Speeches

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would say that today is a black day. We lost today. We lost because our text on the reduction of pesticides, which was supposed to include a 50% reduction in pesticides and a ban on the most toxic pesticides in 2030, was a failure. So this resolution on pollinators is a bit of a last chance text. Pollinating insects, indeed, are in jeopardy, in announced disappearance. And without them, we with. So the alarms have been ringing for years. For more than a decade, nature has been sending us increasingly clear signals that are sufficiently clear for this scientific consensus to prevail: Empty European landscapes and pollinating insects, while four out of five cultivated species depend on pollinators to reproduce. I will still quote a few figures. In the last three years, insect population falls of up to 75% have been observed, and the number of butterflies has decreased by 36% in ten years in Europe. A new analysis, signed in November 2023 by European naturalists, estimates that nearly 2 million species are endangered, of which 25% are insects, which is double the previous estimates. Figures revealing the extent of the problem. The warning is there without a change of system, if we do not leave intensive agriculture, bottled with pesticides and biocides, this text alone will not reduce the disappearance of pollinators in Europe. And here, today, I really have a lot on my heart because the fact that we lost this legislation, the fact that Members did not want to send it back to ENVI, so what is our hope? The only hope is for Member States to try to have a national policy to make pesticide-free corridors. Because, contrary to what one colleague said, the decrease in pollinators is due to pesticides. So I hope that it is not too late and that we will have the energy, the strength and the conviction at the level of our different governments to really drastically reduce pesticides.

Madam President, Commissioner, I would like to focus on the scientific and political arguments. I consider these rules to be one of the most important in this mandate. I would like to congratulate our rapporteur, Sarah Wiener, on the considerable work she has done with her co-rapporteurs. This regulation is based on two very important pillars, which are the safeguarding of biodiversity (because the more pesticides are used, the more fauna, flora and habitats are reduced since pesticides are found in water, air and all environments). Not to mention the health effects: Two days ago, for example, Monsanto was attacked by three people with cancer, who showed the cause and effect link with the pesticides they used, including glyphosate, which is an indirectly related subject. So when we look at farmers’ occupational diseases, we know that they are caused by pesticides. So I want to speak to my colleagues. Either we show at the level of the Parliament that politics takes over agri-food lobbies, which will encourage people to vote for Europe because Europe protects. Either you go against the objectives that are in this regulation, which means that the lobbies have won. Therefore, this regulation on the sustainable use of plant protection products is very important.

Madam President, Commissioner, after all I have heard, I would like to ask you: How many deaths do you need to ban glyphosate? Because when we listen to EFSA, EFSA tells us that there are no critical concerns. And then we go across the Atlantic and we have the WHO, we have the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which say that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans. There are more than 100,000 complaints in the United States that have attacked Monsanto Bayer's Roundup. Billions of euros have been donated by Monsanto Bayer to compensate the victims. And in Europe, we have no problem. In Europe, it is business. In Europe, agriculture must be developed, there is no alternative to glyphosate. But who are we laughing at, Commissioner? I assure you that there is a political stake. If you show that Europe is not united with the Commission, with its agencies, to say that there is a problem with glyphosate – and I would prefer to say Roundup, because Roundup is all co-formulants with the active substance and it is often 1,000 times more harmful with all these co-formulants –, if we are not able to demonstrate that the Commission protects health first before protecting business, how are we going to have voters who are going to vote for Europe? There is a real stake in trust. We need to defend health and not lobbyists. And if you back down, and I am also addressing the Member States, if the Member States do not vote against the use of glyphosate, well, I do not give a lot of money for the future of Europe.

Mr President, Commissioner, we find ourselves on the problem of the shortage of medicines and strategic autonomy in healthcare in the European Union. So it's been more than ten years since the problem became chronic. Earlier, my colleague was talking about three thousand medicines in short supply in Belgium, and there are more than three thousand also in Italy. And what is Europe doing? It is true that, and here I agree with you, it is Europe's competence. So what did we do? We have increased the powers of the European Medicines Agency by saying it's up to you to make a catalogue of essential medicines. Well, look, I looked at their site, we have between 20 and 40 essential drugs. We did working groups, the SPOC, the MSSG, to try to see the supply and demand, but we didn't do much. Then you have to open the toolbox. In the toolkit, it's true that there may be financial incentives, you're right. But when I look at the labs, what do they ask the labs for? They say we need to increase the price of drugs. And for drugs that are no longer covered in relation to a patent, well what do they want? Let's raise the price. And it's very expensive in terms of social security. We can also have what are called mandatory notifications, that is, when a lab decides to no longer manufacture a drug, it must inform a company and give it marketing authorisations. And last but not least, you have to make a public institution. They don't want to make it. All right, all right. Well, it's a public institution, it exists in the United States, Commissioner, it's called Civica. And I assure you it would be nice if you went because it's very interesting, they make medicine.

