Oral explanations of vote

Report: Andres Perello Rodriguez (A7-0224/2011)

  Giovanni La Via (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the fruit juice sector, through this report which I supported, is a step further on a route which should lead it to greater transparency and trust in its dealings with consumers.

I therefore applaud any initiative which offers even greater clarity to European consumers through labelling, particularly of the origin of fruit content, compared with what was previously approved.

Finally, European fruit juice consumers will be aware of the origin of the fruit content and this will be advantageous to European farmers, above all, those working in southern Europe, who have not previously been able to take advantage of this opportunity.

It is obvious that the additional information – as well as the banning of terms that create confusion – on the main characteristics of fruit juices is an important issue which will be of benefit to all European consumers.

  George Lyon (ALDE). – Mr President, I, too, welcome the vote today approving a compromise on the Fruit Juices Directive which aims to improve production standards and set rules for the quality and labelling of fruit juices. This will not only help consumers to make healthier choices, but also improve the added value of European products on the international markets. It is a very good deal for both the UK fruit industry and UK consumers.

From now on, there will be clear rules on what aromas and ingredients can be used. As a result, for example, the practice of labelling as ‘strawberry juice’ a product which contains more than 50% apple juice, and of which strawberries are only a minor ingredient, will now be banned. This will bring an end to marketing strategies that mislead consumers.

The practice of adding sugar to fruit juices will also be prohibited. This will ensure that only genuine fruit juices are marketed as such in the EU. Consumers will now be able to buy these products secure in the knowledge that the labelling accurately reflects what is in the can.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Mr President, when I first worked on this directive, I stopped drinking fruit juice. I stopped trusting what was on the label. One wonders if the labelling of fruit juice has any resemblance to what is in the product.

That is why I am glad the amendments to the Fruit Juice Directive mean that clearer labelling will give consumers more accurate information, not only on the sugar content, but on the actual quantity of fruit in these drinks. Without this directive, manufacturers will be able to label a drink as strawberry juice, for example, when in reality, there is only a touch of strawberry, a lot of flavouring and an apple base.

The public has a right to know what is in the juice: if it is pure, is nectar or is made from concentrate; if it contains added sugar, no sugar, honey or sweeteners. We need to make it easy for customers to make a healthy choice. We need to ensure that there is transparency in the market. I hope the Fruit Juice Directive will result in a high quality of fruit juice as opposed to sugary drinks.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, the situation on the market for fruit juices in the EU, where more than 80% of orange juice – the most prevalent raw material – comes from non-European countries and less than 20% from EU countries, requires the laying down of clear rules governing the composition, use of reserved descriptions, manufacturing specifications and labelling of the products concerned. At the general level, I support the idea of bringing the fruit juice sector into line with international law and the Codex Alimentarius. I also agree with retaining the distinction between fruit juices obtained by simply pressing fruit and fruit juices from concentrates, as well as the removal of sugar from the list of authorised ingredients. Unambiguous denomination will particularly help groups of consumers such as, for example, diabetics, children and people with weight problems or obesity to make informed choices when purchasing a product that can influence their health.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the proposal for a directive that we voted on this morning aims to amend Directive 2001/112/EC for the second time, since it has already been voted on in Parliament.

I very much welcome drawing a clear distinction between fruit juices and juices from concentrates, which is one of the aims put forward by the directive: the idea is not to mislead the consumer at the moment of purchase; it instead favours informed purchasing, which will also encourage healthier consumption.

On the subject of benefiting citizens, the text sets out the distinction between juice and nectar as depending on the presence or absence of sugars in such products. The term ‘no added sugar’ should be allowed for category 1 fruit juices. With regard to nectar, it was not considered necessary to specify the mandatory presence of sugar. All in all, this is a directive which will be of benefit to citizens and consumers, enabling them to make informed purchases more easily.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I was unable to support the amendment to the Fruit Juice Directive for reasons relating to its content as well as on formal grounds. Thus, I cannot share the optimism of my fellow Members on this issue. In terms of content, this directive represents a relaxation of the quality requirements for fruit juice products and thus opens the door wide to the possibility of deceiving consumers. On formal grounds, the main reason for my objection is the fact that the current text in no way corresponds to the intentions of the committee responsible. A large part of the report that was agreed on there has not been taken into account in the compromise text that has been tabled. As the amendment to the Fruit Juice Directive therefore entails a reduction in the quality of fruit juices and, moreover, does not adequately reflect the opinion of Parliament, I was forced to reject it.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I voted in favour of the Perello Rodriguez report. The report recommends sensible measures relating to consumer transparency and will allow EU citizens to more easily make informed and healthy choices as regards what they consume. I have to confess an interest here: I am a prolific juice-drinker myself.

Fruit-based beverages which originate from concentrate or have added sugar should be transparently labelled as such so as to prevent them from being mistaken for fresh or pure fruit juices, especially given the sometimes misleading packaging used by some manufacturers. A transitional period of 18 months would allow distributors and retailers to use up current stocks and adjust to the new, tougher guidelines. The report also reiterates the EU’s commitment to maintaining globally recognised labelling standards for fruit juices, which will ensure that EU products remain competitive on the global market.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, I have voted in favour of the report on fruit juices and similar products intended for human consumption, as it quite rightly incorporates more of the provisions contained in the international codes, bringing the EU standards in line with other internationally recognised standards and codes of practice concerning food, food production and food safety.

The report’s proposed amendments to the existing directive make the necessary clear distinction between fruit juices and drinks that have been produced from concentrate. There is more clarity in the labelling, which is critical for those of us who want to make a choice based on healthy options and want to know when there has been sugar added to the drink. This is going to lead to greater consumer choice and hopefully, over the longer term, lead to a healthier population, including in my Welsh constituency.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, although a lot of people’s minds are focused on the major issues of today, such as the future of the euro and the economic recession, it is important that we continue with the work, especially on behalf of our citizens.

It is difficult to think of an issue closer to our citizens than this, because it is likely that nearly everyone drinks fruit products each day, maybe, or regularly, at any rate. Therefore, it is very important that a distinction is clearly visible between fresh fruit juice and juice from concentrate, and the report assists in achieving that.

It is also important that the label be clear, especially if there is added sugar in the product. And finally, it is very important that the packets themselves be clear and honest. It was shown here last night that many packets were not clear and honest, but they will be so in future.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). – Mr President, I welcome the adoption of a clear definition that distinguishes fruit juice from nectar, as finally the present confusion for consumers is being removed. It is very important for consumers to know if there is added sugar or not and how much real fruit exists in the juices they buy. How many times has it happened to you that you buy fruit juice and then discover that the picture on the package or the name on the package does not really correspond to the quantity of orange, berry or apple juice that you thought was there; you feel cheated.

This directive, therefore, is a very important step forward in our fight against misleading information. It will benefit consumers by giving correct, clear and reliable information. Our task is not to decide for consumers from the top down what they are supposed to eat or drink. Our task is to facilitate free choices by providing correct information. This is very much in line with the fight we had over the Food Labelling Directive.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, the whole purpose of a free market is to swap on the back of differences. The purpose of the European Union is to have exchange through comparative advantage, but in this report, we see measures being proposed to protect and stimulate European manufacturers at the expense of those elsewhere.

You would have thought, with everything going on in the world at the moment, that we would be aware of the dangers of repeating the mistakes of the 1930s and adding to a downturn with protectionism. The tragedy is that Europe, by cutting itself off from the bits of the world that are still growing, is not only impoverishing consumers directly but is making itself economically irrelevant. We had an awful lot of talk yesterday about Britain being isolated and standing aside. I would be very happy to rejoin the wider world when it is the EU as a whole which is isolating itself.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Mr President, when reading this report, the phrase that stood out for me was the phrase ‘this report favours the consumption of local products’. So there we have it: let us favour local products at the expense of open trade and instead of helping producers in other countries to create wealth locally. This protectionist strand runs throughout the whole report and what we are going to see is a situation where we continue to support companies that cannot compete globally. When they get into trouble, what will they then do? They will seek a bailout from the European Globalisation Fund because they did not bother to take advantage of global supply chains and compete globally; they sought protectionism.

Of course, we all need to give more information to consumers and I think there is consensus about this across the House. Let us say ‘yes’ to consumer information, let us say ‘yes’ to open trade and consumer choice, but let us say ‘no’ to European protectionism.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, I welcome the compromise and I have voted in favour of the report. I would like to point out, however, that attempts to artificially limit imports and support domestic production always damage consumers most in the end. We must therefore think very carefully about every change to minimum standards of product quality, as every technological change enforced by law means higher prices. I am in favour of high-quality fruit juices and consistent information for consumers. Where there are two producers of equal quality, I always prefer the European one ahead of the foreign one. I am also in favour of us being informed about whether juice comes from concentrate. At the same time, however, I supported the proposal to continue to allow juice from concentrate to be diluted with drinking water. Fruit juices from concentrate will thus continue to be affordable for children from low income families.

Report: Bill Newton Dunn (A7-0246/2011)

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Mr President, I believe strongly in free market forces. In order for markets to survive, they must develop and advance their products in line with environmental targets.

In the case of laundry detergents, industry has led the way, with almost all washing powders and liquids already free from phosphates. Whilst I support this directive, I hold concerns on the addition of proposals to include dishwasher detergents. The chemicals used in dishwasher detergents are very different to the laundry detergents. However, small traces of phosphates will still be permitted in dishwasher detergents, with a honeymoon period until 2017.

Whilst we all agree that phosphates would ideally not be included, let me sound a warning. The environmental and health impacts of the new chemicals that will be needed to replace phosphates in dishwasher detergents are not yet fully assessed. We must therefore remain open and flexible until the science catches up with the political will.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I, too, would like to say something with regard to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 as regards the use of phosphates and other phosphorus compounds in household laundry detergents. I think that the report, the proposal and the regulation is attempting to find a good compromise here, namely, on the one hand, to eliminate these phosphates permanently and definitively, so to speak, from the environment. We all know that this is a very hazardous environmental toxin. That is, of course, why phosphates will no longer be used in household laundry detergents.

On the other hand, we obviously also have to face up to reality. Firstly, we need effective alternatives, and, secondly, we obviously also need to examine the environmental impact of these effective alternatives, because there is no point in essentially replacing one pollutant with another one.

That is precisely what this proposal is attempting to do. I have therefore voted in favour of the proposal, and I hope that talks will continue and that we can utilise our environment and our detergents in an increasingly sustainable and environmentally sound way.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) Mr President, the regulation on which we voted today is very important for the European Union’s waters. It is also very important news for the Baltic Sea, the water of which is seriously affected by pollution from phosphorus compounds causing algae growth, and this growth is becoming more and more intensive and active every year. According to the Helsinki Commission, if we were to abandon phosphates, algae blooms in the Baltic Sea would be reduced by 24%. Today, we took the first step by setting a limit of 0.5 grams in detergents. The fact that a legal act has been adopted that immediately enters into force will mean that in countries where the use of phosphates is not regulated, people will no longer have to simply rely on the goodwill of manufacturers of maintenance products and consumer awareness, as has been the case until now. The maximum levels of phosphates used in European Union Member States varies considerably and, as a result, approximately 16 000 tonnes of phosphates end up in the Baltic Sea every year. I hope that the Member States will welcome our position and that, following the entry into force of this regulation and the acceleration of waste water treatment, the condition of the Baltic and other seas will improve considerably.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, I, too, voted in favour of the Newton Dunn report which deals with the use of phosphates and other phosphorous-based compounds in household laundry detergents. The central purpose of this report was to reduce the often devastating impact of eutrophication on the EU’s rivers, lakes and seas. Eutrophication effectively chokes water of oxygen by encouraging weeds to grow. Phosphates are a kind of fertiliser, thus disrupting the natural biodiversity of bodies of water, and have a huge detrimental effect on aquatic life.

The rapporteur sought to allow legislation effectively to catch up with industrial best practice, as a majority of marketed laundry detergents are now effectively phosphate-free. Despite my initial concerns over the report by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on this matter, such as the short compliance timeline envisaged for its implementation, following the recent negotiations with the Council, I can now agree that this ban on phosphates usage could also be extended to dishwater detergents, with suitable derogations. Realistic and reasonable limits have now been set at 0.5 grams per dose, paving the way for manufacturers to develop more compact and concentrated products to the benefit of our environment.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, phosphates in domestic washing machine detergents end up in our water systems, rivers, streams and lakes.

Phosphorus helps life to flourish and, as a result, algae and other fast-developing plant life proliferate uncontrollably when there is an increased source of phosphorus in water. This excessive growth of algae starves other living organisms of oxygen and can also produce toxins – killing fish, plants, and other species, thereby reducing the quality of the water itself.

I therefore voted in favour of the text put before us today because to clean up Europe’s water, it is desirable to reduce the amount of phosphorus reaching the water of our continent.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, Europe has long recognised the necessity of restricting the use of phosphates in domestic laundry and other detergents to reduce the impact of their use on Europe’s water courses – something which we are all concerned about. Whilst the majority of laundry detergents on the market are already phosphate-free, as dictated by the market and consumer choice, I welcome the rapporteur’s proposal to extend the scope of the proposal to the dishwasher detergent market.

With a phosphate limit being set at 0.5 grams per dose, this will give the manufacturers the impetus to develop more compact products through innovation in the industry. Flexibility in its implementation will, however, be necessary to ensure that consumer choice across Europe is not limited in the interim period.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, we all want to wear clean clothes and eat from clean plates. That is why we use phosphate detergents. The harder the water, the greater the need for phosphates when washing up or cleaning clothes. We know that the release of phosphates into drains causes excessive growth of algae, thereby also causing the loss of other life forms in our rivers. In other words, phosphate use harms the environment. I would like to ask two questions. Is it possible to wash things clean without phosphates? In principle, yes. Is it possible to stop using phosphates in dishwashers? Not yet. It is therefore right for us to try to limit their use, while at the same time accepting the fact that we need them. I am rather concerned, however, that we cannot even estimate how many jobs are put at risk by the intended harmonisation.

Report: Carl Haglund (A7-0394/2011)

  George Lyon (ALDE). – Mr President, I very much welcome the way Parliament voted today on the EU-Fisheries Partnership Agreement when it decided to reject the agreement.

I voted against the report, as it is probably the least successful of all the fisheries agreements currently in force. For a number of reasons, I believe that we should have rejected the report and I am glad the Parliament did. For a start, it is a poor deal for European taxpayers, with a return of only 65 cents for every euro the European Union is investing. From a sustainability point of view, the stocks we are accessing are already overfished, so not only are we heavily subsidising jobs, but we are doing so while exporting ecologically unsustainable fishing practices. On top of that, only 15% of the funds allocated for sectoral support in the agreement have been used to date. There is also remaining legal uncertainty on this agreement under international law as far as the rights of the people of Western Sahara are concerned.

I was disappointed that the Committee on Fisheries voted for the agreement, despite opposition from both the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Development, but I am very glad that today, the Parliament took the right decision. I hope we can strike a better agreement when this will be reviewed once again in February 2012.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Mr President, I voted against the report because the present agreement contravenes international law, the human rights of the Sahrawi people and the decision of the International Court of Justice. At the same time, the agreement violates several basic principles of the European Union. The agreement is worrying from the point of view of the sustainable use of fish stocks. It is questionable whether it will benefit the people of Western Sahara at all. The agreement is also ineffectual economically.

The rejection of the report and the ending of the agreement have great symbolic significance. Support for an agreement of this type would damage the EU’s credibility. The EU must stand up for the principles of international law and the sustainable use of fish stocks worldwide. Furthermore, the European Parliament is responsible for safeguarding these basic principles. We cannot compromise on these values.

I hope that the Commission will draft an agreement that is more satisfactory in economic terms and that takes account of both the ecological perspective and the rights of the Sahrawi people in Western Sahara. At the same time, it is important that cooperation between the EU and Morocco continues.

  Bendt Bendtsen (PPE). – (DA) Mr President, I voted against this agreement today because it has proven to be completely ineffective in relation to the development goals. In my view, there is a really compelling argument for this, and that is the dubious nature of this agreement’s validity in relation to international law. That is an ambiguity that we need to have clarified. Western Sahara has the status of a self-governing territory and is not therefore part of Morocco. The people of Western Sahara must not be prevented from benefiting from their own resources on account of an agreement between Morocco and the EU.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I cannot support the extension of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and Morocco, because the main objectives of the agreement, namely, stabilisation of the EU market and development of the fisheries sector, have clearly not been achieved. On the contrary, numerous fish stocks have been overfished and the financial contribution by the EU has had no significant effect on the Moroccan budget. The participation of the Sahrawi people in connection with the use of their fish stocks and their receipt of a fair share of the proceeds from the fisheries have also not been guaranteed. I will only be able to support a new agreement if a solution is found that complies with international law and respects human rights. In this regard, the subsequent motion for a resolution, to which I have once again expressly given my support, was an encouraging signal for the future that we will hold further negotiations, that we will draw up a new agreement, and that this new agreement will be significantly better than the current one.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco agreed a Fisheries Partnership Agreement (FPA) in May 2006, which came into force in February 2007. The Commission has since conducted negotiations with Morocco in order to renew this FPA by a single initial protocol, which was expiring, and to extend it by one year. A protocol to renew the preceding protocol for the period of 2011 to 2012 has been provisionally applied. However, before it could come into force, it obviously needed Parliament to adopt it.

As it was a time-limited extension to a previous agreement, I could support the Committee on Fisheries’ recommendation. Given the vote, however, we now need to ensure that local people are beneficiaries of all our fisheries policies over the long term and, as such, need to ensure that any agreement on future protocols is subject to stringent criteria as set out in the resolution we agreed and voted on today.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I voted in accordance with my group on this report and although there are difficulties associated with it, we must say that we will have a chance to correct that in future and I hope we accept that opportunity.

