President. – The next item is the debate on the report (A5-0133/2000) by Mr Marset Campos, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, on the communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a Community Action Plan for the reconstruction of Central America [COM(1999) 201 - C5-0111/1999 - 1999/2114(COS)]

  Marset Campos (GUE/NGL), rapporteur. – (ES) Mr President, in 1998, Hurricane Mitch devastated Central America (Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala) resulting in 20,000 victims and losses of more than EUR 5 billion (10% of the GDP of those countries which are already burdened by eternal foreign debt). It destroyed crops, homes and infrastructures of every type, thereby jeopardising the future of its peoples.

Europe’s response was immediate and significant, through the Stockholm Conference, and it was consolidated, following the European Parliament’s proposal, in the Commission’s initiative which we are currently debating.

I would like to highlight four issues. The first relates to our assumption of responsibility in the event of these catastrophes. The connection between our economic activity and the increase in pollution, with the greenhouse effect and the onset of climate changes makes it advisable for us to immediately ratify the Kyoto protocols on the reduction of the gases which cause this effect. Furthermore, our model of unequal development leads to poverty and indebtedness in these countries.

It is a contradiction to preach the reconstruction of Central America taking account of respect for the environment, according to a model of sustainable development, while we continue to maintain the same economic relations with those countries.

The second issue involves the global objective of our assistance. The Commission’s proposal is sensible insofar as it centres its attention on two fields: health and education. However, it should be more ambitious, so that it may coordinate and integrate all the different initiatives in those countries. This requires a substantial increase in our staff, a measure which this House supports. This action will allow for synergy between the different forms of aid and will guarantee that the effort made will not be limited merely to reconstruction – since, in that event, things would continue in the same way – but will offer an opportunity for regional integration, harmonious and sustainable development, creating wealth and general well-being, and for the consolidation of democracy in these countries which have just thankfully left behind years of violence and confrontation.

In this respect, two facts worry us. The threat of hostility between Nicaragua and Honduras as a result of border disputes would cast doubt upon the good sense of our aid, and we therefore think that both of those countries should be subject to the decisions of the International Court of Justice. The other is the recent re-emergence in Guatemala of political kidnappings, such as that of the university professor Mayra Angelina Gutiérrez, political killings, such as that of the Community leader, José Amancio Mendoza, or threats against journalists (the case of Gerardi or the Nobel Prize winner, Rigoberta Menchú) which are of concern. Aid for reconstruction must be accompanied by firm and accountable commitments to safeguarding human rights on the part of the Guatemalan Government.

The third question concerns the way in which we are going to carry out aid and regional coordination and integration. It is essential that we incorporate the most dynamic and responsible sections of society, the indigenous peoples, as well as the full and broad participation of women, the social organisations which display efficiency and solidarity and, lastly, that there is no partisan use of aid nor fraud in its management. That is why we need to carry out internal and external audits of the application of our aid.

Increasing our effectiveness as the European Union also means that we must participate officially in the Stockholm monitoring group.

The fourth and last point is currently the most important: the amount of aid. Although it is considerable, we believe that the amount indicated by the Commission, EUR 250 million, is insufficient given the magnitude of the disaster and the slow rate of the area’s recovery. The European Parliament therefore requests a significant increase.

We are concerned by the items appearing today in the press indicating that the Commission intends to reduce all European Union aid, including that destined for Latin America, because of its commitments in Kosovo. We believe that we cannot behave in such an absurd way, since for Latin America this aid offers hope of escaping underdevelopment and freeing itself from the heavy yoke which originates from the North.

The European Parliament has already stated that it would not commit itself to any action which would mean cuts in the aid to other parts of the world. We therefore insist that this is a crucial and key point. If we behave in this way, we will ensure that other actions, both with the European Investment Bank and with other financial bodies, are significant and would aid the immediate execution of the programmes approved. All of this should be accompanied by the presentation of periodic reports to the European Parliament on the evolution and assessment of the results obtained.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the warm and excellent cooperation of all the members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy and its staff, as well as the Committee on Budgets, the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy and the Committee on Development and Cooperation.

  Laschet (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, some regions in the world are struck by the hand of fate several times in quick succession. In the 1980s, the European Union made a major commitment to Central America in the San José process, in order to help establish peace and democracy in this region. This process was a success. And then, just a few years ago, these countries were again hard hit, this time by a terrible hurricane, and they are still suffering the consequences.

