Indiċi 
 Preċedenti 
 Li jmiss 
 Test sħiħ 
Proċedura : 2010/2594(RSP)
Ċiklu ta' ħajja waqt sessjoni
Ċikli relatati mad-dokumenti :

Testi mressqa :

RC-B7-0181/2010

Dibattiti :

PV 09/03/2010 - 16
CRE 09/03/2010 - 16

Votazzjonijiet :

PV 10/03/2010 - 7.8
CRE 10/03/2010 - 7.8
Spjegazzjoni tal-votazzjoni
Spjegazzjoni tal-votazzjoni

Testi adottati :

P7_TA(2010)0059

Dibattiti
It-Tlieta, 9 ta' Marzu 2010 - Strasburgu Edizzjoni riveduta

16. Regolament li japplika skema ta' preferenzi tariffarji ġeneralizzati (dibattitu)
Vidjow tat-taħditiet
PV
MPphoto
 

  Elnök. − A következő pont vita a Daniel Caspary által a PPE képviselőcsoportja nevében, Kader Arif által az S&D képviselőcsoportja nevében, Niccolò Rinaldi által az ALDE képviselőcsoportja nevében, Yannick Jadot által a Verts/ALE képviselőcsoportja nevében, Joe Higgins által a GUE/NGL képviselőcsoportja nevében, valamint Robert Sturdy által az ECR képviselőcsoportja nevében a Bizottsághoz intézett, az általános preferenciális rendszer alkalmazásáról szóló rendeletről szóló szóbeli választ igénylő kérdésről (O-0022/2010 - B7-0018/2010)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Daniel Caspary, Verfasser. − Herr Präsident, geschätzter Herr Kommissar, geschätzte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Mit dem APS-System gewährt die Europäische Union im Moment 176 Entwicklungsländern Marktzugang in Form von reduzierten Importzöllen. Das sind Vergünstigungen, die wir als Europäische Union anbieten, ohne dafür eine Gegenleistung von unseren Partnern zu erwarten. Zusätzlich gibt es APS+ für einige bestimmte Länder mit besonderen Herausforderungen und für solche, die besondere Bedingungen erfüllen.

Was ist die Ausgangslage? Wir brauchen ab dem 1. Januar 2012 eine neue Regelung, weil die alte ausläuft. Für ein geordnetes Verfahren, das uns auch für zwei Lesungen Zeit gibt, brauchen wir Zeit. Deshalb erwarte ich für meine Fraktion, dass die Kommission möglichst zügig einen neuen Vorschlag vorlegt. Wie gesagt, wir brauchen für ein Verfahren mit zwei Lesungen ausreichend Zeit, und es kann nicht sein, dass wir als Europäisches Parlament diese Entscheidungen im Zweifel unter Druck treffen sollen. Und wir brauchen eine Evaluierung des bestehenden Systems. Ich wünsche mir, dass wir sehr bald Zahlen, Daten, Fakten dazu bekommen, wie sich das bestehende System in der Praxis bewährt hat. Hat das bestehende System wirklich dazu geführt, Handelserleichterungen für die davon profitierenden Staaten auch zu schaffen? Sind die Exportzahlen auch gestiegen? Profitieren die richtigen Länder von diesem System? Ich werfe die Frage in den Raum: Stimmt alles in dem bestehenden System? Wenn beispielsweise Länder wie Katar, das ein Pro-Kopf-Einkommen hat, das höher ist als das Pro-Kopf-Einkommen von 25 Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union, unter das APS-System fällt, bin ich der festen Überzeugung, dass wir bei der Überarbeitung des gesamten Systems all diese Dinge unbedingt kritisch anschauen sollten.

Um eine Sache bitte ich die Kollegen aller Fraktionen im Hinblick auf die Abstimmung morgen: Wir sollten bei der Entschließung allgemein bleiben, wie es auch im ursprünglichen Entwurf vereinbart war. Ich wäre den Kollegen sehr dankbar, wenn wir Einzelfälle, die diskutiert wurden, nicht in der Entschließung erwähnten.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  David Martin, deputising for the author. − Mr President, like Mr Caspary, I welcome the three preference regimes we have under the GSP – Everything But Arms, GSP and GSP+.