This agreement costs EUR 36 million each year and, as mentioned, there are major difficulties with Western Sahara, which must be discussed and corrected.

I also voted in favour of the oral amendment in the other report on Morocco in which civil rights, social and environmental standards are emphasised. It is very important and must also be taken into account in future. We have an opportunity to improve this agreement in future on behalf of Morocco, Western Sahara and the Union. We must seize that opportunity.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, the common fisheries policy is being transformed from a European into a global tragedy; having emptied, exhausted and sterilised our seas, we now export the same practices to more vulnerable and poorer countries and we have the same basic flaw, which is lack of ownership rights which would have incentivised conservation.

There are successful fisheries’ conservation schemes around the world in New Zealand, in Norway, in Iceland, in the Falkland Islands, but all of them are based on giving skippers a sense of property so that they treat fisheries as a renewable resource. We tragically suffer from common ownership which makes it impossible to persuade fishermen to tie up their boats knowing that other nations’ vessels are at large in the same seas. Surely having created this ecological catastrophe in our own waters, we should now draw back before we inflict it on others.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I am in favour of swift and constructive negotiations with Morocco. Everyone in this House knows that I am a staunch supporter of human rights. However, if we have technical problems with Morocco, we should actually discuss them at a technical level and not misuse the subject of human rights. If there is a country in North Africa where the balance between freedom and stability, between human rights and constitutional development, has, to a certain extent, been achieved, then it is Morocco. We ought to acknowledge this and not bow to the erroneous arguments of a Polisario lobby. We need to be clear on this: Morocco is an ancient, complex country that is showing positive development. As a result of the new elections, this development has gone a step further in the right direction. I would warn against misusing this matter for other purposes.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Mr President, given the failure of the common fisheries policy in Europe and the way that our seas do not have sufficient fish, what is interesting about this is the way that, as my colleague said earlier, we now seek to make agreements that are unsustainable with other countries. Because of this lack of ownership rights, which led to the failure of the CFP, we are now seeing the lack of ownership rights in other countries and we worry about the future of fish in those areas.

The real problem here is that where there are no ownership rights, a government seeks that ownership on behalf of its citizens, but in the case of Morocco, not only on behalf of its own citizens, but on behalf of the Western Saharan people, too. In this case, what will happen is that they will plunder those seas and local fishermen will lose out. When local fishermen lose out from such deals, what do they seek to do in many cases? They seek a better life in the West, in Europe. What do we then do in this House? We complain about immigration – when we have destroyed their jobs. Let us make sure we look at the full impact of these agreements and let us not destroy the seas of other countries.

Report: Krzysztof Lisek (A7-0428/2011)

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the text presented today by Mr Lisek analyses the possible measures to be put into place to reduce defence costs which, in a period of financial crisis, weigh heavily on the EU budget.

The principles put forward have regard to better coordination of defence planning, the pooling and sharing of defence capabilities, support on research and technological development.

I therefore agree with the rapporteur’s position that the economic and financial crisis affecting us can be used as an opportunity for the integration of EU defence policies, providing the impetus for creating and finally implementing ambitious reforms which have long been at a stalemate.

These are the reasons why I voted for the report.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, if anyone is in any doubt about the militarised and big-business nature of the EU, they should read this report. We are in the midst of a very serious economic crisis. Working-class people are being asked to take cuts in their jobs, cuts to their pay, cuts to their public services, and here we have the Parliament agreeing to a report insisting that the so-called defence sector is protected from any cuts.

Let us be absolutely clear. This is a significant amount of European taxpayers’ money that is being funnelled into the coffers of these makers of weapons of mass destruction or weapons of individual destruction. It is fostering the development of the military-industrial complex within Europe. The biggest weapons corporation in Europe, BAE, made almost EUR 3 billion in profit last year selling weapons to the likes of Saudi Arabia and the Israeli army and selling weapons that are used in Iraq, in Afghanistan and elsewhere to kill ordinary people. Instead of pouring money into their coffers, we should be investing, creating jobs, defending public services. We should take these major corporations into democratic public ownership and we should redeploy the capital and the workers to socially useful industries.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, I welcome the report on the impact of the financial crisis on the defence sector. I wish, however, to draw attention to the fact that this situation will grow worse, and defence will receive less and less funding in the EU Member States as a result of the crisis. We must therefore concentrate this funding.

I think that it should be focused on two areas. Firstly, the Union’s common defence capabilities should be stepped up. Here, I would stress most emphatically that it is not just about the defence capabilities of individual states, but about the fact that the Union has greater capabilities. Secondly, there must be clear progress in one area, in other words, funding for research and modern technologies. In Europe, we spend a mere EUR 2 billion annually on this, while the United States spends 10 times more. Resources must be increased significantly in this area.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). – Mr President, the financial crisis means we need to make cuts to public spending even in the area of defence. In the UK, this was made worse by the fact that the last Labour government left the present coalition with GBP 38 billion of unfunded commitments. However, in the field of defence, as everywhere else, I do not believe the answer is ‘more Europe’. ‘More Europe’ means more costs as EU bureaucrats create super-structures, with super-budgets to match.

We must avoid expensive duplication of NATO structures and ensure that the EU has nothing to do with defence. I am proud of the British armed forces, which are a symbol of our national sovereignty and security. No matter how bad the economic crisis may be, Britain will continue to defend itself, as I would expect all sovereign nations to do.

  Gianni Vattimo (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, despite the serious financial crisis we are bound up in, there are certain economic sectors which are never affected, or rather only minimally affected, by the cuts imposed by the austerity measures adopted by Member States.

For example, the so-called ‘tears and blood’ financial austerity plan put together by the Italian Government is turning out to only be tears and blood for the usual suspects, in other words, workers and pensioners. Military expenditure, on the other hand, seems to be unaffected, ever since the announcement of the purchase of 131 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) bombers, which the Italian Government will still be paying for in 2026 at a total cost of around EUR 15 billion, that is, almost half of the ‘tears and blood’ plan to which we are currently being subjected.

This is just one of the reasons why I voted against the Lisek report. Despite some good ideas aimed at reducing expenditure, it describes cuts to the defence sector as concerning. Ladies and gentlemen, there are many other cuts which should be of greater concern to us at times like this.

I will finish with a rhetorical question: ‘Could it be that tomorrow, we will be forced to use all these weapons we bought today against our citizens in revolt demanding justification for our wicked choices?’

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, the report on the impact of the financial crisis on the defence sector rightly notes the trend of cuts in the defence budgets of the majority of EU Member States. It also alludes to the possible negative impact that these measures may have on their military capabilities.

However, I believe that the report itself makes the wrong proposals to address this issue, which is why I have voted against the report. It suggests that the strategic autonomy of the EU should be enhanced by acquiring more synergy in defence planning measures, such as through better coordination of defence planning – a laudable objective but one which would require harmonisation of military requirements and significant measures to increase interoperability.

It continues by proposing other measures to pool and share certain capabilities and support structures through EU institutions, which I am fundamentally opposed to. Member States’ defence policies can, of course, be more coordinated if they so choose, but this should be through choice by national parliaments and not be an EU competence.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, it is more than 60 years since Winston Churchill, here in Strasbourg, proposed the creation of a common European army. It is high time that we realised his vision. I believe that we urgently need a common European foreign and security policy and, of course, also the goal of a common European army and common European defence system. On our way to achieving this, we will be able to save enormous amounts of money. It is particularly important to highlight this during the financial crisis, because if, like the Americans, we Europeans were to acquire and purchase what we need jointly rather than separately, we would be able to save a fifth of our costs in the defence sector. We could increase our efficiency and, at the same time, free up large sums of money for other areas, for social policy for example. It is therefore high time that we very quickly followed the path towards a common European defence policy.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for the report drafted by Mr Lisek because I think that the current financial crisis has also affected the defence sector in Member States. In these circumstances, there is an even greater need for coordinated planning and complementarity between national policies. This will ensure that an optimum cost-benefit ratio is achieved and will increase the EU’s competitiveness. This is why I think that the challenge posed by the crisis can be turned into an opportunity for giving the necessary impetus to a genuine common defence policy.

I should point out the recommendations made in paragraph 22 concerning practical solutions for pooling and sharing military equipment. I should stress the importance of cooperation with the US and NATO to avoid needless duplication of effort and ensure greater efficiency.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President although there are a lot of interesting recommendations in this report, I must say that I and my Irish colleagues in the EPP abstained from the vote on the report and from the majority of this morning’s votes. The reason we did so was because Ireland is a neutral country, and usually and regularly when it comes to defence and military affairs, we abstain. That is all, there is nothing else involved.

As parting words – I did not get the chance this morning – I would like to commend Poland for the good job they did on the Presidency for the past six months, especially Prime Minister Donald Tusk for the fine speech he delivered to us this morning.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, it is clear that what is intended by this report is a greater role for the EU in defence and security policy, and therefore I am unable to support it. I believe that because in all policy areas, my constituents want less Europe and less interference from Brussels, not more. That is especially so in this case, since much of what is talked about in the report is purely a very poor imitation of what we already have in the NATO structures.

It is inevitable that amongst 27 Member States, there will be significant differences in interest and opinion, and these differences should not be feared when they are fair and reasonable. The place for the formulation and implementation of security policy and defence policy is the Member State, not Brussels, and therefore I could not support the report.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0693/2011

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, there is no doubt that a strengthening in bilateral relations between the European Union and a global power such as Russia will require these meetings – profitable in terms of trade – above all, if Russia finally joins the World Trade Organisation as we expect it to. In this way, we could strengthen relations and, at the same time, a host of entrepreneurs who operate in our Member States would have extra opportunities.

Another useful measure would be the liberalisation of short-stay visas to encourage internal movement, whilst the elections – which the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy described as technically well prepared and administered – represented an important step – but the wind of freedom which continues to blow in Russia has to be encouraged and supported in order to guarantee fundamental rights, the freedom of expression and, above all, those high freedoms which are strictly bound to a legal system which we expect Russia will soon be able to demonstrate.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Mr President, the Strategic Partnership Agreement between the EU and Russia is very important for developing and stepping up cooperation between the two.

Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organisation in December is also a significant matter for Europe as a whole. It will improve economic relations and promote investment.

Security of energy supply is one of the biggest challenges that Europe faces. We need to cooperate with Russia. The EU must speak with one voice when it negotiates with Russia. The relationship must be based on mutual advantage and common values. European values are represented by democracy and freedom of speech. The Duma elections in Russia have not fulfilled the requirements of democracy, according to observers. Information that has come to light regarding election fraud is extremely worrying.

The European Union is in a difficult situation, because cooperation with Russia in energy and trade is vital for all of Europe, but, at the same time, the distortion of democracy does not fit in with European values. This matter should not be swept under the carpet.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this resolution because the EU-Russia Summit provides an opportunity to raise openly common interests as well as key differences. I am confident that its potential will be utilised. We must send a strong signal to Russia about the need for it to play a positive, active role in the efforts to settle unresolved conflicts. I welcome, in this regard, the recent resumption of the 5+2 negotiations on Transnistria.

At the same time, consistent and coherent dialogue is required with Russia on the subject of energy. Coordinated action must be taken to address common concerns, such as the proliferation of terrorism and the situation in Afghanistan, while points of agreement also need to be found on Syria and Iran. It is also important for us to stress that we would like Russia to respect the state of law and democratic standards, including in the run-up to and during the elections.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, on Saturday, a chant echoed right across Russia as people declared ‘Putin is a thief, Putin is a thief’. The regime did its very best to scare people into not attending the protests. There were massive threats of repression, with rumours of extra troops being brought into Moscow. The schools even opened on Saturday to try to prevent people from coming, but nonetheless people courageously came out and protested, in their tens and hundreds of thousands, because of the depth of anger and opposition at the blatant election rigging. One hundred thousand turned up in Moscow and ten thousand in St Petersburg, and there were up to a hundred other significant protests in other cities.

The announcement by President Medvedev of an investigation into election rigging is a very transparent attempt to divert the movement. The same is true of the managed disagreement at the top of society now, supposedly to give the impression of a democratic discussion. In my opinion, these diversions should be rejected by the movement and it should continue to fight for free and fair elections where genuine opposition parties can register and stand.

A real alternative to the parties of the oligarchs and the nationalist and populist forces is needed. That means building a mass workers’ party to fight for the overthrow of the oligarchs and capitalism and for democratic socialist change.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, I would like to talk about the continuing growth in cooperation between the EU and Russia. In my opinion, this marks a step in the right direction, and ultimately, we are also, in fact, dependent on this cooperation, bearing in mind the enormous raw materials potential of the Russian Federation, and the fact that, as well as us, individual countries are cooperating with the raw materials giant. On the other hand, I would like to point out that Russia is still not up to scratch, so to speak, when it comes to fulfilling certain criteria which we in Europe consider important and essential. I have in mind the recent elections, where it was clear that a certain deficit still exists in Russia, and I am pleased that … or I would like to call on the EU, I would like to say that it is necessary to point out this dimension of mutual cooperation in talks with Russia, and to call on them to eliminate this democratic deficit.

Report: Mário David, Marek Siwiec (A7-0400/2011)

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, the review on the European Neighbourhood Policy certainly represents a strong point in relations in so far as the southern part of this important area is concerned, which is the border area in southern Europe.

This is an important issue which does not mark the end of the EU’s actions, but currently the focus is on the Mediterranean: the policy of guaranteeing fundamental rights is an absolute priority, as is the importance of encouraging trade agreements with these border regions in the south of Europe, including the regulation of migration flows, decisively tackling irregular immigration and protecting refugees on the other hand, short-stay visas for the citizens of these regions to develop the wealth and opportunities that arise through mobility, greater circular mobility and a better sharing of the experiences of democracy.

This is the aim which does not only affect the south, but the south is currently the focus.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, following the Arab Spring and the events in its wake, it has become essential to review European Neighbourhood Policy. It is obvious that in the current state of play, relations with these countries should be based more closely on cooperation in order to guarantee that the focus is on democracy and security on both shores of the Mediterranean.

On this matter, I believe that intercultural and inter-religious dialogue is crucial to enhancing mutual respect and tolerance with and among the neighbourhood partner countries, while helping to combat terrorism and individual forms of extremism at the same time. For these reasons, Mr President, I naturally voted in favour.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, I can only welcome today’s report on the review of European Neighbourhood Policy and, in particular, the vital proposal to strengthen the EU’s Southern partnership, following the historic events which took place last spring, for the democratic consolidation of the area.

Funds for countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean were allocated before the crisis and, in the light of the concrete needs and modernisation of society in these countries, they seem inadequate; I think we should increase support for the instrument for civil society. I will table Parliament’s proposal to establish Euro-Mediterranean Erasmus and Leonardo programmes to the European Commission again, so as to encourage the mobility and the exchange of best practices amongst young people.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, the current period of widespread political unrest and uncertainty in the countries of North Africa requires the European Neighbourhood Policy to redouble its efforts at strengthening democracy and developing the rule of law, justice and compliance with human rights, including the rights of minorities and religious freedom. We know that Christians are persecuted there. More than at any time previously, we must place greater emphasis on the internal democratisation and stabilisation of target countries by strengthening state institutions as well as civil society, which should be an important partner in discussions on the future of a given country. As the neighbouring countries of the EU are so diverse in terms of culture, religion and civilisation, the EU must, in accordance with the principle of differentiation, provide proper targeted assistance in order to increase the actual impact of adopted measures. Apart from supporting reform processes, we must discuss and find common solutions to cross-border issues such as immigration, human trafficking and combating organised crime.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, at a time when Europe is in the depths of an unprecedented financial crisis, which testifies to the interdependency of our economies, and while the countries to the south of the Mediterranean are now pursuing a new political approach following the will of their peoples, it is more essential than ever before to consolidate the relationships of the European Union with its neighbours on the Mediterranean rim and in eastern Europe.

Through the European Neighbourhood Policy, the European Union is seizing opportunities to share its democratic values of the rule of law and good governance. It is supporting the reforms carried out by its partners, who are in the midst of unprecedented political transition.

We have a role to play in this historic upheaval, but we must be careful not to impose a model that does not exactly meet the needs of the peoples who have been brave enough to rise up and reject a system that they no longer found acceptable. The Arab revolutions have redefined the contours of the European Neighbourhood Policy. We must be delighted about that.

  Eduard Kukan (PPE). – Mr President, I believe that the review of the European Neighbourhood Policy is timely and necessary. It can become an important tool for the EU to make a difference in our neighbourhood countries. It needs to be oriented towards supporting values such as broad democratic developments and human rights.

I welcome therefore the more-for-more performance-based approach which gives greater political and financial support to the countries that undertake reforms. Coming from a country which went through such transformation, I am sure that this approach is the right one. I am also glad that the report confirmed new tools such as the European Endowment for Democracy. I hope that such flexible, fast and targeted instruments will be able to effectively support the democratic process in the world; that is the reason I voted for the adoption of the report.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, the European Neighbourhood Policy review acknowledges the challenges faced by the EU and crucially takes into account the recent events of the Arab Spring uprisings. Recently, we have seen the overthrow of long-standing regimes in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya and continuing violence in Syria, to name a few countries seeking a new democratic structure.

The report sensibly suggests that our approach should be to support further progress towards deep democracy and to support sustainable social and economic development in our neighbouring countries. It also recognises the need to build effective regional partnerships, as this is in the interests of the EU as a whole and best done collectively. It is for these reasons that I have been able to support this report.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, the report deals very well with all of the major common issues, from democracy and the rule of law to migration issues and the combating of poverty. We ought to make it very clear, however, that what we fought to achieve, namely, the distinction between the Eastern and Mediterranean Partnership, absolutely must be retained. That was achieved by the Czech Presidency under Karel Schwarzenberg. After all, these countries have a lot in common, but there are also differences. In the Mediterranean, we are dealing with important non-European neighbours, while in the East, we are dealing with European countries which, for various reasons, are not able to be granted candidate status at the present time. Both of these need our support.