Madam President, I would like to come back to a scandal that shocked me very much at the level of the European Commission. This is the SMS Gate scandal. Because, in fact, it has been two and a half years since this scandal took place, in the midst of the COVID pandemic. It all started when the New York Times revealed in April 2021 that the President of the European Commission had overstepped her powers and negotiated the largest contract of 1.8 billion doses for €35 billion directly with Pfizer’s CEO. Okay. But MEPs demand accountability. We asked for her to come, for our Chair to come and explain to the COVID Committee, for her to come and explain to the European Parliament, for her to come and explain to the Conference of Presidents, which brings together all the political groups. Well, no, she's not coming. And yet, among the European institutions, the Ombudsman acknowledged that there was maladministration by the Commission and the Court of Auditors acknowledged that it worked solo. So I tell the President of the Commission that this is a very serious political mistake, which she is doing, and that it is destroying the trust of European citizens in the European institutions.

Madam President, Commissioner, it is true that we are very disappointed by your proposal. First, it was expected for a very long time, it took the "Qatargate" and it had to be seen that Commissioners were involved and that Commission officials were not nickel on their statements. You offer us something that is not independent, where only one third of the experts are independent, with no powers of investigation or punishment. However, we have a big problem with the upcoming elections: we want there to be an ethics body that does harmonise standards, but can also investigate and punish. How will we regain the trust of European citizens if you only propose an advisory body? We already have it at the level of Parliament, at the level of the Commission, etc. And we see that it does not work. Really, for us, it is an empty shell, and I ask you to strengthen this ethics body.

Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we can only agree with having an EU strategy on global health. This will be seen as solidarity, fairness and respect for human rights. However, the European Union has not set an example, in particular with regard to the temporary lifting of patents on vaccines, treatments and diagnostics, which had nevertheless been requested by more than 150 States. And what about the management, not very glorious, of COVAX! I have a question for you, Commissioner. You say that the Commission, in view of its strategy, must become a full member of the World Health Organisation. But you have had a veto from the Member States. Member States do not want the Commission to sit in the WHO. So how do you establish this global strategy if you do not have the agreement of the Member States? Should this be seen as a consequence of managing COVID-19? Moreover, the Member States ask you to confine yourself to technology transfer, financing and global diplomacy. So this is really a question that arises. (The President withdrew the floor from the speaker)

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to make an item on the agenda on the resolution on the establishment of an ethics body of the European Union. As you know, ladies and gentlemen, we have a serious problem with the lack of transparency within our institutions. The American newspaper New York Times decided to refer the European Commission to the Court of Justice of the European Union for failing to communicate the content of the President of the European Commission’s SMS messages with the Pfizer laboratory. This dysfunction, namely the non-disclosure of these documents, has been confirmed by all our institutions, both the Ombudsman and the European Court of Auditors. So why do I intervene? In order for this Parliament, ladies and gentlemen, to live up to its prerogatives, including the control of the executive. I ask you to do everything possible to ensure that the Commission gives access to all these documents. European citizens hold us to account, and it is by ensuring transparency that we will regain their trust.

Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, ladies and gentlemen, we must always wait for scandals to make us wonder whether our institutions are working. And here, we can take stock of the situation: They don't work. So why don't they work? We have ethics committees. But at the level of the Parliament the Ethics Committee is made up of five Members, who are judges and parties, at the Commission the Ethics Committee is made up of officials, who are judges and parties. What is more, these committees are only advisory, they are not binding, they do not have the possibility to impose sanctions. So it does not work, and it is not transparent! I'll give you two figures: In the last three years, there have been 52 inquiries into Members. Do you know what they gave? No one knows. At the European Commission, according to Corporate Europe Observatory, there were 360 cases of revolving doors allowed and only 3 applications rejected. Do you know in which files? No, no. When you ask what can be done, I will tell you, indeed, that you need an independent ethics body – just a minute – you need a budget, you need staff. It must be able to carry out an investigation, it must be able to impose sanctions and, above all, it must be transparent. The data must be public. Otherwise, opacity will lead to impunity.