It is right that the 49 poorest countries in the world should get open access to our markets for everything but their arms. It is right, as Mr Caspary has said, that the 176 developing countries should be given preferential access to our market. It is also right that 16 countries should get even better access to our market, through GSP+, in return for setting up and implementing 27 specified international conventions on human rights, co-labour standards, sustainable development and good governance.

However, it is also right that we expect those 16 beneficiary countries to apply and respect their commitments under those conventions.

If we allow countries to get away with not applying their commitments or respecting the laws under those conventions, then we lose the incentive that GSP+ is supposed to give. That is not all, as we in effect punish the other GSP countries by eroding their preferences and giving preferences to 16 countries not respecting their rights.

That is why I welcome the fact that Sri Lanka has been investigated by the Commission, which has also proposed action against Sri Lanka. That is also why I believe strongly that the Commission should launch an investigation into Colombia’s respect or otherwise of the 27 conventions. That does not mean that we would take action against Colombia. It simply means that we would investigate it, as we did with El Salvador but decided that there was no need for action.

I have three questions for the Commissioner.

Does the Commission accept that, in the future, Parliament should be given the right to call for investigations under GSP+?

Secondly, in the mean time, will the Commission present to Parliament the requested report on the status of the ratification and implementation of the conventions by the existing GSP+ beneficiaries?

Finally, when does the Commission plan to transmit to Parliament the revised regulation for the next phase of GSP? We were promised it by June and we would like to see it delivered by June.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Niccolò Rinaldi, Autore. − Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, poco dopo la costituzione di questo Parlamento siamo stati confrontati subito con la questione della sospensione GSP+, in particolare con l'applicazione, o la non applicazione, di questo meccanismo, lo Sri Lanka e la Colombia.

Nel primo caso abbiamo assistito a una a una serie di errori, anche gravi, commessi da un paese come lo Sri Lanka, che comunque ha l'attenuante di uscire da una lunghissima guerra civile contro una terribile organizzazione terroristica. Da parte della Commissione in questo caso abbiamo assistito, a mio modo di vedere, a una certa fretta, che ha portato rapidamente alla proposta di sospendere il GSP+. Nel Consiglio, invece, non ci sono stati, come dire, padrini dello Sri Lanka, e la decisione è stata presa. Per quanto riguarda il Parlamento europeo, esso non ha svolto nessun ruolo: nessuno ha chiesto la nostra opinione.

Nel secondo caso, abbiamo un paese che deve combattere contro una temibile guerriglia interna e dove vi sono serie violazioni dei diritti dell'uomo, compreso l'omicidio frequente di sindacalisti. La Commissione fino ad ora non si è espressa sull'opportunità di aprire un'indagine e, anzi, prosegue la pista dell'accordo di libero scambio, sulla quale personalmente concordo. Nel Consiglio, sappiamo che vi sono governi assai attivi nel proteggere gli interessi delle autorità colombiane e, ancora una volta, il ruolo del Parlamento europeo è stato zero: nessuno chiede l'opinione del Parlamento, che pure, quasi quotidianamente, deve ascoltare le voci degli uni e degli altri.

In entrambi i casi non abbiamo avuto alcuno studio di impatto sulle conseguenze occupazionali ed economiche della possibile sospensione ma, in tanta incoerenza, c'è questo elemento comune: il ruolo marginale del Parlamento europeo. Eppure, queste sono decisioni eminentemente politiche, non tecniche, e questo trovo sia inaccettabile. C'è dunque necessità di un nuovo regolamento, approfittando della scadenza di fine 2011, come questi due casi concreti credo dimostrino. Tuttavia, nel frattempo sarebbe bene discutere anche di quanto sta accadendo in questi mesi in questi particolari paesi.

Sarebbe ad esempio interessante sapere qual è la soglia di violazione dei diritti dell'uomo che la Commissione ritiene da sorpassare per aprire un'indagine in Colombia o in altro paese, oppure quali passi concreti il governo dello Sri Lanka, come ad esempio la sospensione della legge marziale, dovrebbe compiere per non eseguire la sospensione.

