IN THE CHAIR: OTHMAR KARAS
Vice-President

(The sitting opened at 09.00)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the Commission statement on the outcome of the Rio+20 Summit (20-22 June 2012).

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, I may be a bit longer than normal, but Rio was not short either. I would like to start by thanking the Members of the Parliament who, despite many difficulties, decided to join the conference in their personal capacity. I appreciate the exchanges we had during the conference and I am pleased that you can now share your impressions of the complex negotiations with other honourable Members too.

I want to recognise up front that the Rio+20 outcomes document is less ambitious than what the European Union had planned and wanted. However, after long negotiations, the European Union and its Member States decided to support its adoption as a step in the right direction. There are a number of areas where the European Union would have hoped for a more ambitious outcome. This applies, for instance, to setting concrete timelines for the specific commitments in the priority areas, or to institutional aspects.

On the other hand, however, the final outcome still remains close to a range of initial objectives of the EU and, more importantly, it provides a basis for further work in the right direction if properly implemented. But this must be done with a sense of urgency, because the planet and the poorest in the world cannot afford any delays. This is why we decided that it is better to have this agreement than no agreement at all. As you know, the challenges are global as are, in many cases, the solutions and we need to continue working with our partners also in the future.

The outcome document acknowledges the important role of an inclusive green economy in achieving sustainable development and poverty eradication. It is recognised as an important tool for achieving sustainable development for all countries. It will enhance our ability to manage natural resources sustainably, increase resource efficiency and reduce waste. It relates to changing the way we consume and produce today to adapt our economies to the boundaries of our planet and to allow future generations to meet their own needs. Overall support for this was confirmed by a number of countries during months of preparations and by positive references to the green economy in the final statements made by most Heads of State, including Heads of State from the majority of the developing countries.

The document also recognises the need for broader measures of progress to complement GDP in order to have more solid policy decisions, as well as the importance of corporate sustainable reporting. The outcome document provides the necessary basis to turn these words into actions at various levels. At a time when our society suffers widespread unemployment, we are also satisfied that Rio+20 was given a stronger social angle to sustainable development on matters such as decent work, green jobs and social protection floors, thereby enhancing the linkages between its three dimensions.

We also contributed actively to highlighting that democracy, human rights, the rule of law, good governance and gender equality and empowerment of women are indispensable to achieve sustainable development. These are the European values we will never back off from. The fact that these concepts have been made more operational at Rio, for instance, in relation to the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, is important progress.

Concerning civil society and the private sector, the European Union has fought for and secured a good outcome in relation to the fundamental role of civil society and stakeholders in the realisation of sustainable development. We will keep working throughout the next reforms to increase their participation in the decision-making process. In the new UNEP, for instance, we have agreed to ensure the active participation of all relevant stakeholders and to explore new mechanisms to promote transparency and the effective engagement of civil society.

I would also like to highlight that Rio Principle 10 on access to information, public participation in decision making and access to justice has been extended at Rio+20 from environmental matters to sustainable development as a whole. The inclusive green economy can bring fundamental changes to progress towards sustainable development because it will change the economic fabric. We have seen enormous engagement by the private sector in Rio. This gives me hope that the top-down endorsement, even if weaker than we wanted, and the strong bottom-up movement, will actually bring about change faster than we could have hoped for.

The private sector, if given the direction and framework ensuring public goods, can create investment, prosperity and well-being, decent employment and green jobs and help to promote sharing of know-how and development and diffusion of innovative technology. This will be fundamental to the necessary mobilisation of all means of implementation from all sources. This is the key to moving away from focus on the official development assistance approach alone.

This leads us to the means of implementation, and that is also why the European Union has taken the position that first and foremost, each country must take the necessary measures to put in place an enabling environment of domestic policies that is designed to be self-sustaining.

Secondly, progress towards sustainable development entails providing the right financial instruments. We repeated our commitment to official development assistance, but order alone is not the answer. Public and private funding and business expertise should go hand in hand in establishing appropriate financing strategies. Innovative sources of financing should be encouraged and emerging economies should take a stronger role proportionate to their evolving international status.

Thirdly, moving towards more sustainable development also depends on skills, know-how and technology diffusion. In this regard, the European Union research framework programmes are open to all countries, including support for researchers in developing countries. The green economy can also make a real difference in the development and diffusion of green technologies to the countries having most natural resources.

On the goals, targets and SDGs, t he European Union has made efforts to make the text more operational, including by proposing goals and targets with timelines in several areas, as you know. We have not obtained the timelines we sought, with exceptions such as the commitment to achieve sustainable reduction of marine litter by 2025, but the EU has achieved the integration of most of its proposed targets into the main text in the form of express commitments, for example, on future action concerning extending the protection of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

This has reinforced the text to make it more action-orientated. These efforts of the European Union to focus attention on key issues such as sustainable energy, water, oceans, land and biodiversity, food security and resource efficiency, should also bear fruit in the next month in the process to develop sustainable development goals or SDGs.

The decision at Rio to develop SDGs and make them operational is indeed one of the main outcomes of Rio+20. For the EU, the work on SDGs should be coordinated and coherent with the review process of the Millennium Development Goals, MDGs, without deviating from efforts towards their achievement by 2015. It would be important to have an overarching framework for post-2015 that encompasses the three dimensions of sustainable development with goals that address key challenges in a holistic and coherent way.

In addition, the agreement to launch the SDG process also means bringing a fresh impetus to a concept that was shown to be at risk at Rio. I refer to sustainable development taken as a holistic notion. Indeed, at Rio+20, in spite of initial difficulties, we have reaffirmed the need to put together our efforts to eradicate poverty and to secure sustainability within our planetary limits. In retrospect, reaffirming the holistic vision was more important than we initially thought in view of the resistance from many sides to continuing to address these two matters in conjunction.

On the institutional framework, overall, we welcome the agreement to reinforce the institutional framework for sustainable development. Rio has reinforced international environmental governance by strengthening and upgrading UNEP. It will now have universal membership and must become our common home to set the global environmental agenda. In this new set-up, a truly global UNEP will have a new authority that will allow it to take actions that were, until now, beyond its reach. We have already started the strategic reflection on this new potential strength. We will, however, continue to work together with our partners towards the creation of a fully-fledged United Nations environmental organisation to allow it to function on an equal footing with other UN organisations.

The other institutional reform is the decision to establish a new high-level political forum on sustainable development which will replace the Commission on Sustainable Development. It should allow the regular participation of Heads of State in reviewing the progress of all our commitments. The EU has ensured that it will have most of the functions required and it will be important to make sure that this reform brings real change.

To conclude, at Rio we reaffirmed that we share the same planet and that we share the same common responsibility towards future generations. None of the countries and regions present at Rio achieved in full what was wanted initially. This also applies to the European Union, but we have worked together with all the other countries to develop common ground, and it is a fact that the document would be less ambitious and less concrete without hard work and also commitment from many who worked on the side of the European Union.

Rio+20 has not gone as far as most Europeans would have wanted, but the key message today is that we agreed on many useful elements, many more than first reactions would lead us to believe, and this is why we should now focus on implementing them and building on them. The fate of the question of whether Rio+20 was a failure or a success is actually still in our hands. It will depend on what we do with it from this point in time in implementing it in full.

The European Commission intends to do the necessary to build on what has been agreed at the highest level. We are looking forward to the European Parliament’s view on how this can be best done, and count on you to keep the ambition and positive energy generated in the run-up to Rio alive in the years to come at international, national and also local levels.

The global transition to a sustainable model of development is obviously far from easy, and that was what Rio was actually all about. It demands courage, vision, coherence, trust-building, but also time, which we do not have in abundant quantities, due to the urgency of the challenges we are facing, but that transition is simply inevitable. So, instead of repeating what Rio did not deliver, let us rather join forces, find friends, find partners who share our analysis and also our determination, and start to deliver many of the ideas mentioned in the Rio document, in Europe and also globally. Nobody is actually preventing us from doing so, and time is running on.

  Karl-Heinz Florenz, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Potočnik, we will hear a lot of people talking about the substance of Rio+20 today. I should mainly like to focus on the following question: why have we been so disappointed? I was in Rio 20 years ago as a young MEP and I would have welcomed the opportunity to attend the Rio+20 conference 20 years later. The committee, in its wisdom, however, decided not to travel and, out of solidarity, I stayed away too. Commissioner, how could it happen that the technicians who were in Rio one week before you had almost signed off on a finished result, while the parliamentarians had no opportunity to intervene in relation to the substance of the agreement? This is what I have been told and this is also what I hear from your office.

I am also very pleased that the three pillars of the environment, the economy and social affairs are now fundamental components within the United Nations, as this is part and parcel of a socially and environmentally responsible economy. As you have pointed out yourself, Commissioner, we do not have much time left, which is why I am broaching the subject now. We must ensure that what was agreed in Rio, even if it was not very much, is finally put into action.

We should then first turn to the question of whether we need to place the UN and our contribution to UN environmental and climate policy on a completely new footing. This is something we have called for in all climate conferences. We need a more efficient target. We do not need other people to tell us how difficult it is to put forward a single opinion when one has 27 Member States. How much more difficult must it be to organise an opinion with 192 countries? That is difficult and absolute unanimity is not possible. That is why we need a different organisational format for these issues, so that those who want to move forward can do so, but under orderly conditions, so that Europe’s competitiveness is not permanently damaged.

Commissioner, what interests me personally in this question is the fact that we in Europe have a marked tendency to come up with a new dossier every week. The Directorate General for Climate Action has now placed a land use paper on the table. We only have a couple of weeks in which to discuss this. The paper will have a dramatic influence on the way land is managed in Europe. Why, Commissioner, do we not finally take the step of implementing something that was agreed on many years ago? We have directives on plant protection and fertiliser use, we have an erosion protection programme, we have a Habitats Directive for flora and fauna, a Water Framework Directive and a directive on air quality systems. Why not implement these? If we were to do this, we would look a lot better in the eyes of the rest of the world at future conferences.

  Vittorio Prodi, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I am sorry that I do not agree with your optimism; based on what I know, I would call it Rio -20, because we have gone back about 20 years.

No binding document, no definition of the future we want, but of course, without Mr Obama, Mr Cameron and Ms Merkel – who alone represent more than 30% of the entire gross domestic product and who were, in fact, in Mexico at the G20 summit – what could have been decided? Only safe ideas for those who want business as usual, such as the green economy, masterfully represented as one of the instruments available in order to achieve sustainable growth, and for the adoption of policies, which should not, however, be subject to rigid rules. The divisions, inconsistencies and injustices will therefore remain and the separation of economic, social and environmental spheres will continue to cause disasters.

Yes to recognising climate change, reducing natural disasters, energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions, and yet nothing concrete – as if to say, the house is burning and we are not doing anything to put out the fire. Other evident sticking points: that the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) did not become a real environment body and that no High Commissioner was appointed for future generations. What can we do now? Only be aware that interdependence can help us cope with the crisis we are experiencing and therefore that a new governance is absolutely necessary in order to move forward.

The Commission could set an example: get the financial institutions responsible for a large part of this crisis around a table and ask them to commit to a plan of growth, inclusion, fairness and development, which respects and protects the environment and people. For its part, Parliament can come up with a universal statement of interdependence and democracy, which also guarantees right of access to natural resources and then ask the biggest States in the world to join in. For once, it would not be up to the young people or banks or large corporations, but the democratically elected representatives to decide the future we want.

  Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank both Commissioner Potočnik and Danish Minister Auken warmly, not only for their dedication and their fighting spirit in Rio, but also for the way in which they cooperated with our informal parliamentary delegation.

We had high hopes that Rio+20 would deliver something that we need in this world, but we have to be realistic. The Rio+20 document is a huge disappointment and a huge missed opportunity. What is quite threatening is that the EU was totally isolated in Rio. There were several reasons for this. First of all, the developing world, along with the United States of America, does not want any restrictions on its growth ambitions. Secondly – and I am still not certain whether this is really the case – the EU might have realised too late that the rest of the world considered Rio+20 a social summit instead of a sustainability summit.

However, I am not only pessimistic about Rio. I felt there was a growing awareness that business as usual will not deliver the growth that countries need, and that greening the economy is a necessity. Even the countries that were deliberately trying to get rid of all ambitions in the final outcome were, at the same time, working on the ground, with organisations like the United Nations Environment Programme, to green their own economies. I think that is a very promising development.

Right now, it is important to consider how to move forward. I strongly believe that the EU needs a very pragmatic approach. We have to establish bilateral partnerships with countries that want to green their economy: for example, on trade relations, giving preferential treatment to countries that want to green their economies through our development policy – and it was a good thing that Development Commissioner Piebalgs was present in Rio. This is the type of approach that we need, and I think that, at the multilateral level, the EU can also play a crucial role in pursuit of the sustainable development goals.

In conclusion, the top-down approach did not work. I think it is time for a much stronger bottom-up approach which includes the business community.

  Sandrine Bélier, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, allow me first of all to say how delighted I am that we are having this discussion in this House just a few days after the Earth summit, which, as we have already heard, a number of you attended.

It is time, I believe, to take stock and, most of all, to look forward. Taking stock is a simple matter: the results of this summit are disappointing. Forty years after the first Earth summit and 20 years after the commitments made in Rio, while we were expecting renewed impetus, a leap forward, the leaders of the international community were treading water. As to the future we want, the promise has not been kept and the commitments have been carried forward to 2015.

The European Union set off for Rio with the ambition of sharing an action programme and we are returning with a work programme.

Today, I should like to thank the Commission and Commissioner Potočnik in particular, as well as the Member States, for the determination they have shown in the negotiations, and for embodying Europe’s ambitions in terms of the ecological transition of our economy, which we defined in this Parliament.

Where do we go from here? Now, more than ever before, I am aware of the responsibility resting on our shoulders and the role that the European Union can play in promoting a new model of development to help us recover from the crisis. In Rio, we failed to set an example, and we did not provide any evidence that we were applying and following through with our ambitions in terms of sustainable development in all our European policies. What we now have to do is activate the transition at European level and at the level of the Member States. Without further ado, let us introduce innovative financing and implement the financial transaction tax and the environmental tax. Without further ado, let us initiate our energy transition so as to put an end to fossil fuels. Let us commit to the conservation of our marine and terrestrial resources. Let us get on with it!

This will strengthen the credibility of the European Union and give it greater international weight. It will also enhance the prospects of the international human community for a better future.

Let us resolutely commit ourselves, once again, right here and now, to the work programme adopted in Rio to accelerate change. Above all, let us also reaffirm our ambitions and try to make headway in the next two meetings in 2012: on biodiversity in Hyderabad and on climate in Doha.

  Marina Yannakoudakis, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, the Rio Summit reinforced my belief that we need to ensure economic and environmental agendas go hand-in-hand.

We can boost sustainable development through trade liberalisation. However, the Commission is putting jobs at risk, both in the EU and in the developing world, because of rigid preferential access rules. Four and a half thousand skilled jobs are at risk across the EU because of restrictions on sugar cane imports.

If refiners in Europe fail, the developing countries will not be able to sell raw sugar cane to the EU. In Brazil, sugar cane is providing a solution to economic, environment and even energy problems. During the summit, a test flight took place using jet biofuel derived from sugar cane. The Commission needs to urgently make changes to the sugar regime to ensure competition in the sugar market and to ensure that sugar cane takes off in the EU.

  Kartika Tamara Liotard, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group . – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner Potočnik, I have absolutely no doubt about your good intentions, but I think we can all agree that Rio+20 has produced a very disappointing result.

The purpose of the Rio Summit was to make specific agreements and guidelines on sustainable and social development and poverty reduction. Despite the high cost and the fuss, the summit has clearly not worked. Prior to the summit, Parliament emphasised the necessary measures to increase the use of renewable energies and improve energy efficiency worldwide, highlighting that this did not mean nuclear power, because that is not a sustainable source.

Prior to the conference, I also called for much less deforestation, especially in Latin America. The equivalent of 36 football pitches are being cleared of trees every minute worldwide, with much of this activity taking place in Brazil. It is therefore strange than virtually nothing has been agreed on this issue in Rio de Janeiro of all places. If we fail to do that now, then when are we going to do it? The same goes for Europe. The rainforests in Latin America are being cut down in order to grow GMOs for the European market. Europe is thus partly responsible for this importation of soya and ought to curb it. If it did, we could at least then save a couple of football pitches per minute.

Just briefly on gender equality. The UN’s outcome document is completely meaningless. When are we finally going to address gender equality in the context of sustainable development? Millions of women are waiting for an answer. I hope that, in the EU policy, we will simply stick to the ambitious plans we had before and not descend to the level of Rio.

  Richard Seeber (PPE ). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Potočnik, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that Europe has done some sterling work here and I also believe that the assessment you have outlined to us was correct. The assessments made by some NGOs and by a number of speakers here sometimes remind me of the assessment of wishes for the New Year: the more you wish for, the more you seem to have achieved. I believe, however, that what counts is what one has genuinely achieved at the end of the year, rather than what one wishes for and resolves to achieve.

If we consider the long-term trends of the last 20 years, it is evident that we have achieved quite a lot. That must also be acknowledged. If we consider access to drinking water, we will see that we are almost on the point of achieving our targets, while things do not look too bad for waste water treatment either. Nonetheless, the problem remains of how we can help the developing world and sustain it.

I believe that it is also necessary, however, to face up to realities. A great deal has changed in the world in the last 20 years. The countries that were more or less on the threshold of development, for example, China and many of the G77 states, have become very strong. That is why the approach of taking action within the United Nations system is certainly justified. I am not so sure, however, that the upgrading of the United Nations Environment Programme to a fully-fledged UN organisation is really the panacea we seek.

With regard to the green economy, I might remind you that we really do seem to be blind in one eye. The point there, too, is that we must involve the private sector on a massive scale, rather than just hoping to achieve success on a top-down basis using the old systems, in other words, development aid. That is why it is so important to take a realistic approach. Europe has achieved a lot here as a driving force, and should remain a driving force. I do not think it is right to start criticising everything at this point.

  Matthias Groote (S&D ). – (DE) Mr President, we debated the preparations for the Rio+20 conference intensively in our respective bodies within the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. It must be said however, that, in the final analysis, the result achieved in Rio is fairly unimpressive. Mr Prodi expressed our disappointment in a nutshell, calling it Rio minus 20! Some NGOs described the result the same way. What has been achieved in the conference is really very little indeed.

Firstly, we need to consider whether there is much point holding conferences in this format. We have been through Copenhagen, which was a disaster, and now we have had Rio+20: we are moving from one disappointment to the next. I think that the upgrading of the UN Environment Programme, putting it on an almost equal footing with the WHO, is the right approach, as it will give this organisation more authority and more enforcement powers than was previously the case. This is a very important point.

We are going to witness the world’s population grow to 9 billion. We are heading for a catastrophe if things keep going like this. If more and more people live in industrialised nations and want access to energy and if we do not take radical steps to avert this, we shall encounter enormous problems. That is why we need a new development strategy.

There has been no public debate on this issue, even in advance of Rio. When I consider what we voted on yesterday – ACTA – and the number of e-mails and letters, etc. we received on this issue, then I believe that we also need to move towards a sustainable planet in the digital community too. After all, this world is the only one we have got. We can play our part here by changing our strategy and bringing more people along with us, and then perhaps the Angela Merkels of this world will travel to the next summit and really put their heads together to produce concrete results.

  Corinne Lepage (ALDE ). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, despite your efforts, Commissioner, it is abundantly clear that Rio is a failure and that we have even lost valuable time at a time when we are in an established emergency.

It is truly paradoxical that all the Heads of State or Government who were present – few in number but present nonetheless – recognised the seriousness of the situation and, at the same time, were totally powerless to act. Perhaps more importantly, the lawyers are at the stage of proposing a principle of non-regression in environmental law, while for thirty or forty years we have been pushing, and those very same lawyers have been pushing, for progress in environmental law.

It is abundantly clear that we cannot remain in this situation and that we need to re-examine our governance at global level. Even if the powers of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) are extended, this programme is not a global environmental organisation. We need an international criminal court dealing exclusively with environmental law to address crimes which may be committed and offences which cannot be tried, and I reaffirm this very solemnly.

Ladies and gentlemen, you have said a lot about the bottom up approach. It is quite clear that we must find another way of working with civil society, which, in many countries, is the driving force, through a sequence of small operations, behind the change we all need and which safeguards, albeit sometimes modestly, the general interest, so that civil society can be represented in the negotiations, exert its influence, make proposals and take action.

We need to review the whole issue of governance. This will enable us to truly put in place a green economy, to ensure that global trade is not abandoned to total freedom regardless of social and environmental rules and, lastly, it will enable Europe to fully play its role once again. Today, the European Union is regarded as the sick man of the global economy. Well, we must spearhead the green economy and the ability to overcome national egoisms.

  Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE ). – (NL) Mr President, thank you, Commissioner, for your efforts in Rio de Janeiro and for telling us honestly that Rio simply did not bring about what we had hoped it would.

We can actually conclude that, 20 years ago, it was politics that led the way. Now, however, in 2012, as politicians, we are hopelessly out of touch with the trends and changes we see in society. And, if you are a politician, that is a painful conclusion.

Nevertheless, we should also critically examine Europe’s role. Did Europe play its hand well in Rio de Janeiro? Firstly, the question: did Europe put forward its ‘green economy’ agenda in a timely way? What do we mean by that? And is it not the case that, for some countries in Europe, a green economy mainly means business as usual, with a little bit of green round the edges, rather than a genuine transition to a new economy, which is how you think about it. However, we all know that Europe is far from being unanimous on that score.