Thank goodness that Europe is again taking action, offering assistance and helping to reconstruct Central America. We need to publicise the fact that the European Union is funding at least 62% of public development aid in Central America. This entitles the European Union to play a political role in Central America, which is not just the preserve of its large neighbours; Europe too can make a contribution here to peace, democracy and reconstruction.

We therefore welcome the Commission’s proposal. The Committee on Budgets supports the idea of earmarking EUR 250 million for this region for the period from 1999 to 2004. It is also a good idea to make this aid conditional upon a commitment by the countries to work together. That was the model used in Europe after the Second World War, when the duty to work together, cooperate and overcome borders were the sine qua non for Marshall Plan funds. Our contribution to reconstruction aid will likewise be conditional upon a commitment to peaceful coexistence and cooperation.

I also expressly agree with the rapporteur: we should not allow the reconstruction of Kosovo to be funded, as it were, from the budget for Central America. If the reconstruction of Kosovo is a European task decided by the Council, then it must also provide the necessary funds, which is why we are voting today on a sum of money as a direction marker, a direction marker which was decided before the conflict in Kosovo. The Commission report predates the Kosovo conflict and we have made no changes to it. We stand by the sum proposed for Central America. I think that is the most important signal we can send out today.

(Applause)

  Kreissl-Dörfler (Verts/ALE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy.- (DE) Mr President, our committee undoubtedly agrees with Mr Marset Campos’s report. However, I should like to draw the House’s attention to a number of points which, as far as we are concerned, are right at the top of the international aid priority list. International aid must, without fail, be well coordinated. The Commission, for its part, must set up suitable structures on the ground. However, it must also cooperate as efficiently as possible with the international organisations which have been working there for several years already.

The same applies when it comes to involving the people affected, especially the indigenous population. We must work with these people on the ground during both planning and implementation, that is essential as far as we are concerned. Not only does it save costs, it increases efficiency and, more importantly, prevents fraud. We know that in El Salvador, for example, the erstwhile Calderón government diverted aid of EUR 1 million in order to win votes in the right-wing camp.

If we really want to help the countries devastated by the hurricane, then of course we need to do more than just implement a few aid projects on the ground. We all know that full well. It is therefore essential that we remit foreign debts and build up regional and, above all, sustainable structures in both the ecological and the economic sense of the word. The Union must also guarantee these countries access to the markets for their products, which must be assessed from both an ecological and a social point of view, because there is little point in giving out aid, on the one hand, and excluding these countries from our markets, on the other.

I take the same view as the previous speakers, that it is unacceptable for the Council to argue that money now needs to be diverted from Latin America to Kosovo. Robbing Peter to pay Paul can hardly be called a policy; on the contrary. The Council keeps heaping more and more tasks on to the Commission and the European Parliament; it also needs to ensure that they can be funded by entering the relevant amounts in the budget.

  Fernández Martín (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Development and Cooperation. – (ES) Mr President, as the rapporteur, Mr Marset, has said – and we support his words and his report – Hurricane Mitch has been the worst natural disaster in the history of Central America.

The human losses number more than 10 000 deaths; almost another 10 000 have disappeared and more than 2 million people have been affected; the material damage amounts to more than EUR 5 billion which is equivalent to 10% of the GDP of Central America. A significant part of the economic and social infrastructure has been destroyed and there has been a great reduction in the region’s capacity for production and export in the short and medium term.

The countries most affected, Honduras and Nicaragua, are the poorest in the region. The destructive effect of Mitch was exacerbated by deforestation and the lack of an adequate system of flood control, which demonstrated once again that environmental degradation affects the poorest most and highlights the intrinsic link between poverty and environmental deterioration.

As the Commission has said, the consequences of Mitch will considerably reduce the results of the efforts towards economic recovery and investment made there during the last decade by the European Union.

In April 1999, the Commission approved a special action plan, provided with EUR 250 million, which this Parliament fully supports in the terms in which it was approved. With regard to the model for implementing this programme, the Committee on Development and Cooperation supports option 1 proposed by the Commission. Only in the event that it is not possible to carry out option 1 as a result of a lack of sufficient human resources, could option 2 be considered valid, by means of the contracting of highly qualified European experts.

As draftsman of the Committee on Development and Cooperation I must not end without asking, once again, for the cancellation of the foreign debt of the Central American countries, an initiative which must be dealt with by the European Union as a whole and in a coordinated fashion and not only by certain Member States acting on individual and particular initiatives.