Mr President, Commissioner, we are currently facing a shortage of medicines in Europe. The situation is very worrying and, again, it shows a bit of the limitations of a just-in-time, profit-based production system. In France, seasonal infections have increased again, with Doliprane, Efferalgan, paracetamol and the antibiotic amoxicillin added to the list of 277 medicines out of stock. In Ireland, 212 medicines are unavailable, of which at least 11 are on the WHO list of critical medicines. So, what are we told? We are told that this is because the number of patients is too high, because the prices of medicines are too low. Or finally, this time it is not a problem of active substances, but of shaping, with a lack of supply of paper and cardboard. But finally, who are we laughing at? The alarm has been sounded for more than a decade and the list of shortages has been growing every year. If the labs have neglected the production of certain drugs that are not profitable enough, we must change suppliers, we must organize an alternative channel. We had a report from my colleague Colin-Oesterlé in Parliament where an alternative was proposed, that is to say, a kind of public-private establishment which manufactures precisely medicines which are not of interest to Big Pharma and which can produce precisely the medicines we need. It is therefore urgent that we move and make concrete proposals.

Madam President, Commissioner, I really think we are in the middle of a paradox. This very morning, our President of the Commission said that it is essential to fight global warming. Fossil fuels must be combated. And what are we seeing in Africa, especially Uganda and Tanzania? We see that Total Energy is involved in unacceptable climate damage. It is a veritable climate bomb, in fact. Whether in Tilenga, with its 400 oil drilling wells, and in particular on the edge of one of the largest lakes in Africa, which are very rich in biodiversity, or the EACOP project, it is a 1 443-kilometre-long Total mega-oil pipeline project. This is the equivalent of Brussels-Madrid, when you look at it. It will also be heated to 50 degrees. It is therefore a project with all the ingredients of an ecocide. You know, displacement of people, land grabbing, destruction of ecosystems, endangering food security, violation of human rights. So I ask colleagues to vote on this resolution because it will be a sign of the need to stop this project. But I am also calling on the Commission because the European Commission is helping – I had called on Ms Urpilainen. We are helping Uganda and Tanzania, so we need to put pressure on these governments. And then it is still necessary that France, with Total Energy, is consistent with its fight against global warming. We are therefore asking for this project to be stopped.

Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, the first axiom: As you said, gas and nuclear are not green. There, everyone agrees. Except that we strongly invite you to vote in favour of this objection rejecting the inclusion of gas and nuclear in the green taxonomy. First, just for our credibility. We put scientists to work, we developed objective principles to put certain types of energy on or off. Well, that is not taken into account. This is not taken into account because it is a political decision. There were scientific arguments about nuclear power: we lived in Fukushima, we lived in Chernobyl, we know that we have no solution for radioactive waste. How can we transmit energy for which we do not have a solution for nuclear waste? And it is still a burden for future generations, so it cannot be a transition energy. It will be far too late: It takes fifteen years to build a reactor. As regards gas, it is the same: it is fossil energy, as you said. And if the Paris Agreements are to be reached, all fossil gas production must be phased out by 2022. So, it's over. This goes against everything that is said, so I ask you to vote for the taxonomy not to include gas or nuclear.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to speak on an agency called ‘Fusion for Energy’ and on ITER. I will give you three arguments for not voting for this discharge. The first argument is financial. We have not been given a clear timetable for spending. You know that initially it was 5 billion, we know that we committed 17 billion and the US Directorate-General for Energy tells us about 65 billion, and when we asked for the precise timetable, we did not receive it. Secondly, this project is currently outdated. Indeed, the IPCC report states that there are three years left to truly achieve the transition. ITER? But the placement, we may have it in 2035 and the first electricity in 2050, so, far too late! Finally, one thing that has disturbed me a lot, and one that really needs to be stressed, is management. Thanks to the Committee on Budgetary Control, a hearing was held with whistleblowers and it was learned that there were suicides, stress and unfair dismissals within the agency. It is imperative that efforts be made on personnel management.

