What Elsi spoke about.

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.

Mr President, Commissioner, biodiversity is essential to life and must therefore be strengthened. It is a pity, therefore, that the content of this unrealistic Commission proposal for a restoration regulation, which completely ignores the different circumstances in the Member States, does not serve this objective. The Commission's procedures have also failed to respect the negotiating partners. So it is neither a surprise nor a coincidence that a large number of MEPs, three committees, farmers and forest owners want to reject this proposal. The big mistake is that, on the other hand, we are trying to push the Member States into one and the same mould. Why, for example, does land with 75 % forest and rich and clean water resources have to pay the most for restoration measures? What rights do owners have? It is clear that, in this way, operators will not commit themselves to this demanding and important project. That is why I am in favour of rejecting this proposal and returning it to a more careful reading by the Commission.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow we will vote on the historic FuelEU Maritime regulation, which will be a very strong catalyst for emissions reductions in the EU maritime transport sector. I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Warborn, and the other negotiators for their good cooperation. I am very pleased with the balanced outcome we have negotiated, which sets ambitious emission reduction targets and supports the use of sustainable fuels, including wind mechanics. At the same time, we will safeguard the EU's competitiveness and ensure a well-functioning single market with appropriate flexibility and compensation. For example, the inclusion of winter shipping in legislation is vital for the fairness of the internal market. The EU is a global leader in sustainable shipping and I believe that FuelEU Maritime will also boost international negotiations.

Mr President, Commissioner, thank you to the rapporteur, Mr Mortler, and the negotiators for this good text. It is important to strengthen resilience in the food sector and agriculture, as only strong farms and farmers who believe in the future can safeguard our security of supply. That is why the reasonableness and predictability of legislation must be maintained and why the Commission must put food security at the heart of its next work programme. Natural resources and the state of nature also play a key role, of course. Farmers derive their livelihoods from nature and are dependent on the sustainability of nature, which is why agriculture does know how to act responsibly. It is therefore important to ensure that instead of restrictive legislation, we create clear incentives, for example through the carbon market, to promote carbon sequestration and improve the state of nature. Only by these means will we make the young generations commit themselves to this profession, also in the future.

Mr President, it is quite clear that the transport sector needs to reduce emissions in order to meet the 2050 climate target. The electrification of road transport is key in this respect, without forgetting other sustainable solutions such as biogas or synthetic fuels. I would like to congratulate colleagues on the balanced and ambitious outcome of the negotiations. The Batteries Regulation ensures that batteries used for the green transition are sustainable in terms of both the environment and human rights. It is also great that light traffic batteries are included in these recycling targets. Recycling batteries will be a key part of the circular economy in order to reuse critical raw materials as efficiently as possible. The Batteries Regulation will also play a broader role by strengthening the EU’s competitiveness and strategic autonomy and by laying a strong foundation for European battery production.

Mr President, Commissioner, artificial intelligence is developing at a tremendous pace and its use opens up enormous opportunities, for example in the optimisation of logistics chains or in the field of intelligent transport. Rapid developments and new uses have also highlighted the importance of regulation so that AI can be used ethically, safely and purposefully, especially when we are talking about facial recognition, among other things. I am very pleased that Parliament's position creates clear rules for artificial intelligence and strongly supports innovation and research. Easy access to testing environments, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, is essential for innovation and product development. I am also pleased that the position acknowledges the importance of regional and local authorities. AI offers a lot of opportunities to strengthen regional vitality and therefore these actors must be closely involved in this process as well. This is a historic legislative initiative that will make the EU a global leader in AI regulation.

Mr President, I would also like to thank the Minister and the Commissioner for their presentation. At the heart of this period's EU policy is indeed agriculture and forestry, we farmers and forest owners. The most important and effective measure of climate action is the reduction of emissions, but carbon sequestration also plays an important role. We have exactly two sectors, agriculture and forestry, which are capable of sequestering carbon. It is therefore sad that the sector has been placed at the centre of the culpable debate and subject to restrictions rather than incentives. It is our responsibility, as policy makers, to encourage and value our knowledgeable and responsible farmers who want to develop production methods towards better carbon sequestration. We have a lot of research and projects that support a carbon- and climate-wise farmer, but at the same time we also need cross-disciplinary research and, in particular, with farmers as development partners, not just political and scientific targets. I would therefore like to thank the Commission for finally offering incentives to farmers through the carbon certification proposal. Carbon sequestration needs to be rewarded. The most important thing in future preparations is that the compensations are actually real and that the system is also reliable. I also hope that the Commission will make fair preparations for the LULUCF AFOLU scheme when the time comes later.