That is also Europe’s second problem: credibility. In Rio de Janeiro, we called for a real transition to a new economy. But what are we doing ourselves? Look at how we are trying to get out of this crisis. It is business as usual. Even the Commission is just handing out more money for the construction of new roads in Greece, as if that were the way we are supposed to extricate ourselves from this crisis? That is too narrow an approach!

Thirdly, what did we bring to Rio? We asked for the world, but ultimately we had too little to bring. We now have to do two things and they are very simple. To demonstrate ourselves that we really are serious about the green economy and, secondly, to make a real step towards that new economy, in the company of the countries which actually want to achieve it, like Mexico and South Korea, because the new economy can only be a green economy or else there will be nothing.

  Julie Girling (ECR ). – Mr President, I can do no better than a British newspaper, so I quote: ‘It is always a bad sign when a UN conference ends on time: if anything substantive is at stake, these unwieldy gatherings of 190 governments invariably overrun, only reaching resolution in the early hours of the morning. So it says much about the inconsequentiality of the agreement in Rio that it was finalised even before the meeting began’.

I think that is a pretty fair judgment on the structure of the summit, and I hope its failure will lead to a re-evaluation of the efficacy of these set-piece events. I would ask the Commissioner to take a lead from Parliament and consider the cost to taxpayers of mass attendance. I do, however, welcome one outcome and that is the setting up of the new high-level group. It will meet regularly and, I hope, avoid future dependence on these events, concentrating on true environmental sustainability, without all the social ‘fluffy stuff’ that has been associated with the Rio talks.

I look forward to Parliament working closely with Commissioner Potočnik in developing what Mr Gerbrandy so eloquently described as a ‘bottom-up’ approach – an approach that I fully support. If we are disappointed with the outcome for oceans, we have our common fisheries policy. If we are disappointed with the outcome for the environment, we have our land-use policy. Let us use these policies aggressively and make sure that we make a difference.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL ). – (PT) Mr President, we saw the same obstacles and contradictions parade through the Rio Summit as at other summits. The most profound of these contradictions has not always been the most visible, but it is certainly the most decisive. The globally dominant economic and social system has shown itself to be incapable of meeting the most basic needs of millions upon millions of human beings and, at the same time, it consumes and degrades the planet’s resources at a faster rate than the planet’s natural ability to replace them. Breakdown is inevitable.

Faced with this situation, some think that it is time to pull a rabbit out of the hat. They call it the ‘green economy’. The concept’s lack of definition and ambiguity have catered to all opportunists, including those who say that they want to save the environment without changing the system that degrades and threatens it, those who say that they want to fight hunger and other social ills without addressing their underlying causes. Genuinely sustainable development based on a sustainable relationship between mankind and nature will not be possible without questioning capitalism’s laws and dogmas, however much they would like to paint it green.

We must break away from growth that sacrifices natural resources and the workforce, the creative and transformative energy of human beings, for the growing accumulation of profit and the private appropriation of the social wealth produced. We have to safeguard not only natural resources, but also their democratic enjoyment; defend local production, reducing the size of production and consumption cycles; restrict global free trade, which encourages increased energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions despite their serious economic and social consequences; protect natural terrestrial and marine ecosystems; recover degraded ecosystems, valuing the role they play in carbon cycle regulation; and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but through legal means and not through mechanisms that leave these objectives at the whim of market moods.

I will finish, Mr President, by saying that the fight for a healthy planet is inseparable from the fight for a fairer world, for the valuation of workers and for a society where the principles of democracy are placed above the laws of the so-called market economy.

  Roger Helmer (EFD ). – Mr President, the Rio Summit failed utterly, as did Copenhagen and Cancún before it.

We have to ask why, and the truth is that nobody believes in climate change any more. There has been no global warming for 15 years. Sea levels are not rising significantly. Countries like India, China and the USA will not sacrifice economic progress for speculative and alarmist theories about climate change and our European taxpayers will no longer pay for it.

More and more scientists are rejecting the alarmist case. Earlier this week in this Parliament, we heard from Professor Fritz Vahrenholt. Professor Vahrenholt has been, for decades, a German socialist politician and green activist. He has been an environmental regulator and most recently he was CEO of RWE Renewables. But after a lifetime of environmentalism, he has looked again at the facts and concluded that carbon dioxide is not a significant driver of climate change. I commend to colleagues his important book ‘The Cold Sun’.

We are told that renewable energy will become cost competitive as the price of fossil fuels rises, but the price of fossil fuels is not rising. New oil finds are coming on-stream. The world is awash with natural gas. The USA and China may soon become net exporters, and beyond shale gas we have methane hydrates which offer more energy than all other known fossil fuel reserves put together.

The price of electricity in the USA has halved on the back of shale gas. Natural gas in the USA is one fifth of the price in Germany. How is Europe supposed to compete with those prices?

We have voluntarily made decisions on energy which will marginalise and deindustrialise Europe. We are driving energy-intensive businesses with their jobs and investment out of Europe altogether. We are forcing households and pensioners into fuel poverty. We have chosen to impoverish our children and our grandchildren. Future generations will look back at this period with horror and despair and they will never forgive us.

  Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE ). – (SL) Mr President, I would like to thank you for the challenging work that you have done, which will lead to a number of results in the real world, as is evident from the written policy commitments.

In Europe, we are a leader in environmentally friendly technologies. We are a leader in the field of clean technologies and a leader in renewable energy sources. In Europe, we are leading by example – that is, the example we are setting by raising the awareness of 500 million Europeans about sustainability, a healthy environment and a healthy lifestyle.

Our challenge is how to promote further research and how to apply that philosophy in real life. A lot of what is a matter of course for us is very much more remote for others. We therefore need to bring our communication in line with that.

It is hard to talk in India about a low-carbon society while 500 million people there have no access to electricity. However, what we can talk about are opportunities for solar power plants and renewable energy sources. Though it is hard to say that they should no longer be allowed to use coal, we can talk about the clean technologies that we have mastered and thereby achieve identical objectives.

Today, our attention should be focused primarily on the economic crisis. We cannot saw off the branches that support millions of jobs. The process of restructuring into green jobs will obviously take longer than all of us would like it to.

However, we are heading in the right direction and the time for this is ripe. Parliament and Commissioner Potočnik have invested a lot of energy and commitment into ensuring that global political commitment becomes more tangible. The conference in Rio has partially contributed to this. The cheapest and most effective cure for a lack of political commitment is the global awareness of people. Informed people will help speed up political commitments.

  Jo Leinen (S&D ). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Potočnik, in view of the enormous challenges facing nature and the environment, as well as the planet’s ecosystems, it must be admitted that the Rio conference is a missed opportunity. I see the glass as half empty rather than half full because the world continues to be ravaged and we have still failed to identify sufficient specific objectives and schedules or concrete obligations to enable us to change course in favour of sustainable development.

The shift in power evident in Rio has been remarkable. It is interesting that an emerging economy like Brazil, supported by China and India, should present a document without there being the opportunity to change it. I would have liked to have seen more courage from Europe – acting together with the African Union perhaps – in support of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), exerting more pressure so that the UNEP would become a UN organisation.

What happens next? Of course we have our hopes. I believe that hopes spring from the grass roots: green cities and green business. The Rio conference hosted more mayors and more CEOs than any previous environmental summit. We should identify the urban environment as a focus area in the seventh EU Environmental Action Programme. The majority of people now live in cities, which is where the greatest amount of energy and most resources are consumed, providing a good starting point. The same applies to progressive enterprises. They have understood that it is only possible to do business when the fundamental structures for commerce are in place. We need to establish an alliance with green business.

We in Parliament also need to take action. The UN has established eight major groups: business, urban areas, women, trade unions, etc. Parliaments also need to become more involved, which is why it was a pity that we did not have an official delegation at the conference. We should form a major group at UN conferences under the ‘parliaments’ banner.

  Charles Goerens (ALDE ). – (FR) Mr President, Rio+20 was rather disappointing. China, Brazil, India, spoilsports? You would think you were in Europe. To get het up, as Europeans, about the limited achievements of a conference which lasted only a few days would be sheer impudence given the difficulties we face throughout the European Union to find solutions to our problems, whether we are 27 or 17.

For one thing, the achievements are not entirely non-existent and, for another, limited achievements should not, under any circumstances, be used as an excuse for inaction on the part of the European Union. Let us set an example. Let us be creative. Let us begin by remaining faithful to our public development aid commitments. We are far from having fulfilled those commitments. Mitigating the effects of climate change on developing countries requires additional money, over and above traditional official development aid. We are light-years away from meeting this requirement

We must set binding objectives based on stringent sustainable development criteria. Let us be a model of sustainability and an inspiration to other geographical and economic spaces. All the same, I would like to thank the Commissioner, who has the necessary vision to help make things happen.

  Eva Joly (Verts/ALE ). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, 10 days ago, we were hoping that Rio+20 would be the summit that would destabilise those who profit from greater inequality and deplete our resources.

We are bitterly disappointed at the lack of binding objectives. However, this should not divert us from our commitments. If we want to see future progress in the negotiations, we need to prove that the fight against poverty and for sustainable development is the true objective of EU development policy, and we need to do so through the allocation of ambitious financial resources. Let us make a commitment to implement, without delay, innovative financing mechanisms, such as the financial transaction tax, and to redirect a substantial proportion of revenues towards development aid. Let us fight more effectively against tax havens and their hoarding of the fiscal resources of those countries through the excessive use made of them by transnational corporations and, in particular, the extractive industries.

Only then can we become credible advocates of sustainable development for all.

  Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL ). – (PT) Mr President, even though the crisis overshadows the present time, the Rio+20 Summit managed to ignore it completely. Worse than this, the solutions emerging from Rio aim to overcome the environmental crisis by monetising the environment, through more carbon trading, free emissions bonuses and now also green property assets.

Commissioner Potočnik spoke here optimistically about the inclusive green economy. How is this possible, though, when this transition would require an investment of 2% of global GDP in 10 key sectors and we know that the United Nations Environment Programme proposes acquiring these resources from the financial sector? It is a recipe for disaster! The proposed response to the environmental crisis caused by the greed of the market, which transforms resources into profit for the few and shortages for the many, is more market. Public policies are replaced by speculative mechanisms, and the common interest by private benefit. There will be no climatic, environmental and social solution without attacking the root of the problem: this economic system that condemns millions to poverty and ravages the planet. Having destroyed the global economy, big money is now being handed the planet. You do not put out a fire with petrol and you do not save the planet by selling it off bit by bit.

  Esther de Lange (PPE ). – (NL) Mr President, let us be honest, ladies and gentlemen, this is a very sparse agreement. Despite its 53 pages, we have very little news to report: we encourage, we emphasise, we underline, we reaffirm. What this basically comes down to is that we are calling on ourselves to finally do what we actually agreed to do years ago.

Two years after the first major UN conference in Stockholm in 1972, a Dutch poet wrote: ‘All things of value are defenceless’. And now, almost 40 years down the line, we have to conclude that sustainability, environment and social rights are still not being given enough attention in our global economic system. Obviously, some steps have been taken, as the Commissioner has said, for example, in the area of marine environment. However, what will really make a difference now is the readiness to translate vague words into concrete actions. Ladies and gentlemen, some of you will not want to hear this, but the business world also has a role to play here, for example, in developing and drawing up ambitious sustainability criteria.

Commissioner, the European Union should take the lead in translating these rather vague words into concrete actions. But, it should do it in such a way that we can spur the rest of the world into action. We have to do this internationally because, for example, our debate on whether we in Europe should move from 20% to 30% CO2 emissions, now that difference equals 1.7 days’ emissions in China. So, let us deploy our efforts internationally! I wish the European Commission every success in that respect, as I do indeed to us, too.

Since I have about a minute left, may I remind Mr Helmer, who has, of course, already left, that the UK Government has had to adapt its plan that protects London against floods with the Thames barrier. I come from a country that saw a big flood in 1953 in which thousands of people died. I wish for the United Kingdom that the same does not happen to them.

Sea water levels are rising and my country and Mr Helmer’s country have to protect themselves against the North Sea, but I am afraid that Mr Helmer’s party will only recognise climate change by the time that more than one million people in the London area have wet feet.

  Kriton Arsenis (S&D ). – Mr President, I would agree with the comments made by the Commissioner, Jo Leinen and Corinne Lepage, and with a lot of comments from other colleagues.

If governments failed in Rio to agree the level of ambition we would have liked them to achieve, it is true that people see that businesses did arrive at this level of ambition. Condemning the weak wording of this agreement from the Earth summit in Rio often makes us blind as to what has been achieved. We all wanted more in Rio, but it is not true that nothing has been achieved. Let us implement what has been agreed. In my view, it is often better to have a weak agreement which is fully implemented, than a wonderful agreement which is not.

Therefore, let us fulfil those obligations. We have many opportunities to do so. Let us fulfil the obligation on the oceans. Let us make the world environment organisation a reality. Let us build on the momentum that has been built globally, moving beyond GDP.

On the issue of roadless areas, for the first time in the framework of these Earth summits, we had a presentation by two global satellite mapping tools on the world’s roadless areas. They were mapped by Google Maps and Eye On Earth. It presented the fact that the best way to protect an area is to keep it roadless. If you want to connect people within a protected area, there are other ways to do so other than by roads e.g. railways and waterways.

I call on the Commissioner to support this global fight and help make the protection of roadless areas a reality within the EU.

  Vladko Todorov Panayotov (ALDE ). – (BG) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Rio conference, just like all the other previous conferences and meetings, had one drawback: the negotiations were generally not very productive. What Europe needs our partners must also need. This is why the negotiations need to have a definite purpose, and offer a tangible, not an abstract benefit for those participating in them.

Therefore, the objectives need to be evident, as well as the industrial and agricultural purpose, the problems of every country and Europe’s readiness to help solve them. This is why there will need to be a link with European science and with the top achievements and innovations which may provide a good springboard for success. European science and industry have such solutions.

We should make joint efforts and not rely on an individual person, even if it is someone exceptional like Commissioner Potočnik, whom I congratulate on his efforts. A team should be set up to plan and specify all the details for the next meeting. We must be successful if we want Europe to retain its leading position.

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE ). – (SV) Mr President, Commissioner, I share your view that Rio did not go anywhere near as far as we had hoped it would. For me, this is an empty shell. I remember Rio 20 years ago when it inspired all of us to get to grips with the problems at local level. I believe we are back at that stage again. We cannot wait for global leaders to stop listening to businesses and suddenly start to act quickly enough. We can only overcome the challenges that we are facing if we start from the bottom and work upwards – for people in their everyday lives to start to treat our planet and our economy differently.

We have a completely unsustainable economy that is entirely based on non-renewable resources, and a dramatic switch to a green economy will not mean green growth. Green growth is an illusion based on completely unrealistic ideas of the efficient use of resources. It is totally impossible to achieve. We therefore need a different economy that is genuinely green.

We can only achieve this if we monitor different targets. If we only measure economic activity, then that is what we will get. If we monitor other targets, the result will instead be a better planet. Let us go down that route.

  Erik Bánki (PPE ). – (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given the severity of the problem to be solved, many, including the Members of the European Parliament, expected much more from the United Nations conference on sustainable development. The alarming consequences of the unsustainable exploitation of our planet are known to us all, while the necessary technology and knowledge is available to reverse the process. Unfortunately there is still a lack of political will, and action is frequently taken in fits and starts. Therefore, the implementation of the fine-sounding goals adopted in Rio remains our joint responsibility. In this respect, plenty of work lies ahead of us.

The President of Hungary, János Áder, my predecessor in the European Parliament, represented Hungary at the Rio+20 conference and made the following remark: sustainable development is about us and our children, our lives and our future prospects. While it is a commonplace that water is the source of life and mankind’s greatest treasure, it is astonishing that according to the prognoses of the United Nations, by 2025, two-thirds of the Earth’s population will face continuous water supply problems. That is a shocking figure. Ladies and gentlemen, imagine a situation in which tens and hundreds of millions of children do not have access to drinking water, causing the Earth’s child mortality rates to worsen further. We cannot be so irresponsible. I believe that politicians and economic leaders need to take immediate action in this field.

It is a shocking figure that today, half of the world’s hospital beds are occupied by people who have fallen ill because of poor quality drinking water, and that annually, almost 2 million children under five die because of problems with drinking water supply and sewage treatment, not to mention the people, primarily in the developing world, who do not even reach hospital in order to receive hospital care. They die without even featuring in the statistics.

The European Union recognised the strategic importance of water early on and is leading the way towards sustainable water management. The European Union, however, cannot solve the global problems of water supply alone. That is precisely why it is in our basic interest for effective international cooperation to be established in the field of water policy, before a lack of water prompts migration waves and we are threatened by wars waged for water. Think of Mad Max, the film made by George Miller in 1979. I would not like my children to grow up in such a world, which is why I believe that we are running out of time and we all need to take action.

  Judith A. Merkies (S&D ). – (NL) Mr President, thank you, Commissioner, for attending the Rio Summit and for your commitment to this issue. However, one thing is clear: great idealistic world summits seem to be more a thing of the 20th century because, in the 21st century, we are asking for a different approach, a very practical approach.

There is another thing that is also clear, namely, the fact that if an agenda is about everything – because the agenda in Rio was very broad – then, in fact, it will ultimately be about nothing. We can see that in this summit’s conclusions.

What is encouraging, however, is the genuine concern about the plastic soup in the ocean, the huge mountain of plastic waste floating on the sea. What we see now is only the tip of the iceberg, because a lot of small parts have been found in fish and birds. According to the outcome document, we need to achieve a significant reduction by 2025 and we need to take action. Can you make this more specific? Who is going to do what, when and how much will it cost? Are agreements going to be reached about the banning of free plastic bags or bottles? And if we want to lead by example, when is Europe going to do that?

Two more things. I have another question for you. Natural resources are mainly used for industry, energy and meat production. The outcome document is totally silent on the impact of our meat consumption and production, while increasing meat consumption is placing heavy demands on resources and on land, and rainforests are being cleared because growing animal feed requires huge areas of land. What proposals have you put forward to address this?

Instead of agreeing percentages at major world conferences, we want to lead by example. And the strongest incentive that Europe can now give is to show that we can get out of this crisis with green production and consumption.

  Toine Manders (ALDE ). – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to compliment you on the objectives you have set. However, it seems that the way we are working together at a global level, as we have done in recent years through such huge, gigantic conferences, is not working any more.

I therefore support the call made by Mr Florenz. Stop attending these kinds of conferences. Think of something new and set the standard in Europe. Because, if we set the standard in Europe, it will become a global standard. Then, we will not need to have 45 000 people flying business class to Rio and thereby causing ten years’ worth of pollution in the world for which we then need a two-day conference in order to make amends with legislation. For that matter, I think that we should also consider how we can boost our economy by means of such high standards so that we can again create jobs in Europe. I think that we have the ability to do so and that we will achieve a lot more than we did in Rio with 45 000 people dancing around the issue without any result.

  Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE ). – Mr President, at Rio+20, the world leaders focused on sustainable development. They recognised that we are confronting not only an economic crisis but also an environmental crisis. They also recognised that we need bolder action to stop the destruction of the environment. If we really want green growth, if we really want a green economy, then we have to pay much more attention to what economics teaches us. People respond to incentives. Therefore, people who pollute and firms who pollute should pay the right price for destroying the environment.

We in the European institutions should support technical innovation for a green economy; we should support action to preserve nature; and we should support taxes on energy based on carbon. We should also support the improvement of our accounting systems to reflect the impact of our way of life on the environment.

  Marita Ulvskog (S&D ). – (SV) Mr President, Commissioner, the first United Nations conference on the environment and sustainable development was held in my home city of Stockholm. That was 40 years ago and a great deal has happened since then. For example, there is very broad knowledge and awareness with regard to the environment and sustainable development today. Mr Helmer of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group is entirely alone in his views; the majority of other people are aware that major events are happening in the area of the environment that we need to address.

The problem is that the measures we have decided on hitherto at international or national level have not been able to hold back the rapid changes, given the continually increasing environmental and climate-forcing stresses. Many people are disappointed by the Rio Summit, and therefore I would ask the question: what did we actually believe would happen? Do we believe that it is possible to create political pressure in connection with long-term issues of survival when the economic crisis is forcing so many people to worry about how they are going to keep body and soul together in the short term? Did we really believe that this was possible?

For this reason, I believe that the Rio Summit was a wake-up call, because it clearly linked issues of social justice with climate and environmental issues, and that is something that we need to bear in mind in our ongoing work. If we are to make any progress, we must now always combine social justice with questions relating to our common long-term survival.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE ). – Mr President, the recent Rio+20 conference aimed to renew global political commitment to sustainable development, but failed. The agreement titled ‘The future we want’ is an assemblage of vague statements that commit the parties to close to nothing.

The document addresses a vast range of issues from eradication of poverty to paving the way to a green economy as well as recognising, noting and acknowledging the problems that the world is facing, but it lacks a credible and concrete road map towards achieving any of those goals.

The failure of world leaders to progress to sustainable development calls for civil society around the world to step in. The deadlock can be broken by raising awareness, changing individual consumption patterns, encouraging activism and putting further pressure on governments as well as multinational corporations to dedicate their efforts to creating green and equitable economies.