There is one issue in particular that I would like to highlight. That is the question of energy policy, renewable raw materials, for example, in Ukraine, and solar energy in the Mediterranean, for example. We have a great deal of work to do here in connection with neighbourhood policy and this work is our joint responsibility. However, as I said, this is a major achievement. We should treat things that are different differently.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this report because I regard it as a key element in the current shift in the European Neighbourhood Policy.

I support the implementation of the Human Rights Clause and conditionality in the new approach. Compliance with the terms of the agreements with the EU must be verified every year, as we requested in the amendment made to item 8. Strengthening the bilateral aspect for exchanging good practices is important, as we specified in the amendments tabled for items 11 and 12. This will ensure that the necessary instruments are available to settle the unresolved conflicts in the neighbouring regions.

I should mention at this point the resumption of the 5+2 negotiations between Chişinău and Tiraspol in Vilnius on 30 November. The declaration signed by both sides offers the framework needed to establish the principles for conducting the discussion. This presents Europe with an opportunity to consolidate its position by going from an observer to a fully-fledged negotiator.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, whilst I agree with a number of important principles that underpin the European Neighbourhood Policy, such as supporting progress towards a functioning democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in neighbouring countries, I did not support this report.

Through the European Neighbourhood Policy, the EU hopes to fuel the economic development of bordering areas. However, as we are in the crucial and dangerous stages of our own crisis, we must ask ourselves: is the provision of an additional EUR 1 billion for the ENP until 2013, and a further proposed budget of EUR 18.2 billion for the period from 2014 to 2020, the best way to utilise this money for the benefit of citizens in EU Member States, especially when the money allocated to the previous policy failed to support those who, in the Arab Spring, fought against merciless dictators, many of whom this House and the leaders of EU institutions had fêted and praised?

Report: Sophia in ’t Veld (A7-0286/2011)

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report. Terrorism and the threat of terrorism are blatant crimes against our society. Terrorism aims to undermine our basic values, human rights and the principle of democracy.

The counter-terrorism strategy takes account of human rights and the protection of personal data. We are already bound by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in this. A respect for human rights is already, in itself, an effective counter-terrorism policy. We cannot surrender our values in the face of terrorism.

We need to give more attention to the matter of the preventive fight against terrorism, since radicalisation is one of today’s greatest threats to our society. Racism and exclusion are linked to the emergence of extremism. Resources need to be concentrated on greater tolerance in societies and the prevention of exclusion. I would also call for an open, broad-based debate, involving society as a whole, on our common European values.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, I supported the report on EU counter-terrorism policy. I am deeply convinced of the need to support it since, unfortunately, terrorism and organised crime are today the primary threat to security in Europe. Combating this threat requires cooperation between the Union’s Member States and coordination between the different services – here I am thinking of the intelligence services and the police, but also the judiciary. If it is to be effective, this fight must be conducted not just by one country but by all countries. I therefore also believe that the powers of the EU’s Counter-Terrorism Coordinator should be increased. This seems to me to be very important.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, as a representative of Northern Ireland, and having lived through a terrorist campaign waged in our Province for over thirty years, effective counter-terrorism strategy remains a priority in my constituency. Sadly, there remains a rump within Republicanism who still cannot comprehend that their objectives cannot be reached through murder and mayhem.

While it is right that we should prioritise the threat of organisations such as al-Qaeda, we should not forget the threat posed in individual Member States. I condemn unreservedly the shooting of a young man in Londonderry this morning, in my constituency.

Effective anti-terrorism measures are a must. Anti-terrorism measures must be coordinated across national borders and in line with a threat-based approach. The sharing of data is important, as long as the necessary safeguards are in place. There is some merit in this report, but I could not support some aspects of it and therefore I abstained.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, international pressure and cooperation is an invaluable tool in the fight against global and local terrorism alike. I can therefore see the benefits of Member States working together on counter-terrorism measures and the EU has already made significant progress in counter-terrorism work, such as in the sharing of international banking data and air passenger security.

Whilst the report on the EU’s counter-terrorism policy puts forward some sensible measures to the policy, such as a risk-based approach that is tailored to each Member State and the need to examine the costs and the current allocation of European spending, there are still a number of areas that require clarification.

I am not comfortable with permitting the EU institutions to act as the facilitator of intelligence sharing between Member States, as this should not be an EU competence. Issues concerning national security are a Member State competence and should remain so. Terrorists do not respect borders; they act globally. Counter-terrorism measures need equally to reflect a global, not solely EU, focus.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Gabriele Albertini (A7-0397/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because we need to support candidate and potential candidate countries for accession to the European Union, notably Iceland, Montenegro and Turkish Cyprus, to enable them to stay in line with European policy. I also support the Commission proposal to make this instrument compatible with other support instruments, like that of cross-border cooperation. I consider this instrument essential for preparing, in due course, for the possible integration of these candidate and potential candidate countries, given that, in the latter cases, there is serious need for reforms, particularly in terms of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) offers support for the period 2007-2013 to countries that are committed to the EU’s accession process. This assistance is provided as part of European partnerships with potential candidates and actual candidates for accession, including the Western Balkan States and Iceland. Iceland and Montenegro have been candidate countries for EU entry since 2010. Since the IPA is quite a flexible tool, it is possible to alter support for beneficiary countries based on the requirements which emerge from the Commission’s evaluations and documents. Here we see two different situations: Iceland, for example, has a per capita GDP which is higher than the European average, whilst the administrative and financial management of Montenegro, due to its different national history, has quite different demands and issues in terms of financial transparency. We therefore need to adapt the allocation rules for IPA financing – Cross-border Cooperation (CBC) and the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) – to reflect the new information available on the two candidate countries.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Candidate countries for accession to the European Union (Western Balkans, Turkey and Iceland) receive financial aid through the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA). Before they are accepted as fully-fledged Member States, the Union prepares them to incorporate the acquis communautaire into their national policies. The IPA is conditional on an obligation to produce results and relates to strengthening institutional capacities, cross-border cooperation, economic and social development and rural development. I voted in favour of the Albertini report which allows Montenegro and Iceland to qualify for assistance under this instrument.

  Zoltán Bagó (PPE), in writing. – (HU) I approve of the Commission proposal for the amendment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 on three points; these are measures that do not entail additional expenses. The first amendment involves Iceland and Montenegro being moved from the list of potential candidate countries to that of candidate countries. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) has always supported the enlargement process in countries of the Western Balkans, while Iceland has already begun accession negotiations as it meets the Copenhagen criteria by far. I agree with the Commission’s second proposal for amendment which would limit participation in the CBC programmes, that is, the cross-border cooperation programmes of the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA), exclusively to local actors. Being a border country of the European Union, it is particularly important to Hungary that participation in tenders is limited to applicants from countries that are involved in the relevant CBC programmes of the IPA. One potential candidate country remains in the neighbourhood of my country, and that is Serbia. I also endorse the third amendment, which was introduced for the purpose of enabling the PHARE Committee to continue to support the Commission in the management of financial assistance granted to the Turkish community of Cyprus.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of this because Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) ((2)) offers assistance to candidate and potential candidate countries in aligning themselves gradually to EU standards and policies, including the acquis, if appropriate, with a view to joining. At the same time, the regulation clearly distinguishes between candidate countries and potential candidate countries.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission is proposing to the Council and Parliament the amendment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006, which set up an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, with a view to transferring Iceland and Montenegro from the list of potential candidate countries (Annex II) to the list of candidate countries (Annex I). The purpose of these amendments is to clarify the rules for accessing subsidy agreements financed under the umbrella of the cross-border component, and to ensure compatibility with other external aid instruments, particularly the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument.

I welcome this proposal, which recognises the new status of these two countries, and I hope both of them will be able to continue down the path of further integration with Europe.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 creating the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, whose purpose is guiding the practices of countries wishing to accede to the European Union. With a view to this progressive alignment, the regulation makes a distinction between ‘candidate countries’ and ‘potential candidate countries’; that is, between those nearing accession and those which still have some distance to go. Iceland and Montenegro requested accession to the European Union on 17 June and 17 December 2010, respectively, and the Council decided, on the basis of the Commission’s opinion, that accession negotiations should begin as soon as the conditions set out at the 1993 European Council in Copenhagen were met, when they would merit the status of ‘candidate countries’. I am therefore voting for the amendments to Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 intended to clarify the rules on entering into subsidy agreements under the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (cross-border cooperation) and to ensure its compatibility with the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) In its conclusions of 17 June 2010, the European Council stated that Iceland fulfils the political criteria set out by the Council in Copenhagen in 1993, and welcomed the Commission’s opinion on Iceland’s application for EU membership. For these reasons, the European Council decided to begin negotiations with Iceland. Iceland is therefore a candidate country. Later, in December 2010, the European Council approved the Council’s conclusions of 14 December 2010 on expansion, and also accorded candidate country status to Montenegro. The Commission therefore proposed to the Council and the European Parliament an amendment to Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) in view of the transfer of Iceland and Montenegro from the list of potential candidate countries to the list of candidate countries. Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 draws a clear distinction between candidate countries and potential candidate countries. In relation to the clarification of the rules applying to grant contracts financed under the cross-border cooperation element of the IPA, and ensuring cohesion with the other instruments for external cooperation, in particular, the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, it is right to propose an amendment to Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – I welcome the adoption of this report on pre-accession assistance in my capacity as the Chairman of the EU-Iceland Joint Parliamentary Committee.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) The European Council of 17 June 2010, in its conclusions, noted that Iceland meets the political criteria set by the Copenhagen European Council in 1993 and welcomed the Commission’s opinion on Iceland’s application for membership of the EU. On those grounds, the European Council decided to open negotiations with Iceland. Iceland is therefore a candidate country. The European Council of 16-17 December 2010 endorsed the Council’s conclusions of 14 December 2010 on enlargement and agreed to give Montenegro the status of candidate country. I voted in favour of this document because the Commission is proposing to the Council and Parliament that Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 of 17 July 2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance should be amended with a view to transferring Iceland and Montenegro from the list of potential candidate countries to the list of candidate countries.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution, which allows Iceland and Montenegro to be placed on the list of countries qualifying for pre-accession assistance.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report proposes granting Iceland and Montenegro the financial aid offered to candidate countries for accession to the European Union. This assistance aims to support the implementation of the criteria for membership of the Union. Payment is subject to the obligation to achieve results in the implementation of these criteria, including the establishment of a market economy with free and fair competition, as enshrined in the Union, and the implementation of European regulations and directives. The social consequences of implementing conditions such as these are unacceptable.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour because I think the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) is useful and important. The purpose of the IPA is to grant assistance to candidate countries to meet their needs, on the basis of annual strategy reports on the countries in question issued by the Commission. It makes aid for strengthening institutional capacity, cross-border cooperation and economic and social development more effective and coherent by including it in a single framework. Pre-accession assistance promotes the stabilisation of candidate countries and potential candidate countries, while respecting their particularities.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Since 2007, EU pre-accession assistance has been channelled via a standardised instrument which is intended to provide targeted support to candidate countries and potential candidate countries in the areas of support for transition, institution building, cross-border cooperation, regional development, development of human resources and rural development. In the past, there have been frequent occurrences of irregularities. Billions of euro are still going missing because Brussels is not able or willing finally to make lasting changes aimed at putting this instrument in order. With a laissez-faire attitude, Brussels is not even making an effort to demand back the funds that have been wrongly paid out. Again, the will to make changes seems to be lacking. Now we want to include Northern Cyprus as well, even though the Turks there are not even prepared to maintain or renovate the cultural monuments. I therefore voted against the report.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) The Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance serves to provide pre-accession assistance to candidate countries such as Montenegro or Turkey. Every year, the European Court of Auditors once more finds irregularities and errors in the payment of the pre-accession assistance. In addition, the accession process for Turkey should generally be stopped, as Turkey is not a suitable candidate country, and it continues to prove this itself impressively again and again. Turkish-occupied Northern Cyprus provides one example of this, where, despite EU aid, churches and other cultural monuments are neglected, destroyed or converted into mosques or other facilities. The report advocates an increase in assistance for the Turkish community in Northern Cyprus, which, in view of the situation described above, I consider to be unacceptable.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution, the purpose of which is to transfer Iceland and Montenegro from the list of potential candidate countries to the list of candidate countries. I am pleased that both countries have made huge progress towards EU integration and have fulfilled the political requirements, the Copenhagen criteria. It should be noted that the decision to transfer these countries to the list of candidates will have a positive impact on EU enlargement processes, which are one of the EU’s key priorities. Attention is drawn to the fact that the degree of alignment of Iceland with EU legislation through the European Economic Area Agreement and its level of economic and social development make it an exception among candidate countries. Meanwhile, the candidate status granted to Montenegro is a great step forward for this country. However, in order to ensure that further processes and negotiations run smoothly and swiftly, both countries must continue to make every effort to implement domestic reforms and properly fulfil the requirements for and take on the obligations associated with membership of the EU.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I agree with the proposal for a regulation for establishing pre-accession assistance for new members of the EU. I think that basic conditions need to be imposed which mean that countries that want to enter the pre-existing Community meet the level of those that are already members so as to avoid too great a distinction, even at the beginning, which could give rise to problems and a more complicated collaboration between these countries.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The purpose of this proposal for a regulation amending the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance is to transfer Iceland and Montenegro from the list of potential candidate countries to the list of candidate countries. This amendment is the result of the decisions of the European Council. The Commission proposal was adopted unanimously by the European Parliament at first reading. I voted for this proposal.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The amendment addresses the concern, expressed by EU Member States involved in cross-border cooperation (CBC) programmes, with regard to participation in calls for proposals. I agree with the Member States that participation in calls for proposals should be limited to applicants from countries participating in the relevant CBC programme, and I therefore voted in favour of the proposal for a regulation on accession negotiations.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The purpose of this Commission proposal is to amend Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006, of the Council, creating an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance. The intention behind this text is to support candidate countries or potential candidate countries in their accession to the European Union, helping them to progress further towards the acquis communautaire. The purpose of amending Article 19 is to resolve a dispute that has emerged in the meantime, and entails no substantial changes. I therefore voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. Having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2011)0446); having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 212(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C7-0208/2011); having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; having regard to Rules 55 and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure; having regard to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0397/2011), the European Parliament has adopted its position at first reading, taking over the Commission proposal; calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text; and instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

  Charles Tannock (ECR), in writing. – I and the ECR Group which I coordinate on the Committee on Foreign Affairs voted today to support the Albertini report on amending the Instrument for Pre-accession. The enlargement of the EU to 27 Member States has been a great success story, although enlargement fatigue has now set in. I am the standing rapporteur of the Parliament for Montenegro and I am pleased that Montenegro and Macedonia have now been moved from potential candidates to candidates for EU membership under IPA. But I deeply regret that at the European Council summit last Friday, in spite of recommendations from the Commission and – in the case of Montenegro – for reasons of domestic politics in a couple of Member States and – in the case of Macedonia – for reasons of the name the country uses to describe itself, which is objected to by Greece, they have still been blocked in Council as candidates from opening negotiations. This is deeply frustrating to their governments and also deeply unfair to their people.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Commission is proposing to the Council and Parliament three amendments to Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 creating an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance. The purpose of one is to transfer Iceland and Montenegro from the list of potential candidate countries (Annex II) to the list of candidate countries (Annex I), following decisions of the European Council. Another is intended to revise two aspects of Article 19: on the issues of evaluating coherence with Regulation (EC) No 2112/2005 – the ‘Untying Aid Regulation’ – and on the coherence of other foreign aid instruments. The last amends the second paragraph of Article 25(1). The European Parliament adopted these proposals and I voted for them.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) On 17 June 2010, the European Council decided to grant Montenegro and Iceland candidate country status, which also entailed an amendment to the regulation establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA). In the second amendment, relating to Article 19 on ‘rules of participation and origin, eligibility for grants’, the demands of the Member States to limit participation in calls for proposals to applicants from those countries participating in the relevant IPA cross-border cooperation programmes were taken into account. The third amendment, relating to Article 25, guarantees that the Phare committee can continue to assist the Commission in the management of the financial assistance to the Turkish Cypriot community.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The text tabled by Mr Albertini concerns the proposal for an amendment to the regulation establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance for those countries with the prospect of becoming members of the EU. The aim is to provide assistance according to the needs of the countries concerned from the current year’s budget, based on the Commission’s annual strategy reports on the countries in question. Given the usefulness of this Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance, I therefore voted in favour.