Madam President, Commissioner, I am pleased to present this own-initiative report. I will use the example of the ongoing COVID-19 crisis. In this report, I examine the main risks of corruption and misuse of public funds in the context of relaxed rules and limited transparency, both at national and European level, and I suggest various recommendations for control and transparency mechanisms, which should remain operational regardless of the crises the EU may face in the future. Let me start with a few facts. First, this crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with the economic emergency and the social unrest that followed, prompted the European Union and the governments of the Member States to provide additional funding and to increase spending considerably and rapidly. To help Member States tackle the consequences of the pandemic, the Commission created the Recovery and Resilience Facility, worth more than €670 billion, and REACT-EU, worth more than €50 million. Both instruments are powerful tools to help EU countries recover. Due to the urgency of the crisis, procurement procedures and controls were relaxed in many Member States, while existing response plans did not sufficiently address the problems of illegal activities such as corruption and fraud. Therefore, as the first reports of the national courts of auditors or independent investigations show, a series of corruption and fraud scandals broke out in European countries as early as spring 2020. Remember: In Italy, police officers uncovered several cases of corruption concerning a government contract for the purchase of 800 million masks. In Germany, MEPs resigned from the national parliament following a scandal over their personal involvement in the purchase of masks. In Slovenia, the Minister of Economy was questioned. It is also under the pretext of urgency of the crisis that the European Commission has chosen to negotiate and sign, on a confidential basis, pre-purchase contracts for the development of COVID-19 vaccines with the pharmaceutical industries and to prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right of budgetary control. These contracts, worth €2.5 billion of public money, were signed and implemented without any scrutiny by the European Parliament and remain confidential to this day. The EUR 2.1 billion Emergency Support Instrument has been activated in the EU budget, and Parliament, as budgetary authority, still does not have access to documents to know the traceability of this financial instrument. In addition, the Commission often concealed, in the drafting of the contracts, all information concerning the amount received by the various laboratories. So what is unacceptable in this report is that basic checks carried out by the public or independent institutions can be discarded in the name of crisis and urgency – whatever the nature of the crisis, for that matter – and that European legislation can be adopted at the expense of democratic rules. No crisis should be used as an excuse to exclude the European Parliament or, within certain limits, civil society from access to documents and thorough scrutiny of the use of public data. Finally, it is called for the audit institutions, OLAF, the Court of Auditors, the EPPO and the European Parliament to be able to carry out their work without disruption during all kinds of crises that the EU may face in the future. Finally, if we want the trust of citizens, this requires transparency, institutional control and that exercised by civil society: These are the cornerstones of European citizens' trust.

Madam President, finally, we have come to the end of a battle that lasted almost five years to find satisfactory compromises for the evaluation of health technologies. Until now, it is true that this assessment was carried out at national level, which disadvantaged small countries that do not always have the resources to assess the comparative effectiveness of treatments and therefore to fix the reimbursement of health technologies. This evaluation must indeed be carried out at European level, but I am also in favour of involving the national authorities in it. Why? I will take the example of remdesivir, the Gilead laboratory antiviral, which was the first COVID-19 treatment to receive a European conditional marketing authorisation on 3 July 2020. What about its added value? For the French national authorities, on 17 September 2020, the High Authority of Health said: no added value, no demonstration of the impact on the viral load of this antiviral. What does the Commission's Health DG decide? It signs a contract with the Gilead laboratory to order 500 000 doses, representing more than 1 billion. There is no questioning, precisely, of that added value. The WHO has stated that it is a toxic medicine that can cause harmful effects. So, I hope that this new regulation will make it possible not to take the example of this remdesivir and that we have a real objective assessment in relation to what the pharmaceutical companies tell us.