  Jim Higgins (PPE ). – Mr President, I have listened to the debate so far and it is quite obvious that there is a divergence of opinion.

On the one hand, you have most of the people here, the more sensible people, who realise, in fact, that we are the custodians of the current environment and that the next generation will actually indict us unless we do something about the problem.

I listened to Ms de Lange and she was absolutely right in relation to Mr Helmer from the UKIP Party. He is part of a growing minority who say that there is no such thing as climate change; that nothing has changed and that there is no need to take any steps in order to rectify the situation. What world does he live in?

We have floods where we never had floods before. We have tornadoes where we never had tornadoes before. We have storms where we never had storms before. We have earthquakes. The ice caps are melting and, at the same time, Mr Helmer and his UKIP colleagues – as always – are running from reality and are whistling past the graveyard; and the graveyard is there to see. We have a problem.

Ten years ago, we had the 1992 Earth summit. If you look at the statistics in the meantime, global emissions have risen by 48%, 300 million hectares of forests have been cleared and the population of the world has increased by 1.6 billion people. Despite a reduction in poverty, one in six people are malnourished.

I agree with the Commissioner, he has a very difficult job. There are conflicting commercial interests. Countries are looking to themselves and their own selfish independent interests rather than looking at the bigger question: that is, the global question.

So I wish you well, Commissioner. I know there has been much criticism but I think this is a step forward and I know that you have then necessary ability, the will, the commitment and the determination to ensure that you will be the Commissioner that will get universal agreement in relation to how we go forward.

  Zita Gurmai (S&D ). – Mr President, when assessing the outcome of the Rio+20 conference on sustainable development, there is not much place for optimism. It is more than clear that the austerity measures implied by the current economic crisis are being matched by a recession in human rights and ambitious environmental policies.

The outcome document does recognise the importance of the green economy and stresses a number of vital issues, such as the need to improve gender equality and engage civil society. However, the overall commitments are worryingly minimal and disappointing, not least in terms of lacking a timeframe for the implementation of the objectives. In this respect, the outcome document can hardly be seen as an instrument for the achievement of a green and socially inclusive economy and for growth.

Moreover, it is highly regrettable that while the participating countries recognise the need to integrate reproductive health into national strategies, the language of reproductive rights was not expressed in the outcome document. In short, there is some limited added value in the 700-plus commitments voiced at the conference, but they do not translate into a concrete action plan.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE ). – (FR) Mr President, I truly feel that we have lost ground as a result of this summit. It could be said that it was not Rio+20 but Rio-20. The mountain laboured and brought forth a mouse, with a text devoid of clear-cut commitments, which reveals behind the scenes that we are not in control of the new international balances.

With the absence of Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, David Cameron and Vladimir Putin, the disappointment was even worse than the bother. The fiasco of Copenhagen on climate change is back to haunt us. The green economy, which was a central theme of the conference, was reduced to its simplest expression. However, that was only to expected at a time of economic and ecological crisis.

The European Union was unconvincing. It once again found itself marginalised with regard to the BRIC countries. How can our voice continue to be heard when we are competing with young nations hungry for economic growth? How can we set an example to those who do not wish to follow it? With the best will in the world, are many European companies concerned about what method to choose for the transition to the green economy when the imperative issue for them is to fill their order books and to preserve the jobs that are left? It is impossible to negotiate this kind of agreement in an economic context which continues to send us very bad signals. How can we think of the future when the present is uncertain?

However, we must not give up the fight; as the Commissioner rightly said, the clock is ticking. The real issue today is the ability of Europe to lead the way in these climate negotiations because we have the right answers. Unfortunately, these negotiations have brought to the fore the failure of the strategy of the European Union. This summit has demonstrated the paralysis of the process. To obtain unanimity among so many countries is a challenge.

We must therefore contemplate reforming the functioning of this system and imagine other avenues of negotiation; urgent action is needed to prevent a tragedy for future generations.

  Richard Howitt (S&D ). – Mr President, as one of the MEPs in Rio, I would like to join with colleagues who were there to thank personally Commissioner Potočnik and, despite all the shortcomings, to say how proud we were of the position he took on behalf of us all in the European Union.

He understands that my main role at the summit was to press the case for mandatory sustainability reporting by business. Again, paragraph 47 of the summit’s conclusions represented only a limited success. I made the case for voluntary calls for business to report. Ten years ago, in paragraph 17 of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, the European Commission itself did so in 2002, as did the G8 countries in 2007, but since then, we have seen perhaps only 6 000 of the world’s 80 000 multinational companies begin to report. We have to do more, more quickly, and the experience of Denmark, Sweden, South Africa and others is that regulation is an essential part of enabling us to do so.

The strength of paragraph 47 is that it names governments and the UN itself in calling for action on corporate sustainability reporting. It specifically uses the concept of integration and seeks to build on not duplicating existing frameworks. I would specifically name the Global Reporting Initiative and the International Integrated Reporting Council in this respect. I am proud that Denmark and France have joined the Friends of Paragraph 47 as governments in taking this forward. I hope that in his reply, Commissioner Potočnik will express his support for his colleague, Commissioner Barnier, in bringing forward regulation at European level on binding corporate sustainability reporting.

  Peter Liese (PPE ). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Potočnik, ladies and gentlemen, the Rio Summit was indeed a huge disappointment. Many observers, perhaps the majority in fact, said that the money for this major summit could have been saved because the results were already a foregone conclusion and were not very far-reaching.

To this extent at least, it could be claimed that we did everything by the book. In view of the high costs facing us, the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety decided to withdraw its delegation and not to travel. I believe, however, that we cannot just sit back and relax. We need to learn lessons and to make sure that things are handled differently the next time around. First, this means, in practical terms, that we need to investigate how we can participate in events like this without placing an excessive burden on the taxpayer. Secondly, and much more importantly, we need to organise the process more efficiently, so that we do not have another disappointment like this time. Thirdly, we will have to do our homework. It is true that the European Union has already achieved a great deal in terms of sustainable development, which is something we should also be proud of. However, problems also exist.

I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the problems in relation to emissions trading. We currently have a much lower price than envisaged in 2008, when we accepted reformed emissions trading. As a result, investors do not have sufficient incentives to invest in low carbon technology. The Member States also have less revenue to pay for the changeover to a green economy, because the income from the emissions trade was to be used for this purpose. We will also have less income to pay for international environmental policies if emissions trading does not work. That is why we need a solution.

Parliament adopted the Davis report with a large majority and, during the negotiations in relation to the Energy Efficiency Directive, we also pressed for a reform in emissions trading. The Commission issued us with a declaration. I would ask the Commissioner to pass this declaration on to all the other commissioners, as it must be upheld. It states that we urgently need a solution – a revised approach to the auctioning of allowances. I hear that the lobbyists are currently working very hard against this, looking for a postponement. Commissioner, I am a doctor by profession, and I can tell you it would be a pretty terrible doctor who first told his patient that he is an emergency case and then blithely took off on holiday. Accordingly, we need to address this problem before the summer recess.

  Edite Estrela (S&D ). – (PT) Mr President, François Hollande summarised the disappointing outcome of the summit well by stating that it fell far short of our responsibilities and our expectations. It was indeed possible to adopt an outcome document. However, the future that we want contains little innovation and does not set new binding international targets. Approving a framework programme for the next 10 years signifies that the current problems will continue for another decade and that there will be no fight against global warming, desertification and the destruction of various ecosystems.

The Commissioner spoke of progress with regard to women’s rights, but there have been regressions in this area. The replacement of reproductive rights with reproductive health is an unacceptable concession to the Vatican, which has been criticised by various policy makers, including Hillary Clinton and the former Prime Minister of Norway. Policy makers lacked the courage and ambition required for us to leave our children a habitable Earth.

  Åsa Westlund (S&D ). – (SV) Mr President, like many of my fellow Members, I, too, feel disheartened that the text from Rio does not contain more concrete commitments. We are well aware that we are already living beyond our means. If everyone in the world lived like a Swede, for example, we would consume our planet 3.25 times over. This realisation was clearly not enough, but we must use our resources more efficiently.

In the past, growth has largely occurred as a result of us having had cheap raw materials and cheap energy, but it will not be possible for that to continue. It is therefore important for us to show that we can break the link between a better standard of living and increased destruction of the environment.

It is possible to do this even now. We know, for example, that it pays to be more energy efficient, and I believe that it is time for us to show that this is possible. It is possible to have a good life and, at the same time, live in a sustainable way. That is how we can encourage others to follow us on the international stage – not with threats or scaremongering, but by showing that it is genuinely possible and does not need to entail massive social problems. On the contrary, this is the solution to many social problems.

  Gilles Pargneaux (S&D ). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, the failure of Rio+20 is ultimately the failure of our society, which must, in this instance, surpass itself and get its act together in these times of economic, social and climatic crises.

What should we do? Do we continue to pile up international summit after international summit, conference after conference, to little or no avail? Or do we continue to witness, as in recent years, the balance of power tipping in favour of emerging countries like China and India to the detriment of European countries?

What can we do? There are a number of options that we feel are important. First, we could establish a new form of global environmental governance with the help of NGOs, civil society organisations and trade unions. We could create a global environmental organisation. Then, we could enable the emergence of a true green economy based on local policies for sustainable development. That is the action we must take and through which we must help the EU institutions.

  Josefa Andrés Barea (S&D ). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, the Rio+20 Summit should have ensured the protection of our planet. Not being ambitious leads to floods, droughts and fires, as have occurred in Valencia, in Spain. This weekend, a fire has consumed more than 50 000 hectares, affected 22 towns, led to the evacuation of 3 000 people, and the death of a pilot. We send his family our condolences.

Mr Vidal-Quadras made a speech about it yesterday. I thank him, but I want to denounce it here as a citizen who has had personal experience. My home in Valencia is covered in ash; a cloud of smoke previously engulfed it. That is not the only issue however. People have lost their homes, farms, land and animals. I ask for accountability given that cutbacks in the public system also lead to fires.

I denounce my regional government for the lack of coordination in extinguishing the fire, in the evacuation and in the release of information. The citizens of Valencia, Spain, are also EU citizens and I therefore request solidarity aid to alleviate the damage caused by this fire and, above all, to prevent new fires from starting.

IN THE CHAIR: ALEXANDER ALVARO
Vice-President

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE ). – (HU) Mr President, thanks are due to Commissioner Potočnik for firmly representing EU policy at the Rio Summit to the greatest extent possible. The question is whether the summit was a success or a failure. Certainly, it cannot be described as a success, though I am not disappointed personally, because I did not expect and we did not have cause to expect great results under the circumstances. Naturally, we will endeavour to maintain our existing enthusiasm, but the question is for how long we will manage to find suitable partners for it, and whether the policy we have pursued so far is sustainable at all in the long term. As Mr Florenz, the rapporteur, remarked, we are running out of time. We need to perform much more effectively and resolutely on the international stage in order to stand a chance to put into practice the little we have achieved. That primarily requires, however, that the Member States and the political groups reach agreement among themselves. We are aware how greatly our opinions differ on the subject of energy policy, which is closely connected to the fight against climate change. Putting the Energy Efficiency Directive into practice and further development of clean and safe nuclear energy can make a significant, positive contribution to the fight against climate change.

  Michael Theurer (ALDE ). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, the level of dissatisfaction in the wake of the Rio conference is significant. We recognise that Europe cannot force its ideas in relation to environmental policy on the rest of the world. This phase of disillusionment can also be seen as an opportunity, however. Europe can act as a role model. That is my first point. My second point is that we need to focus more on adjusting to the new situation brought about by climate change, as well as working towards climate protection.

Above all, I believe that Europe’s development organisations, research institutions, universities and private enterprises can make a significant contribution; after all, we need to see economic development and environmental policy as two sides of the same coin. Weaker countries will only be able to pursue environmental policies if they also make progress on the economic development front. So, let us press forward with environmental technology. This is something Europe can offer other countries. Perhaps we need to question the idea of greening. Perhaps we should create blue growth that is mainly based on technology. As the world’s population continues to grow, this will only be possible if we see economics and environmental policy as inextricably linked.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD ). – (SK) Mr President, we surely cannot consider the results of the talks in Rio to be any great success. I personally believe it is not to be expected that countries such as China, Brazil, Russia and possibly the US would contribute to our initiative and develop a green policy as intensively as the EU seeks to.

Despite this, I believe that we should focus on getting these countries to join in monitoring and tracking meteorological changes in relation, of course, to industrial production and to the ways in which the environment is polluted. Perhaps when they collect data and information more intensively, we will reach a joint conclusion as to the changes and the measures that must be adopted first and foremost so that we can stop climate change.

At this stage, I believe it is therefore necessary to focus mainly on getting them more closely involved in gathering data, analysing and reviewing the forecasts, and then perhaps they, too, will conclude that certain policy changes need to be made.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank Members for all their interventions. I will not tire you with an assessment of how serious the situation is and so on, because I have said that in this Chamber many times. I also share with many of you the frustration sometimes of not having enough energy and determination to move things forward. To some extent, this reflects the reality not only of the conference which we attended but also of many of the decisions we are taking in our daily lives.

What I would like to touch on first, which many of you have commented on, is the process itself. The process did not start in Rio; I could say it did not even finish there. It started a year ago, in New York, negotiations were long and tiring, and there were many sessions, so basically what happened in Rio was the final stage when the host country, Brazil, took the process into its hands. The way they handled it is, of course, their decision and it is true, as some have said, that it was decided before the majority of the Ministers, especially the leaders of the countries, arrived.

That does not make it true that it was the technical experts who decided. That is not true, because they were the ones who were consulting their capitals at every turn, but it is true that some of the work we had invested in preparing good strong partnerships prior to the meeting could not materialise at the meeting because there was simply no chance for us to meet with many of the delegations.

Whether we played our cards well or not, as you said, Mr Eickhout, is something I shall have to review some time over the summer, but it is true that when we have to be critical of ourselves, we always lose too much time in defining our own positions and do not have enough time to share those positions with our partners. That has been a weak link in the European Union approach at all the conferences which I have attended. I personally believe that what we reached in Rio was as far as one could go and that we have to understand that not everybody thinks the way we do in the European Union, that they have different interests, different views on development.

I can tell you that when I visited Brazil, for example, a few months before the conference, the discussion I had about the concept of the green economy, which is pretty well understood here, is far from a concept which everybody would stand behind. I think acknowledging that concept in the paper, in as black-and-white a form as it appears today, was quite a major achievement – provided, of course, that the next steps, which should follow, ultimately materialise.

Some of you mentioned that the leaders – or some of them – were not present. Quite a lot actually were present. I would just like to remind you that the presence of leaders does not guarantee success. They were in Copenhagen as you know, while not many of them were in Nagoya or in Durban, where we achieved quite a lot. I think their presence gives an important political message, but, on the other hand, it would not have guaranteed that the document would be more ambitious or would go further than the one which has emerged from the negotiations now.

It was mentioned by Mr Gerbrandy that the EU was isolated. It is really an interesting thing to look at the international stage and see that we, who are in the deepest crisis economically and financially, are basically the leaders in the field when it comes to sustainability. That is a fact, and I think it is a fact of which we should be proud, but I would say that we were not as isolated as it looks if you only look at the outcome of the document.

There are many countries with whom we had spoken before and with whom we are still in contact, who pretty much share our views and objectives. I think it would be really important, after Rio, for us to continue working with them, to deepen our relations, to find the friends, the partnerships which are absolutely necessary if we want to push forward some of the agendas to which we have subscribed here in the document agreed in Rio.

One thing which I find is really a major breakthrough in the philosophy is the concept of green economics. In many of what I would regard as solid analyses after Rio, this is seen as probably the most major breakthrough and way ahead. Green capital accounting, corporate sustainability reporting beyond GDP: if we focus on that and if we get a solid background on which we can build political decisions, then we can really move things forward. You do not take into account what you do not measure is an absolute fact in politics. I think it is important that we start to focus more on the basics of the green economy, on the fact that we should take natural capital into consideration.

So the role of business was honestly quite impressive, as was the role of civil society there. I have never seen such power in one place and, believe me, if they invested the money which they invested to be there, they knew why they were investing it. This is an important message from their side also and we should acknowledge that instead of criticising their presence.

Working with civil society is, for me, something on which I absolutely have to concentrate in the future. Rio was different from Nagoya, it was different from Durban, it was much broader, and it was different from Rio+20. I would not go as far as saying that Rio+20 was a step backwards. I think that is not a fair assessment. It is a step in the right direction, especially because at Rio 92, the top-down and bottom-up diverged, they went in two different directions. At Rio 2012, actually for the first time, they went together, but we have to work on the top-down, on the political part, where we did not reach as far as we would have wanted to reach.

On the means of implementation, at all those conferences, as you know – like it or not – there is a bit of a divide between developed countries and developing countries. Often, developing countries expect more of the carrot and more of the direct development aid. I think again that we should be quite proud of what Europe has done there. We have again committed to 0.7%. I would not like to remind you that we are currently on 0.41% of GDP. The figure of 0.7% by 2005 is a serious additional amount of money because 0.41% is approximately EUR 53 billion. I will leave you to do the calculations, but this was the commitment which was made by all European countries, and I think it is important that we keep that commitment alive.

On the other hand, with the means of implementation, we have to be clear that there is no public money which could turn countries, including ourselves, from the current economic model to a green economic model. So you need private financing as well as public financing at home. For example, not supporting the paragraph on removing environmentally harmful subsidies, which we were very much pushing for, and requesting more official development aid, does not really make sense. It is not consistent.

So, all incentives which you send into the systems need to be consistent. That is why I think we should insist on the broader picture regarding the means of implementation. On UNEP, I can promise you that we will continue working with Africa and ACP countries. Quite a strong power actually emerged and we believe that this is the way in which we should continue. However, in Rio, it was simply impossible to reach that, because there were such clear statements from some strong partners in negotiations that they were not ready to support that in Rio, and that it was impossible to go that far.

In conclusion, what should we do? I think we should simply continue work in the European Union. We should simply try to identify our partners, use all possible institutions, hooks, conventions and continue our work. Basically, without everybody on board, there will be no green economy. The green economy, by definition, is about economic stakeholders and the business sector. Without them on board, we will not change the reality from the top down. We have to work with them and we have to use the positive powers which evolved there.

I think we are basically talking about the very essence of the question of changing the production and consumption models. This is absolutely something where you need bottom-up and top-down approaches and where you need practically everybody on board.

So, as I have mentioned already to some friends who were in Rio, I came from Rio not with any kind of bad conscience but, yes, with some bad feelings. In order to conquer those feelings, I think the only way is to work hard in the European Union to deliver what we have committed ourselves to many times. To be honest, I have seen recent opinion polls showing where our public is placing its attention. Even pushing the agenda which we are all subscribed to will not be easy, but we should basically sometimes ‘walk the talk’ ourselves. I think that is the most we can do at the present time.

Basically, we should share the responsibility with the rest of the world and build trust. I really feel that this is necessary because, at these big conferences, the real question is always the lack of trust. We should work on that. Even if we have the feeling that we are not reaching as far as we should and that the urgency of the situation is much more pressing than anybody thinks, we should continue working with the rest of the world. We should do so because many of those questions simply have no proper answer if we do not get everybody on board.

As I said at the beginning, I do not think that the destiny of the success of Rio has yet been defined but, if we create a strong partnership with your help, I think we can make it better.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place during a later sitting.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE ), in writing. – (HU) Phenomena experienced worldwide in varying forms, such as increasing social dissatisfaction and global climate change, made the Rio+20 Summit of particular importance. It was presumed that the high-level conference would scrutinise the most severe global problems and draw up specific strategies in order to achieve goals not met in the past two decades. However, despite the efforts of many thousands of civil organisations, there is little hope of implementing the outcome document of the summit at the political level. In my view, the outcome document ‘The Future We Want’ merely reaffirmed the earlier agreements, failing to set out new goals and make a commitment to goals. It contains short-term plans at the national level, but fails to take into account the limits of the Earth’s ability to sustain itself. Although the document is a political position statement about sustainability, it is dominated by the paradigm of economic growth. I myself also believe such change needs to be effected at every level with the application of the basic principle of subsidiarity. However, it is crucial for global and international-level decision making to set an example with regard to the necessary changes and to the development of ways to manage the increasing economic, social and environmental challenges appropriately. In that light, the European Parliament, which is endeavouring to restrict the use of resources, urges limitation of the use of all raw material types. I believe that is the only way to reduce the current wasteful consumption in an effective way and limit the unsustainable use of resources and its impact on both the natural environment and human communities.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE ), in writing. – (FI) The EU’s main priority for Rio+20 was the global transition to the green economy, promoting the sustainable management of natural resources and sustainable consumption and production. The EU was particularly disappointed that the host country, Brazil, which had taken over the Presidency from the UN, pushed through the outcome document before the ministers had had time to get there, and decided to strip the text of all its controversial elements. As a result of what was a wretched process of facilitation, the EU was unable to form its coalition, and many of its priorities were not recorded or were entirely ignored.

It is common knowledge what I think about the UN’s climate processes. Rio+20 was not a climate conference, but what they have in common is that the processes in their current form achieve nothing meaningful. The decision makers at Rio should have had an opportunity, for example, to use the nine Major Groups – Business and Industry, Children and Youth, Farmers, Indigenous Peoples, and so on – as a resource for determining the content of the outcome document. The disappointed Major Groups, who were prepared to assist the decision makers, marched out of the meeting and dissociated themselves from the section of the opening address that proclaimed that the outcome document had been finalised through consultation with them. The future that they wanted to see was not achieved, for which we can primarily blame the process and the EU’s intrusive marketing strategy for the green economy. The developing countries began to consider the concept to be a conspiracy theory that obstructed their economic growth.