Report: Andres Perello Rodriguez (A7-0224/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. We need a new support framework for European producers and processing industries, so as to promote more use being made of what we in the European Union produce, which would give income directly to these producers and industries. By way of example, almost 80% of the orange juice consumed in the European Union comes from the United States and Brazil. This cannot be justified, since we produce excellent citrus fruit: we can produce high-quality fruit juice locally and at European level, although in this case, we also need to stimulate production.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution relating to fruit juices and certain similar products intended for human consumption. This product sector represents a sufficiently important part of European Union industry. However, to take just one example – orange juice – it is worth noting that over 82% of the orange juice consumed in Europe is mainly produced in Brazil and the United States. In other words, less than 20% of the orange juice consumed in the EU is produced here. I agree with the rapporteur that it is therefore important to support the European sector, by bringing the directive into line with international law and the Codex and establishing the same rules for all products marketed within the territory of the Community. The aim, as stated in the recitals of the directive, is to contribute towards the free movement of these products. The European Union produces high-quality fruit juices, which contribute to a healthy and balanced diet. They are manufactured according to the sustainability standards supported by our laws. Therefore, from the point of view of businesses operating in the EU, the requirement that all products being marketed in the EU should be subject to the same standards of quality is fair. We also have to consider environmental aspects: local products do not have to be transported over vast distances, generating CO2 emissions. It should be underlined that this document is not about European protectionism, but the continued pursuit of sustainability in all sectors of our economy. The overall quality of a product can also be measured by its ethical quality, its ecological quality and quantitative aspects.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The amendment of the specific provisions of Directive 2001/112/EC on the labelling of fruit juices and similar products is required to protect the interests of consumers and ensure that fruit juices are labelled as clearly as possible. This labelling will have to reflect the new rules on authorised ingredients, such as those relating to the addition of sugars, which is no longer authorised in fruit juices. Consumers must have the opportunity to distinguish between the types of products which have misleading or ambiguous names. This is why I voted in favour of the Perello Rodriguez report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 2001/112/EC relating to fruit juices and certain similar products intended for human consumption.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the new European rules on the ingredients and labelling of fruit juices as laid down in the Perello Rodriguez report. These rules will allow for more accurate information to be provided to consumers on the content of fruit juices. Thus, it will no longer be possible to abuse the claim ‘no added sugars’. Similarly, these new rules will provide protection to the consumer, particularly diabetics, by making a clear difference between fruit juices and nectars which have different sugar content.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this legislative resolution and welcomed Parliament’s position at first reading. The Commission’s proposal seeks to amend, for the second time, the 2001 Council Directive relating to fruit juices and certain similar products intended for human consumption. The directive lays down rules governing the composition, use of reserved descriptions, manufacturing specifications and labelling of the products concerned, in order to ensure their free movement within the European Union. The proposal reaffirms the distinction between fruit juice and fruit juice from concentrate, simplifies the provisions on the restitution of flavour and aroma, provides for the removal of sugar from the list of authorised ingredients and includes tomatoes in the list of fruits used for fruit juice production. I agree that the Commission and the Member States should carry out targeted information campaigns in order to inform consumers of the different categories of juices and similar products introduced by this directive and to make it easier for them to differentiate between juice and nectar for instance.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this resolution because I realise that it is vital for consumers to have good information, especially when it comes to food products. Through the relevant labelling provisions, the new regulations provide greater clarity and transparency about the content of fruit juices.

I am thinking, in particular, about the rules on the listing of ingredients, the sugar content and the quantity of different fruits in each product. Clear information on this subject makes an important contribution to consumer health. It will be helpful to some groups of people who suffer from specific disorders, such as diabetes. At the same time, it can also prove to be important for promoting a healthy diet, thereby helping reduce the risks of obesity, for instance. I should stress that these aspects are especially necessary for children who form a large group of fruit juice consumers. Last but not least, I welcome the provisions aimed at mentioning the origin of the juices’ main ingredients. I appreciate that they can help promote fruit originating in the EU, thereby providing support to European farmers.

  Regina Bastos (PPE) , in writing. – (PT) This report makes a second amendment to Council Directive 2001/112/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to fruit juices and certain similar products for human consumption. It lays down new rules on the composition, naming, manufacturing specifications and labelling of fruit juices within the European Union. These new rules reflect new international regulations on permitted ingredients and the addition of sugar, which will no longer be allowed in fruit juices. The new rules, which will apply to all such products sold within the EU, even those imported from third countries, also specify that only juice not containing other fruit juices may be sold as ‘orange juice’. In the case of juices sold as a mixture of two or more juices, the name should also include the proportion of each fruit juice included, in descending order of volume. These measures need to be reinforced by specific information campaigns enabling customers to know exactly what product they are buying. I am therefore voting for this report.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) New labelling rules for fruit juices and nectars have been adopted by the European Parliament and they offer consumers greater transparency. The goal is indeed to inform consumers, so that they have clear information about what is a genuine fruit juice and what is not. These rules aim to prevent potentially misleading names being given to mixtures of fruit juices and to define clearly the ‘no added sugar’ claims so that consumers are able to quickly and clearly identify the presence of sugars or sweeteners. Henceforth, a mixture of two juices will also have to be named in such a way that fully reflects its contents. Consumers must be provided with accurate information so that they can make informed choices when purchasing food products such as fruit juices.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because I agree that we have to create the conditions to continue to develop the European Union’s fruit juice (and similar products) sector. The EU directive adopted back in 2001 brought major and important changes to the way the industry is regulated and, most importantly, to consumer protection. That is because, under this directive, producers were obliged to indicate on labels whether the juice was produced from concentrate or whether it is genuine pressed fruit juice. It is proposed that this distinction be maintained in the review phase of the abovementioned directive. Another key feature of the revision is that it brings the directive more closely into line with the Codex Alimentarius and determines whether certain processes applied for juices produced in other regions of the globe can be applied for juices produced in the European Union. Take, for instance, the addition of mandarin juice to orange juice, which the European Parliament does not oppose because this not only intensifies the colour and flavour but, in some cases, responds to the demands of certain categories of consumer. Although Parliament is looking more closely at so-called flavour reconstitution, it agrees with the Commission’s position that flavour, pulp and cells obtained by suitable physical means from the same species of fruit may be restored to the juice, but consumers must be informed of this on the packaging.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for Mr Perello Rodriguez’s report. In Europe, fruit juices and certain similar products constitute an industrial sector of considerable size. Nevertheless, taking orange juice as a point of reference, 82% of the juice consumed in the EU comes directly from Brazil and the United States, while less than 20% is produced in Europe.

The European processing industry, unlike that in other countries, is complementary to the fresh produce market and consequently, this results in large-scale importation of fresh produce, leading to high environmental costs in terms of CO2. We must therefore firmly support the European sector, which offers significant added value, not least in terms of employment and improving the quality of produce, including through more sustainable production processes which can also influence producers in third countries.

Furthermore, I also agree with the importance of using wording such as ‘no added sugar’ on packages, since there is considerable confusion surrounding these kinds of products. At the same time, I believe it is right to launch targeted information campaigns to enable consumers to know exactly what they are buying.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) Fruit juices produced in the European Union are high-quality products which contribute to a healthy and balanced diet and are manufactured according to the sustainability standards supported by our law. It is therefore important that we should ensure the high quality of all products sold on the European market. Without seeking to undermine any import policy, this report, in my opinion, rightly favours the consumption of local products, which do not have to be transported over vast distances, which are produced under social and labour conditions that are acceptable under Community law, and which are manufactured according to the food safety principles of the EU. This is not a matter of European protectionism, but of reflecting the continued pursuit of sustainability in all sectors of our economy. The overall quality of a product can also be measured by its ethical quality, its ecological quality and its social quality. Although I agree with most of the requirements in the draft revision submitted by the Commission, I have some doubts regarding the role of this body in the future, specifically in relation to the delegated acts. For this reason, I agree with the correction to Article 7a paragraph 1a such that the period for the Commission’s delegated powers is amended from ‘an unfixed period’ to five years. I would also like to add that the tacit renewal mechanism should be used if there are no substantial changes after five years justifying a revision of the rules.

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), in writing. – (CS) The report is devoted mainly to clarifying the legal environment for the labelling of fruit juices. This primarily involves the definition of terms such as ‘fruit juice’, ‘fruit nectar’, ‘fruit drink’ and ‘lemonade’. The terms in question mainly indicate differences in the content of fruit juice, with the term ‘fruit juice’ itself denoting 100% fruit content, while the fruit content in nectar can be as low as 25%, and in a fruit drink less than 25%. The amendment to the directive also introduces a new obligation to indicate on the packaging, in lettering at least half the size of the product name, whether it is a fruit juice, nectar, drink or lemonade. This measure will help to make consumers more aware of the content of these products, and consumers will more easily understand the quality of a given product. The consumer will also not be confused in future as to whether a product is 100% fruit or whether it contains any substitutes. I consider all of the proposed measures to be beneficial to consumers. Older people in particular will be better able to understand what the actual content of a given product is, and I consider this important in relation to the forthcoming Year for Active Ageing.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) The new rules on fruit juices and certain similar products introduce for the first time a clear distinction between natural fruit juices and drinks which contain added sugar. Our aim in adopting this report is not to make a choice for consumers, but only to ensure that they are fully informed at the time of choosing the product. Given that the sector for fruit juices and other similar products is an industry with a considerable market share in the European Union, the revised rules on the composition and labelling of these products and a clear indication of added sugar will ensure the high quality of all products sold throughout the EU and will help improve the internal market.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the proposal for a directive on fruit juices and certain similar products intended for human consumption. It is necessary to support the European sector by bringing the directive into line with international law and the Codex, and establishing the same rules for all products marketed in the EU. The aim is not only to contribute towards the free movement of these products, but also to clarify the legislation on labelling, product classification, authorised ingredients and the admissibility of certain practices.

Therefore, the proposed revision will also benefit imported products already being marketed in the European Union, since the new directive will give producers in third countries the opportunity to improve the quality of their products through more sustainable production processes. The existence of one set of rules for all operators will also prevent fraud and unfair competition and help provide clearer information to consumers.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This draft legislative resolution amending Directive 2001/112/EC is basically a technical proposal, designed to clarify and simplify the legal framework for production and labelling of fruit juice for human consumption within the European Union. I agree with the compromise reached in the trialogue, which is reflected in the amendments tabled by the rapporteur, so I voted for this report which has now been adopted at first reading.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The vote in favour of clearer labelling of fruit juices and nectars will prevent Europeans being misled as regards the ingredients in these products, particularly when they contain a mixture of several different juices. Consumers will now know, when there is a mixture of juices, the precise proportion of each fruit used in producing this mixture. The name given to these mixed juices will also have to better reflect the ingredients actually used to produce the drink, by indicating the different fruits used. Furthermore, clearer information on sugar and sweetener content in these products will also be included on the labels. Specifically, fruit juices will not include by definition any sweetener or added sugar, unlike nectars. Now, Europeans who are diabetic or who are following a diet will be in a better position to choose the right products for their needs.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report specifying the ingredients of fruit-based beverages in order to provide our fellow citizens with guarantees with regard to the ingredients of the products that they purchase and thus to allow them to make better-informed consumer choices. There must be complete transparency in all exchanges within the single market.

  Diane Dodds (NI), in writing. – Reliable and clear information to consumers is vital and it is welcome that accurate information on fruit juice packaging has been a priority for the rapporteur and those at the negotiating table.

The key factor for me, and I think for many consumers, in this is the clear distinction between a product that is a fruit juice and those that are a fruit juice from concentrate. I am glad this key difference will remain clearly identifiable to the consumer, as indeed the health benefits in terms of vitamin intake can be quite stark between a pure fruit juice and a concentrate. We want fruit juices to be an easy way to reach the recommended five a day of a healthy diet, and that consumers have the information to make an informed choice.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on ‘fruit juices and certain similar products intended for human consumption’ because it contains rules on the composition and labelling of these products, which will give consumers clearer information, particularly with regard to added sugar, which is particularly important for people with diabetes.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Fruit juices account for 10% of all non-alcoholic drinks consumed in Europe. Only a small percentage of these are produced locally, with 82% imported from Brazil. It is important to stimulate European fruit juice production, so as to support our processing industries and producers. It is also crucial to give consumers the information they need, so that they know exactly what kind of juices they are consuming and can make a conscious and informed choice.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The purpose of the Commission proposal is to introduce a second amendment to Council Directive 2001/112/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to fruit juices and certain similar products for human consumption. The fruit juices produced within the European Union are high-quality products, produced in accordance with sustainability standards, and form part of a healthy and balanced diet. It is therefore crucial to ensure the quality of all products sold within the European Union. Without wishing to jeopardise any type of import policy, this report encourages local production, which should not be transported vast distances because of the resulting CO2 emissions, and which is produced under social and working conditions that comply with EU legislation and EU food safety principles. I believe information for consumers is crucial in alerting them to the danger of misreading information, particularly with regard to removing mentions of ‘no added sugar’, without first effectively clarifying them to the consumer. I agree with the rapporteur that we need to give the industry enough time to communicate with and inform consumers.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We are voting for this report, whose purpose is to clarify issues relating to descriptions, flavourings and improved information to consumers in this area. It also proposes to ban the use of potentially misleading or ambiguous descriptions such as ‘natural fruit juice’, which might lead consumers to think, wrongly, that a juice is extracted directly from the fruit, when, in some cases, it is produced from concentrate. That is why there are currently difficulties with, for example, distinguishing ‘juices’ from ‘nectars’, and why the presence or not of added sugar is important, so that consumers can make choices according to their specific needs and wishes. For these reasons, information campaigns on the different categories of juice would be welcome.

However, there are a number of concerns, also expressed in the report, about the delegation of powers to the European Commission, namely, in relation to changes in permitted ingredients. This was the area which presented the greatest problems during negotiations with the Council and which, for this very reason, should not be amended using delegated acts. The proposal for a directive provides for an 18-month period for introducing the new legislation, which enables the industry to make the necessary changes.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The purpose of the report is to clarify issues relating to descriptions, flavourings and improved information to consumers in this area. It also proposes to ban the use of potentially misleading or ambiguous descriptions such as ‘natural fruit juice’, which might lead consumers to think, wrongly, that a juice is extracted directly from the fruit, when, in some cases, it is produced from concentrate. This is why there are currently difficulties with, for example, distinguishing ‘juices’ from ‘nectars’, and why the presence or not of added sugar is important, so that consumers can make choices according to their specific needs and wishes. For these reasons, information campaigns on the different categories of juice would be welcome.

However, there are a number of concerns, also expressed in the report, about the delegation of powers to the European Commission, namely, in relation to changes in permitted ingredients. This was the area which presented the greatest problems during negotiations with the Council and which, for this very reason, should not be amended using delegated acts. The proposal for a directive provides for an 18-month period for introducing the new legislation, which enables the industry to make the necessary changes.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The fruit juice market in the EU accounts for 10% of total consumption of non-alcoholic drinks. As far as market breakdown is concerned, output of fruit juices from concentrate is greater than that of juices produced directly. In terms of the global market in fruit juices, a large number of EU countries are primarily supplied by Spain and Brazil. In Council Directive 2001/112/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to fruit juices and certain similar products intended for human consumption, specific provisions are laid down regarding the production, composition and labelling of fruit juices and similar products, in order to enhance their free movement within the EU. In my opinion, those rules should be adapted to technical progress and should take account of developments in the relevant international standards. The ordinary legislative procedure set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union will apply to this proposed directive. The redefinition of the powers of the Commission (Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty) will also be taken into account. As a result of this, the submitted draft directive amends Articles 7 and 8 of the current directive by incorporating all of the implementing measures into the category of delegated acts.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the proposal, in the light of the amendments that were made to it during the trialogue. It is more in line with the recently approved regulation on the provision of food information to consumers, having established that the words ‘no added sugar’ must be written on packaging for a transition period of four and a half years.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Over the last two decades, consumption of fruit juices in Europe has almost doubled, owing in part to European awareness campaigns on what constitutes a proper diet. Thanks to the directive adopted today, fruit juice can at last be defined as such only if it contains 100% fruit without any kind of additive, with an indication of the origin of the raw material used. Moreover, Europe must ensure greater transparency for consumers, not least through the indication of the origin of the raw materials used. This is a fundamental fact considering that 82% of the orange juice consumed in Europe comes from Brazil and the United States. Therefore, from now on, we shall no longer be in danger of finding on our tables juices created from mixtures of unknown fruits which are not indicated on the product. Thanks to this new element of the EU’s Codex Alimentarius, I hope that the new directive will improve the quality of European products and promote more informed purchases by consumers.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) It was essential to provide more accurate information to consumers on the different kinds of fruit juice on the market (fruit juice, fruit juices made from concentrates, and nectars) and on their ingredients. I am particularly glad that the option to add mandarin/clementine juice to orange juice without mentioning this on the label has not been adopted. Adding mandarin juice to orange juice, without declaring you have done so, was, to my mind, a fraudulent practice and a genuine deception. It would also have resulted in exposing the orange juice market to distortions of competition. Furthermore, the addition of sugar is now banned in the case of all fruit juices and the directive provides for a specific phrase on the label to inform consumers about this change.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I supported this report which will enable European consumers to make more informed decisions.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this document because it insists on maintaining the dual denomination distinguishing pressed juices from those made from concentrate. Consumers find it hard to distinguish clearly between the different products covered by the directive. Considerable confusion exists, especially with regard to the difference between ‘juice’ and ‘nectar’. It is particularly important to clarify this difference concerning the presence or absence of sugar in these products because this is an issue of particular concern for consumer groups with specific needs (diabetics, children, people with weight problems, etc.). A single set of standards should be applied to all fruit juices and related products marketed in the EU, and particular attention should be drawn to harmless practices. It is important to support the European sector by bringing the directive into line with international law and the Codex Alimentarius and establishing the same rules for all products marketed within the territory of the Community. The new directive will give producers in third countries the opportunity to improve the quality of their products through more sustainable production processes. The existence of one set of rules for everyone will also serve to prevent fraud and unfair competition and help make clearer information available to consumers.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which represents a compromise with the Council and which allows us to clarify the labelling of fruit nectars containing sweeteners, the labelling of fruit juices containing several fruits, and the use of water in fruit juices.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I supported the new amendments as they will make juice labelling much clearer in the future. For example, mixtures of juices will feature exactly the proportions making up its composition. Therefore, a mixture of 90% apple juice and 10% orange juice will have to be clearly called ‘apple and orange juice’. At the moment, such mixtures are marketed with the label ‘orange juice’. Labels such as ‘mixture of juices’ will only be used if three or more types of fruit are present. I think that all these clarifications will be extremely helpful to people with diabetes or on a diet.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The report by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety on fruit juices and certain similar products intended for human consumption is a document that contains many important parts. I consider the quality of each product to be its ecological, ethical and social quality, and that European products of a high standard are conducive to health and, in particular, balanced nutrition.

