Speeches

Madam President, thank you very much. Commissioner, thank you very much. Over the years, we have made a number of decisions about plastics. It started perhaps in a somewhat political way with the proposal on single-use plastics, where it was perhaps more about collecting points than about solving problems. For this reason, we welcome with great gratitude the Commission's proposal. But we know we have bigger challenges in the future. We know that plastic pellets bring not only microplastics but also nanoplastics. And if we do not get this right, we will soon have - not only in the brains of the Commission, but also in the brains of parliamentarians - more nanoplastics than are healthy for decision-making and health. I would also like to use this opportunity, as this is my last speech after 12 years in the European Parliament, to thank my colleagues – mainly my colleagues who are coordinators in the Committee on the Environment – for good cooperation, where we have had to do a great deal of work to get the Commission's proposal somehow delivered. It is a job that will continue even after I leave the responsibility to others.

Mr President, Mr President of the Commission, Mr Petteri, this house is a bit like the Tower of Babel. Fortunately, we have interpreters who make even confusing speech almost understandable. But today we have to challenge them a bit. The Finnish language knows such a word as being an orphan. And I get orphaned when I see how Finland and Europe are doing in the competition. We are constantly lagging behind both the United States and China. One of the reasons for this is that we have an administrative burden that is sometimes excessive. That is why we now need to look at what will happen in the future when everyone presents such Santa Claus lists to the next Commission. It is the task of the next Commission to bring about frame legislation. Let's talk a bit like in French, that we are now writing long lists of what to do and what not to do. But there is Ram legislation that can create guidelines and still manage this in the future. But this lack creates this orphan feeling. Of course, this orphanship is in no way related to our Prime Minister, but I could not resist the temptation to play with words a little, because that is our job.

Mr President, thank you very much. Commissioner, thank you very much. If we look at the map of Europe, at the map of Northern Europe, we see an interesting thing that really arose after Russia started its war against Russia. (the speaker interrupted the speaker) What I was trying to show was a map of Northern Europe. If we look at the map and take into account that Russia is our neighbour, it means that in practice Finland is an island in Europe. All our connections cross the Baltic Sea. We could see the Chinese ship dragging an anchor behind it and the Baltic Connector went off. With the simple technology, we can destroy all connections between Finland and Estonia and Finland and Sweden, which puts Finland in an extremely vulnerable position. For the simple reason, it is of the utmost importance that we can protect these links. It is also important to note in this context that now that Sweden has become a member of NATO, our conditions for monitoring the Baltic Sea and our cables and interconnectors are much better than they were before. But it will depend on the European Union actually taking this seriously.

Mr President, Commissioner, we have a legal obligation to set a climate target for 2040 and to start the process towards adopting the target. That is what we all agreed on during the negotiation about the Climate Law. We also have an obligation to live up to our commitments and to do our fair share as the EU to keep the change within safe limits. The priority must be to phase out fossil fuel as soon as possible, and my colleagues already spoke about the 90 %, and that’s the line. But while we are studying the assessment, we have to take a glance at the reality. The reality is that agriculture does not have the same possibilities as industry. Agriculture does not have the same productivity development. Thereby we have a structural problem. We cannot place the same onus on agriculture as on industry. That has always to be taken into account in future decisions. Then, the last point, on Commissioner Hoekstra, he said that he would keep to the finish line – I hope the spelling is right, with two ‘n’s!

Mr President, dearest Commissioner, I have with me three different reports here, and they are all telling the same sad story. Containers lost at sea are a huge problem. The catastrophe off the coast of Portugal and Spain actually involved six containers. What we see in the reports, it goes for the US vessel El Faro and for the EVER SMART, is that the containers are usually stacked in a criminal way. In the future, with more storms you’re going to have more problems, more catastrophes, if we don’t get the vessels in order. The equipment is bad, the vessels are old and they are stacked in a way which is not according to the rules. So what you have on the top of a stack is a too-heavy container. When the ship starts rolling 20% to the left and to starboard and port, then you have it there. So we have to get the rules to work, and if we don’t get them, the catastrophes will be there.

Thank you for a very difficult vote. I can understand that many Members have some doubts about the future, therefore I would like to refer it back for interinstitutional negotiations in accordance with Rule 59(4).