Thank you for the question. Of course, when it comes to extensive deforestation, then I am talking specifically globally and specifically about rainforests. I am not talking about a country that is the most forested country in Europe, with 75% of its surface area covered by forests. I would not focus on this, but I would focus specifically on the fact that products from outside Europe that actually cause deforestation – there is a long list of products that cause deforestation – need to be traded in Europe.

Mr President, Commissioner, it is important that the methods of production and the origin of products on the European market be examined, for example in rainforests, in relation to products that have caused widespread deforestation. Despite the good starting point of the regulation, I cannot under any circumstances support the result of the negotiations. Firstly, the application of the legislation since 2021 is truly questionable and unfair in terms of legal certainty. In addition, as already mentioned, more than 75 per cent of Finland's surface area is forest and almost every new building will inevitably have to be cut down by a few trees. At the same time, even large areas of forest are being felled under wind farms, public buildings or road infrastructure, which are important in themselves. All of these cause deforestation, but one is placed in an unequal position and one is punished. Indeed, in Finland, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has already sent a press release calling on beef and milk producers to freeze investments, as the impact of the legislation on the sector is still quite unclear at this stage. Fairness and clarity need to be found in the implementation, as only future investments will ensure food security and security of supply, which are by no means self-evident. (The speaker agreed to answer the blue card question)

Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr Niinistö, the main rapporteur for LULUCF, and all the other colleagues, after all, for a perfectly balanced outcome. Soil and forests play an important role as carbon sinks and reservoirs, and certainly as sources of sustainably produced raw materials. Personally, I am pleased that the carbon sink target of the LULUCF Regulation is in line with the Climate Law, and the main goal of the EU's climate efforts is to reduce emissions. A significant improvement is that the carbon sink calculation model is based on the recent real development of the sinks. I hope that the EU Commission will also provide an understanding of the annual fluctuation of sinks that is inherent in forest nature and often independent of human activity. Wisdom was also to postpone the amalgamation of the AFOLU, i.e. the effort sharing and land use sectors, because the rules on carbon certificates are also only now in the works. It is absolutely essential that each Member State should be responsible for its own emissions and sinks, as this is precisely the way to combat climate change effectively.

Mr President, Commissioner. Thank you to the rapporteur for your work on the Repower initiative. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine prompted the EU to review its energy system. The European Union's security of supply and energy self-sufficiency must be increased, and fossil energy must be phased out as quickly as possible. Therefore, renewable energy production and permitting must be promoted by all possible means. We have lived from one crisis to another, and instability affects everyone because production chains are global. Self-sufficiency and security of supply in the Member States and in the EU must therefore be promoted. Europe must have all the critical functions and production that must not be built in individual countries. The message of the Committee on Agriculture is strong. The EU cannot afford to exclude bioenergy from faster permits, especially at a time when the energy crisis has hit every citizen and security of supply for society as a whole. For example, biogas produced from agricultural side streams has enormous potential that needs to be exploited. The EU must set a binding biogas production target and make much, much stronger efforts towards it. This will benefit primary production, consumers and society as a whole.