We should not forget, however, that 82% of orange juice comes from Brazil and the United States and that the European processing industry is complementary to the fresh produce market. Although many issues still need to be decided, including terminology, I consider Andres Perello Rodriguez’s report to be well-prepared, and I voted in favour of its adoption.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – The European Union produces high-quality fruit juices which contribute to a healthy and balanced diet and are manufactured according to the sustainability standards supported by our laws. It is therefore fair that we should defend these same high standards of quality for all products being marketed in the EU. Without seeking to question any form of import policy, this report favours the consumption of local products, those which do not have to be transported over vast distances, generating CO2 emissions, which are produced under social and labour conditions which are acceptable under Community law, and which are manufactured according to the food safety principles established by the EU. This is not a matter of European protectionism, but reflects the continued pursuit of sustainability in all sectors of our economy. The overall quality of a product can also be measured by its ethical quality, its ecological quality and its social quality.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The highest level of information possible must be provided in a fully transparent, clear manner in order to protect consumers. It is logical that the rules should apply equally to products made in the EU and to imported products. I voted in favour.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – Over 82% of the orange juice consumed in Europe comes mainly from Brazil and the United States, with less than 20% of the orange juice consumed in the EU being produced here. It is therefore important that the European sector is supported by bringing the directive into line with international law and the Codex and establishing the same rules for all products marketed in Community territory. I voted in favour of this report, which aims to contribute towards the free circulation of these products by clarifying rules on labelling, product classification, authorised ingredients and the admissibility of certain practices.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Parliament’s adoption of new rules to ensure greater clarity in consumer information will lead to a clearer distinction between fruit juices and nectars for consumers. Given that the fruit juices and similar products sector is a significant industry within the European Union, the revised regulations on the composition and labelling of these products, the banning of certain practices and the indication of added sugar will enable the high quality of all products sold within the Union to be ensured, with the associated benefit of continued improvement of the internal market.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) This directive aims to prioritise product quality and consumer information. Consequently, the principal product name will have to correspond to the main fruit used and all fruits used must be mentioned in the list of ingredients. Illustrations on the packaging must not mislead the consumer about the real ingredients used in the juice. The most important change with regard to juices is the elimination of sugar from the list of authorised ingredients. Here, the objective is to guarantee the quality of the fruit juices and to promote health. It is also important for consumers to be able to make a clear distinction between different categories of product such as freshly squeezed fruit juice, fruit juices made from concentrates, and nectars. All these measures will need to be accompanied by specific and large-scale information campaigns in order to clear up the confusion that exists at present. Finally, I welcome the fact that the specificity of each national market has been maintained by clear product labelling and that the directive applies as much to products manufactured within the European Union as it does to imported products.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The fruit juice sector is a branch of industry which, globally speaking, should not be underestimated. Within the European Union, too, this sector of industry can be considered to be significant in size. However, it is also the case that, with regard to the production of fruit juices, particularly the popular orange juice, 80% of what is consumed in the EU is imported from North America and Brazil. The production process also differs, since in these countries, all fruits are used in juice processing, whereas throughout the EU, only substandard goods that are no longer of use to the trade are used. For consumers, this means that the origin of the juice needs to be indicated particularly clearly in order to be able to inform them, in an unambiguous manner, of where the product has come from.

In general, labelling of the ingredients of the juice is important, particularly where flavourings and the addition of sugar are concerned. Consumers are also frequently confused by the designations ‘juice’ and ‘nectar’. I voted in favour of the report, as I agree with the rapporteur that clear labelling is essential for the good of consumers.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I decided to vote in favour of this report on the labelling of fruit juices, since it will undoubtedly help to provide greater clarity in this field. Consumers must be well informed about what they are eating and drinking every day: in the past, the indications of the ingredients used to prepare these drinks did not always reflect the product’s true content. However, from now on, we should rest assured that the labels are ‘real’, that is, that they accurately state the content of fruit juices or nectars. I always support rules that help to combat indications that mislead or deceive consumers, and, for this sector at least, we have managed to secure a fairly satisfactory result.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) In the fruit juice sector, we import more than 80% of some varieties, from Brazil or the United States, for example. Where citrus fruits are concerned, rather than being made up of large international producers, the European industry is an auxiliary industry supplementing the processing of fresh fruit. Processing frequently involves selling those fruits which, due to their appearance (size, marks), are not marketed as fresh fruits, although they are perfectly suitable for providing high-quality fruit juices. On account of the environmental costs associated with imports (CO2 emissions), it is essential that we increase our support for the European fruit juice industry. This would also avoid fruits that are less suitable for being sold as fresh fruit from being destroyed and prevent unharvested fruit rotting in the field, which can lead to the spread of disease. This would bring socio-economic added value with the creation of jobs and growth. In addition, labelling, classification, approved additives and practices are to be clarified. In this regard, stringent requirements must also apply to imports that are currently already sold in the EU. This will provide an incentive for third countries to improve the quality of their products using sustainable production processes. Another positive element is the retention of the double designation, which distinguishes between pressed juices made from fresh fruit and fruit juices made from concentrate. Since the report takes these aspects into account, I voted in favour of it.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution because it is appropriate to maintain the dual denomination distinguishing pressed juices from those made from concentrate. The implementation of the provisions of this directive will enable consumers to choose a product that has undergone as little processing and is as natural as possible. The dual classification will ensure that consumers are given accurate information and that pictorial representations on packaging do not mislead the consumer as to the actual composition of the juice. It should be noted that the application of the same rules throughout the territory of the Community will facilitate the free movement of these products and will help prevent fraud and unfair competition. Moreover, on the basis of the provisions of this directive and with a view to the use of more sustainable production processes, producers in third countries will be encouraged to improve the quality of their products.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The amendment of the directive on the consumption of fruit juices and their production in Europe is a sensitive, hotly debated issue which concerns many consumers. The text, which I voted for, seeks to improve current products by protecting consumers through better information. Buyers must have the opportunity to know exactly what kind of product they are buying, its quality, and, leaving aside discussions on the preservation of the fruit used, the saccharin or sugar content and the difference between products which are derived from fruit concentrate and those that are not. I think that the most important factor is precisely the opportunity to have a better end product that consumers are able to choose in a clear and informed manner.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) Fruit juices and similar products form an important industry within the European Union and account for a large part of the European market. This market, however, needs to be strengthened, by adapting the relevant Community directive to international standards and to the Codex and by laying down rules for all products traded in Community territory. Questions of labelling, product categorisation and permissible ingredients need to be clarified and rules need to be adopted that will prevent any attempted fraud or unfair trading and will help to improve the quality of information provided to consumers. This particular proposal to amend the directive, which I supported, is a move in that direction.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The purpose of the Commission proposal is to amend, for the second time, Council Directive 2001/112/EC of 20 December 2001 on fruit juices and certain similar products for human consumption, setting out rules on the composition, use of reserved descriptions, manufacturing specifications and labelling of the products concerned, so as to ensure free movement of these products within the European Union. The European Parliament has striven to ensure that the criteria included in this directive will be applied under the same conditions both to products produced within the Union and to imported products. Since I, too, advocate this position, I voted for this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) While the fruit juices and certain similar products sector represents an industry of considerable size in the European Union, it should be stressed that more than three quarters of the products consumed in Europe comes mainly from Brazil and the United States, meaning that a small part of EU consumption is produced in Europe. It is therefore important to support the European sector, by bringing the directive in line with international law and establishing the same rules for all products marketed on EU territory. The aim is to contribute to the free movement of these products. However, it is also important to clarify the rules on labelling, product classification, authorised ingredients and the admissibility of certain practices. In order to support the proposal for a directive, I voted in favour of all the amendments to the directive.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – The aim of this legislative proposal is to amend Council Directive 2001/112/EC by incorporating more of the provisions of the Codex Alimentarius standard. The Parliament’s draft report suggests that the rules arising from adaptation of the directive to the Codex should be equally applicable to all products marketed within the EU, regardless of whether they are produced in the EU or imported.

The Commission and the Member States shall carry out information campaigns to inform consumers of the different categories of juices and similar products. Concerning the issue of flavour reconstitution, I support the Commission’s proposal that it should remain optional. The report suggests limiting the Commission’s powers to adopt the delegated acts from ‘an indeterminate period of time’ to five years with the possibility of proceeding to a tacit renewal. Moreover, an 18-month transition period added to the transposition period would serve to use up stock manufactured according to old standards and to adapt to new rules.

Adapting the directive to the Codex Alimentarius standard will allow the same criteria to be applied to products manufactured in the EU and to imported products. Consequently, consumers will no longer be confused on the safety and quality of juices.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It is noteworthy that around 82% of the fruit juice products consumed within the European Union are produced outside the Union. The main reason for this is that, in the European Union, fruit juices are made from surplus fruit crops and not from fruit grown expressly for juice production. In this way, the European productive cycle manages to optimise the available resources, as well as avoid long journeys in distributing the product throughout the common market. These points should be taken into account in regulation of the fruit juice market. These are the main concerns of the report before the European Parliament for approval, and I believe they are legitimate, with the aforementioned caveats, so I voted in favour.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Europe really does have difficulty in speaking with one voice, even about fruit juices! Germany has opposed the text from the beginning, preferring to protect the concentrated fruit juice industry. For its part, Spain, the leading European orange juice producer, would be happy to see it mixed with mandarin juice. This is a very attractive market, as Europeans drink 300 million litres of orange juice a year, or half of global consumption. In other words, the agreement reached on the Fruit Juice Directive by the European Parliament delegation, of which I was a member, and the Polish Presidency, was hardly a straightforward matter. Henceforth, it will not be permitted to name a juice or nectar after a minor ingredient. We will not be able to use strawberry juice, for example, for a drink where the main fruit is actually apple. A further key provision, here in terms of health, is the following: the practice of adding sugar to fruit juices is now prohibited. However, this legislation promoting quality products and accurate consumer information will be of no use if the Commission, tomorrow, does not promote the activities of European fruit and vegetable producers who are suffering from the crisis and from global competition.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today in plenary, we adopted Mr Perello Rodriguez’s report, which refers to the need to adopt the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 2001/112/EC relating to fruit juices and certain similar products intended for human consumption.

The rapporteur highlighted the importance of supporting the European fruit juice sector by bringing the directive into line with international law and the Codex Alimentarius in order to contribute towards the free movement of these products, and also to clarify the rules on labelling, classification, authorised ingredients and the admissibility of certain practices.

The directive must improve the dual denomination distinguishing pressed juices from those made from concentrate; indeed in practice, consumers find it hard to distinguish between the different categories. It is important to clarify this difference in terms of the presence or absence of sugar in these products, which is an issue of concern to consumer groups with specific needs. The rapporteur accepts harmless practices, such as the addition of mandarin juice to orange juice, which can intensify its colour and flavour, in order to encourage the marketing of products. It is important to back up these measures with information campaigns enabling consumers to know what they are buying.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union must guarantee its citizens access to products which meet high standards of quality, durability and fairness. That is particularly true in the food sector, as consumers are habitually very attentive to their nutrition and health. Therefore, I voted in favour of the report by Andres Perello Rodriguez on the directive on fruit juices and certain similar products intended for human consumption. New rules are indeed necessary. I particularly welcome the measures to clarify the different types of juice, to remove sugar from the list of authorised ingredients, to ensure clear and transparent labelling on the proportions of fruit contained in the juice, and also the rules on the aromas used. Furthermore, it is essential to apply these rules to products manufactured in Europe and to imported products. This report works towards improved information and protection for consumers, seeking the best possible quality in the products that we consume on a daily basis. I am delighted with it.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The ‘fruit juices and certain similar products’ sector represents an industry of considerable size in the European Union. However, to take just one example, it is worth noting that over 82% of the orange juice consumed in Europe comes mainly from Brazil and the United States. In other words, less than 20% of the orange juice consumed in the EU is produced here. The European Union produces high-quality fruit juices which contribute to a healthy and balanced diet and are manufactured according to the sustainability standards supported by our laws. It is therefore fair that we should defend these same high standards of quality for all products being marketed in the EU.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) By adopting this report, the European Parliament is seeking the introduction of a new set of more consumer-friendly labelling rules for fruit juices and nectars. The new rules aim to prevent potentially misleading names for mixed juices and various indications, such as ‘no added sugar’. Our priority is to offer consumers accurate information so that they know what they are buying. The final document highlights the key role played by this House in banning added sugar in products sold as fruit juices and in clarifying the presence of sugars or sweeteners in similar drinks.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. – We have had many discussions in the Environment Committee over the last few years about the labelling of food and drink. Broadly speaking, I think that EU legislation is ensuring clearer and more accurate labelling for the consumer and is helping people to make informed choices about what they eat and drink. This directive adds to that, specifically by requiring the labelling of natural sugars in fruit nectar and by clarifying the rules around ‘no added sugar’ claims. Clear and honest labelling is one of the main tools we have to tackle diet-related problems in the EU, and whilst the Food Information to Consumers Regulation and the Health and Nutrition Claims Regulation provide most of the legal framework for this, additions are sometimes necessary. I would like to thank the rapporteur for his efforts to negotiate with the Council and congratulate him on this report.

  Amalia Sartori (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Perello Rodriguez’s report, which seeks to improve the quality rules and production standards for fruit juices, products which are purchased on a daily basis by European consumers. The report provides greater product transparency for consumers by indicating the origin of the raw ingredients contained in fruit juices. The report represents a benefit, not only for consumers, who will be able to benefit from more precise information, but also for European farmers, since it will raise the value of European products on the market. I believe that consumers are entitled to know what they are buying and make healthier choices. Indeed, the report requires a distinction to be made between fresh fruit juice and juice made instead from concentrate, or between juice and nectar, depending on the concentration of fruit and sugar that the product contains. We are therefore eliminating the confusion felt by consumers, who will now be able to make informed purchases.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The proposed amendments to Council Directive 2001/112/EC adapting methods of fruit juice production to technical progress exclude sugars from the list of ingredients permitted for use in fruit juices, set out provisions on flavours, and also provide clear definitions of finished products and the raw materials and semi-finished products used in their manufacture.

It is important that the amendments to the Fruit Juice Directive should be concerned with health benefits and, above all, regulate the matter of the addition of sweeteners to fruit juice, and that clear labelling of products should make it easier for consumers to distinguish between juice and nectar (for example, as regards the terminology used for blends of juice from two or more fruits). Domestic fruit producers should also be kept in mind. The entry into force of these amendments to the directive will help to improve the quality of fruit juices and nectars which remain on the national market and help harmonise their labelling. The amendments will also enable a harmonisation of quality standards for fruit juices and nectars, which will help improve product quality.

  Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I supported this report, primarily because it makes significant improvements for certain groups of consumers, such as people with diabetes, children, or people with health problems due to being overweight.

At a time when diabetes is one of the major health challenges posed in the 21st century, I cannot but be pleased about the improvements made to this directive. In the case of diabetics – I am referring here to people diagnosed with type-II diabetes – blood sugar concentration is of paramount importance. Therefore, I am pleased that after six months of negotiations with the Council, an agreement has been reached which not only improves labelling, but also the quality of fruit juices. The fact that the addition of sugar will be banned from fruit juices marks an achievement not only for those who need to control their body’s sugar intake, but also in terms of improving the health of EU citizens in general.

The measures being proposed benefit both consumers, who will have access to complete information, and juice producers, who have wanted to reinforce the notion that juice is part of a healthy diet and can be consumed as such.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The fruit juice market accounts for 10% of non-alcoholic drink consumption and it is clear that we need new measures in order to protect the interests of consumers and give them as much information as is available on the market. Given that a large percentage of the fruit used for fruit juice is produced outside the European Union, it is imperative to apply the same rules to all producers so as to prevent fraud and unfair competition. I am therefore voting for this report, as I believe it is necessary to adopt uniform rules concerning the ingredients used, the categories used for classifying products and common practices for the companies producing them. I also think it is appropriate to distinguish between the different types of drink on the market, particularly between juices and nectars, to enable consumers to choose those best suited to them in terms of their health and wellbeing.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the resolution on the proposal amending Council Directive 2001/112/EC relating to fruit juices and certain similar products intended for human consumption because I think that the implementation of the new provisions will provide better protection for consumer interests and boost the free movement of fruit juices within the EU. The EU fruit juice market accounts for 10% of the total consumption of non-alcoholic beverages, while the production of fruit juice from concentrate predominates compared to direct juice production (87.6% and 12.4% respectively).

The specific provisions and regulations regarding production, composition and labelling of fruit juices laid down by Directive 2001/112/EC must be adapted to technical progress and take account of developments in relevant international standards, in particular, the Codex Standard for fruit juices and nectars (stipulating quality factors and labelling requirements) and the Code of Practice of the European Fruit Juice Association. The amendments made to the directive are aimed at bringing the current situation into line with these standards and reaffirm the distinction between fruit juice and fruit juice obtained from concentrate. They also simplify the provisions on restoring taste and flavour and include tomatoes in the list of fruits and vegetables used to produce fruit juices.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I voted in favour of the report because, in my opinion, it entails a clear improvement on the current situation for consumers. Ingredients must be stated clearly and misleading designations must be avoided. The best solution is, of course, the production of our own juices according to our own recipes. I consider a review of efficiency in five years to be reasonable.

  Anja Weisgerber (PPE), in writing. – (DE) In the European Parliament, we have been fighting for safe, high-quality foodstuffs for many years. The text that we have voted on today provides anything but this, as it waters down the current standards for the quality of fruit juices in Europe. Therefore, I was unable to vote in favour of the compromise package today. However, I would also like to express my criticism of the negotiation process.