Mr President, dear Commissioner, with the Commissioner we have been fighting on many issues before and usually we find solutions at the end of the day. That happened last week and it will happen this week and will happen next week. But I think we should be honest about one thing: this Commission has produced twice the amount of legislation the previous Commission did, and that actually led to a situation where we are running again with the Commissioner in seconds blank to the next meeting, trying to find new solutions to another problem. At the same time, we know that everybody has been working under severe time constraints, and severe time constraints also influenced the way in which the impact assessment was done – and that was seen by the rapporteur, Frédérique Ries, in the very beginning when she tried to find a solution on Article 26, and just to sort of accommodate the goals of the Commission with the reality of the industry. On other important points we support the Commission’s ambitions: obligation to recycle packaging by 2030; application of extended responsibility principle on packaging; harmonising labelling; introduction of deposit and return systems; and promotion of recycled content in plastic packaging. Such profound changes towards the circular economy don’t happen overnight, and Frédérique Ries has put all her energy and experience into ensuring that the European Parliament votes within the short time frame to make this regulation something feasible for the economic operators. Circular economy of packaging will help decouple economic development from the use of natural resources, contribute to achieving climate neutrality by 2050, and reduce the EU’s economic strategic dependency on many materials. Harmonised rules are key to remove the barriers for business selling packaging in several Member States or across the EU caused by differing rules between the different Member States. But I think we have to acknowledge also one thing: during the COVID-19 pandemic, we actually learned a different way of behaving. And when human beings learn a different way of behaving, it’s very difficult to unlearn people from this behaviour. So that’s the project we have in front of us. The path mapped out is the right one. It’s up to the plenary session tomorrow to confirm this approach, and then we see how we manage together with Commissioner Sinkevičius the rest of the battle.

Madam President, my dear friend Commissioner Sinkevičius, due to some personal challenges, Madame Ries can’t be here today, so I have the honour of presenting her part of it. The regulation of packaging and packaging waste has undoubtedly been one of the most hotly debated pieces in legislation in Brussels in recent months, both in terms of profound paradigm shifts it proposes and the intensity of lobbying by the interested stakeholders. The legislation is essential for the competitiveness of the European packaging sector, and stakes are high because, while packaging is essential for components of products, making them suitable for the transport and safe use, it is also an increasingly important source of waste. With a report adopted in ENVI by a large majority, the rapporteur, Frédérique Ries, whom I represent today, has succeeded in aligning environmental ambitions with industrial reality. It establishes a clear line in favour of innovation, allowing a five-year derogation for innovative packaging and providing a horizontal exemption for almost the entire text for micro-enterprises with fewer than 10 employees. In addition, as one of the rapporteurs’ main priorities, the report has added health dimensions to the environmental aspects of the dossier, with the addition of a ban on PFAS chemicals, the forever pollutants, and Bisphenol A in food packaging. Finally, it also strengthens the prevention aspect of the text by setting a precise target for the reduction of plastic packaging and by banning ultralight plastic bags. Although the report adopted by ENVI confirms a pragmatic vision towards circular economy, the rapporteur is well aware that there are still differences between the positions adopted in the different committees of this House. With the amendments tabled by my group, the rapporteur wanted to take a further step towards a common, balanced position on the most controversial aspects of the text. First, on the reuse aspect, Article 26: in addition to the removal of targets for the take away sector already adopted by the ENVI Committee, the rapporteur proposes that economic operators with a packaging recycling rate of over 85% to be exempted from the reuse obligation, striking a balance between increasing targets and simply eliminating them. Secondly, with regards to the restrictions on certain packaging formats for the fruit and vegetables – that’s Annex V, line 2 – the rapporteur wishes to respond to AGRI’s concerns by extending the scope of the packaging format still authorised to single-use plastic-free composite packaging so that producers can continue to have a wider choice of alternatives. Lastly, with regard to packaging restrictions for the HORECA sector – that’s Annex V, line 3 – the text adopted in ENVI is already well-balanced: a complete derogation for micro-enterprises, a three-year deferral for applications of the measures on flexibility granted to the Member States. However, in a spirit of compromise, the rapporteur wanted to add wrappers – that they would be exempted from the ban – as it would be difficult to replace them with other alternatives. This set of amendments is, for the rapporteur, the middle ground that only reconciles positions between groups, lending a robust text at the beginning of interinstitutional negotiations. On her behalf, I would like to thank all the colleagues for the cooperation we have had so far, and I am looking forward to represent this House in the further negotiations with the co-legislator. So thank you. Then I change my hat because I think there was an understanding that I would have also one minute for myself, because of the combination... (The President cut off the speaker) I’ll try to keep it to 30 seconds and I’ll change to Finnish. Todellinen ongelmamme oli elinkaariarviointi. Elinkaariarviointia voidaan tehdä erittäin monella eri tavalla ja pienetkin muutokset, kuten montako pesukertaa, paljonko vettä tai miten paljon energiaa, muuttavat todellista tilannetta ja muuttavat myös elinkaariarvioinnin lopputuloksia. Siitä syystä elinkaariarvio, siinä muodossa, kuin se tuli meille komissiosta, aiheutti meille ylitsepääsemättömiä ongelmia, mutta yritämme tulevaisuudessa järjestää niitä.