Quello che noi chiediamo, Commissario, è dunque questo: una nuova proposta, possibilmente entro giugno; dei chiari criteri per l'eleggibilità dei paesi beneficiari, tenendo conto che il GSP è uno strumento di sviluppo e che nella lista dei paesi beneficiari abbiamo alcuni paesi che francamente non sono poi così tanto in via di sviluppo; la firma e l'applicazione delle 27 convenzioni dell'Organizzazione internazionale del lavoro nei paesi beneficiari; la trasparenza delle norme per la loro condotta; un sistema di valutazione dell'impatto delle GSP e una comunicazione al Parlamento e, come il collega Martin ricordava, il ruolo del Parlamento in caso di sospensione, che deve essere pieno, trattandosi – lo ripeto – di una decisione eminentemente politica.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nicole Kiil-Nielsen, auteur suppléant. − Monsieur le Président, notre débat aujourd'hui est motivé par trois aspects concernant le système de préférences tarifaires généralisées.

Premièrement, l'actuel règlement expire le 31 décembre 2011. Pour que le Parlement européen puisse exercer les pouvoirs qu'il a, grâce au traité de Lisbonne, il faut que la Commission nous donne un projet de nouveau règlement au plus tard au mois de juin 2010.

Deuxièmement, le fonctionnement du SPG+ est tout sauf parfait. Qui décide de la liste des pays bénéficiaire, sur la base de quels critères? Miracle! Qui contrôle effectivement la mise en place des 27 conventions internationales, en matière sociale et environnementale, obligatoires pour être bénéficiaire du SPG+? Nous ne le savons pas.

Quels ont été les résultats du SPG+? S'agit–il de développement durable, de diversification de la production, de création d'emplois dignes, ou au contraire de prolifération de contrats à courte durée, d'augmentation de fermes abandonnées, de concentration de la grande propriété destinée à l'exportation? Nous n'en savons rien.

Donc, il faut une réforme profonde du règlement pour garantir un contrôle démocratique et s'assurer que les mesures prises atteignent bien les objectifs recherchés.

Mais la vraie raison du débat de ce soir, c'est le cas lamentable de la Colombie. Jusqu'à aujourd'hui, la Commission a refusé d'entamer une enquête sur les très graves violations des droits humains dans ce pays. Cette enquête est pourtant prévue par le règlement.

Il est inconcevable, en raison des valeurs prônées par l'Union européenne, qu'en quête de profit dans le secteur laitier, automobile, pharmaceutique, télécom, bancaire, pour nos propres multinationales, l'UE abandonne la conditionnalité du SPG et qu'elle se précipite, ces jours-ci, dans un accord de libre–échange avec la Colombie. C'est un coup mortel porté aux syndicats, aux paysans, aux consommateurs colombiens, à la production industrielle nationale colombienne.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Joe Higgins, author. − Mr President, the system whereby the EU gives preferential treatment in trade to some countries has been in place since 1971. It is supposed to be a mechanism to resolve trade imbalances between developed capitalist countries and the poorer countries of the world and to contribute to sustainable development.

Commissioner, will you agree that in that respect it has been really a dismal failure and that EU trade agreements have mainly benefited EU-based transnational corporations who use their superior resources to batter small local producers in many poorer countries, causing serious dislocation, including loss of local employment and environmental destruction? Is that not the real meaning of the EU Commission’s document strategy paper on ‘Global Europe: competing in the world’, published only three years ago?

And, Commissioner, what hope have the working people of Africa, Asia and Latin America when your Commission, only in recent weeks, cravenly bent the knee to the criminal speculation of free-booting hedge fund merchants seeking massive quick profits through outrageous speculation against the euro and Greece in particular? And you handed over the working class of Greece and the poor of Greece to the tender mercies of these parasites – criminals in fact. What hope have the poor and working people outside the borders of Europe in view of that situation?

Now the question asks how the EU Commission evaluates whether the states that benefit from preferential trade agreements with the EU protect workers’ rights and protect human rights. Please tell us that.

And how can you continue relations with the Government of Colombia, where quite clearly government-controlled agencies, especially the army, are ongoingly guilty of the most heinous crimes, as only recently shown in the horrific discovery of the mass grave of innocent murder victims in La Macarena.