Lastly, I believe it is also necessary to ask, within the strategic reconstruction plan, for the proposal of measures aimed at increasing credits from the European Investment Bank in that region.

  Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE-DE). – (ES) Mr President, I would first of all like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Marset Campos, on the excellent report which he has presented to us.

This report has inevitably been influenced by the tragic consequences of Hurricane Mitch. The European Parliament – and I believe we should remember this – reacted immediately by calling an extraordinary meeting on 4 November 1998 which was attended by the Commissioners then responsible.

In its resolution of 19 November, the European Parliament expressed the terms in which the European Union would respond to the situation created by Hurricane Mitch. This response had to be formulated with the greatest diligence and speed through the approval of a strategic plan for the region within the shortest possible time limit. I remember the date: November 18-19 1998.

We must say that this request by the European Parliament, at least with regard to diligence and speed, has not been attended to, and this is a cause for regret. The lack of human resources, while it may be an excuse from an administrative point of view, cannot and must not be a pretext for the establishment of political priorities, especially in the case of basic needs of countries which have suffered disasters on a massive scale.

To transfer this responsibility to the budgetary authority is not correct. The Commission must at all times ensure the appropriate allocation of resources in accordance with the priorities agreed.

Commissioner, this morning, in the debate on the common security and defence policy, I had the opportunity to tell your colleague, Mr Patten, that I have never had, do not have and will never have any hesitation in decisively supporting the Commission with a view to clarifying and broadening the scope of its competencies. On the contrary.

However, as other Members have said during this debate and as I had the opportunity to say also to Mr Patten during the budgetary debate, it is difficult for me to understand why the Commission has no difficulty in managing the EUR 800 million which it proposes in the preliminary draft 2001 budget for the Balkans but that, nevertheless, it has difficulties managing EUR 250 million which have been set aside in the plan for reconstruction in Central America, which are not envisaged for one year, but for four years.

In any event, Commissioner, the countries of Central America have not carried out a policy of genocide and ethnic cleansing. They have included, unlike other geographical areas in their agreements with the European Union, a democratic clause which provides an essential element on which the whole relationship is based. The countries of Central America have taken on very painful processes of structural adjustment which have meant great sacrifices for their societies. They have done their duties with regard to the multilateral institutions and have fully complied with what the European Union expected of them.

Mr President, European civil society has already shown how sensitive it is to the tragedy suffered by the peoples of Central America. It is now time for our institutions, in the face of a disaster of this type, to be a match for our civil society and for the circumstances.

  Fava (PSE). – (IT) Mr President, on behalf of the Group of the Party of European Socialists, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Marset Campos, for his excellent motion for a resolution and also for the great clarity of vision with which he has interpreted the spirit of this resolution, which must not be limited to solidarity but shift the focus onto much more tangible political initiatives.

I do not wish to trawl through the figures recording the consequences of the hurricane again. I would simply stress the fact that the social and environmental damage concerns us far more than the economic damage caused, and it is that which is affecting this region. And since misfortune is never fair, particularly when meting out its after-effects, it is the poorer bands of society which, as always, have been worst affected.

I would like to start by describing a paradox: the region hit by the hurricane, which is often hit by hurricanes as violent as this one, also includes Florida. Yet although Florida suffers the same weather conditions as Central America, it reports infinitely less serious damage. This is my point: we must start from here and consider the environmental and social vulnerability of Central America if we are to realise that the emergency relief culture and policy will not suffice, and this must be the focus of European Union aid.

This resolution has the advantage of going beyond emergencies. The Community action plan is a chance to combine the reconstruction process with an element of change – change which these countries genuinely need – and to invest in a new economic and social development process based on the priorities of health, education and high quality services, which, in these countries, are directly responsible for the quality of life, and, above all, the quality of their democracy.

The resolution explains in great detail that all this is possible provided that two conditions are upheld and satisfied. First of all, we must activate the monitoring and inspection measures, in order to avoid wastage, unlawful activity and fraud. To this end, the resolution calls for the European Union to have sole responsibility for planning, execution and monitoring of the aid. We are calling upon the Commission to take up its responsibility, and we consider it vital that it does so if we are to provide effective aid.