Madam President, Commissioner for Health, I am very happy that you are here, because I would like you to answer the questions. Everyone says that there is inequality in the distribution of vaccines. We rich countries have had a lot of vaccines. But the situation is problematic for poor countries, especially in Africa. There's a solution. I am not saying that this is the silver bullet, but there is a solution: the patent exemption. The WTO is meeting on 30 November and 130 countries will be there, at the request of South Africa and India – which have health infrastructure – to lift these patents. The Commission voted against. Why? Is it Germany, because there is Pfizer and BioNTech? Why is Germany voting against when even the US is in favour? This is how we could have a lot of vaccines in those countries. You say it's going to take time; But the longer you wait, the longer it will take. Second thing: COVAX, which started with a very good intention. Except that when we look, we, the European Union, have given very few doses. Of the 200 million doses promised, 56 million were given. Why? Because in the contracts, which are opaque and non-transparent, there is a clause that says that if ever a country like France wants to give doses of Pfizer, for example, it must ask Pfizer for permission. And Pfizer will check in the country whether, in the event of death or side effects, that country is able to pay compensation. But we have to blow up these clauses! Commissioner, you have a responsibility. I am very pro-European. I am in favour of solidarity, but it is the Commission that is blocking at the moment.

Madam President, Commissioner, I really want to extend my full support to this Ethiopian people. There has been talk of famine and - I heard your speech, Commissioner - there has been talk of rape. This is a dramatic situation and in addition, it is in this country that there may be the highest number of deaths in the world, due to this crisis. In fact, what are we asking for? We call for the Ethiopian government and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front to engage in an immediate ceasefire to resolve their political differences through peaceful and democratic means, within the framework of the country’s constitution. It is imperative that humanitarian aid organisations – as you mentioned – and human rights organisations are allowed to do their work safely and unhindered throughout the country. Dialogue must be ensured with the United Nations, in order to allow its expelled personnel to continue their important work on the ground. We also call for action by calling on Member States to stop exports of arms and surveillance technologies to Ethiopia, which are deployed to attack civilians and perpetrate human rights violations.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, I listened well to you, but you do not hear. I am in my third term. We have fought constantly at the level of the European Parliament to always be involved in the functioning of Europe. We are defending the European Union and in the context of this pandemic, where we have all been affected, we were aware that everything was urgent and we have all fought together to build a Health Union at European level. We did everything we could with my colleague Buşoi to ensure that there was EU4Health. We fought for a budget for health and we knew that we needed an innovation and that is what the Commission proposed, by creating this agency called HERA. HERA must be an agency, as you said, to prepare for and respond to the emergency. Now, however, the Commission is coming to us with a proposal to make HERA an internal service of the Commission, an appendix of the Commission. What will we, the co-legislators, do? This €6 billion budget will have to be voted on. And then, as my colleague has said, we will have an observer position. So only one parliamentarian to discuss, to know the directions, the mandate and the governance. So, Commissioner, you attended the meeting of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on Monday and you saw that not all political groups accept your proposal. We need to be partners. You talk about the credibility of the European Union, but the credibility is done together and it is not obvious, this agency. We need to talk about it, we need to build it, it needs to be transparent. So, Commissioner, come back to your proposal.

Mr President, thank you all, because I find that there is an awareness, as the Commissioner said, that the Green Deal is above all about defending the climate, but that the second pillar is biodiversity: we can fight over CO2, if there are no more ecosystems, life is impossible, life is destroyed. So I see that there is an awareness that the European Union – and if we can double the budget, it will be great – really has to defend the diversity of ecosystems. For this, a second word was regularly repeated in your speeches, there was a holistic vision, but there was also the vision of coherence between what we do in Europe and what we do in developing countries. Our actions must not contradict each other, because if we subsidise industrialists who extract fossil fuels or degrade the environment and do not strengthen legislation sufficiently – and we can have an influence thanks to dual standards – you see that all the efforts made at EU level will not have an impact. I therefore think that this term of coherence in our policies is very important. Finally, I have often heard you talk about trade policy. Indeed, our trade agreements are deficient, as they do not sufficiently focus on the constraints related to safeguarding biodiversity. Trade is the first, but I think we really need to strengthen the importance of climate and biodiversity in our trade agreements, with a deterrent aspect for countries – we are thinking of Brazil, but we could think of Uruguay, Paraguay, etc. We are talking about imported deforestation and that is our responsibility. So I think if everyone agrees, we could go a long way and show that Europe is really spearheading the defence of life in general.