It is unacceptable for the opinion of the lead committee to be disregarded to a large extent in the compromise package. The European Parliament fought long and hard to be given equal legislative powers. We must also exercise this responsibility in the negotiations for the good of the citizens of Europe. In the interests of these citizens, I would have liked the result of the vote to have been different today.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) Better information for consumers regarding the content of fruit juices, in particular, the sugar content, is urgently needed. Above all, groups of consumers with special requirements (children, diabetics, people with a weight problem) must be given particular protection against potentially erroneous information and from being misled. Furthermore, it is important to support the European citrus fruit processing industry by harmonising the directive with international standards. In addition to economic benefits and the creation of jobs, strengthening the European citrus fruit sector would also reduce the high environmental costs caused by the high levels of CO2 released in connection with the import of these fruits from overseas.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. – This report principally concerns updates to the existing legislation for fruit juices. I am nevertheless pleased to have voted for it, as I have worked long and hard for measures to provide greater transparency for consumers in the food and drink that they buy. In order for consumers to be able to make informed choices – on where their food comes from, how it was produced, what it contains or what nutritional or health value it has – they must be given the necessary information in a clear, easy-to-understand way. In this case, that means making sure that what manufacturers label as ‘fruit juice’ is really what consumers understand to be fruit juice and, in particular, distinguishing it from drinks made from concentrate. The updates in this report will provide further clarity for consumers.

Report: Bill Newton Dunn (A7-0246/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. If we look at the environmental impact of phosphates on European waters, we can see that it is a matter of urgency to make drastic reductions in the amount of phosphates and phosphate-derived products in European waters, which is reducing water quality year by year. As there are alternatives to using this compound, we need more environmental awareness on the part of detergent manufacturers as well as the European public themselves in choosing the products they use.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this important resolution on the use of phosphates and other phosphorus compounds in household laundry detergents. The aim of the current Commission proposal for a regulation is to reduce the amount of phosphorus used in detergents in domestic washing machines. Phosphates end up in our water systems, rivers, streams, lakes, and notably the Danube Basin, and the Baltic Sea. Phosphorus encourages the excessive growth of algae, which starves other living organisms of oxygen and can also produce toxins, killing fish, plants, and other species, as well as reducing the quality of the water itself. Therefore, in order to clean up Europe’s water, we should reduce the amount of phosphorus entering it, and should do the same throughout the world. I therefore believe that, above all, we need to encourage people to use biological detergents with minimal phosphate content and set a legal limit on the phosphate content of various household laundry detergents. I therefore wish to call on all EU Member States to immediately set about implementing this regulation and to make every effort to stop phosphates being used on an unjustifiably large scale. Otherwise, rather than leaving future generations with a Baltic Sea, a Danube Basin or other waters with varied flora and fauna, we will leave them with swamps.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) As the use of phosphates is bad for our environment, we must gradually learn how to do without them. This has largely been the case in France since 2007. I have voted in favour of this report because it enables the prohibition of phosphates to be extended to the entire European Union for laundry detergents and dishwasher detergents. Thanks to the European Union, our environment and our health are better protected.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this legislative resolution and welcomed Parliament’s position at first reading. The purpose of the Commission’s proposal for a regulation, amending Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 as regards the use of phosphates and other phosphorus compounds in household laundry detergents, is to reduce the amount of phosphorus used in detergents in domestic washing machines. There is a particularly large amount of phosphorus in domestic laundry detergents and it ends up in our water systems, rivers, streams, lakes, and notably the Danube Basin, and the Baltic Sea. This results in eutrophication – the excessive growth of algae, which starves other living organisms of oxygen and can also produce toxins, killing fish, plants and other species, as well as reducing the quality of the water itself. The Commission’s proposal is aimed at setting limitations on the amount of phosphates and other phosphorus compounds used in detergents and ensuring that the planned phosphate ban is not easy to circumvent. I agree that it is appropriate to extend the limitations on the use of phosphates and other phosphorus compounds in household laundry detergents to household automatic dishwasher detergents and to include these in the proposal for a regulation.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report drafted by Mr Newton Dunn because safeguarding water quality is a key element in a healthy living environment. I think that innovation must be encouraged with regard to the chemical substances used in detergents. At the same time, technologies need to be developed on a long-term basis, designed to recover phosphorus from waste water. Given the long life cycle these substances have, measures are needed to mitigate their adverse impact on the water table and marine life. The use of phosphates in detergents must be gradually phased out, supported by progress assessments, as part of an accelerated process of developing green substitutes. I should emphasise the duty to inform consumers properly about the chemical composition of detergents. In this regard, references to recycling and environmental hazards will raise the public’s level of awareness in this area.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Detergents represent the third most important source of waste phosphates in surface waters, after agriculture and sewage. Phosphates are used in detergents in order to reduce water hardness and to improve washing. They are extremely harmful to the ecological balance of lake and river water, and particularly harmful to aquatic life. Indeed, these phosphates promote the growth of algae which kill other aquatic species by depriving them of oxygen. Thus, the vote for a directive which aims to limit the use of phosphates represents one step in our struggle to improve water quality and achieve sustainable development. One step only, because this text at the moment only concerns the quantity of phosphates per wash and will not apply to dishwashers until 2015.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report, which seeks to reduce the amount of phosphates used mainly in detergents in domestic washing machines. Indeed, phosphates damage the already delicate and precarious balance in our ecosystem.

These substances end up in our water systems, rivers, lakes and streams, helping living organisms, such as algae, to flourish, a process leading to eutrophication, which starves other living organisms of oxygen. This phenomenon produces toxins, partly responsible for killing various species of fish.

However, there cannot be a total ban on phosphates, since many come from humans. Nevertheless, their use can be reduced, for example, by including a smaller amount in domestic laundry detergents and automatic dishwashing machine detergents. Moreover, I support the proposal to encourage the use of alternative detergents containing minimum levels of phosphates which already occupy a broad and growing share of the EU market by means of harmonised legislation which will encourage third countries to reduce the level of phosphorus in water, with a view to a future agreement.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) When we talk about household laundry detergents and those used in dishwashers, there must be a balance struck between the substances used in detergents to ensure their effectiveness and the relevant substances’ environmental impact. The use of phosphates and phosphorus compounds poses a risk of ecosystem degradation and promotes the growth of algae, which is a risk that needs to be managed. The agreement which has been reached strikes such a balance through the restrictions that have been introduced on the content of phosphates in both laundry and dishwasher detergents, especially by imposing a time limit on their use.

The obvious upshot of restricting the phosphate content is to promote innovation and the marketing of detergents which are just as effective, but with a less harmful environmental impact. We must allow the time needed to develop replacement products of this kind. This is why I give my full support to the solution which has been reached for dishwasher detergents, because the restriction comes into force in 2017, which leaves enough time not only to develop new products, but also for the Commission to draft its report so that we can see whether the proposed limit is appropriate.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Phosphates alter the natural cycle of water systems such as rivers, lakes and streams. In Europe, the Baltic and the Danube basin have been worst affected by the increased use of phosphates, particularly from washing machines and dishwashers. With ever-increasing quantities of this element found in waters, fast-growing plants such as algae are tending to proliferate, infesting other living organisms, depriving them of oxygen, producing toxins, killing fish and plants and reducing water quality: eutrophication. Unlike detergents for hand washing, there are no phosphate-free formulae for dishwasher detergents. As the Commission is setting a date for the introduction of limitations on phosphate content, we will see greater investment in innovation which will accelerate the transition to phosphate-free formulae.

At the same time, the Commission will be making sufficient time available in advance to reduce the negative impact this will have on manufacturers, and will also use a regulation to harmonise the various national level rules. I therefore support Mr Newton Dunn’s report on the use of phosphates and related products in detergents.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the amendment to the regulation on the use of phosphates and other phosphorus compounds in household laundry detergents. One of the regulation’s main objectives is to reduce the amount of phosphorus used in detergents in domestic washing machines. The Commission has opted for a regulation instead of a directive to harmonise the various national rules more effectively. The quantity of phosphorus which gets into the water on our continent and even throughout the world should be reduced in order to clean up Europe’s water. Phosphorus from household laundry detergents makes a significant contribution to the direct presence of phosphorus in water channels. This is why I welcome the Commission’s proposal.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I think that manufacturers should be prevented from confusing consumers with product attributes which are actually imposed by EU legislation. I believe that the phosphate-free claim should not be allowed for product categories for which the ban on phosphates is already in force.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The marine environment and the inland waterways of Europe are heavily polluted by the phosphates contained in laundry and dishwasher detergents. Phosphates, when they are unfortunately discharged into waterways or the sea, promote the growth of algae which are harmful for aquatic life. That is why we must reduce as much as possible the amount of phosphorus authorised in washing powders so that we can preserve European marine environments. From 2017, European consumers will benefit from more environmentally friendly cleaning products.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this report, which will allow a considerable reduction in the use of phosphates in detergents. This measure will contribute to the French environmental ‘Grenelle’, or roundtable, and the European policy for preserving wildlife by encouraging the use of more environmentally friendly products.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Today, I voted in favour of this report, which stipulates that detergents used for washing machines should henceforth no longer contain phosphates. It should be remembered that phosphates are used in detergents in order to reduce water hardness and to improve washing. However, when they are discharged into lakes and rivers, they promote the growth of algae which kill other aquatic species by depriving them of oxygen (detergents are the third most important source of phosphates discharged into surface waters, after agriculture and sewage, and washing powder is the greatest source of phosphates in the detergents sector). From January 2013, phosphorus compounds used in detergents for washing machines will no longer be able to exceed 0.5 g per wash. These rules will be extended to dishwashers from 2015. These new rules – and I am delighted – will undoubtedly improve water quality and protect aquatic life, which is attacked by phosphates discharged into wastewater.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the use of phosphates and other phosphorus compounds in household laundry detergents, since it contains rules that will eliminate phosphates not only from laundry detergents, but also from dishwasher detergents: a great help towards preserving the quality of water and of the environment within the European Union.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Union is known for its highly detailed legislation regarding the most varied fields of production. The aim of this regulation is often to protect consumers and, at other times, the environment and natural resources, as is the case with this regulation on the use of phosphates in household laundry detergents.

While I recognise that such protection is desirable, I must reiterate that imposing restrictions concerning the use of phosphates on the manufacturers of household laundry detergents will make sense only if the same rules also prevent the entry into the EU of imported detergents that violate these very same rules. We cannot go on demanding more from our manufacturers and industries without imposing similar rules for imported products.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The aim of the current Commission proposal for a regulation is to reduce the amount of phosphorus used in detergents for household washing machines. Phosphates affect water systems, rivers, streams and lakes, causing their eutrophication: that is, an excessive growth of algae which starves other living organisms of oxygen and can also produce toxins, killing fish, plants and other species, as well as reducing the quality of the water itself. Alternatives to phosphates in detergents do exist and, particularly with household laundry detergents, the trend is towards phosphate-free formulations. However, there are also technologies using phosphonates (containing phosphorus, but in much smaller amounts), and, at the moment, these stand in the way of a total ban on phosphorus. Even so, it is essential to set a limit for the maximum amounts of phosphorus that can be used without causing the eutrophication of water systems, rivers, streams and lakes. The Commission opted for a regulation instead of a directive, in order to better harmonise different rules at national levels. The harmonisation of the various national rules regarding phosphates and other phosphate compounds will improve the free circulation of household laundry detergents within the internal market.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The main focus of this report is on the problem of the excessive amount of phosphates and phosphorus compounds from household detergents, which can result in the eutrophication of water channels, rivers and seas: that is, the excessive growth of algae and other fast-developing plants, which markedly reduces the oxygen dissolved in the water, so killing aquatic life in these areas and having a significant impact on biodiversity, with serious consequences for water quality and public health.

Limits for the phosphorus content of household laundry and dishwasher detergents are set out in the report: a maximum of 0.5 g per wash in both cases, and with effect from 1 January 2013 and 2015, respectively. However, this regulation does not apply to industrial or institutional detergents. Given that there are ways in which to minimise the environmental impact of this element, and bearing in mind that there are already effective household detergents that contain a much lower concentration of phosphorus, this regulation has contributed positively towards improving the environment, living conditions and public health.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The main focus of this report is the problem of the excessive amount of phosphates and phosphorus compounds from household detergents, which can result in the eutrophication of water channels, rivers and seas: that is, the excessive growth of algae and other fast-developing plants, which markedly reduces the oxygen dissolved in the water, so killing aquatic life in these areas and having a significant impact on biodiversity, with serious consequences for water quality and for public health. Limits for the phosphorus content of household laundry and dishwasher detergents are set out in the report: a maximum of 0.5 g per wash in both cases, and with effect from 1 January 2013 and 2015, respectively.

However, this regulation does not apply to industrial or institutional detergents. Given that there are ways in which to minimise the environmental impact of this element, and bearing in mind that there are already effective household detergents that contain a much lower concentration of phosphorus, this regulation has made a positive contribution towards improving the environment, living conditions and public health.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Phosphates from washing powders have a negative impact on the aquatic environment. They contribute to the faster growth of algae and higher plants, and thus disrupt the ecological balance in our water systems, and particularly in very vulnerable areas such as the Baltic Sea and the Danube basin. In 2010, the Commission submitted an amendment for Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 on detergents introducing a restriction on phosphates and other phosphorus compounds in household washing powders, and the proposal is very welcome. There is, however, another source of phosphates, and that is cleaning products for automatic dishwashers. The general aim of this proposal is, first and foremost, to reduce the negative impacts of these materials on the aquatic environment. At present, however, national legislation in the EU already reflects the trend to move away from using phosphates in detergents, while some Member States are trying to apply restrictions on the use of washing powders, and some states have already introduced restrictions on the use of such products for automatic dishwashers. I welcome the setting of a sensible time period for limits on phosphorous in detergents, which can thereby encourage the necessary innovation, speeding up the transfer to phosphate-free compounds, while at the same time giving enough time to reduce the negative impacts on producers. This will also ensure harmonisation on the internal market.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Thanks to the adoption of the new regulation as regards the use of phosphates in household laundry and dishwasher detergents, the same marketing standards will apply to these products across Europe. By further harmonising this sector, I hope that we shall be able to overcome the fragmentation of the internal market which, until now, has obliged detergent manufacturers to comply with divergent national rules. This is why I believe that with today’s vote, Europe has taken a further step towards the free movement of these goods, while providing, at the same time, greater protection for the environment.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Phosphates are used essentially to improve the effectiveness of washing. They are largely responsible, with nitrates, for the growth of algae and the phenomena of green and red ‘tides’.

I am delighted that the revision of the regulation which limits by a considerable extent the use of phosphates and phosphorus compounds in detergents has been adopted by a large majority.

Even though this has already been the case in France since 2007, I am very happy that the prohibition of phosphates in household laundry detergents in the EU is being extended to all Member States from January 2013. This is a dual victory because, under pressure from the European Parliament, the Member States have extended the phosphates ban to include dishwasher detergents.

Let me remind you that in France, there are 20 million washes a day and that 88 kg of household detergents are used annually by every French household.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The environment is a precious resource and we must do everything in our power to preserve it. France had already prohibited phosphates in washing powders by 2007, but this measure was not implemented throughout Europe. The phosphates found in wastewater contribute to algae growth which causes green and red tides and harms aquatic life. This measure, which will be extended to dishwasher detergents, will apply from January 2013. I am delighted about this because if we take the example of France alone, there are 20 million washes a day and 88 kg of household products are used per household per year.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I welcome today’s vote on this report which will go some way towards reducing harm to the environment.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed the proposal because it aims to amend Council Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 on detergents, setting limits on the use of phosphates and other phosphorus compounds in household laundry detergents in order to reduce the contribution of detergents to the general eutrophication of the EU’s surface waters, taking into account the evaluations and impact assessment carried out by the Commission under Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 648/2004.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported this report which strengthens consumer protection and the preservation of the environment by reducing, to minute quantities, the presence of phosphates in laundry detergents within the European Union. The reduction of the presence of phosphorus compounds in wastewater will help to combat the process of eutrophication (growth of algae) in lakes and rivers.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) I voted today in favour of Mr Newton Dunn’s report on the use of phosphates and other phosphorus compounds in household laundry detergents.

In future, laundry and dishwasher detergents will have to be virtually free of phosphorus. Parliament and the Council also sought to include dishwasher detergents in this legislation, while providing a satisfactory deadline –until 2017 – to industrialists so that they can adapt their products. The deadline for laundry detergents is set at 2013.

Even though provisions such as these have been in force in France since 2007, I am very happy that the prohibition of phosphates is being extended to all Member States, as their discharge into inland waterways leads, along with nitrates, to the proliferation of green algae which asphyxiate fish and destroy other forms of aquatic life.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for tough restrictions on the amount of phosphates that can be used in washing powder, and Socialist MEPs were successful in extending the restrictions to dishwasher detergents. We need to restrict the use of phosphates in detergents because an accumulation of them in the water supply causes excess algae growth. Too much algae causes an imbalance in the ecosystem which can result in ecosystem problems such as dead fish. This has been a big problem in the Baltic Sea, but can affect all rivers, lakes and seas. This is a perfect example of why we need a European Union of twenty-seven nations acting together: you cannot control polluted water in one country if it simply appears in another. We all need the same restrictions. Eutrophication is the unhealthy growth of plants leading to an increase in bacteria and lack of oxygen which results in dead fish and, in certain areas of the UK, has led to dead pets such as dogs. Phosphates are used in varying amounts in laundry and dishwasher detergents. Areas with hard water need them more than areas with soft water.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I fully agree with the proposal seeking to reduce the amount of phosphorus used in detergents in domestic washing machines. The Commission rightly opted to submit a proposal for a regulation instead of for a directive, since a regulation enables better harmonisation of the different rules in the Member States. I voted in favour.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I welcome this Commission regulation to better harmonise different rules at national level in reducing the amount of phosphorus used in detergents in domestic washing machines by banning phosphates from consumer detergents from July 2013, and consumer automatic dishwashing detergents from January 2017. I voted in favour of this report.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The aim of this proposal adopted by the European Parliament is to reduce the amount of phosphorus in laundry and dishwashing detergents throughout the European Union. In this way, laundry and dishwashing detergents will become more ecological; this is extremely important for protecting the environment, especially the aquatic environment, and for the proper functioning of the internal market for these products.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) Phosphorus, particularly from household detergents such as dishwasher detergents and laundry detergents, makes a significant contribution to the pollution of European water bodies. The phosphates that end up in the water create an excellent nutritive medium for algae and other aquatic plants, which then leads to additional oxygen being removed from the water that other organisms, such as fish, need in order to survive. In the long term, this can lead to the extinction of species, which would cause considerable damage to ecosystems.