Mr President, it is good that we are discussing large carnivores in this House, because many Member States, including Finland, have long suffered damage caused by large carnivores. Large carnivores belong to nature. They are part of the ecosystem and their sustainable stock needs to be maintained. At the same time, however, we as decision-makers have a responsibility and a duty to protect people, domestic animals and farm animals from the damage caused by large carnivores. Beasts do not belong in human yards or animal shelters. We need to find a balance. Therefore, the assessment of large carnivore populations must be carried out in cooperation at European level, while monitoring the varying situations in different countries. We also need to strike a balance between European decision-making and national flexibilities. For example, the amount of favourable protection needs to be assessed and, if necessary, actively updated in the EU. I very much hope that the Commission is prepared to discuss this with the Member States and Parliament.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, maritime transport is facing major emission reductions, with around 98% of ships still running on fossil fuels. We are on the verge of a very large, but absolutely inevitable, transformation in which the EU is leading the way for the whole world. The role of the co-legislators is to provide shipping companies, ports and the maritime sector as a whole with a stable and clear view of the sector's future. Only in this way can new innovations and new business be created. Ships, ports and their infrastructure cannot be moulded together due to the challenges posed by, for example, winter shipping. We need all sustainable solutions from new hydrogen-based fuels to liquefied biogas and new innovations utilising wind mechanics, not forgetting the on-shore power readiness of ports. I would like to thank all the negotiators and, in particular, the rapporteur, Mr Warborn, under whose leadership we have jointly negotiated a realistic, pragmatic and also ambitious package for Parliament's position. A Europe that lives on exports needs a clear and fair operating environment for the maritime sector in order to safeguard Europe's competitiveness also in the future. Towards that, by 2050, legislation on zero-emission shipping will be key.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, sabotage in the Baltic gas pipeline, illegal referenda and regional unions in Europe, repeated massacres of civilians and threats of nuclear weapons – everyone knows the perpetrator behind these atrocities. Instead of internal blame, we in Europe must focus on resolving this crisis. The sooner there are winners. If this cruel war teaches us anything, then we must no longer build new dependencies on dictatorships. In European self-sufficiency, the green transition is essential, but it must not be our only sacred truth. We need to take care of our own security of supply. This means a broad energy mix, which is not the case with the Commission's attempts to limit bioenergy production. Above all, we must continue to support Ukraine. The lower Russia's actions, the higher the unity of Europe will rise. When different views on energy or, for example, visas come into play, the lines in the EU are shaken. That is something we cannot afford, and that is why we must be able to make more coherent decisions.

Mr President, our Prime Minister, Mr Sanna, thank you for your excellent speech, which has analysed the situation in Europe in a comprehensive manner. Europe has gone from the COVID-19 crisis to Russia's brutal war of aggression, and we are still in a tough place. This winter we are testing the unity of the European Union. So far, the coronavirus and the war have only united Europe. Finland and Sweden, we are on our way to NATO, which is the only right solution. The EU's common defence will be strengthened. Kant must also endure energy and food policy. It is the responsibility of our decision-makers to make quick and effective decisions and to clearly communicate their importance to all citizens. It is also important to avoid political polarisation and blockage in Europe to the best of our ability, because defending our values, especially at the global level, requires unity and determination. We Europeans should not step into a mine set by Putin. It is clear that the purpose of Russia's war of aggression has also been to destabilise the energy market and thereby break up our unified ranks. Putin is also using hunger as a weapon when Ukraine's food production and exports have been made extremely difficult. Now, if ever, in the face of a threat from the outside, we must invest in unity, because only as a strong front can we overcome difficult times. Strategic autonomy, as mentioned by the Prime Minister, is also a top priority for Renew Europe. Attention must be paid to energy, security of supply and critical raw materials in order to contribute to increased self-sufficiency and stability. As decision-makers, we must ensure that European energy production is increased and that our electricity markets are adapted so that the price of gas does not raise citizens' electricity bills to heaven. For us at Renew Europe, the promotion of renewable energies is at the core. Biogas, forest-based energy, wind power, nuclear power, solar power, hydropower, geothermal energy and all other sustainable means at our disposal are needed to get Europe out of its dependence on Russian fossil energy. I would like to see such a pragmatic approach both to the decision-making of the European Council and to Parliament's future energy votes. In particular, it is now important to also make use of sustainable biomass-based energy sources, which will help both in the context of the acute energy crisis and in achieving the EU's ambitious renewable energy targets. Sustainable forest management plays a very important role in this equation, which should not be forgotten. Dear Prime Minister, food security is not just a European concern. Exceptional droughts and forest fires, but also floods, are a global problem. The EU needs to be more active in the global food market. It all starts with taking care of the home. By this I mean strengthening European food production, competitiveness and profitability. I would therefore like to ask the Prime Minister what action you consider necessary at EU level to strengthen European and global food security. Indeed, if we ourselves do not take responsibility for this, the famine and the resulting displacement and migration in the world will increase. Every person needs to be taken care of. The unfortunate fact is that, in the midst of these protracted crises, Europe as a whole is strongly on the path to indebtedness. Its downside is deteriorating economic growth, but even in times of crisis, we should look further and keep the idea that future generations will pay our bills clear when making every decision. Economic stabilisation, support for a strong EU internal market and the promotion of trade relations are the cornerstones of shaping a strong Union of the future.