And, finally, what is the Commission’s up-to-date view with regard to continuing GSP+ with Sri Lanka, considering that after the election the policies of Mr Rajapaksa’s government continue to be against human rights and workers’ rights in that country?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Syed Kamall, deputising for the author. − Mr President, I think we all understand that one of the aims of the GSP system was to integrate the poorer countries into the global trading system. Granting preferential treatment was seen as a positive way of tackling some of the trade imbalances between the richer countries and the poorer countries.

As someone who has many friends and relatives in many of these poorer countries, I think we have to look no further than the governments of many of these countries: poor governance issues; state monopolies and corrupt governments that are preventing entrepreneurs in these countries from creating wealth; the fact that they find it difficult to import the materials that they need to add value and create wealth; also the fact that many citizens of the countries are denied access to goods and services that we take for granted here in the EU and in many richer countries.

Let us also recognise that the best way to help people out of poverty is to help the entrepreneurs. The entrepreneurs will create the jobs, they will create the wealth and they will take poor people out of poverty.

During recent negotiations on the economic partnership agreements, many Members right across the political spectrum were concerned about the Commission’s one-size-fits-all approach to the EPAs.

In one case in which I was concerned, the Commission official, when questioned in committee, said that the EPAs are not only about trade; they are also about regional integration and exporting the EU model. But when we asked whether some of the ACP countries that had specific concerns could be given GSP+ as an alternative, we were told this was not possible because they violate certain of the conventions and therefore do not qualify for GSP+.

Going forward, surely we should look to be more flexible in our application of GSP+, perhaps as an alternative to the EPAs. We can treat this in a number of ways. We can either impose sanctions on countries that do not meet standards or we can engage in ongoing dialogue to ensure that conditions in these countries are improved, and understand that Rome was not built in a day and neither were Europe’s superior high standards. It is time to engage and to help entrepreneurs in developing countries rather than to over-politicise the issue.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, the current GSP scheme expires on 31 December 2011. The Commission is already working on a substantive updating and review of the current scheme. Later this month, I will launch a wide public consultation on possible improvements and changes followed by a thorough impact reassessment. The Commission proposal for a successor regulation can therefore be expected to be ready during the first quarter of 2011. This proposal will of course be subject to the ordinary legislative procedure, which may well last beyond the expiry date of the current scheme, 31 December 2011.

You will all agree that we must avoid a situation whereby GSP beneficiaries lose all their preferences on 1 January 2012. We will therefore submit, in parallel with the launch of this essential preparatory work for a new GSP scheme, a proposal to extend the current regulation granting continuity until the new scheme is in place. This should give you the time to work in earnest on the successor scheme whilst ensuring that GSP beneficiaries are not left out in the cold. You should receive this document in April.

I have noted your question on all concerns as regards the way in which the Commission monitors beneficiary countries’ compliance with the current criteria for GSP+ treatment. The basic criterion for GSP+ is the ratification and effective implementation of 27 international conventions in the fields of human rights, core labour standards, sustainable development and good governance. It is the Commission’s task to closely monitor all beneficiary countries’ compliance with these criteria.

The Commission is obliged and determined to operate GSP in a fair, objective manner. In this respect, we base our monitoring and evaluation of effective implementation of the GSP+ arrangements as much as possible on the findings and reports of international organisations such as the United Nations, the ILO and other relevant agencies, as well as on the monitoring mechanisms envisaged in the conventions themselves.

This provides for an unambiguous and impartial review process. The monitoring is also supported by the Commission’s bilateral dialogue with the GSP+ countries on implementation issues. If such reports contain information that GSP criteria are not being fully respected, the GSP regulation provides for the possibility that the Commission undertake an investigation to clarify the factual situation and propose appropriate action.

This investigation tool is a serious instrument that should be deployed when the situation justifies it, but launching an investigation is not a step to be taken lightly as it may impact on our wider relationship with the partner countries. Think, for example, of the recent case with Sri Lanka.

As the objective of the GSP+ scheme is to incentivise countries to adhere to international good governance standards, GSP+ countries should first be given the opportunity to prove their commitment to the GSP+ objectives, their willingness to cooperate with international monitoring bodies and to address the shortcomings identified.