Madam President, this is an important and very topical report, since you know that in a few days, from 11 to 15 October, there is COP 15 in Kunming, China. This meeting, which will initially be virtual, will be the Conference of the Parties, COP 15, to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. This is very important, because this report gives guidance on how to increase biodiversity in developing countries. There has been a report at the level of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, which aims to assess coherence with the 2030 Agenda. This report is a bit of a tribute to all those who have left, those who have been killed, those who continue to be persecuted in defence of their territory, victims of violence against indigenous peoples and the expropriation of their land: this is not yet a thing of the past, but it is still happening. The commodification of nature and land, the pressure of the extractive and agricultural industries, and the perception of untouched nature free from human activity continue to fuel the dispossession of land and resources. The European Union must acknowledge its responsibility for increasing land grabbing and forest destruction; But it must not fall into the trap of imposing colonial conservation practices on forest-rich countries. The history of nature conservation is a history of expropriation and violation of human rights. Remember, the first modern protected area was Yellowstone National Park in the United States, which was created in 1872 by expelling Native Americans who lived there and depended on its resources for their survival. In Africa, the creation of protected areas took root during colonisation, in particular to organise hunting reserves, and this led to various conflicts. However, there is good news. Look in Australia at what happened a few days ago: The Australian government has handed over land to Aboriginal peoples, including more than 160,000 hectares handed over to Indigenous Peoples, including Kuku Yalanji Peoples, in the world's oldest primary forest. So everything is not lost, especially on the part of Australians. Many protected areas have led to partial or complete displacement, without compensation, of indigenous peoples and local communities. At the same time, there are industrial timber concessions, mining concessions or palm oil concessions that are allowed within nature reserves, look for the mistake. These people still make up about 5 per cent of the world's population, but manage at least 25 per cent of the Earth's surface, where nearly 80 per cent of biodiversity is concentrated. These peoples therefore traditionally have a privileged relationship with their environment. International laws and treaties protect their rights, including Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which clearly states that indigenous peoples cannot be evicted from their lands without their free, prior and informed consent. Attention will have to be paid to one point, and this is reflected in the report, namely the so-called nature-based solutions; we have made the carbon market, we should not also make the biodiversity market, because there may be problems with so-called offsets: We see many oil industries, such as Shell or Total, that can continue to pollute, provided they compensate for their CO2 pollution. By taking land in the countries of the South and planting, they can then say that they have a neutral carbon balance. So this is really a risk: the destruction of our environment should not be compensated to the detriment of indigenous peoples and local communities. The second aspect is coherence between our development policies and resource conservation. There is also the problem of everything related to agriculture and in particular the problem of GMO technology. I am not talking about Europe but about Africa. Is it worth developing these technologies, when it is better to defend local seeds that can be passed on from one community to another? There is also the problem of genetic forcing, which should not be allowed. I am very happy, Mrs Urpilainen, that you are here: there is a real need to ban the export of pesticides to these countries, as long as they are banned in Europe. There is therefore a panel of extraordinary possibilities in this report and I ask you to vote for it.

Mr President, Commissioner, thank you for being here, because indeed the problem in Tigray is still dramatic. I hope that this debate in the European Parliament will bring a balanced perspective going beyond disinformation, as there is a lot of disinformation about this conflict, and beyond a simplistic criticism of the current government, but taking into account a broader historical perspective of Ethiopia, especially with regard to the Tigray People’s Liberation Front. We need to ensure a clear and reasoned position of the European Union vis-à-vis the situation in Ethiopia. The humanitarian crisis in the Tigray region has reached a critical point. Rights groups have reported large-scale massacres, widespread sexual violence, indiscriminate shelling, looting. And what exactly do we know? Who does it? In addition, the United Nations is alerting us to a famine affecting at least 350,000 people. Commissioner, I say to myself that in this conflict, we must call on the European Union to set up a thorough international investigation into the root causes of the problem in Ethiopia, in order to know exactly who is doing what. And secondly, with regard to the current famine, which may affect, as I have told you, 350 000 people, especially since there have been the deaths of three MSF staff members who have been added to the already long list of humanitarians who have lost their lives in Tigray since 4 November 2020: We must exert our full weight to ensure that all parties to the conflict in Tigray respect international law and ensure free and secure access for humanitarian actors. We must therefore help the people of Ethiopia, especially in Tigray, from a humanitarian point of view, because the situation is dire. Clarity, a better understanding of who does what, and humanitarian aid for the suffering people.