Mr President, Commissioner, forests and their sustainable management are a solution in the fight against climate change and also in the replacement of fossil raw materials – both in products and in energy production. Unfortunately, initiatives affecting forests in the EU do not always recognise this fundamental issue. The EU needs a forest strategy that sees the societal benefits of forests broadly. Forests are not only about the environment, but also about ownership, economy and social values. Parliament's report is more successful than the Commission's strategy in striking a balance on these basic issues, and I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Müller, for her good work. I appeal for our approval of this report. Forest-based bioenergy must continue to be counted as renewable, otherwise we will be on the path of the fossil economy. The fact is that, in spite of the Committee on the Environment's guidelines, the wood will continue to regenerate and sequester carbon as it grows.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, Russia's invasion of Ukraine transcends all limits of humanity. Russia is consciously using hunger as a weapon to prevent Ukrainian agricultural production, including grain exports. The serious situation in Ukraine is reflected in global food security. Harvesting in Ukraine is about to begin, but stocks are already full. In the Black Sea, the ship's cargo is in a stalemate. Turkish leader Erdoğan has taken on a strong mediation role in the food export conflict between Russia and Ukraine. We must not allow Turkey or Russia to dictate the conditions for exporting grain. The EU must act so that sea transport of grain can start without compromising port security and the defence capabilities of Ukrainians. Solidarity corridors are a good start, but more robust action is needed. I would like to ask the Commissioner: How does the Commission intend to ensure the continuity of cereal exports and thus contribute to global food security through European action?

Mr President, Commissioner, the calculation of carbon sinks is taking a big step forward when we vote tomorrow on the LULUCF regulation. Sustainable forest management and wood use bring benefits to the climate through carbon sinks and also in products, as wood raw material replaces fossil raw materials. It is good that the climate census encourages this as well. Climate accounting should be as accurate as possible and based on the latest developments in nature. In this regard, I am very pleased with Parliament's position. The big question of the goal of increasing carbon sinks will remain to be decided in tomorrow's vote, and it will become a tough one. We need to commit to the target agreed in the Climate Law of 310 megatonnes. We are facing a deepening energy and food crisis, and we cannot afford to further tighten our land use targets.

Mr President, Commissioner, Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine is perhaps the biggest test in the history of the European Union. Our community is built to create peace and now its foundations are under the most severe threat since the Second World War. There is a war in Europe. With every move, Russia is striving to break up the Union, of which the closure of Bulgaria's and Poland's gas taps is the latest and most recent example. I appeal to every decision-maker in Europe to look at the long curve of history and put an end to Russian energy imports. This poses economic challenges, but Europe's moral stance must withstand these consequences. We cannot accept invasions, massacres and bombings of children's hospitals. The EU must be able to remain united and united in its decisions. The social and economic impact of the war will hit every European. More than 5 million Ukrainians have lost their homes and the EU must help them. Rising energy prices are also affecting the food market. Climate Commissioner Timmermans' assessment that there is no food crisis in the EU and there will be no food crisis is incomprehensible. The best remedy for dealing with the crisis is to take care of the role of security of supply factors, i.e. food and energy producers. We need to step up climate action, but we need to rationalise the ways in which the EU produces the world's cleanest food and zero-emission energy. In this way, social and economic losses are less severe. Collective debt is not the way citizens in Europe want to go. On the other hand, the COVID-19 recovery package already agreed can also be used in this crisis, as much of the funds are still unspent.

Mr President, Commissioner, the EU needs a new battery regulation without delay, as the electrification of transport is progressing rapidly and the production and demand for batteries are increasing. I am pleased that Parliament's report sends a strong signal to promote sustainable battery production in Europe, which is crucial not only for investment and security of supply, but also for emission reduction targets. The growing demand for batteries puts pressure on the availability of raw materials. In view of the growing demand, it is important to ensure the responsibility of battery production, which has been taken into account in a balanced way in Parliament's report. In addition, it is positive that the report highlights the use and development of new innovative raw materials in battery production. Wood-based lignin is a good example of such a new, sustainable material that promotes the sustainability and circular economy of the battery industry. New modes of transport, such as e-bikes and e-scooters, have exploded in recent times. It is excellent that the Regulation's ambitious recycling targets have been extended to include LMT batteries in order to ensure efficient and large-scale recycling in the sector. In addition, the flexibility for producers and producer organisations with regard to battery waste streams will ensure that recycling schemes that are already effective are easily transferred under this new regulation. With the new battery regulation, we will create sustainable growth and new investments in Europe.