The Commission is now considering regulatory measures in order to bring about a reduction in the use of the substance by manufacturers of detergents containing phosphorus. I voted in favour of the report, because I agree with the rapporteur that dishwasher detergents should also be included in the proposal, as, like washing machines, dishwashers have now almost become standard appliances in all households.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) Household agents such as dishwasher or laundry detergents contain phosphorus. This substance softens the water, thus enabling more efficient cleaning. However, phosphorus can have enormous detrimental effects if it ends up in our inland water bodies, such as rivers and lakes. The situation is particularly serious in the Danube Basin. The problem is that phosphorus promotes the growth of algae and other aquatic plants, which, in turn, results in the removal of essential oxygen from the water that is needed by fish and other animals in order to survive. In the medium and long term, many fish species and aquatic organisms are threatened with extinction as a result of the pollution of the water with phosphorus and the ecological balance in the water bodies will be disrupted. The present proposal aims to reduce the amount of phosphorus in household agents, which should, in any case, include dishwasher detergents. I have therefore voted in favour of the report.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for Mr Newton Dunn’s report on the use of phosphates and other phosphorus compounds in household laundry detergents since it reduces the maximum levels of these substances in detergents. Its general aim is to ensure greater consumer safety and environmental protection because these substances can be, and often are, harmful. Pollution of groundwater and various kinds of household accidents are evidence of this. I therefore believe that each Member State must adapt to the new standards as soon as possible by reducing phosphate content as required by the amendment to the regulation in question.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report approves new laws aiming to reduce the amount of phosphorus in laundry and dishwashing detergents throughout the European Union. The aim is to protect the environment, especially the aquatic environment, and the proper functioning of the internal market for these products. In southern Europe, the water is harder and detergents generally contain more phosphates. As the Commission agrees, Portugal is one of the countries that stand to gain most from the change to phosphate-free detergents. For these reasons, I voted for this report.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The different national legislation across the EU on ending the use of phosphates in detergents has led to piecemeal harmonisation in this area at European level, resulting in fragmentation of the internal market in detergents, with different Member States providing for different policies and laws. On the one hand, the Commission’s proposal for a regulation aims to reduce the use of phosphorus in detergents, thereby limiting pollution of our water systems, rivers, streams and lakes, and, on the other, it aims to put in place harmonised rules for the Member States at EU level. With the ultimate aim of cleaning up Europe’s water and promoting an agreement with third countries on reducing phosphorus content in detergents, and since I agree with all the amendments, I voted in favour of the proposal.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Phosphorus helps life, algae and other forms of plant life to flourish, thereby causing eutrophication of the water. Phosphates are used in detergents to counteract hardness in water so as to allow efficient cleaning and enhance the detergents’ cleaning performance.

Some Member States already have restrictions in place for household laundry detergents, with a few also introducing restrictions for ADW (automatic dishwashing machine) detergents. However, legislation is not harmonised at EU level, the internal market for detergents is fragmented, and problems are arising which the EU is tackling in an attempt to sign agreements with Member States on reducing the phosphorus content in household laundry and dishwasher detergents as part of the regional initiatives to clean up water, such as the HELCOM Baltic Sea action plan and the EU strategy for the Danube region.

The inclusion of ADW detergents in the regulation may contribute not only to accelerating the campaign against eutrophication, but also to the loss of jobs in SMEs which make phosphate-rich ADW detergents and do not yet possess the knowledge and technologies required to make them phosphate-free. Since there are no statistics on the number of jobs at risk, I call on the Commission to devise a study for this purpose.

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Phosphates affect water channels and water systems, encouraging the fast development of algae and other plants, leading to their eutrophication, and consequently the death of various native species, by reducing the amount of oxygen available and/or possibly by producing toxins. Detergents are largely responsible for introducing phosphate into the aquatic environment, and there are now alternatives to the use of phosphates in detergents. This report greatly limits the amount of phosphates in household laundry detergents. It even calls for a study to be conducted into the feasibility and potential impacts of a phosphate ban for industrial and institutional detergents. These measures better protect rivers, lakes and marine habitats, as well as the entire ecosystem and all wildlife, and that is why I have voted in favour.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In the words of the rapporteur, phosphates, which are used in laundry detergents, ‘help life to flourish’, and speed up the natural growth of plants. As such, some of Europe’s water resources now contain an excessive amount of algae and other organisms, which ultimately use up the resources they share with fish and plants, whose survival depends on these very resources. The Commission proposal for a regulation therefore aims to reduce the legal amount of phosphates used in detergents of this kind. At first glance, this proposal seems to merit approval, since it appears to offer significant environmental benefits for a small sacrifice. I therefore voted in favour, but there are two points that I am bound to emphasise: on the one hand, the need for a study to research the economic impact of this measure and the time required by industry to adapt to the new rules and, on the other, the need to adopt a technical solution that can satisfy the needs of consumers. In this context, as the rapporteur has already mentioned, I would underline that since the water in southern Europe is harder, there is a greater need to resort to phosphates for an effective wash.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I am one of the four MEPs who abstained from voting on Mr Newton Dunn’s report on the use of phosphates and other phosphorus compounds in household laundry detergents. Although I agree with the environmental aim of banning phosphates (which are powerful cleaners but also pollutants) in dishwasher detergents from 1 January 2017, I also feel compelled to emphasise the pitfalls contained in this legislation. Let me express my reservations on two points that are symptomatic of the current state of European regulation. The first is that this agreement does not make adequate allowances for SMEs that manufacture phosphates. For example, near my home town, Liège, Prayon employs 780 staff and is, quite rightly, concerned about the negative impact that this legislation will have on its business. My second reservation is based on common sense: 90% of water eutrophication is caused by other products, not by dishwasher detergents. Therefore, the pollution will continue with or without those detergents. Europe needs to make a great leap forward by legislating on the real issues, not tinkering around the edges: applying the Waste Water Directive more effectively, combating intensive farming and reducing food waste, which are the real culprits when it comes to the eutrophication of European waters.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In today’s plenary, we voted on Mr Newton Dunn’s report on the use of phosphates in household laundry detergents. A reduction in the percentage of phosphoric acid used in household products is a decisive step on the way to controlling and monitoring the development of methods aimed at curbing toxic and polluting manufacturing processes.

The discharge of phosphorus into the sea leads to the excessive growth of several types of plant life that cause a variety of marine animal and other plant species to die. Fighting the excessive use of phosphates in household laundry detergents, fertilisers and white goods means combating the degenerative cycle that the use of non-environmentally friendly products causes to the environment and people’s health, in an effective and concrete manner.

These objectives can be achieved through the promotion of alternative formulas that reduce phosphate-rich washing and provisions that harmonise the various national regulations on the subject. In addition to this, we should establish agreements with third countries so that Europe pledges, within a set timeframe, to reduce the use of phosphorus substances and to encourage the market’s adaptation to new statutory regulations that are more friendly to the European environment.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The harm done by phosphate waste in our seas has been proven. Sadly, the seas are in real danger from the all-too-familiar phenomenon of ‘green tides’. Full of nutrients, the waste basically triggers algal blooms, which release toxins that endanger marine flora and fauna but also alter the water quality. A not insignificant proportion of these phosphates are generated by discharges of the detergents used in washing machines and dishwashers. Given that alternatives to phosphates can be used in cleaning products, action was urgently needed. That is why I supported Mr Newton Dunn’s report. I value his commitment to setting a ceiling for phosphate levels in products and I particularly welcome his efforts to extend the scope of the regulation not only to laundry detergents – as initially proposed by the Commission – but also to detergents for dishwashers. I also support his call for a future evaluation on extending the scope to include industrial and institutional detergents. I will close by saying that it was very wise to opt for a regulation so as to ensure consistent implementation within the single market.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The purpose of the current Commission proposal for a regulation is to reduce the amount of phosphorus used in detergents in domestic washing machines. The Commission opted for a regulation instead of a directive in order to better harmonise different rules at national levels. Phosphates end up in our water systems, rivers, streams, lakes, and notably the Danube Basin, and the Baltic Sea. Phosphorus helps life to flourish. As a result, algae and other fast-developing plant life proliferate where there is an increased source of phosphorus in water. That results in eutrophication – the excessive growth of algae which starves other living organisms of oxygen and can also produce toxins – killing fish, plants and other species, as well as reducing the quality of the water itself. Therefore, to clean up Europe's water, it is desirable to reduce the amount of phosphorus reaching the water of our continent – and indeed throughout the world.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We can safeguard European waters not least through small habitual actions. With the adoption of this important report on reducing the amount of phosphorus used in domestic washing machine detergents, we are making a valuable contribution to the reduction of pollution in European water systems. Phosphorus from domestic laundry detergents, used to counteract the hardness of water, is a significant contributor to this type of ecological imbalance. A reduction in the amount of phosphorus used in household products at a European level will therefore help to protect our waters and will facilitate trade agreements with third countries in regional initiatives to clean up water, such as the Baltic Sea action plan and the Danube region strategy. The protection of Europe’s waters is a priority as well as a duty we owe to future generations.

  Amalia Sartori (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I fully support Mr Newton Dunn’s report on the use of phosphates and other phosphorus compounds in household laundry detergents as, despite its highly technical content, I think that it concerns a subject that is part of everyone’s daily life. While these substances are needed in household detergents to ensure a basic standard of hygiene and health safety, if present in too high a quantity, they can be hazardous for the environment and, in particular, can cause the eutrophication of our waters. Eutrophication promotes the excessive growth of algae and other plants, which flourish disproportionately, starving other living organisms of oxygen and producing toxins that are dangerous for our waters. Every year, 16 000 tonnes of phosphates are spilled into the Baltic Sea alone, and the cost of removing the algae that periodically accumulates is fairly high. I think that we must find a solution by looking into substitutes for phosphates that are equally effective but not as harmful to the environment.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The protection of the environment and the promotion of sustainable policies feature amongst the European Union’s priorities. Today’s vote aims specifically at reducing the amount of phosphorus used in detergents in domestic washing machines.

Phosphates often end up in our water systems, rivers, streams and lakes, causing the excessive proliferation of algae and other plant species. This excessive growth of algae starves other living organisms of oxygen and can also produce toxins, killing fish and other species, as well as reducing the quality of the water itself. In order to prevent this damage to the environment, we must reduce the amount of phosphorus used in detergents.

At the same time, we must consider the implications for the small and medium-sized enterprises that produce household automatic dishwasher detergents, who do not yet possess the know-how to make them phosphate free, in order to ensure that job losses can be avoided.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The aim of the Commission proposal is to reduce the amount of phosphorus used in household laundry detergents and to better harmonise the different rules at national level. Phosphates affect water systems and, in order to clean up Europe’s water, it is desirable to reduce the amount of phosphorus reaching the water of our continent. Fertilisers contain the largest amount of phosphates in the European Union, but they are also found in household dishwasher detergents, in order to combat water hardness and enable efficient cleaning, as well as for other functions to enhance cleaning performance. However, water hardness varies depending on the region, which results in different phosphate formulae among the Member States. It is important to establish rules for reducing the amount of phosphate and to take account of the impact on the different Member States and the various existing conditions, with a view to meeting the targets set.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I voted in favour of the report because laundry and dishwasher detergents have to be virtually phosphate-free in future. Phosphates are the main reason for rampant algal growth in water bodies and for the death of fish. Everywhere where phosphates can be replaced, which is in almost all areas, they must actually be replaced. Elsewhere, the quantities must be drastically reduced. A regulation that is now to be applied by all Member States will create certainty for the industry and consumers.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) This proposal for a regulation is intended to lay down the maximum amount of phosphorus to be contained in household laundry detergents. The background to this is the fact that phosphorus contained in laundry and dishwasher detergents is currently responsible for a large proportion of the pollution of our water bodies. Although there are already phosphate-free liquid laundry detergents, which are increasingly being sold on the market, for dishwashing machines, the market does not currently offer any alternative. Therefore, it is recommended that a specific date be set in the Phosphorus Limitation Regulation in order to create an incentive for the necessary innovation. I voted in favour.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. – I am very pleased that this report on limiting the use of phosphates in household detergents in order to combat eutrophication of water bodies in the natural environment has been passed by Parliament. Eutrophication, which causes the accelerated growth of bacteria, algae and other plant life in a water body, can be a serious environmental problem, killing higher sea life and plants and upsetting the balance of local ecosystems. When eutrophication affects sources of drinking water, there are also risks to public health. Nevertheless, this can be reduced or avoided by limiting the use of phosphates in the detergents we use and switching to alternative ingredients, and these are the aims of this legislation. I am pleased that, because of the input of my Socialist and Democrat colleagues on the ENVI committee, the report was strengthened to include dishwasher detergents, a significant source of phosphates.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. – (PL) In an increasing number of households, the standard appliances include not only a washing machine, but also a dishwasher. We are therefore using considerably more detergents containing large quantities of phosphates. They are discharged into water courses and then into reservoirs, which contributes to excessive nutrient loading. Rapporteur Bill Newton Dunn rightly points out that we should do all we can to reduce the risk of eutrophication, which is associated with a reduction in water transparency, the formation of algae surface coatings and the large-scale perishing of aquatic fauna due to insufficient oxygen and light. Overgrown reservoirs cause a significant deterioration in water taste and smell, which rules them out not only as places of sport or recreation but also, and above all, as a source of drinking water.

The imposition of weight restrictions on the amount of phosphate that may be contained in a dose of detergent is an effective approach which forces manufacturers to market more concentrated, compact products. A solution worth considering would be the use of detergents containing a quantity of phosphate dependent on the hardness of the water in a given area, or the introduction of the large-scale production of phosphate-free detergents. Member States should also make every effort to introduce technologies and appropriate equipment to recover phosphorus, given the rarity of its occurrence as an element.

Report: Carl Haglund (A7-0394/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report because the agreement, which, in practice, is intended to last barely another two months, has opened up Moroccan waters to European fleets and it is important that this agreement should be kept in force, not least for Portuguese fishermen. Naturally, all agreements have room for improvement, and this one is no exception. It will therefore be necessary in future to adapt the agreement in accordance with the work carried out by the European Parliament’s Legal Service, so as to widen the range of its benefits to all those involved.

  Marta Andreasen (EFD), in writing. – I voted against this resolution on the EU-Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement (FPA) because of economic, legal, environmental and moral reasons. The EU and Morocco concluded a FPA on 22 May 2006. An outside consultancy prepared an ex-post evaluation report, on behalf of the European Commission, which evaluates the first four years of the FPA with Morocco. On a general note, it states that ‘the results of this first four-year period of the new Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and Morocco are generally rather disappointing’ as the agreement fails to stabilise the EU market and to develop the fisheries sector. Moreover, the population of Western Sahara, the Sahrawi people who suffer under the unlawful and unacceptable occupation of their country by Morocco, does not benefit from this agreement. Morocco has no right to dispose of the natural resources of a territory which does not fall under its sovereignty. For more than 30 years, the Western Sahara’s problem has been dealt with by the United Nations, but without any progress whatsoever. By rejecting the FPA, the European Parliament sent a strong signal to the Moroccan Government that the EU cannot support an agreement with a country which violates human rights.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I voted against the extension of the EU-Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement for several reasons. The first is that we are facing a clear violation of international law. Morocco is selling the natural resource of an occupied territory. According to the basics of international law, it would be able to do so only if the agreement were in accordance with the benefits and wishes of the local Sahrawi people. The Moroccan Government has failed to show any such benefits or wishes. In addition to that, of all the EU’s ongoing bilateral agreements, the deal with Morocco is the worst.

The rapporteur of the recommendation, along with an independent evaluation produced by the Commission, plus the opinions of the Development and Budget Committees and the assessment of authoritative UN experts, concur that the agreement is a waste of taxpayers’ money, it is ecologically and environmentally unsustainable and it has no significant macro-economic effect on either the EU or Morocco. For all these reasons, I strongly believe that extending this agreement undermines the EU’s credibility as a defender of international law and as an impartial and equal institution.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) By rejecting the renewal of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and Morocco, we are sending a negative signal to our Mediterranean neighbour. Under the agreement, 10 Member States were entitled to fish in Moroccan waters in return for which they paid financial compensation to support Morocco in developing fisheries policies. I concur with my colleague, Mr Cadec, a member of the Committee on Fisheries and responsible for producing the opinion of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), who fears that this will mean the end of any new protocol.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I regret the European Parliament’s final position on the legislative resolution of 14 December 2011 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial compensation provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco. I also regret the added opposition to the provisional renewal of the agreement, with some objections being purely political in nature and nothing to do with fishing. I recognise the excellent work done by my colleague, Alain Cadec, MEP, who is a member of the Committee on Fisheries.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I am opposed to the extension of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco. The European Commission’s assessment of the previous agreement, on which a one-year extension has been proposed, is one of the worst ever made on a fisheries agreement.

When put to the test, the agreement is shown to have low cost effectiveness both in terms of its benefit for the economy and for Moroccan maritime infrastructure. Only a small part of the allocated funds have been used to support the Moroccan fisheries sector and the agreement has been shown to be wasteful and has failed to reach the objective of facilitating economic and social development in this North African country.

