits. The wolf population must be sufficient and the wolf belongs to nature, but not to human yards or animal shelters. The transfer of the wolf from Annex 4 to Annex 5 to the Habitats Directive is therefore necessary.