However, the second condition is much more important: we need to increase the Commission’s financial and human resources. The funds appropriated are not sufficient and the staffing is certainly inadequate. In an area which has been greatly affected by political violence, the provision of aid – which is intended not only to provide emergency relief but to facilitate the restoration of democratic order as well – specifies and assumes a quality of preparation and a level of human resources which is quite different from that which has hitherto been envisaged. We consider that greater and more effective use should be made of the cooperation of non-governmental organisations, which represent not only extremely experienced and extremely reliable resources in the countries concerned, but, above all, tangible resources which enable us to make our intervention more dynamic and more effective.

In other words, Mr President, Members of the Commission and the Council, I feel that it is time for the European Union to stop just declaring its solidarity and secure genuine, substantial fairness. This plan must do more than just provide immediate alleviation of the effects of the hurricane: it must also bring about redistribution of the country’s resources and restore the country’s opportunities. The resolution adopted by the European Parliament in November 1998 was also a step in this direction in that it referred to the cancellation of the foreign debt of the countries in the region, which amounted to USD 17 billion.

I would like to conclude by reiterating the invitation to the Commission and the Council contained in the resolution to support the total and immediate cancellation of the foreign debt.

  Knörr Borràs (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Mr President, there is little to add at this point in the debate, especially after the excellent report by Mr Marset, which I agree with completely. However, I would like to stress certain things that he has said.

It is very important to speak of behaving cooperatively – we have spoken about behaving sensibly – by focussing especially on education and health programmes, as the report itself says, and he has also spoken about coordination and the need for staff.

For those of us who were in Kosovo just a few days ago, we must specifically highlight something which has been said by many of the visitors in the delegation. That is, that, unlike other interventions, the main feature of the one carried out in Kosovo is that it was directed in an integrated and perfectly coordinated fashion, which increases the efficiency of our action.

On the other hand, as Mr Salafranca has pointed out very clearly, I also absolutely share his disagreement not only with the budgetary restrictions, but also with the difficult fact that obstacles are placed in the way of countries such as those in Central America in whose agreements certain clauses have been included, while we do not act in this way in other regions.

For those of us whose leitmotif for political action is solidarity, we also require efficiency, the sustainability of programmes and the creation of policies in the places where we take action, which will help these treasured societies of Latin America to reach higher levels of development and social justice.

I will end, Mr President, with the following quote: “We must be rebels, but we must also be competent”. To interpret this in another context: let us show solidarity, but, in doing so, be efficient.

  Liese (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I think that the awful disaster caused by Hurricane Mitch sets three main challenges for European policy. First: we must help with reconstruction in these countries. The Commission document provides a good basis for this, although some of what is written in it has yet to be implemented in practice. I think it is particularly important to use the know-how of European organisations and organisations in Member States for reconstruction and to involve non-governmental organisations and local experts. I do not think that calling for more new posts in the European Commission every time a new challenge arises is always the right response. Perhaps Commission staff could be reassigned.

Secondly: we must give these ill-fated countries greater access to European markets than we have done in the past. It is paradoxical that Nicaragua and Honduras, which were two of the least developed countries even before Hurricane Mitch, fail to qualify for the same treatment as many, many others, such as the ACP countries, which we treat well, and rightly so. I cannot see why Nicaragua and Honduras still fail to qualify for the same treatment. I do not want to quote the perennial example of bananas – the report does that. I support this passage and also what Mr Kreissl-Dörfler has said. I would like to quote the example of sugar. In the case of sugar, which is an important product for Nicaragua, Nicaragua has no access of any importance to European markets. It might help if we were to facilitate its access to the European markets.

The third challenge is that we need to fight the causes of these disasters. I am well aware that we cannot simply say that the increase in greenhouse gases caused Hurricane Mitch. However, there are many scientists who assume that it probably did. We just cannot say for certain. But all the scientific committees agree that the number of disasters such as this will increase significantly if we industrialised counties continue to pump out the greenhouse gases at the same rate. They will of course affect all of us, but they will always affect poor people most, which is why we must at last take more decisive action here.

  Linkohr (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, I should like to follow on from Mr Liese’s closing comment on climate change, to which Mr Marset Campos also referred. It is perhaps not by chance that we have suffered tremendous devastation in Central America, Venezuela and Mozambique, not to mention in Europe, and it is likely to increase. It seems reasonable to suppose that it is not increasing by chance and that it really is the result of man-made climatic changes. I would therefore like to see a link established between how we view these disasters and energy policy. There really is a link and I should like to draw your attention to it. I only wish there were not.