Madam President, Renew can support the Greens’ request for a debate and a resolution on the renewal of glyphosate if we change the title to ‘Council and Commission statements on the proposal for a renewal of glyphosate’ with a resolution to be voted in November II.

Mr President, 601 days have passed since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. However, the war has been going on for a long time, since 2014. Irrespective of the sanctions, dual-use goods and other prohibited goods are still exported to Russia. This export needs to be stopped. As long as Russia continues its aggression in Ukraine and as long as Russia in one way or another threatens our community, we must persevere in this. Finland is an island on the map of security policy. That is why the Baltic Sea and the security of the Baltic Sea are of particular importance to us. That is why there is no point in coming to this speaker's house to make hypocritical statements. As long as Hungary continues its disgusting cooperation with Russia, the Baltic Sea will leak.

Mr President, thank you all, colleagues, for the support in this slightly difficult file. Based on Rule 59(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, I kindly request to refer this report back to the ENVI Committee for interinstitutional negotiations. And for that, I would like to have a vote.

Mr President, thank you very much. And a thank you to the Commission for the active effort here to steer it all. The discussion is really about three different things: costs and the distribution of costs, micropollutants and PFAS, and this is really related. The more micropollutants we have, the more PFAS we have, the sicker the people will be and that means costs, just in another cost center. So this discussion about something being too expensive is, for that reason, a little skewed. It will be expensive and possibly even more expensive not to take care of this and for that reason we tried to open up for this discussion about PFAS. If you look at the instruction on what everything we know about PFAS at this stage, we can say that it affects our fertility. Maybe I'm freed from this, but I still have five children and six grandchildren. We will need a workforce in the future. It affects the frequency of cancer. It affects blood pressure and we know that blood pressure disorders are one of the biggest we have. These costs are borne by us in any case, and it is perhaps good that we find such a way of distributing the costs that does not kill industry, individual members of society or society as such. We have a responsibility to allocate these costs. For this reason, I am very pleased that my colleagues have shown great interest in this matter and actually pushed for longer-term legislation, and we will certainly return at some stage to all these challenges.

Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to start by thanking my shadow rapporteurs for the good spirit during the negotiations. Despite very different circumstances, we were able to bridge most of the dividing issues. For the issues where we didn’t, I’ll try to explain my concerns. First of all, energy neutrality. I’m more than able to understand the challenges we have in European cities, where human beings have been building structures, houses, arenas for the last two thousand or three thousand years. When you try to go in and build something in circumstances like that, you are sure to run into difficulties. In the middle of a Finnish nowhere, it’s much easier to find solutions to some of these challenges, because the circumstances are so different. In some places, you’re just boxed in – as in the case of Brussels – between the railway trunk lines and a factory. If you have to go to tertiary or quaternary water treatment in some cases, you either have to go down or up. And when you go down or up, you’re going to get more cost and demand more energy. The biggest issue during the negotiation was the extended producer responsibility. Here I personally ran into a moral conflict. In my extended family, we had a case of severe cancer. The person was given a life expectancy of three months. This is something very many people in my age, and many much younger, are facing every day. Today, many cases of severe cancer are treated, and what one day seemed to be a remaining lifespan of three months is then turned into a normal life. This was also the case in my example from Finland. What looked as the end of life turned into a flowering possibility. In this understanding, the pharmaceutical industry is fulfilling a societal task and that has to be taken into account when we divide the responsibility. This was what I tried to do and I would very much like to see this issue being taken care of. We have similar cases in the history of COVID. The record-breaking time scientists and pharma companies succeeded in finding a remedy actually saved lots of lives. We don’t know how many thousands or millions of lives they saved, but the fact is that lives were saved. We cannot calculate it. But we know for sure that this is a fact. At the same time, the pharma industry in the European Union is under severe pressure from both the US and China. Therefore, we had to find a middle ground in the negotiations, and I would be more than happy to see this coming true.

Madam President, thank you very much. Commissioner. The European Parliament has made wise decisions in various contexts and sometimes less wise decisions. On 8 May 2003 we made a decision on renewable fuels. It didn't take so many days before we eventually realized that that decision might not be the wisest one in the world. This then led to new negotiations and new decisions, because the part of the renewable fuels that we then advocated was simply too much forest. Then, during the previous mandate, I was involved in making a decision on electric cars, and it may happen that we will also have to re-evaluate what we have done on that point. Nevertheless, I would like to thank Mr Pieper for the cooperation and my shadows within ENVI for the cooperation. We finally managed to get a decent result. But I fear that we will come back to the issue of renewable fuels in the coming years a number of times. And I hope you're wiser than I was at that stage.