This approach gives credit for the steps already taken by those countries and is in line with the general incentive-based approach that underpins the GSP+.

I am eager to engage with you in a debate on the future of the GSP scheme and of the GSP+ in particular. In preparing the review of the current scheme, which will also concern the GSP+ criteria and the monitoring of respect, the themes raised by the European Parliament will be carefully looked at.

Since this review will now follow the ordinary legislative procedure, the European Parliament will be in an equal position with the Council in determining the final shape of the new GSP scheme.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, following on from what has been said by our colleague Daniel Caspary, whom I fully support, I would like to stress a few points. First of all, the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in many ways reshapes the role of Parliament in the formulation of EU trade policy. The GSP is one of those areas where Parliament will have a bigger say and more leverage.

Commissioner, I would also like to urge you to look favourably on the increased role of Parliament in the domain you oversee. I therefore urge you to consult Parliament when it comes to the conclusion or the review of the GSP and GSP+ beneficiaries list.

Thirdly, Parliament should also be drawn into the process of monitoring whether the GSP beneficiaries uphold – not only ratify but also effectively implement – the 27 ILO and United Nations conventions. The Commission should at least consult Parliament on this issue and it is, of course, our duty in Parliament to make sure that we develop mechanisms inside our relevant bodies, our committees, to contribute to such monitoring. On a final note, I would like to reiterate the call expressed in the draft resolution we will be voting on tomorrow. The Commission should draft the new regulation on GSP as soon as possible.

Last but not least, I disagree with what has been said by some colleagues on Colombia. Colombia is a country like many countries in the region and we cannot ignore positive developments, achievements in the field of human rights and on the situation of human rights defenders in this country. There is no need to name and shame this particular country, as our resolution is on the new regulation and the need to have a new regulation.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Vital Moreira, em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, é agradável ouvir a garantia do Comissário De Gucht de que, em breve, a Comissão enviará a este Parlamento a iniciativa legislativa destinada a rever o sistema de preferências generalizadas de modo a que o processo legislativo possa ser ultimado a tempo de evitar a caducidade do actual sistema de preferências generalizadas, que termina no final do próximo ano.

Esse sistema deve ser renovado. Primeiro, porque constitui um instrumento de ajuda ao desenvolvimento, conferindo aos países acesso ao mercado europeu em condições privilegiadas sem qualquer reciprocidade. Em segundo lugar, porque esse esquema constitui também um instrumento de melhoria da situação dos direitos humanos e do bom governo nesses mesmos países, visto que a sua concessão está sujeita a condições a preencher por esses países beneficiários.

Por essas duas razões, a União deve renovar a utilização desse instrumento, que põe o comércio ao serviço do desenvolvimento e dos direitos humanos. Todavia, a renovação deveria tirar proveito de uma avaliação dos resultados no período antecedente.

Por outro lado, o novo regulamento deveria observar os seguintes requisitos tirados da prática até agora. Em primeiro lugar, manter a natureza temporária da concessão do sistema de preferências generalizadas de modo a permitir a sua retirada logo que desnecessário. Em segundo lugar, aprofundar e refinar a diferenciação e selectividade dos países beneficiários, de acordo com o nível de desenvolvimento de cada um e a sua competitividade externa. Em terceiro lugar, e finalmente, melhorar os mecanismos de monitorização do cumprimento das condições associadas ao sistema de preferências generalizadas, especialmente no que respeita à observância dos direitos humanos.

E, finalmente, Sr. Comissário, era conveniente que a opinião do Parlamento fosse tida em conta desde o início do procedimento legislativo.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Γεώργιος Παπαστάμκος (PPE). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η μεταχείριση που απορρέει από το σύστημα γενικευμένων προτιμήσεων, ως μία εξαίρεση της αρχής του μάλλον ευνοουμένου κράτους του ΠΟΕ, οφείλει να είναι στοχευμένη, να έχει δηλαδή αποδέκτες τις αναπτυσσόμενες χώρες, που έχουν μεγαλύτερη ανάγκη. Ο νέος κατάλογος των δικαιούχων χωρών οφείλει να αντανακλά την πραγματική οικονομική κατάσταση και την ανταγωνιστικότητα των αναπτυσσομένων χωρών.