The second point I would like to make is that aid should be used to integrate Central America. This has been a perennial cause for concern to the European Parliament and we have called for it on many occasions. In the final analysis, of course, this is up to the people of Central America. But perhaps the shock triggered by Hurricane Mitch gives us an excuse to overcome the hostilities and difficulties between the individual countries. In any case, the people would be grateful and, for the rest, our aid would be worthless without any progress with integration.

The third point I should like to make concerns the implementation of this aid. I do not envy the Commission this task because I know full well that, in a few years’ time, a report on the alleged or rightly criticised misuse of funds will land in our lap and I should like to point out that the cost of controlling these funds often exceeds the gain. I hope that we shall be giving the Commission a certain amount of room for manoeuvre in the use of these funds because the speed at which programmes are implemented is often much more important than accounts in black and white down to the last penny. I know that this is a comment which a parliamentarian should not make nowadays, but I make it nonetheless because I am right.

Finally, I should like to point out that the hurricane in October 1998 went beyond Central America. It is now June 2000. In other words, we too are an unwieldy apparatus and perhaps we too need to consider how we can speed up the process. Even if we pass a resolution today, we are still a long way from building up the country; on the contrary, it will take many years, perhaps a generation. I consider that to be far too long.

  Vitorino, Commission. – Mr President, I wish to begin by thanking, on behalf of the Commission, the European Parliament for the quality of this report and congratulating the rapporteur, Mr Marset Campos, on his report on the Commission communication on the Action Plan for the Reconstruction of Central America. I am also grateful for the support and confidence that Parliament has given the Commission on the implementation of this important Community Action Plan.

The EUR 250m regional programme for the reconstruction of Central America, spread over four years, will contribute to the reconstruction and the transformation of the four countries most devastated by Hurricane Mitch – Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala.

The programme is based on the principle of sustainable development, as has been underlined by several speakers. It provides for assistance in education, vocational training, public health and social housing. The primary beneficiaries will be those who live in extremely disadvantaged rural areas where the consequences of the disaster are most acute. Attention will be paid in particular to the indigenous peoples and to reducing vulnerability to this kind of catastrophe in the future.

The Commission is aware that the success of such an ambitious and complex programme also depends on the degree of coordination among the various actors present. A coordination group is being set up between the Commission and the Member States.

Another important element will be the Stockholm Follow-up Group. Until now the Commission has always been involved in an informal way in the activities carried out by this group.

In order to ensure maximum transparency, the Commission will submit an annual report on the progress of the RPRCA to the Member States and Parliament. A first report of the activities carried out by the Commission has been distributed among the parliamentary Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy.

Following the initial emergency and other post-Mitch aid, we are now actively preparing the implementation of this reconstruction programme. The mobilisation of the statutory personnel necessary for decentralised management and implementation of the programme certainly delayed the rapid launch of the programme, as has been emphasised by several speakers. These problems have now been overcome. The first official will arrive in Managua on 17 July and the remaining officials in the following weeks. No further delays are expected at this point. The Commission is taking all necessary steps so that the programme can be in place and operational within the following three months.

I quite understand the arguments Mr Salafranca raised about human resources. As you know, it is not a question specific to this debate. However, you should bear in mind that for the Kosovo programme we set up a specific agency. In the case of this programme we had to deal with the staff who were available, due to the constraints of human resources.

Let me stress – and I share the view of Mr Salafranca and others – that the amount of time it has taken to get this aid to the region is wholly unacceptable. We cited it as an example in our recent proposals for the overall reform of our external assistance programmes. It is just another reason why the Commission, and Commissioner Patten in particular, is so determined that we should drive forward those reforms so that we stop letting others and ourselves down in this way.

Since the issue has been raised by several speakers, I should like to take this opportunity to guarantee that the financing of Kosovo will not be to the detriment of money allocated to Latin America, and definitely not to this specific programme.

Additional measures have been adopted by the Commission in the framework of the Community Action Plan. These include the European Community contribution to the HIPC debt initiative, and approval of an improved General System of Preferences Scheme for Central America and Council Regulation of 21 December 1998 applying a multiannual scheme of generalised tariff preferences has been extended to 31 December 2001. In addition, the Commission is taking part in the HIPC debt initiative, contributing some EUR 50m to both Honduras and Nicaragua.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 12.00 p.m.