Debate contributions by Elsi KATAINEN

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?