Άλλωστε, η έλλειψη διαφοροποίησης μεταξύ των αναπτυσσομένων χωρών λειτουργεί εν τέλει εις βάρος των λιγότερο αναπτυγμένων χωρών. Της πρότασης αναθεώρησης είναι λογικό να προηγείται η αξιολόγηση του αντικτύπου που είχε το σύστημα κατά την προηγούμενη περίοδο εφαρμογής του επί των δικαιούχων χωρών.

Η εμπορική πολιτική, ειδικότερα η εμπορική αιρεσιμότητα, μπορεί αναμφίβολα να συμβάλει σε μία αποτελεσματικότερη παγκόσμια διακυβέρνηση μέσω άσκησης ήπιας ισχύος. Μπορεί να συμβάλει μέσω της παροχής κινήτρων στην προώθηση της κοινωνικής διάστασης της παγκοσμιοποίησης εν ευρεία εννοία: αξιοπρεπή εργασία, βιώσιμη ανάπτυξη, δημοκρατική λογοδοσία.

Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο θα πρέπει να έχει τη δυνατότητα δημιουργικής συμμετοχής στο πλαίσιο του νέου αναθεωρημένου συστήματος αλλά και της αποτελεσματικής παρακολούθησης της εφαρμογής των συμβάσεων από τις δικαιούχες χώρες.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bernd Lange (S&D). - Herr Präsident! Herr Kommissar! Wir wissen alle, dass das APS-System ein gutes System und APS+ ein sehr gutes System ist. Wir müssen auch die Verlängerung sicherstellen, und deshalb brauchen wir Ihren Vorschlag, damit wir ordentlich im Parlament beraten können. Also Gas geben, Herr Kommissar!

Auch beim APS+-System können wir vielleicht noch ein paar Verbesserungen einführen. Fünf Punkte würde ich da anführen, bei denen man vielleicht noch einmal nachbessern kann. Erstens: Wer stellt fest, wie eigentlich die 27 Normen umgesetzt werden, nicht nur real anerkannt, sondern formal umgesetzt werden? Ist das allein Aufgabe der ILO, oder braucht man nicht ein assessment committee, das wirklich konkret die Umsetzung begleitet?

Zweitens: Wie wird die Zivilgesellschaft eingebunden? Ich würde mir wünschen, dass bei der Bewertung der Umsetzung von APS+ eine zivilgesellschaftliche Koordinierung in dem jeweiligen Land möglich ist, wie wir es jetzt auch im Südkorea-Abkommen vereinbart haben.

Drittens: Wer erteilt eigentlich einen Untersuchungsauftrag, wenn irgendwelche Probleme festgestellt werden? Das Parlament muss hier einbezogen werden, weil nach meinem Gefühl im Rat andere Interessen mitspielen, als wirklich eine Untersuchungsaufgabe zu veranlassen. Das Parlament sollte hier auch einen Untersuchungsauftrag erteilen.

Wir brauchen sicherlich auch noch klare Strukturen für die weiteren Schritte und auch klarere Strukturen für eine Aussetzung, aber darüber können wir vielleicht noch einmal im Detail reden.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Thomas Mann (PPE). - Herr Präsident! APS räumt vor allem den Entwicklungsländern und Schwellenländern Handelsvergünstigungen ein. Diese moderne Art der Entwicklungshilfe von Zollermäßigungen bis Zollbefreiungen auf den Absatzmärkten der Industriestaaten hat viel erreicht. Durch die Sonderregelung APS+ sollen Sozial- und Umweltnormen verwirklicht werden. Sie ist Ursache dafür, dass immer öfter auch die Konventionen der UNO und der ILO unterzeichnet wurden.