I hope that we will implement the EU’s priorities within the Union, and not dash the hopes that civil society had for us. Future generations will need jobs, sustainable forms of energy, the chance to consume sustainably and a voice in decision making. Fortunately, the ‘sustainable development goals’ process was initiated and the initiative on water and sanitation as a human right, as promoted by Finland, was mentioned for the first time in a UN document.

  Anna Záborská (PPE ), in writing. – (FR) At Rio, we saw NGOs wishing to take the place of democratically legitimised governments. I have my doubts about the functioning of democracy during multilateral negotiations. Associations that promote or that do not exclude abortion as a tool for controlling birth suffered a severe setback through the failure of the demands made throughout the Rio+20 negotiations. It should be noted that the phrase ‘sexual and reproductive health and associated rights’ was, in fact, deleted in the final statement. Yes, there are political issues and human problems that are indeed more urgent than the promotion of abortion around the world. Sustainable development, human progress for all and peace throughout the world will not be achieved without justice for all. Nevertheless, throughout the negotiations, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), Marie Stopes International, the Department of Social Welfare (DSW) and other organisations financed by the EU budget have explicitly established a link between sexual and reproductive health, abortion and sustainable development. Shockingly, these associations would have us believe that the children of the poorest families are children too many for humanity. They did not succeed. I therefore call on the Commission to abide by the outcome of Rio+20 and to stop financing these associations, since their actions no longer enjoy international consensus.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD ), in writing. – (PL) The Rio Earth Summit finished over two weeks ago. This was yet another summit that brought no significant results. In the light of the economic problems and the jobs crisis, it is naïve to think that the leaders of China, India or the USA will agree to the European Union’s eco-friendly ideals. At present, under pressure from ecologists and left-leaning politicians, the EU has set itself ambitious emission reduction targets. However, it is not the European Union – which produces only 11% of the greenhouse gases emitted globally – but the countries cited above that are responsible for most of the world’s industrial emissions as well as for the use of natural resources. It is China and the USA that have become the largest oil importers and the most energy-intensive economies. For a long time now, both countries have been resolutely opposed to any attempts at reducing emissions. As a result, the EU stands alone with its ambitious targets. The unilateral restrictions adopted by the European Union are weighing ever more heavily on Member States. Social costs are rising and the competitiveness of the EU economy and the profitability of manufacturing are falling. For this reason, guided by a concern for the natural environment as well as the future of Europe, we should do everything to encourage the international community to continue reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This time, however, without our participation.

  President. – The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission submitted by Gabriel Mato Adrover, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on the threat posed by chartering to flag state responsibilities under the CITES Convention (O-000127/2012 – B7-0120/2012 ).

  Gabriel Mato Adrover, author. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, I want to clearly express, with the resolution and conviction given to us by the force of reason, the Committee on Fisheries’ unanimous concern when it comes to possible agreements under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) on state responsibility for vessels’ activities.

Ladies and gentlemen, in the fishing regulations of both the European Union and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), there is an overall principle that is paradigm in the regulation to control fishing activities and the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing: it establishes that the flag state is primarily responsible for controlling its vessels’ activities, wherever they work. Based on this principle, the flag state must, for example, certify that their vessels’ catches conform to legislation. This catch certification is essential to these catches being unloaded in EU ports and being sent to market. However, it is also essential to respect the adopted conservation and fishing management measures, the objective of which is to ultimately bring fish stocks up to sustainable levels for fishing.

Many states without their own fleet must charter ships from other countries to fish, which is natural, as long as they comply with the legal requirements. That said, Commissioner, you are aware, as we all are, that many of these chartering states have neither the resources, the capacity, nor often the will to control the fishing activities of these vessels. You will agree that, if there is no guarantee of an effective control of fishing activities, it is absolutely impossible to fight against illegal fishing and it is very difficult to aid sustainability, which is the cornerstone of our common fisheries policy (CFP) and the focus of its reform, which we are currently debating in Parliament.

In the latest CITES meeting, the Working Group on Introduction from the Sea discussed the flag state’s responsibility over the species covered by CITES, and proposed to transfer this responsibility to the chartering state for CITES species caught on the high seas. This working group will report to the Standing Committee of the Convention in July 2012 and this committee, in turn, will report to the Conference of the Parties (COP) at the March 2013 meeting, when a definitive decision will be taken.

According to my information on the European Union, the Commission held a meeting with the Member States last Monday. During this meeting, the Commission appears to have inexplicably announced that there is no official position, that is, that the Member States are free to adopt whichever position they consider to be most convenient for their interests in the upcoming COP. If this is the case, Commissioner, you can understand that it is both disappointing and discouraging that the Commission has not taken a stand on such a vital issue, particularly during a period when we are reforming the CFP.

I have been informed that in the coming days, there will be a meeting between Member States and the Commission itself to adopt a common position. I think that there is still time to rectify the situation and for the Commission to send out a clear and resounding message, preventing the derogation of what has been the basic principle up until now: the flag state’s responsibility. This issue is a lot more important than some irresponsibly believe. If the proposal goes ahead, it will set a precedent that will undoubtedly cause great harm to our fisheries management and to the fight against illegal fishing. The Commission cannot allow all the work undertaken hitherto to be thrown away. It has been a joint effort on two aspects in which Parliament is completely involved and which also involves regional organisations such as the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) or the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) itself.

Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I will finish. Under no circumstances, in my opinion, should the charter state be granted responsibility for controlling their vessels’ activity; this must remain the flag state’s responsibility. This is the unequivocal position of the Committee on Fisheries of this Parliament, and I hope it is also that of the Commission itself. For that reason, I ask if the Commission could explain its position on the issue and how it will ensure that the primary responsibility of the flag state is maintained.

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members. I would like firstly to thank Mr Mato Adrover for his question, which raises truly complex but important matters. The question relates, in reality, to two issues: on the one hand, to the latest results of the international negotiations on how the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) should apply to marine specimens caught on the high seas, and, on the other hand, to the need to ensure that the provisions on the chartering of vessels do not undermine the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.

As we have heard, I attended Rio+20 less than two weeks ago. Many have criticised the summit but, in fact, the protection of high-seas biodiversity is an area in which the need for much more progress was universally recognised. The EU has always been at the forefront on this issue, and that will continue to be the case. The Commission believes that multilateral solutions coupled with rigorous enforcement are key instruments here.

The EU is a central player in regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs), which typically cover the majority of commercially traded species, including tuna. The EU will pursue its ambitious policy in those organisations, pressing for the adoption of sound measures for the conservation and management of fish stocks, and for their strict implementation by all the parties. With regard to control, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides that authority over a ship rests with the flag state. All fisheries-specific UN instruments are based on that responsibility. The 2008 IUU Regulation is also based on this principle.

The EU shows the same level of ambition in relation to multilateral environmental agreements, including CITES, which regulates international trade in endangered species and currently covers 30 000 plant and animal species, among them approximately 100 aquatic species. CITES is widely seen as one of the most effective international agreements in the field of the environment, due notably to its effective compliance mechanisms and its universal coverage.

The Commission has no doubt that the European Union should be ready to use international fisheries instruments and CITES in pursuit of one and the same objective – namely, to ensure the long-term conservation of fish stocks on the high seas. This is vital not only for marine biodiversity, but also for fishing operators who depend on healthy stocks for the future of their economic activities.

Discussions have been taking place over the last 20 years on how CITES should apply to high-seas species. More precisely, the problematic point has been to define the state responsible for issuing the documentation required under CITES to allow trade in those species to take place.

The Commission has been very active in that debate. In line with the UNCLOS rules, the EU has consistently pushed for recognition of the flag state as the one responsible for issuing CITES documentation. In defending that position, we have encountered considerable opposition. Most other parties did not share our views and wanted this role to be assigned to the port state.

Where are we now in those discussions? After a long period of stalemate, the question has been intensely debated over the past three years in a specific working group. As a result, we are now close to an agreement. The proposal by the working group provides for flag states to play a central role in issuing the relevant CITES documents, with a derogation under which chartering states may also issue them subject to certain conditions.

Under the CITES proposal, the principle is that the flag state is responsible for issuing the CITES documentation – including in cases of chartering operations except in certain circumstances, and subject to conditions, under which the chartering country would be in charge of issuing it. This arrangement is a first, as existing RFMO rules do not allow for similar catch documentation to be issued by any authority other than that of the flag state.

The new conditions under which chartering countries would be entitled to issue CITES documentation are the following: first, the chartering operations need to be subject to a prior agreement between the chartering country and the flag state; second, this agreement needs to be consistent with the relevant RFMO framework on chartering; and third, it needs to be made available to the CITES secretariat, to the RFMO and to all the parties. In addition, the CITES secretariat would monitor these provisions and report on their implementation at the CITES Standing Committee meetings, thus ensuring proper monitoring and compliance.

The specific situation of chartering operations has been the subject of long and detailed discussions in numerous RFMOs and, subsequently, in the CITES working group. The EU traditionally supports a policy in RFMOs whereby it endeavours to restrict chartering practices, to avoid any risk of confusion as to which state is responsible for a given activity by a given ship at a given moment in time. However, it has also accepted that within some RFMOs, such practices exist, with the flag state remaining fully responsible for issuing catch documentation.

The EU therefore wants to make sure that any solution within CITES is compatible with the EU policy against IUU fishing and is respectful of flag state jurisdiction. The key consideration is to assess whether the safeguards contained in the proposal are sufficient in this respect. There was a discussion – which has been mentioned – with the Member States on this sensitive issue earlier this week. That meeting was inconclusive. The Commission is still considering the specific provisions on chartering contained in the proposal and has not yet reached a final conclusion – the only reason for this being the seriousness of the decision which we have to make.

The issue is on the agenda of the forthcoming CITES Standing Committee meeting on 23-27 July and, subsequently, on the agenda of the Conference of the Parties in March 2013. The issue of chartering will also be raised in various RFMOs in the coming months. The Commission will continue to work towards finalising its assessment in view of those meetings, and it will make sure that Parliament is kept informed about the development of the EU position on these matters.

It is essential that the Parties to CITES reach a common understanding on the concept of ‘introduction from the sea’ without undermining the fight against IUU, and the EU will seek to ensure that flag states retain the central responsibility here.

  Carmen Fraga Estévez, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (ES) Mr President, I want to thank the Commissioner for attending. I hope he can hear me. I can see the Commissioner leaving, which is really depressing, as what he said and the solution he proposed in this notorious compromise he supports so much is a solution that is totally against the principles of the fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU).

That is why I would have liked the Commissioner to hear this debate. Moreover, the problem is that the Commission is handling all of this in a secretive, clandestine manner. It has been pure chance that some Members of Parliament, such as myself, have found out what has been going on. Neither the Commissioner for the Environment nor the Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries have ever been here to raise this issue when they know that the fight against IUU fishing is an absolute priority for us in Parliament.

I would also like to know the reasons behind supporting the interests of countries involved in chartering ships, such as Brazil, New Zealand, Australia and the United States, when the price to pay will be to void Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008, the objective of which is to combat illegal fishing. It will also weaken the European Union’s position in each and every international forum. That is the way it is. This issue precisely began to unravel in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

I also want to emphasise what has already been said, which is that this sets a very serious precedent, because all of this, as he said himself, will now be an issue for debate in all the international forums, especially in the regional fisheries organisations. Coincidentally, this will be discussed in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, given that it is one of the regional fisheries organisations where the most chartering occurs.

It should not be forgotten that the philosophy on which the fight against IUU fishing is based is precisely the double safety net of state control over the port and flag state control over worldwide fishing catches. That is what has sown the seeds of panic in the exporting countries, which have suddenly seen the attractive EU market close. That is the root of all these problems. I hope, therefore, that this will be fully resolved by other means.

  Antolín Sánchez Presedo, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (ES) Mr President, flag states assume the responsibility for their vessels’ compliance with international rules and regulations. The International Maritime Organisation conventions to improve maritime security and to protect the environment, the commitments laid down in the Maritime Labour Convention adopted by the International Labour Organisation, and the agreements concluded by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations on resource conservation and on the implementation of the international action plan against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing will not be effective if the flag Member States disregard their obligations and do not exercise the jurisdiction and control to which they are obliged.

Fishing is essential for flag states. The flag state is responsible for the vessels’ activity, which includes identification, compliance with management measures, declaration of catches, and the development of control and monitoring activities. The European Union’s regulation on illegal fishing is based on this principle.

I completely agree with the concern over the information with which, under the CITES framework, the principle of the flag state is being questioned. If this initiative succeeds, it would effectively set a serious precedent that would move to other international fora, such as regional fisheries organisations. The collapse of the relationship between fishing and the flag state will erode the fight against illegal fishing, leading to regulatory arbitrage, less transparency and less control.

For that reason, I believe that the Commission should react by making states adopt a common position and defend the compliance of their commitments to flag states.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I fully support the oral question and I want to commend the authors for the initiative.

I am strongly against the proposal relating to the practice of chartering which has emanated from the Conference of the Parties to the CITES Convention. Currently, as we know, the flag state has responsibility for controlling the activities of a fishing vessel, no matter where the vessel operates. This includes declaring catches, enforcing management measures and control activities. This is a long-established principle which is enshrined in both international and EU law, including the regulation to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU) and the FAO international plan of action to deter IUU fishing.

The Commissioner made reference to international law and the necessity to abide by this, but I understand that international law supports flag ships.

The flag ship state has the primary responsibility for preventing, deterring and eliminating IUU fishing. The alternative is that the coastal state that charters the fishing vessel would be responsible. Often, coastal states charter vessels to exploit fisheries, but not in a sustainable way and, of course, to expand fishing activities, so many coastal states lack the will and ability to control illegal fishing.

Such a move by CITES is difficult to comprehend and even more difficult to justify and would certainly threaten the sustainability of fish stocks, particularly on the high seas. It is extremely important for the Commission to vigorously oppose the move by CITES and I am aware that the Chair of the Committee on Fisheries has issued an invitation to the Commissioner to attend a meeting of the committee in the near future. While he has not responded today while in the Chamber, I hope he will respond favourably and positively in order that we can have a more in-depth discussion in committee.

The Commission must adopt a position. There is only one position to adopt and we all know which one that is. The Commissioner says that Parliament will be kept fully informed. It is important that we are kept informed, but it is more important that Parliament’s views, which I believe would be almost unanimous, should be taken into consideration.

  Isabella Lövin, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, the EU regulation on illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing was a major step forward globally in the battle against IUU.

The Commission has been working very hard to convince both its Member States and third countries about how to implement the requirements of catch documents signed by the flag states, and some countries have been lobbying extremely hard to have exemptions from this rule, in order to let chartering states have the right to issue catch documents.

The concept of ‘chartering state’ does not even exist in international law; on the other hand, the concepts of ‘flag state’ and ‘flag state responsibility’ have been built up through hard work and international negotiations over decades, and now a small exemption, as proposed by the CITES working group, threatens to set a precedent and unravel all the work that has been done up till now.

We are all aware that the issue of chartering states is emerging at the speed of lightning in many of the world’s regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs). Far too many countries would immediately use the argument that CITES allows this exemption as an excuse to introduce the same logic in the RFMOs, allowing chartering states to issue catch documents. This would totally undermine the IUU Regulation.

I add my voice to those asking what consequences this could have for flag state responsibility in commercial fleets. We should not underestimate this factor. The confusion over who bears responsibility when it comes to oil spills or dumping of toxic waste is already at a maximum with ships owned in one country, flagged to another, operating in a third and landing in a fourth, with a crew and beneficial owners in a fifth.

So what is the problem in CITES? It is not clear to me. Is it that a few countries, so-called ‘chartering states’, want to facilitate their administrative burden when they have to issue catch documents on a few hundred tonnes of endangered species of sharks that are on the CITES Annex 2 list? To let them do that, the world should not be ready to unravel international work on tightening the law against IUU – which actually accounts for one fifth of the world’s fish catches.

  Marek Józef Gróbarczyk, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Mr President, the risks associated with imposing on flag states the obligations concerning the chartering of vessels that are contained in the CITES convention will create a precedent with an enormous impact on the functioning of the fishing industry. Consideration should be given to the transfer of supervision and controls, as well as responsibility to Member States, who will pass this responsibility on to shipowners.

In no way should the regulations contained in the CITES Convention be undermined. They are of enormous importance for endangered species of flora and fauna and should definitely be upheld. What is concerning is the fact that responsibility is again being transferred to flag states in Member States. It should be noted that, as a result of over-regulation, the entire maritime sector already incurs enormous costs that affect how it operates. The directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the insurance of shipowners for maritime claims, the protocol amending the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, the regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the liability of carriers of passengers by sea in the event of an accident, the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage – these are just a few examples to give an idea of the enormous number of regulations relating to the maritime sector.

The sense of the convention cannot be questioned but attention should also be given to competitiveness and the impact of these regulations on product prices. The European Commission’s objective cannot be to liberalise markets by reducing duty on imported goods while, at the same time, increasing EU regulations that place additional cost burdens on European production. Once again, I call on the Commission to promote European manufacturing and the European labour market through appropriate regulation.

  Jaroslav Paška, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (SK) Mr President, according to previously established practice in fisheries, responsibility for a vessel rests with the country under whose flag it flies. In the case of a chartered vessel, responsibility for the activities of the vessel rests with the state in which the vessel is leased.

Within the framework of updating the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, however, discussion has begun on a fundamental change to this rule, under which responsibility for a chartered vessel would rest with the country in which the vessel is owned.

I admit I have some doubts as to whether states that have contractually chartered a vessel to another state might succeed in monitoring the activities performed by that vessel. I could cite as an example my own country, which is located in the interior of Europe and has no access to the sea, but which owns a marine fleet. Naturally, it has no effective possibility of monitoring these ships, because they are chartered out and operated by other countries.

It therefore seems to me that by accepting the proposed change to responsibility for the actions of chartered vessels in the convention, we would be creating a legal situation where no one would really be responsible for the activities of chartered vessels.

  Alain Cadec (PPE ). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, neither Ms Damanaki nor Mr Potočnik is present here … No comment ...

In European as in international law of the sea, the flag state is responsible for controlling the activities of its fishing vessels as regards vessel registration, fishing authorisations, fishing registers, and, in particular, catch certificates. It is, in fact, the responsibility of the flag state to provide accurate information about the legality of their catches and to have this information validated by their flag state.

EU legislation on the issuance of export certificates is clear. Products cannot be imported unless they have a catch certificate attesting to their legality. This certificate is issued by the flag state of the fishing vessels that have caught the fish concerned in line with its duty under international law. In short, international law requires the flag state to comply with international rules on conservation and management of fisheries resources.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) has prepared a dangerous text for all those working in the fisheries sector under the external aspects of the common fisheries policy. Were it to be adopted, this text would enable the state chartering the vessel, and not the flag state, to be responsible for the vessel’s activities. The chartering state would also be able to issue export certificates even though it does not have the resources to control the legality of the products transported. In reality, the majority of chartering states do not have the financial or technical resources to control fishing activities

This text could therefore set a dangerous precedent, leaving a legal loophole in EU law. The EU’s regulation to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, which is based solely on the responsibilities of the flag state, would no longer have any meaning. To give the right to chartering states to sign export certificates would be to open up a loophole in the legislation to combat IUU fishing

The European Union already imports 70% of the aquaculture and fisheries products it consumes. It must not, in addition, allow products that have been fished illegally and criminally from entering its territory. However, this is the risk we run if the CITES text is adopted. We must not open our doors to products that do not comply with EU health, social and environmental rules.

  Dolores García-Hierro Caraballo (S&D ). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I take this opportunity as a member of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament and a Member of the Committee on Fisheries to express my opinion in Parliament on the measures that must be taken in the next Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) to prevent the marketing of marine species caught in an accidental, unregulated and illegal manner, so they can neither be exported nor imported, specifically those from chartered operations.

The European Union has defended the role of flag states for years, in the cases of chartered operations on the high seas, in compliance with the regulation on illegal fishing and International Law. The EU must continue to intensify the greatest collaboration possible between flag and chartering states in order to ensure control, monitoring, surveillance and compliance with regulations and in order to conserve our marine ecosystem and fishing sustainability.

The current regulation is a good tool with which to achieve those aims. In my opinion, it should be maintained until an agreement is reached at the next working group in March which obliges all states, both flag states and chartering states, to comply with the regulations to ensure that endangered marine species are neither caught nor transported.

We are currently aware that the best guarantee for the fight against illegal fishing continues to be that the flag state is responsible for the entire process. We should, however, work towards a legal framework that pursues illegal fishing and the transportation of catches of endangered species, thereby complying with the Europe 2020 strategy, ensuring the sustainability of fishing and the protection of the marine environment.

  Struan Stevenson (ECR ). – Mr President, this is an extremely complex issue that has caused much debate and discussion within CITES for more than ten years now. We are dealing here with the whole question of who does what when catching fish in international waters and then landing them in a port, particularly in respect of marine species listed in CITES Appendix 2.