Therefore, I voted against the proposal in plenary in line with the negative assessment of the agreement in question.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Now more than ever, Morocco needed the European Union’s support, not only in the context of the ongoing Arab Spring, but also, more specifically, because Morocco is one of our closest partners. This agreement was needed because it allowed 10 Member States to fish in Moroccan waters in return for which they paid financial compensation that was used to develop Morocco’s national fisheries policies. The European Parliament cannot and must not abandon the EU’s longstanding partner. Instead, we should now be doing our utmost to consolidate the partnership agreements with Morocco and propose new agreements based on a new approach in order to support the democratic process that is under way.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted against maintaining the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and Morocco for two basic reasons. The agreement conflicts with the rights of the Sahrawi and with international law. The sovereignty of Morocco in the Western Sahara has never been recognised under international law. As, therefore, Morocco is illegally occupying the said area, it has no jurisdiction over its natural resources and, hence, it does not have the right to negotiate agreements against the will and without the opinion of the inhabitants. Moreover, in order for economic activities exploiting natural resources in non-independent territories to be in keeping with international law, said activities must benefit the population of those territories and must be in keeping with its will, which is not the case here. Furthermore, there are serious ecological problems. Many of the marine species in the area are subject to over-exploitation. Some stocks are at risk of complete exhaustion, basically as a result of overfishing by European vessels. Finally, the report evaluating the agreement states that it has not contributed effectively to the development of the fisheries sector and that it does not meet the specific needs of Morocco, either technically or financially. Therefore, not only will suspending it have no serious financial impact; it will also restore the stand that the Union should take.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the recommendation on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a Protocol between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco setting out the fishing opportunities and financial compensation provided for in the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco. The Protocol sets out the fishing opportunities offered to European Union vessels based on the surplus available, as well as the financial contribution paid by the EU for access rights and for support given to the sector. Another function of the Protocol is to provide a general partnership framework between the two parties, within which a sustainable fisheries policy is to be developed. The fishing industry has been an important economic pillar for Morocco for a very long time, with this country being considered the largest fish market in Africa.

  Rachida Dati (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) As Morocco has made a commitment to sustainable fisheries, and given that hundreds of European fishermen and thousands of Moroccan workers are dependent on the industry, I voted in favour of extending the Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and Morocco. Today’s vote against extending the agreement is highly regrettable. There is a danger that the result will now compromise negotiations on the future agreement that the European Union needs, not to mention the negative signal that it sends to one of our most reliable partners.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) By refusing its assent to the EU-Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement, the European Parliament has done a disservice to our bilateral relations and, more particularly, to the interests of the Iberian fishing industry. The European Parliament has acted irresponsibly towards a friendly country in which His Majesty King Mohammed VI has been promoting a far-reaching and peaceful transition to democracy, broadly supported by a referendum. What is all the more incomprehensible is that this was done in the same week as the plenary adopted a report on the revised European Neighbourhood Policy for which I was rapporteur and which aims to deepen our relations with neighbouring countries. It is all the more shocking that Portuguese members, in voting as they did, put third-party interests before the national economy. I voted in favour, and therefore profoundly and sincerely regret the outcome.

  Proinsias De Rossa (S&D), in writing. – The proposal to extend the current agreement is unacceptable because of its low cost-benefit ratio for the EU, the excessive exploitation of demersal stocks, the very limited contribution of EU funds to the development of local fisheries policy and, very importantly, the failure to demonstrate how it benefits the Sahrawi people. The European Commission should begin the process of negotiating a new economically, environmentally and socially beneficial and sustainable agreement. EU funds for the development of local fisheries policy must be used more efficiently and be more closely monitored. The Commission must guarantee that the new agreement fully respects international law and benefits all affected local populations, including the Sahrawi people.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because this Fisheries Partnership Agreement is about to expire and to be succeeded by a new agreement more favourable to environmental sustainability, which is already in the process of being drawn up. For this reason, it does not seem right to me that the bilateral relations between these two regions be plunged into crisis and that the rights of European fishermen be put at risk.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Once again, some fellow Members have sought to exploit the EU-Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement. The irresponsibility of such behaviour, which this House unfortunately backed, is bound to affect the lives of shipowners and fishermen, some of whom are Portuguese, who fish in Moroccan waters and who are about to be prevented from doing so any longer.

At a time when employment is in decline, it is impossible not to condemn this resolution, which does not resolve anything and even creates unnecessary tensions between neighbours and partners who have everything to gain by remaining so. I can only regret this unfortunate incident and hope that the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco will be able to regain the trust that has been lost and initiate new ways to establish a sound, constructive and fruitful relationship.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Mr Haglund, concerns the draft Council decision on the extension of the Protocol between the European Union (EU) and the Kingdom of Morocco setting out the fishing opportunities in Moroccan waters and the corresponding financial compensations. The rapporteur believes that this draft decision represents a bad bargain for the EU and recommends its rejection on the following grounds: the financial compensations under the previous agreement have not been spent on renovating the Moroccan fishing fleet; the fishing of endangered species has still been allowed; international law has not always been respected; and not all local populations, particularly the Sahrawi people, have equally benefited. Considering that it is a matter only of extending a current partnership agreement up to 27 February 2012, that 119 fishing permits for Community vessels (most of them from the southern Member States, particularly Spain and Portugal) are at stake, that we are dealing with a very fragile sector which needs all the help it can get in order to survive, and that negotiations for a new agreement are in progress, I am voting for this draft resolution, despite the rapporteur’s opposite position.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We welcome the rejection of the extension of this agreement. As we have always said, the agreement that the Commission is now proposing to extend is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that an agreement signed between the European Union and Morocco provides for the exploitation of a natural resource of Western Sahara, a territory illegally occupied by Morocco since 1975. Morocco’s sovereignty over the territory of Western Sahara has never been recognised by any country to this day. With this agreement – contrary both to international law and to various UN resolutions on this issue – the EU does implicitly recognise it. This has therefore been the only solution compatible with international law. The Commission ought to take it very seriously. Its attitude has been deplorable throughout the entire process. It should be noted that Parliament can exercise its right of consent only two months before the scheduled expiry date for the end of this extension, which, in practical terms, started in February.

The fact that there is no longer a legal agreement in place to protect fishing activities in that area, as there has been for the past 10 months, now puts us in a difficult position. The Commission is now obliged to rectify the serious issues associated with this agreement, and which we have been denouncing for a long time, in any future agreements.

  Carlo Fidanza (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted against the one-year extension of the Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement with Morocco, as this Protocol presents a number of problems in terms of both its benefit to the economy and its ecological implications. I would also like to raise the question of Western Sahara. The agreement gives rise to major ecological concerns: we know that of the 11 demersal stocks fished in Moroccan waters, five appear over-exploited, which casts doubt over the fishing activities of European vessels. This fact causes us to question whether the fisheries agreement limited to surplus stocks is being honoured, considering that these are being almost totally depleted. The last and by no means least important point is the widespread problem of discards, catches of sharks and probable catches of marine mammals by trawlers. Fishing in the waters off Western Sahara is a source of controversy, as Article 73 of the UN Charter defines Western Sahara as a Non-Self-Governing Territory, and Morocco has never been accepted as the official administering power by the UN. Exploitation activities in Western Sahara should, in my opinion, only proceed if they are beneficial for the local population, and it seems that the agreement does not, in its current wording, allow for this.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We welcome the rejection of the extension of the EU-Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement. The rejection highlights the impracticability of this agreement, both from the economic point of view (it is one of the most expensive fisheries agreements that the EU has with a third country) and from the ecological point of view, bearing in mind that the various fish stocks are in a fragile state of conservation. However, we believe the most serious issue raised by this agreement is its implicit recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, over its waters, and over its fishing resources.

From 1975, when the International Court of Justice was established, until the present day, Moroccan sovereignty over the territory of Western Sahara has never been recognised. The EU-Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement is illegal and flouts all the relevant UN General Assembly Resolutions and international law. We therefore believe that any future protocol to be negotiated by the Commission must rectify the serious problems associated with past and present protocols.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The Kingdom of Morocco is an African country with almost 32 million inhabitants. Morocco is currently a privileged partner of the EU and the largest recipient of EU funds under the European Neighbourhood Policy. The EU is Morocco’s most important export market, its leading public and private external investor, and its most important tourism market. The fishing industry has been an important economic pillar for Morocco for a long time and the country is considered to be the largest fish market in Africa, with the fishing sector accounting for an estimated 400 000 jobs. The European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco concluded a Fisheries Partnership Agreement (FPA) on 22 May 2006 which entered into force on 28 February 2007. On the basis of a mandate from the Council, the European Commission conducted negotiations with the Kingdom of Morocco on the renewal of the Protocol to the FPA by one year, following the expiry of the initial Protocol. A one-year extension is now provisionally applied, but the Council still needs the consent of the European Parliament to adopt the new Protocol. I firmly believe that it is right for the European Parliament to grant consent and, at the same time, to authorise its President to convey this position to the Council and the Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Kingdom of Morocco.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Today’s vote sends out two strong messages. This Parliament is no longer willing to sign off fisheries agreements regardless of their impact on citizens in countries outwith the EU. And this House respects the right to self-determination – a right which the Moroccan Government has not given to the people of Western Sahara. Morocco has no right, under international law, to sell the natural resources of Western Sahara. It follows, therefore, that the EU should not be paying Morocco for fishing rights in the waters off Western Sahara.

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE), in writing. – (LV) I voted for the extension of the present agreement because up to now, European fishermen have operated successfully in the waters of the Kingdom of Morocco and this practice should be continued. The desire of the Kingdom of Morocco to receive payment for the fact that European fishermen have the right to use the natural resources of Morocco is justified and should be supported. The European Union pays EUR 36.1 million annually for the right to fish in the waters of the Kingdom of Morocco, which constitutes a tiny amount of the total EU budget compared to the jobs gained by European fishing fleets, contributing to the economic development of EU Member States. Unfortunately, Parliament has today rejected the extension of the agreement and asked the Commission to open negotiations on a new agreement. This is alarming, because the current agreement expires in February 2012.

This means that after that date, European fishing fleets, which have relied on being able to continue fishing in Moroccan waters, will have to review their plans. This may also mean job losses, which we need least of all at present, when the EU is struggling with the deepest crisis it has ever experienced. I urge the Commission to reopen negotiations with the Kingdom of Morocco as soon as possible, so that we have a new agreement with the majority support of Parliament.

  Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE), in writing. – (LV) I supported the extension of the EU-Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement because it would allow vessels sailing under the Latvian flag to continue fishing in Moroccan waters and provide jobs and tax revenue. Latvian fishing vessels have been fishing in the Central Eastern Atlantic fishing areas, including the waters belonging to the Kingdom of Morocco, since 2004. In 2009 and 2011, there were two Latvian fishing vessels fishing there, and in 2010 there were even three. The total annual catch obtained was 7 667.5 tonnes in 2009, 8 877 tonnes in 2010, and 5 739 tonnes up to November 2011. Together with the catch in the neighbouring waters of the Mauritanian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), this accounts for more than half of Latvia’s total catch. Therefore, it is crucial that these vessels may continue fishing in Moroccan waters.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE), in writing. – (FI) I just voted against the report by Mr Haglund, whom I greatly admire, but then so did he and so did a large number of my fellow Members. Continuing the EU’s Fisheries Partnership Agreement with Morocco would be unthinkable, not just for fish stocks, but also in terms of economics and human rights. The evaluation report ordered by the Commission also came to this conclusion. I do understand the position of some of my fellow Members from Mediterranean countries, where the fishing industry has a financial interest in this matter, but, all the same, the facts do not support the agreement. This is what Parliament and the Committees on Budgets and Development have also said in their statements.

The agreement with Morocco is, in financial terms, the second biggest the EU has (EUR 36.1 million a year). In its evaluation report, the Commission stated, for example, that this agreement is economically the least attractive of all the EU’s trade agreements, as we get back just 65 cents for each euro invested. Fish stocks are, furthermore, fully or overexploited. The agreement is also, in practice, contrary to international law, because the Sahrawi people in Western Sahara will not benefit whatsoever, even though it concerns their territorial waters, rather than those of Morocco, which would not have rights to exploit natural resources in this way.

I would, however, point out that, in voting against the report, I am not voting against Morocco. Cooperation between the EU and Morocco is important in itself, and is engaged in via the neighbourhood policy, as it should be. This is more a matter of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement alone, and about our obligation to examine the extent to which the agreement is in line with sustainable development.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) I supported the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and Morocco. Unfortunately, a large majority of MEPs voted against renewing the protocol on fisheries.

We are sending a very negative signal to Morocco here, at a time when we should be supporting this great country as it has begun the process of democratisation, political and economic reform. Parliament’s no vote is all the more awkward given that the agreement is already in force and is due to expire in February 2012. Under the agreement, 10 Member States were entitled to fish in Moroccan waters in return for which they paid financial compensation that was used to develop Morocco’s national fisheries policies.

In practical terms, this means that 120 European fishing vessels will have to cease their activities in Moroccan waters immediately. At the end of the day, this could mark the end of all partnership agreements with Morocco, which would be a pity, as it would seriously hamper Morocco’s development and the relationship that we have built with the country over the years.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this proposal, which was for a one-year extension of the expired Protocol to the EU-Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement, in order to give the Commission time to establish whether Morocco is in compliance with international law by providing evidence that the EU’s financial contribution is used to benefit the people of Western Sahara.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Haglund’s report. The disappointing results of the four years in which this fisheries agreement has been in force means it is essential that we rethink the terms set in 2006. I agree with the possibility of not extending the current agreement.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – This report proposes a one-year extension of the Protocol to the FPA between the European Community and Morocco. I agree with the rapporteur that this extension could lead to the exploitation of fish stocks and would not provide benefits to the territory of Western Sahara, in whose water the majority of the fishing takes place. Any economic activity related to natural resources should be carried out for the benefit of all of the people of such territories. I therefore voted against this proposal to extend the Protocol to the FPA between the European Community and Morocco.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The resolution proposes extending the European Union’s access to fishing resources in Moroccan waters for one year. Parliament’s vote comes more or less at the end of the extended access period. We are therefore faced with a fait accompli. I object to this procedure and am calling for an investigation to establish the exact status of the stocks that many organisations claim are over-fished. I am also calling on the European Union to support the development of local fishing, rather than financing European vessels’ exploitation of the resources, which is at odds with the interests of the local population.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this regulation and regret the decision by Parliament to refuse the extension of the fisheries agreement between Portugal and Morocco. Several Portuguese vessels are operating in Moroccan territorial waters, and this is having a serious impact on national interests at a time of profound crisis. What is more is that the decision has come at a time when Morocco has introduced reforms for greater democratic openness, particularly following the approval of a new written constitution. The Portuguese vessels used for fishing in Morocco operated under the protection of an agreement signed in 2007 and extended in the following years, but which expired on 28 February. I now expect that the vessels that have paid for their licences, but cannot now exercise their rights, will be duly compensated for the damage caused.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) It is a shame that the report on the Fisheries Partnership Agreement with Morocco has been rejected, even though it was supported by the Committee on Fisheries. I have to dispute certain people’s claims that the agreement offers limited financial benefits. In fact, the accusations made in the extremely negative ex post evaluation report were duly challenged by the Committee on Fisheries. What about the thousands of jobs that have been created on both shores of the Mediterranean? Morocco is a partner on many levels and our rejection of this agreement sends out a very negative signal. If the renewal had been approved, we would have been able to move on and continue to build cordial relationships with our neighbour in the southern Mediterranean. We have therefore taken a seriously retrograde step.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted against extending the agreement for the following reasons:

1. It is not acceptable for this agreement to be debated in Parliament two months prior to its expiry. By voting against it, Parliament has indicated its opposition to this kind of practice.

2. The agreement is not commercially viable for the European Union. I am in favour of signing a fisheries agreement with Morocco, but it must be based on a partnership and beneficial to both sides and, above all, it must be signed in accordance with democratic procedures, in other words, with Parliament’s participation.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) The Fisheries Partnership Agreement with Morocco is not only expensive and dubious from the point of view of international law; it is also inefficient. Although the principle of sustainability from both a socio-economic and environmental perspective should also apply outside the territorial waters of the Member States or the EU, in reality, the situation is, unfortunately, rather different. Moreover, large EU fisheries organisations do not manage to adequately represent the interests of small fishermen and they curry favour with large international corporations. For these reasons, I have voted against this report.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco looks to renew the first fisheries agreement that was reached in 2006 and was valid until February 2011. The agreement allows fishing activities to be undertaken in the waters off the Moroccan coast by a fleet of European fishing vessels, one of which is Italian. In the interests of the European Union, maritime traffic and the fisheries trade, and in view of the importance of relations with non-European countries, I consider it necessary to vote in favour of this partnership agreement.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The external dimension of the common fisheries policy (CFP) and, more specifically, the fisheries partnership agreements with third countries, not only allow Europe’s fleet to enter traditionally frequented external fishing grounds, but are also vital for the acquisition of important fishing products, which help to guarantee the food supply to the European Union, as well as for playing a major part in the economies of third countries. In the particular case of the current agreement, the extension of this Protocol is essential for the EU fleets that are fishing there, especially the Portuguese fleet. It should be remembered that Portuguese vessels had been operating in Moroccan waters for many years thanks, in particular, to the EU-Morocco fisheries agreement, which was in force from 1988 to 1999. Portugal was then banned from operating in Moroccan waters, and had to withdraw several dozen vessels, which had irreversible economic and social consequences for many Portuguese fishing communities. In order to prevent such situations from recurring, and taking account of the aims of the external dimension of the CFP, I am voting for this report.

  Fiorello Provera (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I am opposed to the conclusion of the agreement with Morocco as it will be beneficial neither for Moroccan fishermen nor for European taxpayers. It will not benefit Moroccan fishermen because it will not create new jobs and it will increase the imbalance that already exists between the local fleet and the fishery potential. It will not benefit European taxpayers because they will spend EUR 13.5 million on subsidising the Moroccan fisheries policy without a guarantee that the money will be used in a worthwhile manner. Furthermore, for every euro invested European taxpayers will only gain back EUR 0.65, which is less than half of the average amount generated by similar agreements.