Nur, Herr Kommissar, wie kontrolliert die Kommission die Umsetzung dieser Kriterien? Wird die Rücknahme der Präferenzen konsequent eingehalten, wenn Waren exportiert werden, die in Zwangsarbeit oder Sklaverei entstanden sind, wenn unlautere Handelspraktiken vorliegen und wenn die Kontrolle der Ursprungserzeugnisse nicht gewährleistet ist? Und sollte der durch APS+ erzielte Gewinn an Menschenrechten nicht auch endlich größere Staaten umfassen? Ich denke beispielsweise an China. All unsere Entschließungen, die Demonstrationen, die bilateralen Verhandlungen zwischen der EU und China haben keine Verbesserung bei den Menschenrechten gebracht. Deshalb gehen morgen, am Internationalen Tibet-Tag, Hunderttausende auf die Straßen, und in zehntausenden Städten und Gemeinden der Europäischen Union werden Tibetfahnen gehisst. Wir bekunden Solidarität mit den Menschen, die um ihre kulturelle, sprachliche und religiöse Autonomie kämpfen.

Teilen Sie, Herr Kommissar, die Ansicht, dass Menschenrechtsnormen, Sozialnormen und Umweltnormen aus den Spezialregulierungen herausgenommen werden müssen und in den Kriterienkatalog von APS integriert werden? Die Zusammenarbeit mit unseren Handelspartnern darf sich nicht auf rein wirtschaftliches Denken beschränken.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gianluca Susta (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, questa occasione è importante per riaffermare innanzitutto l'importanza del Sistema di preferenze generalizzate. Sia il sistema di base GSP che il sistema GSP+, entrambi legati all'accordo "Tutto, tranne le armi", contribuiscono a ridurre la povertà, in stretta sintonia col primario dovere di rispettare i diritti umani. È la violazione di questi elementari principi di convivenza che recentemente ha portato l'Unione europea a revocare i benefici delle tariffe preferenziali allo Sri Lanka, a seguito di una minuziosa indagine della Commissione esecutiva.

Il nuovo quadro istituzionale deve vedere però il Parlamento coinvolto a pieno titolo nel processo legislativo volto a modificare la legislazione vigente. Auspichiamo quindi che si tratti di una profonda revisione, secondo le procedure ordinarie della normativa, che presenta parecchie lacune, ad esempio proprio sul tema delle indagini. Da qui la risoluzione comune.

L'efficacia del regolamento dipende dalla sua credibilità, dall'oggettività dei criteri su cui si fonda e dal rigore con cui viene applicato. In un'Europa in cui la stragrande maggioranza dei cittadini non condivide l'esportazione della democrazia con la punta delle baionette, il commercio e l'aiuto al commercio sono un veicolo essenziale per la diffusione dei principi di convivenza fondati sul rispetto dei fondamentali diritti dell'uomo. Questo dovere ci richiama all'esigenza di non abbandonarci a un colpevole lassismo ma anche a evitare di cadere in frettolose sentenze verso alcuni, che suonano come inappellabili condanne: è il caso della Colombia.

È per questo che non mi sento di condividere atteggiamenti rigorosi a senso quasi unico nei confronti di questo o quello Stato ma richiamo con forza l'esigenza di un rafforzamento di un monitoraggio di tutte le situazioni problematiche, nello spirito della normativa vigente e secondo le linee di quelle che vogliamo porre a base della revisione legislativa che invochiamo.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Christofer Fjellner (PPE). - Herr talman! Det allmänna preferenssystemet som debatteras i dag är ett väldigt bra och viktigt verktyg, eftersom det gör det något lättare för några av världens kanske fattigaste länder att exportera till och handla med Europa. Många av Europas länder har byggt sitt välstånd på det sättet, och därför är det viktigt att vi försöker att utöka det till fler länder.

I en debatt som den här och i det kommande arbetet med att se över det allmänna preferenssystemet måste vi fundera över och fokusera på den grundläggande uppgiften och det grundläggande målet med det allmänna preferenssystemet, eftersom detta är att bekämpa fattigdom. Handel är det absolut effektivaste sättet att bekämpa fattigdom och skapa ekonomisk tillväxt och det är viktigt att vi kommer ihåg det.