The good colleague from Belgium has the wrong information about Finnish forests, because there was a report that Finnish forests are emitting more. Then that was controlled several times and it was shown that this is not the case. So when you start to debate Finnish forests with me, you better stay by the facts.

Mr President, before I start, I would just remind you that you let Commissioner Sinkevičius go over the time, with 7 minutes and 24 seconds, so please give us a chance in the same spirit. I don’t like emotional debates, and this debate has been very emotional. And therefore we don’t see the facts as they are. In all cases of shared competence, the Commission is forced, according to Articles 4 and 5 of the Treaty, to show that the problem is better solved on EU level than on Member State level. That leads, by the logic of things, to a one size fits all. And that’s the very problem of this proposal. Nature in Finland is not being killed in 80%, as has been stated here. Nature in the Netherlands is probably being killed because you have 500 Dutch persons per square kilometre. In Finland, we have probably 17. So you have different circumstances in different Member States. This is not taken into account in this proposal and that is creating the immense problems we have. And we are going to have a very hard debate in the Renew. It is not easy to be the kingmaker and therefore the rest of the seven minutes I leave to the next speaker. (The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question)

Mr President, Madam Kyriakides, first of all, I have to say that I was not the shadow of this legislation. The shadow actually jumped ship. It would probably have been better if he had jumped ship before and then we could have had the discussion about the file. But first, this is, of course, a very important legislation and an issue we will certainly come back to in future years. Second, this doesn’t mean that deforestation is something easily done. The first risk we are actually running is the white man’s burden risk, because we are again telling formerly colonised countries what they should and shouldn’t be doing. And that doesn’t always land very elegantly. Fourth, in a country where 75 % of the land area is defined as forest, almost any new building is requesting forest to be cut. This leads to a situation where a milk farmer with a new shed will be subject to deforestation rules. He can sell the milk but the cows he’s obliged to slaughter; the animals and the transport of the carcasses to the incineration will be done on his own account. And this is something my colleague already referred to. This is not actually acceptable.

Madam President, I have to ask for forgiveness of those in charge of translation, because I’m going to start with some sentences in Swedish because of Jessica. Tack ska du ha, Jessica, för att du skötte det här ärendet. Det var inte alltid lätt. Förhandlingarna i rådet var inte heller lätta, men du lyckades ändå nå ett framgångsrikt resultat. It’s very important that climate action is looked at in the long term with the 2050 climate neutrality target in mind. The Effort Sharing Regulation is key to deliver on CO2 reductions. Under the agreement, EU countries will have to cut emissions by 40% compared to 2005 levels in sectors such as buildings, road transport, agriculture and waste, which are currently not regulated under the bloc’s carbon market, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Together, these sectors are responsible for 60% of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions. Renew Europe is pleased that the 2030 targets and trajectories are ambitious enough to reduce CO2 emissions even if we see mounting challenges with the percentage-based reductions. The Climate Fund will, with the Council, deliver the climate and therefore my group will support the important part of the Fit for 55 package. At the very end, a comment which Mr Liese already said. Effort sharing sounds very fine. In Swedish, fördelning av bördan. That means distribution of the burden. Therefore, in Nordic countries, we sometimes feel a little more burden.

Madam President, put on your seatbelts and your headphones, because I am going to speak in Swedish. (addressing Prime Minister Kristessen) That doesn’t concern you, probably. Fru talman! Vad är det Sverige kan göra som ordförandeland och göra bättre? Det finns en lite besvärlig tendens i Europeiska unionen att alltid beskriva allting i lite ljusröda färger. Allting är jättebra och pengarna kommer in osv. Lite mer realism kan skapa förtroende, och det kan vara välbehövligt. I den juridiska eller juristiska debatten om EU dyker det upp ett återkommande begrepp: competence creep, befogenhetsförskjutning. Vad betyder det? Det betyder att gränserna för vad vilken del av unionen kan eller bör göra blir lite suddiga. Det leder i sin tur till ett ökande manöverutrymme för diverse populistiska rörelser – det känner ni till. Det känner vi till i Finland. Det känner vi till i nästan alla europeiska länder. Processerna kring lagstiftning börjar med rådets slutsatser, council conclusions. Men om man granskar slutsatserna lite mer noggrant, ser man någonting besvärande, nämligen att de är löst skrivna och okonkreta, och styr inte processerna på det sätt som avtalen och medlemsstaternas rätt och intressen egentligen förutsatte. Det finns en dikt av min gudfar Nils Ferlin – det är därför jag heter Nils – som påminner oss. Dess början lyder så här: ”Du har tappat ditt ord och din papperslapp, du barfota barn i livet.” Det finns en rad till. ”Tänk efter en stund. Var det långt eller kort, var det väl eller illa skrivet” – och slutsatserna är för det mesta illa skrivna. Det fanns också en god hänvisning i ditt tal, och det är vi jättetacksamma för. Du sade: ”Jag vaknade upp i Helsingfors.” Det är en bra början.