Last year, the CITES Standing Committee came very close to endorsing the recommendations agreed by the working group that flag states should be responsible for export certificates, but, at the last minute, Brazil and the Oceania region brought up the question of chartering and effectively threw a spanner in the works. They wanted special provisions for chartering vessels fishing in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

Now, the issue was referred to a working group which met recently in the US and, although the majority of countries were in agreement on provisions for chartering vessels with special safeguards, including consultation with our fishery management organisations and the Food and Agriculture Organisation, there was no overall consensus. The issue is now on the agenda for the upcoming Standing Committee of CITES, which is supposed to endorse the text and refer it to the Conference of the Parties next year for adoption.

Just when everyone thought that the issue was now closed, the new provision of giving the flag state the responsibility of issuing certificates for marine specimens caught by another flag state, the chartered one, is now being seen as highly risky.

Several EU Member States have raised concerns that this would cause conflict with existing provisions for our FMOs as well as with our own regulations to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and would risk creating distortions to the rules of origin. Surely the most important issue here is not to lose sight of the main purpose of CITES.

I am not reassured by what I heard Commissioner Potočnik say at the opening of this debate today and I hope the Commission can give us some further reassurance that they are taking this matter very seriously.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE ). – (PT) Mr President, the proposal to transfer responsibility for vessels and their respective catches from the flag state to the chartering state will inevitably lead to serious problems due to the latter having limited, or even no, ability to control its fishing fleet.

In the particular case of fishing vessels operating on the high seas, where the control of the fleet and its catches is even more complex and demanding, that proposal could create the conditions for widespread non-compliance. In this context, it is also important to stress that some of the species affected by this proposal are ocean migratory fish, which means that they tend to be caught by fishing vessels on the high seas.

In view of this, and to avoid an unacceptable increase in unreported and unregulated illegal fishing, particularly on the high seas, the Commission should vehemently oppose this proposal, as we are doing here with a consensus that stretches from left to right around this Chamber.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Connie Hedegaard, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, let me first just spend fifteen seconds to explain why Commissioner Potočnik and Commissioner Damanaki cannot be here at present. It is, of course, not because of a lack of interest, but because, later today, there is the formal takeover of the Cyprus Presidency, and that is being marked in Cyprus where the presence of the whole Commission is needed. So I am on duty today, but I can assure you that if Mr Potočnik had had any chance of staying, he would very much have liked to do so.

Mr Stevenson has just highlighted very clearly how complex this issue is, and I take the point that we should not lose sight of what is at stake here and also how long this matter has been with CITES. That is also the reason why it is so difficult now to formulate a clear-cut position. As Mr Potočnik said, it is still being debated internally in the Commission and between Member States.

Having said that, it is a very timely debate which has been raised today and I thank the people behind the oral question for that, because it is also a reality that the final deadline for the COP is coming up next March, so there is time to fine-tune the EU position on this.

In finalising the position, several elements will have to be considered. The central role of the flag state has been pointed out very clearly here and I want to recall that this principle has not yet been agreed by all countries: currently, each country goes its own way in CITES. Therefore, the importance of reaching a common interpretation of the concept of introduction from the sea in CITES is indispensable to make it operational for the safeguarding of marine species.

These elements need to be put together in the best possible manner in developing the position of the European Union ahead of the COP in March next year in full coherence with our efforts to combat illegal fishing.

I, and also the experts here, will take care that all your considerations, all your concerns are brought back to both Commissioners contributing to the internal deliberations on how to get a strong EU position prior to the March COP next year. So thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to listen to your input to this debate.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  David Martin (S&D ), in writing. – In fisheries, the flag state is ultimately responsible for the activities of a vessel, including declaring catches, enforcing management measures, control activities, etc. Both the EU’s IUU Regulation to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and the FAO guidelines on IUU are based upon this principle. This long-established principle is threatened by the practice of chartering. If a state engaged in fishing on the high seas charters a vessel flying the flag of another state, the flag state and not the chartering state must be responsible for the vessel’s actions.

(The sitting was suspended at 11.30 and resumed at 12.00)

IN THE CHAIR: MARTIN SCHULZ
President

  Luigi Berlinguer (S&D ). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I want to draw this Chamber’s attention to the fact that yesterday, it was officially announced that the Higgs boson has been measured and definitively identified. The particle that gives mass to all the others and their existence, and this happened on European soil.

Science brings our earth to life, it gives us civilisation and well-being and, for a time, we can aspire to becoming a scientific hub once again. Utopia is characteristic of man, who invents a utopia and wants to build it, and it is through science and this wonderful ambition man has that today someone who is blind, who has no eyes, can see with his hands or read a book with his ears, and a young South African boy who has no legs can compete in the Olympics in a race.

Well, Europe must be the home of science! This great event that will open up new frontiers of knowledge must be completely supported by Europe.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE ). – (DE) Mr President, I am very sorry for the hold up. Somehow, my voting card has gone missing and people are looking for a new one for me. I would ask you to please note that I am present.

  President. – Written declaration no 0007/2012, tabled by Mr Kaczmarek, Ms Badia i Cutchet, Mr Gahler, Ms Grèze and Ms Hall, on development education and active global citizenship, has been signed by a majority of Parliament’s component Members and therefore, pursuant to Rule 123 of the Rules of Procedure, will be forwarded to the addressees and published with the Texts Adopted of this sitting with a record in the minutes of the names of the signatories.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE ). – (PL) Mr President, speaking on behalf of the initiators, I would like to thank you all for your support for this written declaration. Development education is important and it is very good that you have supported it. I would like to thank all the people and organisations that were involved in this initiative.

  President. – Written declaration no 0010/2012, tabled by Mr Silvestris, Mr De Castro, Mr Mölzer, Ms Ortiz Vilella and Mr Stadler, on the establishment of European Artisanal Gelato Day, has been signed by a majority of Parliament’s component Members and therefore, pursuant to Rule 123 of the Rules of Procedure, will be forwarded to the addressees and published with the Texts Adopted of this sitting with a record in the minutes of the names of the signatories.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE ). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, following this official written declaration, Parliament has established European Artisanal Gelato Day which will be celebrated all over Europe on 24 March. I thank Mr De Castro, Ms Ortiz Vilella, Mr Stadler and Mr Mölzer, who, together with myself, submitted the declaration, and also Mr Scottà and Mr Cancian, who backed the artisanal gelato tasting in Parliament, allowing everyone to taste it as well as sign.

I also want to thank the Artglace Confederation producers, who represent European ice cream makers and who came all the way to Strasbourg to offer us their ice cream. Supporting artisanal gelato means promoting quality, authenticity and the best nutritional characteristics. Artisanal gelato is made from fresh fruit, fresh milk and local produce, and therefore supports agriculture and the dairy products sector, reducing CO2 emissions. Thank you to everyone who signed.

– Before the vote:

  Alexandra Thein, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we are about to vote on two technical reports on the European Court of Justice. I would like to make the following non-partisan comments: the European Parliament expressly regrets the fact that the increase in the number of judges at the European Court of Justice, the necessity of which has also been accepted by the Council, has failed simply because the Member States were unable to agree on the Member States from which the extra judges were to be drawn. This is despite the fact that there were several possible solutions on the table.

Thus, in procedural terms, we have an absolutely exceptional case here that is almost without precedent in Parliament, as we are about to vote on the proposed regulation and the first part today in order to relieve the Court of Justice of at least some of its workload, while leaving the second part hanging; it will hopefully be possible to bring this more important part to a successful conclusion by summer 2013. On behalf of our citizens and businesses, I once again call on the Member States not to play their usual power games with the third estate and to afford it the respect it deserves.

IN THE CHAIR: JACEK PROTASIEWICZ
Vice-President

Oral explanations of vote

Report: Alexandra Thein (A7-0185/2012 )

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE ). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, due to the ever rising number of pending cases, the Court of Justice, in order to tackle its increasing workload, has expressed the need for an increase in the number of judges. Despite its efforts, the Court cannot keep up with its judicial functions. I therefore voted in favour of my fellow Member’s report, which increases the number of judges by 12, taking them from 27 to 39.

  Charles Tannock (ECR ). – Mr President, if I may repeat a cliché: justice delayed is justice denied. That is why I voted in favour of this resolution. Any large backlog in any part of the EU justice system is obviously highly unwelcome. The fact is that, despite a large increase in the number of cases disposed of annually – i.e. in productivity – the number of pending cases continues to rise year on year, as we have failed to close the gap with the increasing number of new cases.

I was not in support of the Lisbon Treaty, but we now need to buttress it by adjusting to the high judicial case-load that the Treaty seems to have generated. The list of structural reforms, as we have heard, will reduce the restrictions on the composition of the Grand Chamber, allowing holders of the newly created post of Vice-President to sit in the Grand Chamber in lieu of the President, and doing away with the quite excessive requirement that all the Presidents of the five-judge chambers be present there all the time.

I am all in favour of streamlining the EU’s decision making so that my constituents get better value for money.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR ). – Mr President, during the 18th century in a sermon preached before his King, Bishop Hoadly of Winchester made the observation that ‘whoever hath an absolute authority to interpret any written or spoken laws, it is he, who is truly the law giver, to all intents and purposes; and not the person who first wrote or spoke them’. Judicial activism is a problem intrinsic in any system which places final interpretative power in a tribunal. It is a system that has been greatly exacerbated in the European Union by two particular phenomena.

First of all, the fact that there is no requirement for the judges at the ECJ to have spent a single day on the bench in their home countries. The only qualification you need in essence is a law degree, so many of them are politicians, officials who have an overt federalist agenda. Secondly, the federalist agenda is in the job description, in the spec of the people who do it. This is the problem with any renegotiation. You have matters which are plainly intergovernmental being reinterpreted as single market issues, as QMV issues by judges with a mission.

The ECJ should stick to interpreting what the law says, rather than ruling on the basis of what they think it ought to say.

Report: Alexandra Thein (A7-0184/2012 )

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE ). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union Civil Service Tribunal consists of seven judges, but its operation can be seriously affected if one of its members falls ill or is unable to perform his or her duties for an extended period.

In order to ensure that the tribunal is not placed in a situation in which it cannot carry out its judicial functions, the Court of Justice has submitted a proposal for a regulation that allows temporary judges to be appointed, when necessary. On these grounds, being convinced that this proposal is a sensible solution to a practical problem which can be disruptive to European justice, I voted in favour.

  Charles Tannock (ECR ). – Mr President, as I have just said before regarding the ECJ, I welcome this common-sense proposal on reforming the structural features of the EU justice system to better fit them for an ever expanding case-load of an enlarging Union post-Lisbon.

It is quite shocking actually that there currently exists no workable procedures for replacing a civil service tribunal judge if he or she falls ill. One has to wonder why this was not included in the original statute in the first place.

I was in favour of the separate civil service tribunal (CST) at the time of its establishment in 2005 and I should like to reiterate my ECR Group’s position that we need more specialised courts on the model of the CST to provide tailored expertise in specific legal areas such as infringements of IP law. But we must always be wary, as my colleague Daniel Hannan said, of judicial activism whereby judges seek to replace the role of elected politicians.

Report: Göran Färm (A7-0150/2012 )

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE ). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the internal market cannot reach its full potential without modern and effective infrastructure. Thanks to the agreement recently reached on financial contribution, it will be possible to boost investments in European transport, energy and information and communication technology (ICT) networks.

I therefore voted in favour of Mr Färm’s text because I would argue that building new infrastructures can have a positive impact on the relaunch of the European economy.

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE ). – (FI) Mr President, it is very important that Parliament should have vigorously supported the establishment of the trans-European transport and energy networks and funding for them. They are crucial to Europe 2020 and to growth.

The only regrettable aspect of this issue is that funding is currently still at a level that represents just about a tenth of what is needed. I believe that significant funding for a European high voltage main grid, which would be a better guarantee of energy efficiency, security of energy supply and, furthermore, better exploitation of renewable energy in electricity production, represents one of the absolutely crucial investments on which the Member States of the European Union, the European Investment Bank, project bonds and this financing project too should, in future, concentrate its resources.

  Charles Tannock (ECR ). – Mr President, I voted in favour of this resolution. It is, of course, very questionable whether we need to have a growth plan at European level over the next ten years after the clear failure of the Lisbon Agenda. I am sceptical about a deliverable programme that the project bond initiative hopes to represent. However, I have some immediate real concerns and this is why a proper evaluation of the pilot phase is vital at this stage, as the ECR Group has repeatedly made clear.

The moribund economies of southern Europe do not necessarily need some gigantic Keynesian investment programme. They need flexible labour markets. The problem is mainly the supply side. Across Europe, as well as at EU level, national and regional governments refuse to cut red tape, the one long-term solution that could lead Europe to the prosperity we now find elusive in a globally competitive world.

I am nevertheless in favour of infrastructure development as a general principle and, since this initiative may, if well thought through, bring some success, it makes sense to trial it now, with a view to making an evidence-based decision on whether to take it further at a later date.

  Peter Jahr (PPE ). – (DE) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report, but I would still ask to be allowed to make three comments on the project bonds. Firstly, project bonds are a way to place the financing of projects on a broader footing by including private capital. This does not involve an infinite increase in financial capital. Secondly, this means that the projects must make sense and demonstrate economic effectiveness. We need to learn from the past: we are not just talking about building roads and hotel complexes. That is why a test and pilot phase is so important; after all, we should only promise people what we can actually deliver. At present, there are numerous promises and unrealistic expectations associated with these project bonds and a pilot phase would help us to get back on the straight and narrow.

  Seán Kelly (PPE ). – (GA) Mr President, I was happy to support this recommendation as well, and it was clear that the majority of Parliament were in favour: 579 for, 32 against and nine abstentions. So, that is clear enough.

I think it is important that we have as close cooperation and connection as possible between all parts of the European Union and, in that regard, we should not forget the islands – in particular I am thinking of my own country.

Thankfully, in energy terms, we have interconnectors with our nearest neighbour, the United Kingdom, and hopefully also in due course with other areas. In terms of transport, the United Kingdom has a link with the continent now through Eurostar, and maybe somewhere down the line there might be one connecting Ireland with Britain.

The relationship between Ireland and the United Kingdom has never been better; thanks, in particular, to the Queen of England, who visited Ireland last year and last week was involved in the historic handshake with Martin McGuinness. I think connecting us physically would also be a step in the right direction.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE ). – (FI) Mr President, I would like to say very briefly that I supported this proposal and I believe that it is an excellent one. It is important that funding for the trans-European transport and energy networks is stepped up and that new instruments are sought for them. It will be interesting to see how these project bonds will then start to work.

At the moment, we need the kinds of projects that create conditions for real growth, and it is surely growth that we are currently seeking in Europe. We now need sustainable growth, because the problem of indebtedness that has now arisen will not be solved in any other way. In this respect, this is a good project, and one that is perfectly suited to the European Union’s involvement in creating conditions for sustainable growth. Furthermore, it is also in harmony with our own Europe 2020 programme.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR ). – Mr President, once again, we are trying to spend our way out of trouble. Excessive consumption without any commensurate production is why we are in this mess, and more subsidies are the problem rather than the solution.

I know it is a very unpopular thing to say this in this Chamber, where you get thunderously applauded if you make any kind of attack on the British Conservatives – as we saw yesterday, when Mr Swoboda did it, and the day before, when Mr Barroso did it. I think the mood of the House can perhaps be best understood in psychological terms. Perhaps I should ask my friend and colleague, Charles Tannock, who is a proper psychiatrist, to explain it in terms of transference, in terms of projection.

The thing is that nobody is enjoying this mess, for all that Mr Barroso claims otherwise. No one could possibly be enjoying the economic crisis that is engulfing Europe, and nobody likes to say ‘I told you so’; it never makes you popular. What we are pleading for is that the people who have got the analysis right so far be listened to next time, so that we stop repeating the very mistake that led us to our present discontent. We are where we are because we have been spending too much and borrowing too much. We are not going to get out of it by spending more and borrowing more.

Motion for a resolution: B7-0296/2012

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE ). – (FI) Mr President, the situation in the Middle East is extremely delicate and it is therefore obviously important that political positions on this issue are well-balanced and conducive to positive developments in the region.

I voted for this joint resolution because I think that the situation is one in which there is immense human suffering and also tragedy, and regarding which the European Union and European Parliament need to adopt a clear position in favour of a policy calling for an end to needless and excessive violence and a better guarantee of human rights and public safety in the Middle East.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE ). – (IT ) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the changes taking place in the Arab world make the need for progress in the Middle East Peace Process even more urgent. We must take into account the wishes of the region’s populations – those of the Palestinians and of the Israelis. This is an essential element for peace, stability and prosperity in the region.

Rocket attacks from Gaza, settlement construction, evacuations and the demolition of homes in East Jerusalem, worsening living conditions for the Palestinian population – in particular, women and children – extremism and provocation from settlers in the West Bank are all factors that undermine the two-state solution.

Resolving the conflict is one of the European Union’s main interests. For this reason, we need to create a climate of trust, which is required to ensure peaceful negotiations, refraining from measures that compromise the project’s credibility in order to overcome this unacceptable status quo .

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL ). – Mr President, the brutal Israeli state policy and repeated human rights violations in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem are a conscious policy designed to undermine any prospect of real Palestinian self-rule. They are also designed to stir up nationalism, to help lower the pressure from social pressures within Israel and to try to avoid the development of a joint struggle of the oppressed.

I would like to draw specific attention to the fate of over 2 300 Jahalin Bedouins, one of the poorest communities living in the West Bank, who are at risk of being driven out of their homes by the Israeli State. Demolition orders have been issued, including against two schools, which would cut off hundreds of children from education. The alternative they face is to go to live in a site no more than 300 metres away from a landfill near the Palestinian town of Abu Dis.

These scandalous policies have to cease. They can be ended by the development of a mass struggle of the Palestinians, together with Israeli workers and the poor, against the oppression, against the occupation and for a socialist alternative in the Middle East.

  Charles Tannock (ECR ). – Mr President, at a critical time for peace negotiations, possibly based on the Arab peace initiative, it is highly inappropriate for a body such as this Parliament, famed for its anti-Israeli invective, to seek to undermine the honest broker status of the European Union and incite further tensions.

The goal should be now to work for an equitable and viable two-state solution where Israelis live in peace and security while the Palestinians have the job opportunities they need to prosper. Rather than apparently coming down so strongly against one side, the Parliament should take a much more balanced position and not prejudice any negotiations between the parties, which I very much hope will resume soon.

My group, the ECR, refused to sign the joint motion which virtually tried to question the state of Israel’s legitimacy. This is the only true democracy in the region and it was more like a report than a resolution: a litany of condemnations of Israel. We all hope for a two-state solution of course, but these matters are very complex and a lot of give and take will be required by all parties to come to a fair and lasting peaceful settlement.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE ). – (FI) Mr President, I had to vote against this resolution because, unfortunately, it took a very one-sided view of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Just as people have said in their speeches here, this would question Israel’s legitimacy.

We in the European Union need to remember our values. We are in favour of democracy, human rights and freedom of opinion, and I hope that we also want to build lasting peace in the Middle East. In this respect, it was encouraging to see that the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) suggested that Hamas should recognise the state of Israel and give its support to a two-state solution, and that it should end its strikes against Israel. They have, of course, intensified in recent times.

In this respect, I hope that the European Parliament and the European Union will make it very clear that we will stand by our values. We support democracy and Israel. We should also clearly state that Jerusalem is the indivisible capital of Israel. It is that, both in the historic sense and today. If a two-state solution should one day materialise, it will also do so with a respect for the facts of history.