Självklart är det allmänna preferenssystemet också ett bra sätt att sätta press på länder, för att få dem att följa internationella avtal och konventioner och åtaganden om mänskliga rättigheter osv. Men vi får inte glömma att det syftar till utveckling. Självklart ska EU kunna stryka eller neka länder som inte lever upp till sina åtaganden att få dessa förmåner, men det är viktigt att tänka på den svåra balansgången. Det är ju inte så att ett land som nekas friare handel och nya exportmöjligheter får det lättare att leva upp till de åtaganden och de krav som vi ställer på dem.

Det finns ett samband: Korruption, dåliga arbetsvillkor och dålig respekt för mänskliga rättigheter bidrar till fattigdom, men fattigdom gör det också svårare att bekämpa korruption, problem med mänskliga rättigheter och dåliga arbetsvillkor. Jag skulle vilja höra hur kommissionsledamoten ser på detta moment 22, det vill säga risken för att ett tillbakadragande av handelspreferenser försvårar länders möjlighet att ta sig ur t.ex. dåliga arbetsvillkor.

Sedan skulle jag också vilja notera att vi nu ställer krav på att ett antal länder ska ratificera 27 ILO- och FN-konventioner och fullt ut genomföra dessa. Jag skulle vilja se en rejäl analys om huruvida alla EU-länder fullt ut har genomfört och ratificerat alla dessa FN- och ILO-konventioner. Jag håller det åtminstone för osannolikt att allt är fullt ut genomfört och det är viktigt att komma ihåg det nu när vi ställer krav på andra.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE). - O întrebare simplă pentru domnul comisar: potrivit Regulamentului (CE) nr. 732/2008, statele care doresc să obţină condiţiile preferenţiale în cadrul sistemului SGP+ au posibilitatea de a depune cereri până la sfârşitul lunii aprilie a acestui an. Având în vedere că termenul final se apropie, doresc să îl întreb pe domnul comisar, în măsura în care dispune de această informaţie, ce state au aplicat până în prezent, dacă este oportun să acordăm condiţii preferenţiale unor noi state când ne pregătim să schimbăm criteriile necesare şi, de asemenea, mă asociez colegilor care au subliniat că Parlamentul European ar trebui consultat în aplicarea Sistemului Generalizat de Preferinţe.

Mulţumesc.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, several questions have been asked on Sri Lanka and on Colombia, and on why in one case we decided to have an enquiry and take a decision and in the other case we did not.

In the case of Sri Lanka, the Commission’s attention was drawn to publicly available reports and statements from the United Nations as well as to other relevant sources, including non-governmental organisations, indicating that Sri Lanka was not effectively implementing various human rights conventions, in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

However, unlike Colombia, Sri Lanka’s general approach was to deny the existence of any problems and not to cooperate with the Commission at any stage of the investigation.

In the case of Colombia, the United Nations and ILO monitoring results show that there are question marks on the degree of effective implementation of certain UN and ILO Conventions, but it is also clear that Colombia has engaged with the ILO and the United Nations bodies and has made substantial changes to its legal system, and that steps are being taken by the Government to amend its legislation and improve its implementation on the ground. There is an ongoing dialogue in cooperation with the United Nations and the ILO.

With regard to the question put by Mr Moreira, I would like to say that in the review of the GSP regulation we are working to find a balance between the different requests that have been made here. We have been asked to do that as soon as possible, and will do so. We were asked to have an impact assessment and will receive the 2009 GSP data only in July this year, which will be followed, of course, by consultation of Parliament.

I would also like to recall the commitment I made to the Committee on International Trade at the time of my hearing and subsequently to provide a timetable for our legislative proposals that will be submitted to that committee in the coming months. As you will know, we are scheduled to meet tomorrow. We will try to work something out together that gives Parliament the maximum possibility to discuss in all openness the different dossiers, including the new GSP new regulation and the roll-over system, which we should introduce as early as April.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Elnök. − Két állásfoglalásra irányuló indítványt1¹(1) juttattak el hozzám, melyeket az eljárási szabályzat 115. cikkének (5) bekezdésével összhangban nyújtottak be.

A vitát lezárom.

A szavazásra szerdán, 2010. március 10-én kerül sor.

 
  

(1)¹ Lásd a jegyzőkönyvet.

Aġġornata l-aħħar: 24 ta' Marzu 2010Avviż legali