Debate contributions by Sirpa PIETIKÄINEN

Madam President, fur is out of fashion. There is no demand in European markets, so the majority of production is exported to Russia and China. There's clear people signalling all over the world and in Europe that fur is not acceptable. Fur is not economic. The direct and indirect expenses to society exceed substantially and are unproductive to our societies. We are using, in various forms, direct and indirect subsidies to fur farming, and the fur farmers are not doing that well. Actually, they should be deliberately forced out of their work because there are much better working possibilities and futures they could achieve with some transitional support and maybe education. But the last point, of course, is the ethical aspect. Do we have the right to torture animals ‑ because this is indeed animal torture ‑ without any good reason or purpose, just for the vanity? This is not normal living of these animals, and there is no possibility to create that kind of natural conditions and habitats for them in case of farming. So I'm just asking, to conclude, when does the Commission consider to come with the answer and hopefully the prevention of fur farming?

Mr President, Belém was an underachievement. But now the EU needs to lead bravely among the 100 countries that have committed to act on climate change. Because when science and politics collide, science will always win. When facts and opinions collide, the facts don't change. And if opinions don't, the result is going to be bad. The costs are tenfold more than any investment we should be making at the moment to slow down climate change. We would need to ban, of course, the use of fossil fuels. We would need to speed up the circular economy. We would need to act on supergrids and renewable energies in Europe. We know the problem, we know what to do, and we even have the money because only less than 5 % is in sustainable finance. Now the question is: is the Commission bold enough and brave enough to act against the political populism?

Mr President, this is a good report which focuses on the increased challenges to security policy, competition for raw materials and the need for the EU to have a stronger Arctic policy and presence. However, I would have liked the report to have been three things more vigorous. Environmental issues are mentioned, but the Arctic EIA, which was in the previous report and the basis for importing raw materials from the Arctic into the EU, is lacking. Equally, the rights of indigenous peoples and the principle that land use in their territories is not carried out without their consent, as well as the requirement that the Sámi, the only indigenous people in the EU, have their own representation in the EU, are lacking. And yes, it would also be worthwhile for the EU to say more strongly that we are still behind the policy that the Arctic is a heritage of public good, peace and research, which we will defend beyond local militant crises.

Mr President, we know that climate change worsens the biodiversity threat, and we have the Kunming Biodiversity Framework to actually prevent the loss of biodiversity. So these two factors need to be fed into CITES in the future, in a science-based approach when judging the species. And I hope you could go in front of this. My second point is the better enforcement that the Council and the Commission already highlighted. This needs more resources. This really needs resources also under the upcoming MFF, and we need special targeted resources for online crime, better engagement of OLAF on an EU base to search the cases, also when it comes to transit. Last but not least, on traceability: trophy hunting is one dangerous factor in wildlife crime. It catches in the wild the breed. So I just appeal to the Commission to put in force the ban on trophy hunting and any trophies to be transited through the EU or to be taken to the EU. The EU needs to lead in ambition.

Mr President, ten per cent of women of childbearing age suffer from endometriosis, a very painful and everyday life-threatening lifelong condition. It is also a major cause of infertility. It's under-examined, under-diagnosed, and under-treated. I hope that this debate will indeed serve as a wake-up call to what kind of gender health gap we have. Women go to the doctor more often, are more half-fit and become less well-treated because their symptoms or illnesses are not so well understood. Men, on the other hand, often go to the doctor too late and too little, and the result is just as bad, naturally for them. So it is not a question of who is being treated, we must treat both men and women, European people, well. I therefore hope that this will serve as an alarm clock for the Commission and that the Commission will then also prepare an entire women's health programme, which will draw attention to the need for further research into the various diseases, treatments, diagnostics, training of doctors and raising public awareness, as well as research into medicinal products, in which women are clearly under-represented. These problems will not be solved by the Member States alone. We need a common European will, and I believe that the Commission will also find this.

Mr President, the Hungarian Pride marchers rose up to defend the rule of law, law and order, and human rights. They defended not only the rights of sexual minorities, but the rights of all minorities, women's rights and human rights. This is important to remember at a time when these values are historically under threat. We must all stand up and demand the implementation of these basic principles. I hope that the Commission, together with the Member States, will ensure that the rule of law and total non-discrimination in the form of an anti-discrimination directive are finally put into effect.