  Peter Jahr (PPE ). – (DE) Mr President, of course there is no disputing the fact that we all would like to support the Middle East peace process in an active and positive way. We all know that there is no easy solution there. Anyone who takes a closer look at the history of the region and the facts will know that it is not that easy to distinguish between good and evil. In most cases, the solution lies somewhere in the middle, and that is precisely my problem: when I consider the amendment, it seems far too one-sided. The way I see it, the legitimate interests of the Israeli side have been ignored. Let me repeat: it is particularly difficult to distinguish between good and evil here. Personally, I would like to see a European Parliament motion for a resolution that places this compromise on a broader footing. I would then have been able to vote in favour of the motion for a resolution.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Alexandra Thein (A7-0185/2012 )

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D ), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because, for several years now, the number of cases disposed of by the General Court has been lower than the number of new cases, so that the number of pending cases is rising constantly. It is therefore urgent to make the Court of Justice of the European Union more efficient and effective, as it is mainly European citizens and businesses that end up being penalised. The Court of Justice therefore considers that an increase in the number of judges by at least 12, bringing the number of General Court judges to 39, is necessary. However, while there is, in principle, an agreement to increase the number of judges at the General Court, a method for their designation has not yet been established and this needs to be put in place.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE ), in writing. – (FR) Amending the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union was necessary and I supported it. The proposed amendment involves reforming certain provisions relating to the three courts currently making up the Court of Justice. In particular, proposals relating to the Court of Justice include establishing the office of Vice-President and broader participation by the judges in cases assigned to the Grand Chamber; proposals relating to the Civil Service Tribunal include attaching three temporary judges to this tribunal to replace a judge in the event of prolonged absence.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D ), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. I welcome the proposal to establish the office of Vice-President of the Court of Justice because the President’s workload has increased considerably with time and I believe that it would therefore be useful to appoint a Vice-President who could assist him in carrying out his duties. I agree that in order to increase the capacity of the Chamber, the structure of the Grand Chamber needs to be changed and the number of judges that compose the Grand Chamber needs to be increased to 15. In order to enable the General Court to address the issue of the ever increasing number of unprocessed cases, which has grown from 787 in 2000 to 1 300 in 2010, it is essential to increase the number of General Court judges. I welcome the proposal to increase the number of judges by 12.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD ), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the dossier concerning Ms Thein’s proposal for a regulation to amend the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as I agree with my fellow Member’s proposal to change its composition and to introduce changes in how the tribunal operates. These measures will make the Court a faster and more efficient instrument, able to give greater legal assistance to all EU citizens.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D ), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has proposed several amendments to its Statute, which concern, to varying degrees, the three courts currently making up the CJEU: the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal. The Court considers it desirable to establish the office of Vice-President of the Court of Justice and to amend the rules relating to the composition of the Grand Chamber. The Court of Justice argues that its President’s workload has increased considerably with time and it would therefore be useful to appoint a Vice-President who could relieve or assist him in carrying out his duties in future. As well as substantive changes, the proposals concern staff changes and increases. The Court of Justice argues that for some years now, the gap between the number of cases processed by the General Court and the number of new cases has been widening and that the number of unprocessed cases is rising constantly. Increasing the number of judges is the way to cope with the essential need for effectiveness, urgency, flexibility and consistency in Court of Justice case-law.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE ), in writing. – (RO) The present structure of the Grand Chamber and the rules determining how it operates are the result of amendments introduced by the Treaty of Nice. At present, the President of the Court and the Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges have a very heavy workload. As a result of this workload, the Court has amended its Rules of Procedure to allow it to dispense with the oral procedure in intellectual property cases, while clarifying the status of interveners in such cases, thus allowing them to be dealt with more expeditiously. In these circumstances, I think an increase in the number of General Court judges is necessary in order to streamline the Court’s activity.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE ), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report to increase the number of judges by 12, from 27 to 39. The increase in pending cases led the Court of Justice to submit its requirement to increase the number of judges. The judges are unable to carry out their work due to the current workload.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE ), in writing. – (PT) As the partial renewal of the Court of Justice is due to take place on 7 October 2012, amendments to the Statute of the Court of Justice and Annex I thereto have been proposed which concern, to varying degrees, the three courts currently making up the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU): the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal. The European Union’s jurisdiction has increased, particularly following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, leading to the progressive expansion of the CJEU’s jurisdiction, which has also increased with the far larger number of Member States, causing it to become overloaded. The objective of these proposals is to improve the CJEU’s efficiency, both in terms of its work and in terms of reducing delays in pending cases so as to ensure legal certainty and general confidence in the EU’s judicial system. I support the compromise achieved, despite regretting the fact that no agreement was reached on the necessary increase in General Court judges, which would significantly help to speed up cases and to combat the current trend for the number of cases disposed of by the General Court to be lower than the number of new cases.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D ), in writing. – I voted in favour of the motion for a European Parliament legislative resolution on the draft regulation amending the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice because, given the evident increase in the workload of the Court in the last years, a revision of the rules concerning its activities and the composition of the Court was fundamental.

The document, containing proposals relating to the Court of Justice and to the General Court, aims at strengthening the working capacity of the ECJ, in line with the guidelines suggested by the European Commission. The suggested reform, by amending Articles 16 and 17 of the Statute, wants to increase the participation of the judges in cases assigned to the Grand Chamber, allowing them to sit far more frequently than at present, thereby easing the activities of the President of the Court and the Presidents of the Chambers of five judges, redistributing the workload in a more balanced way.

I positively welcome this text amending the Protocol on the Court of Justice because it responds to the urgent need for a necessary rationalisation of certain specific aspects of the working rules of the ECJ, a crucial component of the European Union institutional architecture.

  Edite Estrela (S&D ), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on the draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Annex I thereto. I believe that the amendments to the Statute and its Annex proposed by the Court of Justice of the European Union aim to enable the Court of Justice and the General Court to operate more efficiently, specifically by establishing the office of Vice-President, who, along with the President, will participate in judging all cases assigned to the Grand Chamber, so as to ensure that its case-law is consistent.

  Diogo Feio (PPE ), in writing. – (PT) This proposal aims to amend the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union to improve its operation and to better share the workload between the judges. The amendments increase the number of judges and establish the office of Vice-President. Despite the budgetary implications of these proposals, granting effective judicial protection, notably through court judgments handed down within a reasonable period of time, is a crucial obligation. Moreover, the possible financial consequences of inefficient justice should not be ignored, even at a time of budgetary constraints.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE ), in writing. – (PT) The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), based in Luxembourg, is the supreme court of the European Union (EU) and has jurisdiction over the interpretation of EU legislation. An exceptional rise in the number of pending cases has resulted from greater citizen awareness about their rights and European Union enlargement. After the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the CJEU also saw its jurisdiction and, similarly, the number of cases and judgments expand. The report by Alexandra Thein concerns the draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Annex I thereto, which aims to improve the court’s performance, as justice delayed is justice denied. Although I regret that it has not been possible to increase the number of judges, I voted for this proposal to internally reorganise the CJEU. By establishing a Vice-President and having temporary judges, the court will not only improve its work, but will also have a significant impact on citizens’ quality of life.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL ), in writing. – (PT) This report relates to the proposed amendments to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The proposal comes from the Court itself and includes establishing the office of Vice-President of the Court of Justice and amending the rules relating to the composition of the Grand Chamber. The justification given for this proposal results from the observation of a practical problem: at present, the President of the Court and the Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges have a very heavy workload. To respond to this constraint, it is therefore proposed to increase the number of judges, amongst other measures. For several years now, the number of cases disposed of by the General Court has been lower than the number of new cases, meaning that the number of pending cases is constantly on the increase. As the report essentially focuses on technical issues, there are inevitably considerations to be made from a political point of view. The Court of Justice’s situation is inseparable from the development of the integration process itself and the growing encroachment on the sovereignty of Member States and their institutions, including in the area of justice.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D ), in writing. – (SK) The workload of the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal is constantly increasing. We urgently need to find a solution which will ensure the proper functioning of all three courts. The productivity of the Court of Justice itself has substantially improved, but the number of unfinished cases continues to rise. It is interesting that the Court of Justice states by way of illustration that the files of cases under review cover an area of 505 metres! Such a rate is simply not manageable, and the Court of Justice clearly lacks the resources needed to perform its activities properly and effectively. We therefore need an urgent structural solution. The Court of Justice has concluded that, in view of the urgency of the situation, the most advantageous solution would be to increase the number of judges by at least 12, bringing the overall number of judges at the General Court to 39. The matter of their appointment, however, is problematic. The request has been divided into two sections, and the section dealing with the matter of the General Court is therefore still open. It is clearly desirable to increase the number of judges as quickly as possible. It is no less important, however, to agree on a method for appointing them. I consider it important for the Council to address this issue as a matter of priority.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD ), in writing. – (LT) The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has proposed several amendments to its Statute together with the adoption of a regulation concerning temporary judges of the Civil Service Tribunal. The proposed amendments concern, to varying degrees, the three courts currently making up the CJEU: the Court of Justice, the General Court (EGC) and the Civil Service Tribunal. As well as substantive changes, two of the proposals concern staff changes and increases requiring additional resources and thus having a direct impact on the EU budget. The Court of Justice argues that its President’s workload has increased considerably with time and it would therefore be useful to appoint a Vice-President who could relieve or assist him in carrying out his duties in future. The President of the Court has a large number of responsibilities, which are crucial to the smooth running of the Court. There have been cases where appeals against the General Court’s orders for interim measures have sometimes taken over a year to be dealt with. The establishment of the office of Vice-President should help improve the situation in this area. The Court of Justice also argues that, for some years now, the gap between the number of cases processed by the General Court and the number of new cases has been widening and that the number of unprocessed cases is continually rising. The Court of Justice assumes that the number of cases per year will also continue to rise in the future. After weighing up the options, it has decided on the proposal to increase the number of judges as the only way to cope with the essential need for effectiveness, urgency, flexibility and consistency in Court of Justice case-law. I therefore voted in favour of this document.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE ), in writing. – (FR) The Court of Justice of the European Union submitted a request for its Statute to be amended. These amendments include establishing the office of Vice-President and increasing the number of judges from 27 to 39. Within this framework, the procedures for appointing the additional 12 judges and the role of the Vice-President were defined. Parliament adopted this report by a very large majority, which I also supported.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE ), in writing. – I support the proposal for broader participation of judges assigned in cases in the Grand Chamber. This would ensure that case-law is consistent, as currently, the Court of Justice judges have a very heavy workload while other judges sit in relatively few cases.

I also support the establishment of a Vice-President to assist the President in carrying out his ever increasing duties. As for the General Court, the number of cases disposed of has been lower than the number of cases brought before the court for several years. Despite the Court’s substantial efforts and increased productivity, it cannot keep up with the resource-intensive job.

The increase in workload comes from a variety of reasons, including the increase of litigation following 2004 and 2007 accessions, European integration, and the devolution of jurisdiction. The Court has made several efforts to deal with cases more expeditiously but believes a structural solution is urgently required, such as increasing the number of judges. This must be done to increase the effectiveness, urgency and flexibility of the court. Not only is effective judicial protection vital, but inefficient justice might be even more costly.

  David Martin (S&D ), in writing. – I voted for this report but I feel that it would be unwise to require the Court to create at least two specialised chambers. This would be too rigid. I would prefer to leave the Court with the possibility of creating such chambers in its Rules of Procedure. Moreover, the Court already has the power to allocate cases of the same nature to one or more specified chambers.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D ), in writing. – In conjunction with the proposed amendments to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, proposals have also been brought forward to lay down rules for the appointment of temporary judges to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal. In favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI ), in writing. – (DE) The European Court of Justice wishes to establish the office of Vice-President of the Court and to change the rules regarding appointments to the Grand Chamber. The current structure and the rules on the functioning of this judicial panel – involving the participation of the President of the European Court of Justice and the Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges in all legal cases referred to the Grand Chamber and decision-making powers when nine judges are present – date back to the changes brought about by the Treaty of Nice. If the workload of the President of the European Court of Justice and the Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges is very heavy, while the remaining judges preside relatively infrequently over the legal cases referred to the Grand Chamber, then a change makes sense. When changes are made to a protocol, however, the same procedures must be observed as when changing a treaty. Accordingly, the procedure must be rejected on formal grounds.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE ), in writing. – (ET) I supported the proposal by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to amend its statutes, considering the great increase in the Court’s workload and the need to improve the organisation of work so as to increase the number of resolved court cases. Despite the Court’s efforts, through which it has resolved more and more cases each year, the number of cases waiting to be heard is increasing at a continuous rate. This, however, is largely the result of the enlargement of the European Union and the greater integration between Member States, which are giving rise to various disputes. To ensure that the ECJ is able to cope with the increase in its workload, there will be an inevitable need to increase the number of judges. Here, too, I would like to commend the ECJ for its current efforts to process cases more speedily; for example, the Court’s Rules of Procedure have been amended to permit the handling of intellectual property cases through oral proceedings.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD ), in writing. – (LT) I welcome this resolution. Given the significant workload of the Presidents of the Chambers, it is necessary to increase the number of judges in the Grand Chamber. In order to ensure more consistent case-law, I welcome the establishment of the new office of Vice-President, which would enable the Vice-President to participate in every Grand Chamber case and would assist the President in carrying out his duties. Given the number of unprocessed General Court cases, the structural changes to this court need to be implemented as a matter of urgency. In order to increase the efficiency of the General Court its number of judges should also be increased.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE ), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Annex I thereto as I am in agreement with it.

  Robert Rochefort (ALDE ), in writing. – (FR) The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been overloaded for a number of years now. Congestion in the courts of the European Union is very damaging both to EU citizens, who can no longer have justice administered within a reasonable period of time, and to the CJEU itself, with the quality of its judgments compromised due to its increased workload. Proposals to reform the organisation of the Court of Justice and of the General Court, as well as a change to the composition of the General Court, were submitted to improve the productivity of this institution. We are taking a step forward today by establishing our position at first reading on the organisation of the European Courts in Luxembourg. The action taken aims, in particular, to end the automatic participation of all the Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges in Grand Chamber cases, to adapt the quorums of the Chambers for greater flexibility, to establish the office of Vice-President to assist the Presidents of the Court and of the General Court, and to appoint a temporary judge in the absence of a judge who is prevented from participating in judicial business for an extended period of time. I fully support this position.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE ), in writing. – In favour. The proposal provides for: (a) broader participation by the judges in cases assigned to the Grand Chamber, allowing them to sit far more frequently than at present. That would be achieved by amending Articles 16 and 17 of the Statute so as to increase to 15 the number of judges constituting the Grand Chamber and to end the automatic participation of all the Presidents of five-judge Chambers in Grand Chamber cases. Corresponding adjustments would have to be made to the rules relating to the quorum of the Grand Chamber and of the full Court; (b) the establishment of the office of Vice-President: the latter would sit, like the President, in every case assigned to the Grand Chamber. The permanent presence of two persons, together with the more frequent participation of the other judges in the work of the Grand Chamber, would ensure that its case-law is consistent. In addition to sitting in every Grand Chamber case, the Vice-President would also assist the President of the Court in his duties.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE ), in writing. – (IT) This vote looks to amend the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Firstly, it proposes establishing the office of Vice-President of the Court of Justice of the European Union. This measure is needed because its President’s workload has increased considerably with time and it would therefore be useful if he could, in future, be replaced or assisted by a Vice-President in carrying out his duties. In addition, for some years now, the gap between the cases processed by the General Court and the number of new cases has been widening and the number of unprocessed cases is rising constantly. At the end of 2010, there were 1 300 cases pending, whereas, in the same year, 527 cases were disposed of. The average duration of proceedings rose from 20.9 to 27.2 months. This is why we need to take on 12 new judges.

  József Szájer (PPE ), in writing. – (HU) The Court of Justice of the European Union has requested the amendment of its Statute because it believes that urgent restructuring is necessary in order to handle its extremely large workload and to reduce the time taken to judge cases. The Court of Justice is aware that a significant number of cases currently before the General Court require an urgent solution. Like the judicial reform recently carried out in Hungary, the aim of the draft amendment requested by the Court of Justice is to increase the efficiency of the Court of Justice and to reduce the duration of proceedings. It is not sufficient to stem the tide of new cases; it is also necessary to take strong steps to process the backlog of cases in progress. According to the Court of Justice, the necessary efficiency and consistency of the Court of Justice's administration of justice can only be ensured by increasing the number of judges as a matter of urgency. There is general agreement among the institutions of the EU regarding the necessity of these amendments. However, while there is agreement in theory about increasing the number of members of the General Court, the method of appointing them has not yet been determined. Given that the Council was unable to reach political agreement concerning the distribution of the 12 new judge positions to be created among the Member States, the relevant section was omitted from the regulation, enabling the remaining points of the reform to be adopted and for the organisational changes to come into effect prior to the partial restructuring in autumn.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D ), in writing. – (FR) This text makes a contribution to a Europe in which justice is respected because it is given the necessary resources. We cannot stand idly by as new procedures abound while the number of unprocessed cases is rising constantly. At the end of 2010, there were 1 300 cases pending, whereas, in the same year, 527 cases were disposed of. Other modifications have been proposed to alleviate the workload of the President of the Court and of the Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges.

There has been no shortage of constructive proposals during these first six months: to establish the office of Vice-President; to enable the Presidents of five-judge Chambers not to participate in Grand Chamber cases, and to increase by 12 the number of judges at the General Court. It has been pointed out that the majority of national and international courts, such as the European Court of Human Rights, have, to my knowledge, Vice-Presidents.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE ), in writing. – (PT) Due to a sudden increase in cases, the Court of Justice of the European Union has submitted a request for the amendment of its statute to increase the speed and efficiency of its work. I voted for this report as I believe it is vital to establish the new office of Vice-President, to broaden the participation of judges in the Grand Chamber, and to increase the number of judges at the General Court.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D ), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the draft regulation amending the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Annex I thereto. The Court of Justice of the European Union has proposed several amendments to its Statute together with the adoption of a regulation concerning the temporary judges of the Civil Service Tribunal. Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, these amendments should, for the first time, be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure. The proposed amendments concern, to varying degrees, the three courts that currently make up the Court of Justice of the European Union. They are necessary due to the increased workload of these courts. The proposed amendments concerning the Court of Justice refer to the increase in quorum for the decisions of the Grand Chamber and of the full Court and to the establishment of the office of Vice-President and its corresponding duties. As regards the General Court, an increase in the number of judges to 39 has been proposed in order for it to cope with its increased workload and duration of proceedings. Concerning the Civil Service Tribunal, the Court requests that three temporary judges be assigned to it, whose assistance it can avail itself of in case a judge is prevented from acting for a longer period.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI ), in writing. – The courts’ problems in handling and solving the continuously increasing number of legal matters require adaptations in the courts’ structure. To raise the number of judges in court as well as to establish a new function for a Vice-President seem to be adequate solutions to guarantee the coherence of jurisdiction and improve the division of labour.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD ), in writing. – (PL) In connection with the partial change in the composition of the European Court of Justice and the resulting urgent need to find a solution that would enable the Civil Service Tribunal to function properly, I believe it is vital to adopt the proposed changes to the statute relating to the organisation of the Court and the Civil Service Tribunal. For this reason, I voted in favour.

Report: Alexandra Thein (A7-0184/2012 )

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D ), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, given that the Court of Justice has submitted a proposal for a regulation which would allow temporary judges to be appointed to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal. The Civil Service Tribunal consists of seven judges. As a result, its operation can be seriously affected if one of its members falls ill and is unable to perform his or her duties for an extended period without, however, suffering from disablement within the meaning of Article 10 of Council Regulation No 422/67/EEC, No 5/67/Euratom. For this reason, I agree with the rules put forward to govern the appointment of temporary judges, their rights and obligations, the conditions under which they are to perform their duties and the circumstances in which they will cease to perform those duties. I believe that this measure will help the efficiency of this institution and, at the same time, ensure the rights of its staff, since the temporary judges will be appointed for a period of four years and may be reappointed.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE ), in writing. – (FR) The Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union consists of seven judges. When one of them is prevented, on medical grounds for example, from participating in judicial business for an extended period of time, the functioning of this tribunal is affected. I therefore approved the possibility of appointing temporary judges. Such recruitment will be subject to rules and conditions, of course, but this report makes it possible.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D ), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. I agree that it is necessary to provide for the possibility of supplementing the Civil Service Tribunal with temporary judges. In order to ensure that the operation of the court is not disrupted if one of the judges falls ill, it is very important to be able to replace the judge if, on medical grounds, he or she is prevented from participating in judicial business for longer than three months. I agree that temporary judges should be able to perform only strictly judicial duties and should not be entitled to participate in the administration of the Civil Service Tribunal.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD ), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the dossier regarding the proposal for a European Parliament and Council regulation relating to temporary judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal. I agree with Ms Thein’s position, which considers it necessary to introduce the role of temporary judges to specialised courts, so that the Court’s operation is not affected should one of the seven members be unable to perform their duties for an extended period. This amendment to the Statute and Annex I will not place any burden on Member States.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D ), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because, in order to ensure that the European Civil Service Tribunal is not placed in a situation in which it cannot carry out its judicial functions, Article 62c of the Statute of the Court should be amended, by providing, in general terms, for the possibility of attaching temporary judges to the specialised courts. The Court of Justice submitted a proposal for a regulation which would allow temporary judges to be appointed to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal. The Civil Service Tribunal consists of seven judges. As a result, its operation can be seriously affected if one of its members falls ill and is unable to perform his or her duties for an extended period. The main thrust of the proposal is as follows: on a proposal from the President of the Court of Justice, the Council of the European Union draws up a list of three persons to be temporary judges. Temporary judges are to be chosen from among former Members of the Court of Justice of the European Union who are able to place themselves at the disposal of the Civil Service Tribunal. This proposal is a sensible solution to a practical problem, which can be very disruptive to the work of the European Civil Service Tribunal. The proposed amendments are purely technical and reproduce those put forward by the Commission in its opinion.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE ), in writing. – (FR) I fully support the request by the Court that wished to appoint three temporary judges who could replace a judge in the event of prolonged absence. It should be noted that this vote was partially conditional upon the clarification of the status of judges between MEPs and the Court of Justice.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE ), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this regulation as I believe that appointing temporary judges to perform judicial duties only is the way to ensure the smooth running of the EU Civil Service Tribunal, which currently consists of only seven judges.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE ), in writing. – (PT) The EU Civil Service Tribunal currently consists of seven judges. The temporary absence of any of these judges due to ill health can have a profound effect on the tribunal’s operation and contribute to delays in pending cases. Accordingly, this initiative introduces the possibility of attaching temporary judges to the specialised courts. It also provides for the Council drawing up a list of three persons capable of carrying out the duties of a Civil Service Tribunal judge. These persons can be called upon to perform temporary judge duties whenever it is necessary to temporarily substitute a judge who is unable to perform his or her duties due to medical grounds for at least three months. These temporary judges shall be appointed for a period of four years and may be reappointed. They shall exercise the prerogatives of a judge solely in the context of dealing with cases to which they are assigned. That is, temporary judges will have strictly judicial duties and will not be entitled to participate in the administration of the tribunal or in the election of the President or the Presidents of the Chambers. I therefore voted for this regulation as I believe that it appears to be the most logical solution to deal with situations that could prevent the tribunal from carrying out its judicial functions.