Madam President, Mr Timmermans, I start with a very personal comment I just told the Commissioner. I’ve usually been fairly critical of his deeds, but I have to say that I was very proud of what he did in Sharm El—Sheikh. I think it actually is worth the wait, I applaud. Then to the issue. Russia has forced us into a position where we need to find more energy and quickly. Having said that, to ensure that will be much more difficult. That means that we have to take environmental law and threats of biodiversity very seriously. It means also that we need to ensure that temporary emergency measures are temporary and they are not something we do and then it goes on forever. But at the same time, we need to know that it’s not always easy. Member States have very different energy mixes. Member States have very different natural circumstances. Member States have very difficult and different policies. Also in this case, you know the rule, one size does not fit all.

Mr President, Commissioner Johansson, resilience of critical entities could be slightly changed as a headline to ‘resilience of critical entities and slightly naive and sometimes stupid minds’. Why? After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many Member States thought that we are living in a problem-free world. I think the home country of Commissioner Johansson actually abandoned obligatory military service after 1990, thinking that we don’t ever need military operations in Europe. And then, all of a sudden on 24 February, we woke up to a new reality – a very bitter reality, actually, where we are going to need all the things we actually discussed during all the discussions around the critical entities file. Many Member States thought the need for a comprehensive directive on critical entities was useless, so they didn’t even implement the old directive on European critical infrastructure. Fourteen years after this directive, we finally managed to agree on a directive that could actually highlight the importance of keeping our critical entities safe. We don’t know how much we actually lost during these 14 years. But what we are losing now because of the lack of an appropriate way for addressing critical entities, we are losing lives, and that’s the real issue for the day. But I hope that we are going into a better future with this directive.

Mr President, Commissioner Johansson, Minister, ever since Parliament handled the climate law, we have been trying to raise the ambition. Everybody hasn't been on board, but we have been persistent, and we will be in the future also. It doesn't require some sort of genius to understand that losses and damages will be the main topic during the conference. And sad to say, we have more losses and damages in the world for the moment being than probably for the last ten years before. You just need to go to the Gulf of Finland and look at the amount of gas being flared by the Russians just some kilometres away from the Finnish border. So we have a lot of things to do and take care of. Yesterday, we sat down with a young lady from Kenya, Elisabeth Wathuti, and heard about her version, how her world looks. And the conclusion is very simple: there is a lot of work to be done in Sharm and a lot of work to be done afterwards.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, we actually know how the Russian war against Ukraine will end. It will end in a total moral, societal, economical collapse of Russia, and we already see the first sign of it. But this road to collapse is long and it’s lined with untold sufferings and human deaths. Along this Via Dolorosa marches the Ukrainian army and peoples of Ukraine. In comparison with them, we have a fairly easy walk, but we already complain, sometimes in a unduly manner. Now it’s time for us to make some small sacrifices. But making these small sacrifices, we should also be able to open up a perspective for Europe in the future. Forty-seven years ago the Conference of Security and Cooperation opened in Helsinki. The principles of the final act have then been torn into pieces by Vladimir Putin and Russia. We need a new Conference. We need to get Europe on a new path away from the mortal path Russia under Putin has chosen.

Mr President, dear Commissioner, and a great thank you to the Pied Piper of Hamelin, Markus Pieper. Tomorrow we are going to vote on a heap of compromises. And the good thing with those compromises is that nobody is actually very pleased with them – and that’s how it should be. And you have to ask why? Well, sometimes when you vote in the Parliament, MEPs tend to think that ‘my vote’, the way I’ve raised my hand, that’s the main thing, because then they can go on social media to see how right they were on this and that issue. But that’s not actually the issue in front of us. The issue in front of us is actually the way in which the Council is about to think on RED. And if you look at the Council’s position on RED, we are going to be in almost different worlds. So the main thing we have in front of us is to be able to find good compromises in the trilogues and therefore we need this basis for the future.