  Edite Estrela (S&D ), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on temporary judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal as I believe that the proposed amendments will help the Civil Service Tribunal to operate more effectively, specifically enabling the Civil Service Tribunal to draw up a list of three temporary judges who can be called upon to replace permanent judges unable to carry out their duties for medical reasons.

  Diogo Feio (PPE ), in writing. – (PT) The Court of Justice has submitted a proposal for a regulation which would allow temporary judges to be appointed to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal. The Civil Service Tribunal consists of seven judges. As a result, its operation can be seriously affected if one of its members falls ill and is unable to perform his or her duties for an extended period. Rules have been put forward to govern the appointment of temporary judges, their rights and obligations, the conditions under which they are to perform their duties and the circumstances in which they will cease to perform those duties. This appears to be a balanced and sensible proposal that will ensure that the European Union Civil Service Tribunal operates effectively.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE ), in writing. – (PT) The European Union Civil Service Tribunal (CST), established on 2 December 2005 by the Council of the European Union, consists of seven judges and has jurisdiction in disputes between the Community and its servants (Article 236 of the EC Treaty and Article 152 of the Euratom Treaty). It is a specialised court and appeals against its decisions may be lodged with the Court of First Instance. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of pending cases that must be dealt with. The current CST Statute does not allow a judge to be replaced during temporary absences on medical grounds, which leads to pending cases accumulating. To remedy this situation, it is proposed that temporary judges be chosen from among former Members of the Court of Justice of the European Union who are able to place themselves at the disposal of the Civil Service Tribunal, to be appointed for a period of four years, after which they may be reappointed. Although I regret that my vote was too late to be included, I voted for this draft amendment to the CST Statute since, by establishing the office of Vice-President and introducing the possibility of replacing a judge absent on medical grounds, the tribunal will not only improve its work, but will help to improve citizens’ quality of life.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL ), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns a proposal for a regulation which would allow temporary judges to be appointed to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal and governs their rights and obligations, the conditions under which they are to perform their duties, and the circumstances in which they will cease to perform those duties. The Civil Service Tribunal may decide to avail itself of the assistance of a temporary judge if it determines that a judge is or will be prevented, on medical grounds, from participating in judicial business and that the situation will be, or is likely to be, of at least three months’ duration. The rapporteur commends this proposal of the Court of Justice as a sensible solution to a practical problem which can be very disruptive to the work of the European Civil Service Tribunal. She also points out that the proposed amendments are purely technical and reproduce those put forward by the Commission in its opinion. Even so, these issues are inseparable from the development of the integration process itself and the growing encroachment on the sovereignty of Member States and their institutions, including in the area of justice.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D ), in writing. – (SK) The Court of Justice has submitted a proposal allowing the appointment of temporary judges to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union. The Civil Service Tribunal is made up of seven judges. It follows from this that the operation of the court may be seriously put at risk if any of them falls ill or is incapable of carrying out his duties for some time. In order to ensure that the Civil Service Tribunal does not get into a situation where it is unable to perform its judicial role, a proposal has been made for temporary judges to be allowed in specialised tribunals. The essence of the proposal is that, at the suggestion of the President of the Court of Justice, the Council will draw up a list of three people proposed as temporary judges. They will be appointed for a term of four years, with the possibility of reappointment. They will exercise judicial powers only when addressing the cases assigned to them. This means that the temporary judges may only perform a judicial role and may not take part in running the Civil Service Tribunal or electing the President of the Court of Justice or the Presidents of the Chambers. In my opinion, the proposal submitted by the Court of Justice looks like a sensible solution to a practical problem which might otherwise significantly disrupt the activities of the Civil Service Tribunal of the EU.

  Ashley Fox (ECR ), in writing. – The Court of Justice has faced an ever growing caseload in response to the continued expansion of the powers of the European Union and increasing levels of litigation. The backlog of cases in the General Court is increasing: as of 12 October 2011, the number stood at 1 323 cases, compared to 1 304 at the same date in the previous year. It is important that the Court of Justice works effectively, as part of a well-functioning legal system providing clarity and certainty for firms operating in the EU. Under this dossier, the office of Vice-President of the Court of Justice will be established, and the rules relating to participation of judges in the Grand Chamber reformed, in order to allow the Court to operate more efficiently. Concerning the Civil Service Tribunal, the possibility of appointing temporary judges has been created, in order to substitute for existing judges who may be unavailable for long periods of time. I voted in favour of this pragmatic proposal which will avoid adding significant extra costs to the Court. It ensures a balance between delivering efficiency and maintaining a consistent direction in the jurisprudence of the Court.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D ), in writing. – (PL) Ever since the new Member States acceded to the European Union, the European Court of Justice has been faced with the problem of too few staff in relation to its caseload. The number of cases before the ECJ is steadily increasing and, in 2011, was 11.3% higher than in the previous year. An additional problem is the lack of replacement judges in situations where one of the main judges is on sick leave for a period longer than three months. This results in considerable delays in the Court’s work. Last year, there were as many as 1 323 cases waiting to be heard on 12 October. I therefore support the ECJ’s request for a regulation that would allow temporary judges to sit in the European Union Civil Service Tribunal.

At present, the Civil Service Tribunal comprises seven judges. The Court has suggested that, at the request of the President of the European Court of Justice, the Council of the European Union should prepare a list of three persons to act as temporary judges for a period of four years, who would be drawn from former ECJ members. Such judges would only have judicial competence over the cases to which they have been allocated. They would not have the right to participate in court administration or in the selection of the Court’s President or chamber presidents. The additional costs incurred by such a solution would be relatively small, as these judges would only receive 1/30 of the salary of a permanent judge for each day of work. I support the Court’s request. The provision of effective legal protection and the possibility of speeding up court proceedings should be a priority for the proper functioning of the European Union, even though this will increase costs in next year’s budget.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD ), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed the proposal for a regulation submitted by the Court of Justice, which would allow temporary judges to be appointed to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal. The Civil Service Tribunal consists of seven judges. As a result, its operations can be seriously affected if one of its members falls ill and is unable to perform his or her duties for an extended period, without, however, suffering from disablement. In order to ensure that the European Civil Service Tribunal is not placed in a situation in which it cannot carry out its judicial functions, it is proposed to amend the Statute of the Court and Annex I to the Statute, by providing, in general terms, for the possibility of attaching temporary judges to the specialised courts. In these circumstances, the President of the Tribunal will be able to call upon the services of a temporary judge. Such temporary judges will have the prerogatives of a judge solely in dealing with cases to which they are assigned. In other words, temporary judges will be able to perform only strictly judicial duties and will not be entitled to participate in the administration of the Civil Service Tribunal or in the election of the President of the Tribunal or Presidents of the Chambers.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE ), in writing. – (FR) Under Article 281 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the Court of Justice of the European Union submitted a request for its Statute to be amended to enable the appointment of three temporary judges who could replace a judge in the event of prolonged absence. The report therefore clarifies the status of these judges. I voted in favour of this report, which was adopted by Parliament by 591 votes in favour in the July part-session.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE ), in writing. – I support the regulation of the European Parliament and the Council to allow temporary judges to be appointed to the EU Civil Service Tribunal.

Since the tribunal consists of just seven judges, its work can be severely affected if one member is unable to perform his or her duties. It is crucial that the tribunal carry out its judicial functions. The temporary judges would only be able to perform strictly judicial duties and would not participate in administration or elections. They would be selected according to capability and flexibility to immediately perform the duties of the tribunal. Thus, I find this proposal a realistic solution to ensure the tribunal’s work does not get disrupted or adversely affected.

  David Martin (S&D ), in writing. – I voted for this proposal of the Court of Justice as a sensible solution to a practical problem which can be very disruptive to the work of the European Civil Service Tribunal.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE ), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the draft regulation concerning temporary judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal which would permit the appointment of three temporary judges who could replace a judge in the event of prolonged absence.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI ), in writing. – (DE) The proposal presented by the Court of Justice is designed to allow judges to be appointed to the European Union’s Civil Service Tribunal on an interim basis. In principle, it makes sense to ensure that the Court can continue to work even in the event of absences through illness. When changes are made to a protocol, however, the same procedures must be observed as when changing a treaty. Accordingly, the procedure must be rejected on formal grounds.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD ), in writing. – (LT) I welcome this resolution. In order to ensure that the work of the EU Civil Service Tribunal is systematic, continuous and swift, it is right to provide for the possibility of appointing a temporary judge to this court from a selection of former judges, who would be able to begin work immediately. This would be an appropriate and effective method of resolving the problem that currently exists, ensuring that the Civil Service Tribunal is not placed in a difficult situation, which creates obstacles to carrying out the duties it is assigned.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE ), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this draft European Parliament legislative resolution on the draft regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to temporary judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE ), in writing. – (IT) Today, we voted on Alexandra Thein’s report in plenary in Strasbourg, which explains the relevance of the proposal for a regulation submitted by the Court of Justice which would allow the European Union Civil Service Tribunal to appoint temporary judges. The tribunal consists of seven judges and its operation can be seriously affected if one of its members is unable to perform his or her duties for an extended period, without, however, suffering from disablement within the meaning of Article 10 of Council Regulation No 422/67/EEC, No 5/67/Euratom. In order to avoid a situation in which its judicial functions cannot be carried out, it is proposed to amend Article 62c of the Statute of the Court by providing for the possibility of attaching temporary judges to the specialised courts. According to the proposal from the President of the Court of Justice, the Council of the European Union shall draw up a list of three persons, chosen from among former Members of the Court of Justice of the European Union, as temporary judges. For four years, they would be able to perform only strictly judicial duties and would not be entitled to participate in the administration of the Civil Service Tribunal or in the election of the President of the Tribunal or Presidents of the Chambers.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE ), in writing. – In favour. The Court of Justice has submitted a proposal for a regulation which would allow temporary judges to be appointed to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal.

The Civil Service Tribunal consists of seven judges. As a result, its operation can be seriously affected if one of its members falls ill and is unable to perform his or her duties for an extended period, without, however, suffering from disablement within the meaning of Article 10 of Council Regulation No 422/67/EEC, No 5/67/Euratom.

In order to ensure that the European Civil Service Tribunal is not placed in a situation in which it cannot carry out its judicial functions, it is proposed to amend Article 62c of the Statute of the Court by providing, in general terms, for the possibility of attaching temporary judges to the specialised courts. Under Article 62c of the Statute, as thus amended, the attachment of temporary judges to the Civil Service Tribunal requires an amendment to Annex I to the Statute.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE ), in writing. – (IT) In order to ensure that the European Civil Service Tribunal is not placed in a situation in which its judicial functions cannot be carried out, it is proposed to amend Article 62c of the Statute of the Court by providing, in general, for the possibility of attaching temporary judges to the specialised courts. Under Article 62c of the Statute, as thus amended, the attachment of temporary judges to the Civil Service Tribunal requires an amendment to Annex I to the Statute. This vote welcomes this proposal by the Court of Justice, as it is a sensible solution to a practical problem which can be very disruptive to the work of the European Civil Service Tribunal.

  József Szájer (PPE ), in writing. – (HU) The Civil Service Tribunal is composed of just seven judges, which means that its operation is severely affected if a member falls ill and cannot perform their tasks for a protracted period. The Court of Justice of the European Union therefore recommends that the possibility be provided for in the Statute of the Court of Justice of supplementing the Civil Service Tribunal with substitute judges who could be called upon if one of the judges is unable to perform their tasks for a lengthy period, namely, in those cases when one of the judges is unable to judge cases for a period expected to exceed three months for health reasons, but is not in a condition of total incapacity to work. To ensure that the Civil Service Tribunal is able to perform its work continuously and with the greatest possible efficiency, it has become necessary to amend the Statute of the Court of Justice. The use of substitute judges is a sensible solution to a practical problem that can disrupt the work of the Civil Service Tribunal in the extreme. The recommended amendments are merely of a technical nature, but can significantly facilitate the provision of procedural guarantees in the Court of Justice’s administration of justice.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D ), in writing. – (FR) I voted positively for this text, the outcome of which must also be positive. The Civil Service Tribunal (CST) only has seven judges. If one of them were to be absent for an extended period of time (on sick leave, for example), this would seriously affect the functioning of the CST. To address this issue, it was important to allow the attachment of temporary judges to the specialised courts.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE ), in writing. – (PT) This purely technical report proposes that it be possible to appoint temporary judges if one of the seven judges is absent, meaning that the tribunal’s operation is not seriously affected. I voted for this report, as it aims to improve the tribunal’s operation.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI ), in writing. – The court for government service should be able to work continuously, especially in case of outage of one or more of the current judges. Therefore, an appointment of judges ad interim seems to be an expedient and useful solution. The arrangements for the nomination and their duration, as well as the judges’ authorisations and duties, are acceptable.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD ), in writing. – (PL) I am writing with regard to the growing need to regulate operational rules for temporary judges in the European Union Civil Service Tribunal. Taking into account the circumstances that justify their appointment, I believe that the way in which they are paid should also be regulated, as should the way in which the activity of temporary judges is terminated. For this reason, I voted in favour.

Report: Göran Färm (A7-0150/2012 )

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D ), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because the development of a modern and effective infrastructure is of key importance for achieving the Europe 2020 objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, as well as reducing unemployment. Investment needs in the field of transport, energy and information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure in Europe are estimated at EUR 1.5 trillion for 2010-2020. While the private sector should finance the main part of these – mostly profitable – investments, the public sector’s role in Europe will be crucial for achieving the above targets. To this aim, the Commission has proposed a ‘Connecting Europe Facility’ (CEF) for the next financial framework in order to accelerate infrastructure development in the fields of transport, energy and ICT networks, with particular emphasis on strategic cross-border parts. The establishment of this new instrument has often been strongly called for by Parliament. However, I draw attention to the fact that this document does not contain any reference to, or solutions for, the more remote regions, particularly the outermost regions. To this end, I suggest a specific initiative in this area, based on the Programme of Options Specifically Relating to Remoteness and Insularity (POSEI).

  Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL ), in writing. – Because of the need for investment in cross-border infrastructure, particularly in Ireland, I have voted in favour of this report. However, I have concerns about the use of project bonds, which involve the transfer of risk from major private sector companies to the public sector.

  Marta Andreasen (EFD ), in writing. – I voted against the Färm report because my experience with the management and supervision of European funding is not good. Regional funds which require cofinancing are poorly controlled, with responsibility being shirked by the Commission which is ultimately in charge. Project bonds should be a good means to get private funding for these infrastructure projects, but alas, with the EU managing them, I anticipate poor control and indifferent results.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE ), in writing. – I voted in favour of the resolution on financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks. A modern and effective infrastructure is of key importance for achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, i.e. smart, sustainable and inclusive growth as well as a reduction in unemployment through the completion of the internal market. Investment needs in the field of transport, energy and information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure in Europe are estimated at EUR 1.5 trillion for 2010-2020. While the private sector should finance the main part of these – mostly profitable – investments, the public sector’s role in Europe will be crucial for achieving the above targets. At the present time of fiscal constraint, when the need to stimulate private financing of key infrastructure projects becomes urgent, it has been decided to launch a pilot phase of the Europe 2020 project bond initiative already for the current MFF (2012-2013). Even though the pilot phase would, by definition, be limited in terms of scope, budget availability as well as projects supported, it is expected to provide a unique possibility to evaluate the operation of the current instrument before its possible implementation for the period 2014-2020.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE ), in writing. – (FR) Investment needs in the field of transport, energy, and information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure in Europe are estimated at EUR 1.5 trillion for 2010-2020. While the private sector should finance the main part of these – mostly profitable – investments, the public sector’s role in Europe will be crucial for achieving the above targets. We therefore hope to mobilise the private sector. To ensure that everything works perfectly from 2014, we hope to launch a pilot phase immediately. Through the use of a European Investment Bank (EIB) facility, supported by an EU contribution, this pilot phase should enable us, first, to test financial markets’ acceptance of and reactions to this initiative, since new instruments take time to be incorporated in private sector investment decisions, and, second, to test the functioning and optimisation of project bonds intended to finance projects in practice in order to fine-tune the initiative.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D ), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal on establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme. The pilot phase is aimed at testing markets’ acceptance and assessing the implementation of the new initiative. A modern and effective infrastructure is of key importance for achieving the Europe 2020 objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, as well as reducing unemployment, through the completion of the internal market. I agree that in order to step up private sector participation in financing infrastructure measures in the areas of transport, energy, ICT and broadband networks, the Europe 2020 project bond initiative should be launched as a pilot phase in 2012-2013.

  Adam Bielan (ECR ), in writing. – (PL) Modern and efficient infrastructure encourages long-lasting economic growth. Infrastructure development is also directly related to expansion of the internal market and the creation of more jobs. As has been said already, investment in transport, energy and extension of the telecommunications and computer network will cost around EUR 1.5 trillion over the present decade. In this context, the solutions put forward by the European Commission are aimed at attracting private sector investors. One should always take great care when presented with such solutions. For this reason, I welcome the introduction of an 18-month pilot programme as a test for all the capital instruments associated with the Europe 2020 strategy. This will make it possible to determine the level of acceptance in capital markets for such measures and will also provide a test of the functioning of the project bonds system. I voted in favour of the report in order to support the pilot stage. However, I would describe my overall attitude to the project, including the bond mechanism, as being somewhat lukewarm.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD ), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Färm’s motion for a resolution, as I am in favour of a regulation that plans a pilot phase for project bonds, in this case, to finance infrastructure in the field of transport. Given that this financing will not impact negatively on the general trend of funds for grants for EU projects in other fields, I think it is worth trying to solve the problem of the liquidity needed to create major European infrastructure, necessary for the competitiveness of our economy and, as in this case, using careful and prudent financing.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D ), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because a modern and effective infrastructure is of key importance for achieving the Europe 2020 objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, as well as reducing unemployment, through the completion of the internal market. Investment needs in the field of transport, energy and information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure in Europe are estimated at EUR 1.5 trillion for 2010-2020. While the private sector should finance the main part of these – mostly profitable – investments, the public sector’s role in Europe will be crucial for achieving the above targets. A Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) should therefore be included in the next financial framework in order to accelerate infrastructure development in the fields of transport, energy and ICT networks, with particular emphasis on strategic cross-border aspects. For the pilot phase, the Commission proposes an EU budget contribution of EUR 230 million, financed through redeployment within existing programmes. While it is important for adequate reporting to be ensured so that well-founded conclusions can be drawn before the setting up of the CEF, the main aim of this pilot phase is to test markets’ acceptance as regards this new initiative.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE ), in writing. – (FR) I believe that a common policy on trans-European network infrastructures is necessary for the proper functioning of the common market. In this regard, the Commission has proposed the creation of a Connecting Europe Facility for the next financial framework. Furthermore, this report proposes the launch of a pilot phase in 2012-2013 through the implementation of a new financial instrument to mobilise more private sector funding as well as project bonds. This project is part of the Europe 2020 strategy for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE ), in writing. – (IT) I am pleased to see that Parliament has today voted by a large majority in favour of the text of which I am the rapporteur and which considers testing a new financial instrument to contribute to implementing trans-European transport and energy networks, the so-called ‘project bonds’. I voted in favour as I am personally committed to highlighting the crucial importance of giving the go-ahead to this pilot phase.

We must use European resources and take advantage of the experience already gained by the European Investment Bank (EIB) if we want to create a leverage effect that allows us to create quality projects of European interest. However, I would argue that we must not stop at this first step, but must already be looking at how to develop the future pilot phase: firstly, we need to increase the budget, which is currently insufficient (EUR 230 million), especially in the energy and telecommunications sector. Secondly, to succeed in driving a genuine economic recovery, the EU must have the courage to create a direct bond issuance initiative which directly releases bonds, to directly participate in investments in infrastructure regarded as key to pulling the economy out of crisis, creating jobs and restoring competitiveness to the system.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE ), in writing. – (PT) I am very pleased that this text establishes a new financial instrument to support development in the field of trans-European transport and energy networks. However, I believe that this pilot phase should be developed in the future through increased funding and infrastructure investment to create jobs and restore the system’s competitiveness.

  Emer Costello (S&D ), in writing. – I voted in favour of the proposal launching a pilot phase for project bonds to support investment in the transport, energy and ICT fields through attracting and facilitating private financing of priority projects. National budgets are under considerable pressure, so it is important that we look at new and innovative ways of boosting growth and creating jobs. Crucially, this initiative does not make any additional demands on domestic budgets, sovereign debt or contingent liability. It does rely on redirecting EUR 230 million from existing EU programmes to the EIB, to leverage a total investment of EUR 4.5 billion. It is better to use private finance productively rather than have it end up in speculative markets. Should the pilot project prove successful, this type of financial instrument could be used more widely in the future. I welcome the fact that the Parliament and the Council have agreed on the re-investment of any revenues generated into the mechanism itself, on a clear role for MEPs in monitoring implementation, as well as a full independent evaluation of the pilot phase in 2015. I would emphasise that infrastructure projects funded under this initiative should cover the entire EU, and not just in the centre.

  Andrea Cozzolino (S&D ), in writing. – (IT) I chose to defend and strongly support Mr Färm’s report because – in addition to its content as a whole – I would argue that it represents an extraordinary turning point both in the relationship between institutions and for the future of EU economic policy. For the first time, the European institutions have paved the way for testing project bonds, or rather for one of the instruments for which Parliament has often expressed its support. While noting that unfortunately, the conditions needed to actually start implementing European bonds in a fuller and more forceful way still do not seem to be in place, today’s report opens up the possibility of testing the will of other European institutions to following the declarations. Implementing connecting trans-European infrastructure is of key importance strategically and therefore lends itself extremely well to testing the issuance of bonds intended to finance infrastructure projects. I fully support this report, and I hope that other European institutions agree that we need to find new ways to finance strategic investments in order to relaunch the European economy.

  Tadeusz Cymański (EFD ), in writing. – (PL) I supported the legislative resolution concerning, inter alia, trans-European transport networks. The aid programme for the creation of a common road, rail, water and air transport network will help strengthen social cohesion, particularly in central European countries where significant improvements are still required in infrastructure quality. I am pleased to see the allocation of a special pool of funds, comprising EUR 10 billion, for countries covered by the Cohesion Fund, including Poland.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D ), in writing. – I voted in favour of the motion for a European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending the Decision establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) and laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks because I believe it may become an important tool in the achievement of the economic relaunch of the Union.

As unanimously agreed upon, investments in infrastructure will have to play a crucial role in this sense, not only as a means for growth and for the completion of the single market in transport and energy, but also as a necessary precondition for the convergence of the European regions. However, it is also evident that the EU budget alone cannot sufficiently tackle this challenge. One of the key actors in this field being the involvement of the private sector, I believe that the launch of a phase testing the financial markets’ reactions and the functioning and optimisation of project bonds can constitute an important tool to attract private investments, triggering a virtuous circle for the European economy as a whole.

  Edite Estrela (S&D ), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks as it includes measures to stimulate private investment, specifically in the field of transport, energy and information and communication technologies, through project bonds.

  Diogo Feio (PPE ), in writing. – (PT) A modern and effective infrastructure is of key importance for achieving the Europe 2020 objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, as well as reducing unemployment, through the completion of the internal market. Investment needs in the field of transport, energy and information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure in Europe are estimated at EUR 1.5 trillion for 2010-2020. Although a large part of this investment will be private, the truth is that a public component is still required, here achieved through project bonds. These are a debt instrument issued by private project companies, with the backing of an EU/European Investment Bank contribution, which will make the bonds safer and more attractive to capital market investors. This pilot phase is essential to test how the project bonds issue is received by the markets.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE ), in writing. – (PT) The European Union single market will only operate at its full potential when Europe has adequate infrastructure. The report drafted by Göran Färm addresses the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1639/2006/EC establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) and Regulation (EC) No 680/2007 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks. At a time of crisis, we must use our imagination and perform the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and the fishes. Accordingly, I welcome this initiative, which will leverage the limited public resources available to create wealth and employment through a mixed economy: the EU, the European Investment Bank and the private sector. I voted for this report and I hope that the symbolic amount of EUR 230 million contributed to this pilot phase can be significantly increased in the next budgets to stimulate the economy and to create jobs in the important areas of transport and energy networks, where innovation and digital technologies are essential.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL ), in writing. – (PT) This proposal originates from a real need. A number of large-scale infrastructure projects demanding enormous levels of funding are now seriously compromised, in the context of the huge transfers of public resources that have been undertaken to fill the holes in the financial system and an outlook of restrictive financial policy, with limited credit and an increased risk of default, for some years to come. The underlying logic of these large-scale projects is not to benefit the countries and their people, however, which would first require a break with the current policies of pillage and exploitation. This proposal’s sole concern, in truth, is the large-scale projects, those that fundamentally involve the German or French big businesses that dominate the transport, energy and telecommunication sectors. It is significant that investment in smaller-scale infrastructure is purely and simply ignored, although this is extremely important since it allows greater integration of national production and provides incentives to those small and medium-sized enterprises that supply it, thereby creating jobs. In addition, the proposal maintains all of the dogmas associated with current policy: budgetary control, deficit reduction and austerity. These long-term bonds are nothing more than public investment to reduce private risk and, hence, increase private profit.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D ), in writing. – (SK) Over the next decade, extensive investments will be needed in Europe’s transport, energy, information and communication networks in order to underpin the Europe 2020 flagship actions and develop smart, upgraded and fully interconnected infrastructures to foster the completion of the internal market. In its resolutions of June 2011 on ‘Investing in the future: a new multiannual financial framework for a competitive, sustainable and inclusive Europe’, the European Parliament emphasised that the Union should adopt measures, above all, for improving the use of EU resources as a catalyst attracting further funds from the European Investment Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, other international financial institutions and the private sector. Financial instruments can improve the efficiency of budget spending and achieve high multiplier effects in terms of attracting private sector financing and achieved investment volumes. The Europe 2020 project bond initiative has a twofold objective. First, to help finance projects of European policy priorities, and, second, to facilitate greater private sector involvement in the long-term capital market financing of infrastructure projects. In my opinion, the Union support should mitigate the risk inherent in project bonds to the extent that capital market participants are willing to invest in a larger volume of infrastructure project bonds than would be possible without Union support.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE ), in writing. – (HU) I voted in favour of the report since the proposed means enables important investment instruments to be mobilised in the transport, communication and energy fields for infrastructure projects, which are needed for growth, innovation, competitiveness and job creation. Implementation of the planned projects will enable citizens to perceive the benefit of European integration in a concrete way, thereby strengthening the European idea. However, this instrument also carries risks, primarily associated with assuming losses that may potentially be suffered in the course of the planned investment projects. While the upper limit for assumption of risk regarding the EU budget is clearly defined in the legislative proposal of the European Commission, the situation is different where the European Investment Bank (EIB) is concerned. Based on the EIB and the investors concluding a contract for each individual project and the EIB drawing up an overall risk sharing plan covering all projects, it is assumed that the EIB does not need to assume further risks. We therefore need to avoid at all costs a situation where the materialisation of risks has a negative impact on the EIB’s creditworthiness and reputation or on the planning and implementation of projects traditionally supported by the EIB.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE ), in writing. – (IT) Finally, after having concentrated our attentions on financial stability and economic discipline, the European Union is beginning to talk about growth. However, it is a shame to have to note that the means made available do not meet the purpose. Project bonds are undoubtedly a useful instrument to attract the largest possible number of private investments in financing infrastructure projects in the field of transport, energy and broadband networks. We are talking about sectors whose operation is key to developing the European single market. Therefore, it is easy to imagine the negative consequences in terms of economic and employment growth that lack of development in these areas would cause. This said, faced with a requirement of EUR 1.5 trillion to create this infrastructure, today we find ourselves talking about a budget of EUR 230 million (because this is the figure given by the European Union). The only thing we can say is that we have taken a tiny step in the right direction. Only a tiny one, however. Using these figures, we cannot put into place the development we urgently need in the field of trans-European networks. We are giving European citizens the impression of a Europe with a worrying lack of ambition in tackling the current economic situation.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE ), in writing. – (DE) It will be particularly evident in ‘times of crisis’ that such investments are, in fact, ‘double’ investments. On the one hand, they will secure or finance jobs during implementation. These investments also enhance the attractiveness and ‘accessibility’ of Europe’s regions, which may also encourage further investment.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE ), in writing. – (FR) Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of bonds to fund transport, telecommunications and energy projects. These project bonds, which we have been negotiating for months, will be financed by the redeployment of existing budget lines amounting to a maximum of EUR 230 million. EUR 200 million will be invested in transport networks, EUR 20 million in information and communication technology (ICT) networks and EUR 10 million in energy networks. Let us be clear: project bonds do not pave the way to possible debt mutualisation; they are issued by private sector companies which bid on a call for tenders and which are guaranteed by the European Investment Bank (EIB) for up to 20% of the project. By attracting private capital and limiting risk, the EU hopes to raise EUR 4.4 billion in the pilot phase by 2014, which will finance investments in viable, long-term projects. I welcome this initiative of the Commission, which has the potential to stimulate growth in Europe without giving rise to additional expenditure. This is a considered and responsible proposal.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE ), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Färm’s report because I consider financing infrastructure projects in the field of transport and energy to be of crucial importance in achieving the objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, as laid down by Europe 2020. As highlighted many times by the Commission and by Parliament, developing the trans-European transport network (TEN-T), trans-European energy network (TEN-E) and telecommunication infrastructures is part of the overall and necessary framework to relaunch EU employment and investment. Therefore, adequate support for financial resources guarantees the project will go ahead, and so acts as a catalyst for private investors, for whom uncertain risk perceptions and the ceaseless advance of the global economic crisis block the flow of finance. The construction of new modern and integrated infrastructures is fundamental if Europe is to remain a competitive, central player on the world stage and a leader in the post-crisis international economy. Building new infrastructures will create an enabling environment for a striving and competitive European private sector, stimulating growth, creating jobs for young people and engaging future generations in the relaunch of our economy, thus addressing some of the most pressing challenges our continent is facing today.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD ), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed the document because a modern and effective infrastructure is of key importance for achieving the Europe 2020 objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, as well as reducing unemployment, through the completion of the internal market. To this end, the EU Commission has proposed a Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) for the next financial framework in order to accelerate infrastructure development in the fields of transport, energy and information and communication technology (ICT) networks, with particular emphasis on strategic cross-border aspects. Through amending the current CEF and trans-European network (TEN) rules, the proposal extends and upgrades the present Loan Guarantee Facility for TEN Transport (LGTT). It is upgraded to cover sectors other than transport, including energy and ICT projects, whilst at the same time being extended to cover not only traffic risk, but all risks possibly leading to a shortfall of revenues in the lifecycle of a project. The establishment of this new instrument for investing in the future has often been strongly called for by the European Parliament. Finally, in the conclusions of its meeting of 1-2 March 2012, the European Council set this ambitious target for the pilot phase: ‘given the need to stimulate the private financing of key infrastructure projects, work on the pilot phase of the Europe 2020 project bond initiative should be stepped up...’.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE ), in writing. – (FR) In order to stimulate growth, the report by Mr Färm provides, for project sponsors and on a proposal from the Commission, for the issue of loans with the partial guarantee of the EU budget and the capital of the European Investment Bank (EIB). Thus, by reducing the risk profile of these loans, this European contribution will attract other investors. I voted in favour of this report, which Parliament adopted by a very large majority during the July part-session.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE ), in writing. – (IT) By adopting project bonds intended to create European infrastructure projects throughout the European Union, our institution has clearly expressed its wish to emerge from the crisis through relaunching the economy and investment in development, employment and infrastructure. It must be stressed that the project bonds adopted will not replace the public and private instruments currently available, but rather will add to these, thus constituting real added value for infrastructure projects. I also agree with the restrictions and criteria adopted to determine capital allocation, the maximum amount of projects that may be financed and the instruments used to choose the projects. The pilot phase of this new European financial instrument will be key to analysing its efficacy and, where applicable, making any necessary changes, with widespread application and more important economic implications in mind.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE ), in writing. – (RO) There are certain key areas of activity at the moment, given that investments in development projects in these sectors are certain to lead to the long-term recovery of the EU economy. However, I have noticed that the division of budgetary funds between these three key areas (transport, energy and information technology) is disproportionate, in the sense that financial resources for trans-European energy and IT networks in the pilot phase (2012-2013) will be limited to EUR 10 billion and EUR 20 billion respectively, compared to the amount of EUR 230 billion allocated to trans-European transport networks.

The energy infrastructure sector, in particular, the industries of non-polluting and resource-efficient energy sources, is of top priority for the EU’s sustainable economic growth policy and therefore deserves to be given greater weight in the allocation of available funds, which should amount to at least half of those allocated for transport. An argument such as that of the obstacles arising from issuing permits for these energy projects is unacceptable, and our efforts should be channelled towards streamlining bureaucratic procedures that hinder economic development, instead of reducing funding allocations on such grounds.

  David Martin (S&D ), in writing. – I welcome this proposal. A modern and effective infrastructure is of key importance for achieving the Europe 2020 objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, as well as reducing unemployment, through the completion of the internal market.

Investment needs in the field of transport, energy and information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure in Europe are estimated at EUR 1.5 trillion for 2010-2020. While the private sector should finance the main part of these – mostly profitable – investments, the public sector’s role in Europe will be crucial for achieving the above targets. To this end, the Commission has proposed a ‘Connecting Europe Facility’ (CEF) for the next financial framework in order to accelerate infrastructure development in the fields of transport, energy and ICT networks, with particular emphasis on strategic cross-border parts.

  Barbara Matera (PPE ), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Parliament and the Council’s proposal for a regulation establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme and on the regulation laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks. Indeed, I would argue that a modern and effective infrastructure is of key importance for achieving the Europe 2020 objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, as well as reducing unemployment, through the completion of the internal market. Project bonds are a debt instrument issued by private project companies, with the backing of the EU/European Investment Bank (EIB). This makes the bonds safer and more attractive to capital market investors otherwise not normally investing in infrastructure, such as pension funds. By reducing the risk taken by investors, it should stimulate the flow of private funds towards priority infrastructure investments, for which uncertain risk perceptions block the flow of finance.

  Iosif Matula (PPE ), in writing. – (RO) The trans-European transport network has a strategic role in terms of economic, social and territorial cohesion, while ensuring the free movement of passengers and goods within the European Union. However, Europe is facing increasing requirements for investment in transport infrastructure. In this context, I welcome the Europe 2020 project bond initiative. I think this stage is essential for attracting private sector financing in the area of transport, energy and telecommunications infrastructures, having great potential to contribute to job creation and economic growth.

The pilot project will allow investors to become familiar with the new financing structures, while supporting a resource-efficient economy in line with the Europe 2020 strategy. I voted for this report because I believe that innovative financial instruments have an extremely important role in attracting additional funding from the private sector for key infrastructures.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE ), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report, which outlines an infrastructure which is of key importance to achieving the Europe 2020 objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

  Louis Michel (ALDE ), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this resolution, which provides for an EU allocation of EUR 230 million for guarantees to support the private issue of bonds to finance infrastructure projects (project bonds) in the fields of transport, energy and information and communication technologies (ICT). Our only chance to relaunch the European machine is to attract private investors for large-scale transport, energy and ICT network projects. By undertaking projects that bode well for the future, and by undertaking coherent investments, we are giving a positive image of Europe. However, for some time now, Europe has been forced to adopt a defensive stance, which it is difficult for European citizens to sign up to. It is therefore high time we made every effort to put an end to this disenchantment.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D ), in writing. – The European Commission proposed in October 2011 to launch a pilot phase (mid 2012-2013) for project bonds to support European investments in three specific sectors: transport, energy and information and communication technologies. In favour.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE ), in writing. – (ET) I supported the decision to amend this regulation, in order to accelerate the development of European infrastructure, which is in line with the implementation of the objectives established in the Europe 2020 strategy. The creation of the Connecting Europe Facility and the use of the financial instrument known as project bonds, which would be issued by private project enterprises supported by the EU/Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme (EIP), would significantly reduce investors’ risks and promote the flow of private capital to vital infrastructure investments. It is important that in initiating the various projects, one should not set too many additional criteria and operational measures, but instead ensure greater flexibility for the development of the new market. I am convinced that greater private sector involvement would significantly accelerate infrastructure development, thereby reducing unemployment and increasing economic growth.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD ), in writing. – (LT) I welcome this resolution because efforts should be increased to attract private sector investment in infrastructure measures in transport, energy, ICT and broadband. I believe that use of money from the EU budget alone will not enable us to address existing problems in these areas. Achieving the above objective will ensure appropriate and sufficient financial aid for the fields of trans-European transport and energy networks. Attention must be paid to the fact that in all cases when funding transport infrastructure, it is very important to take into account energy efficiency needs, noise reduction at source, biodiversity and climate change challenges.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE ), in writing. – (EL) A total of EUR 1.5 trillion has been earmarked for investment in transport infrastructures and information and communication technologies in Europe between 2010 and 2020. Clearly, initiatives need to be taken by private individuals, coordinated by the Member States. We therefore need to create a framework to facilitate the effective utilisation of these investments. The Commission has proposed for the new multiannual financial framework that such investments should be facilitated using the Connecting Europe Facility. This initiative is a very important element for Greece because it focuses on the cross-border parts, and it therefore stands to benefit. The report, which I supported, encourages this initiative, calling for convergence and an agreement with the Council, but emphasising the points which require particular attention in each case.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE ), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1639/2006/EC establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) and Regulation (EC) No 680/2007 laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks, as I am in agreement with it.

  Alojz Peterle (PPE ), in writing. – (SL) I voted in favour of financial aid because I consider it to be of major strategic importance in this sector.

  Dominique Riquet (PPE ), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the project bond initiative because project bonds will enable resources we know to be limited to be used intelligently through the redeployment of existing budget lines and the leveraging of potential investments. Furthermore, budgetary stability policies will not bear fruit unless they are supported by measures to relaunch the European economy. The bonds in question are targeted at precisely those areas which are likely to create jobs and boost competitiveness, namely, transport and energy infrastructure and broadband. We now have to think about the way forward, that is to say, the establishment of the Connecting Europe Facility. This comprehensive EU ‘infrastructure fund’ will be based not only on subsidies, but also on innovative financial instruments, such as project bonds.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE ), in writing. – (IT) I congratulate Mr Färm on his work. By approving this report, Parliament, having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council and the opinion of the Committee of the Regions, has reaffirmed the need for a modern and effective infrastructure for achieving the Europe 2020 objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, as well as reducing unemployment, through the completion of the internal market. The proposal approved today in Parliament not only extends but also upgrades the present Loan Guarantee Facility for the trans-European transport network (TEN-T). While upgrading provides the possibility of covering sectors other than transport, including energy and information and communication technology (ICT) projects, extension enables not only traffic risk to be covered, but all risks possibly leading to a shortfall of revenues in the life cycle of a project. Finally, it is rightly highlighted that it is crucial to find the right balance between the delegated powers granted to the Commission and European Investment Bank (EIB) and the reporting requirements and accountability mechanisms.

  Jean Roatta (PPE ), in writing. – (FR) A modern and effective infrastructure is of key importance for achieving the Europe 2020 objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, as well as reducing unemployment, through the completion of the internal market. To this end, the Commission has proposed a ‘Connecting Europe Facility’ (CEF) for the next financial framework in order to accelerate infrastructure development in the fields of transport, energy and information and communication technology (ICT) networks, with particular emphasis on strategic cross-border aspects. In addition to equity instruments and grants, the CEF includes a new financial instrument to mobilise more private sector funding, as well as project bonds. However, the initial report by the Committee on Budgets and the subsequent negotiations with the Council focused on a limited number of issues including, for example, defining project bonds and evaluating the facility. Nevertheless, I welcome the proposals made in this report, which encourages projects in the fields of transport, energy and trans-European networks.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE ), in writing. – In favour. This report insists on a full-scale independent evaluation of the pilot phase and on regular reporting by the Commission to the Council and Parliament. It did not deem it necessary to fine-tune the criteria for selection of projects to be financed, as these have already been fixed in sufficient detail (EU economic policy objectives, criteria presented in the basic TEN and CIP acts, EU policy guidelines, EIB standard eligibility and environmental criteria, credit risk policies, etc.).

However, several references to green sustainability criteria were introduced into the report following Green/EFA amendments to that effect. We, the Greens/EFA, focused on three main points and introduced amendments accordingly: the green sustainability of the projects to be financed; the issue of correct remuneration of the EU actors issuing risk guarantees; and the participation of these actors in the decision-making process concerning the design and implementation of the projects. In the past, such financial instruments at national level have resulted in excessive risk taking by public authorities, resulting in big financial losses financed by public budgets. The first two points were taken over in the text, even be it to a less strict extent. Our amendments on participation in the decision-making process were not taken on board by the rapporteur.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE ), in writing. – (FR) Since 2008, the developed economies have been mired in an unprecedented economic crisis. The current recession in Europe is the consequence of the disastrous situation of our public finances. We have therefore embarked on in-depth reforms to put in place sound and rigorous budgetary policies. Nevertheless, for sustainable growth to resume, it is imperative that this budgetary consolidation effort is associated with policies to invest in projects that promote the competitiveness of our companies and our economies. This was the objective of the national loan scheme (known as the ‘Grand Emprunt’) in France, and it is still the objective of the project bonds and the report voted on today. EUR 230 million, redeployed from the current budget, will be earmarked to guarantee private bonds issued to finance investments in projects to further growth and job creation, such as in the fields of transport, energy and information and communication technologies. This report, which has been under negotiation for almost a year, owes nothing to the election of President Hollande and his meaningless and misleading rhetoric on growth. The political recovery of the socialists should not be at the expense of the credibility of the time-consuming and exacting work of the European institutions.

  Amalia Sartori (PPE ), in writing. – (IT) The issue of growth, especially in this historic period where Europe is going through a period of economic and financial crisis, is amongst the priorities on Europe’s agenda. ‘Europe 2020’ includes measures aimed at achieving smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. To achieve the objectives set out in this strategy and to help the market unleash its full potential, modern and efficient infrastructure (in the field of transport and energy) throughout Europe is of key importance. This is exactly why I voted in favour of Mr Färm’s report. It focuses on project bonds which, in addition to equity instruments and grants, help to finance new projects and obtain more private investment. For 2010-2020, EUR 1.5 trillion will be needed to build infrastructure, whereas the figure allocated in the text is EUR 230 million. There is still a lot of work to be done, but in this situation, Mr Färm’s report is a step in the right direction.

  Vilja Savisaar-Toomast (ALDE ), in writing. – (ET) In today’s vote, I supported the adoption of this report on financial assistance in the area of trans-European transportation and energy networks, more precisely, project bonds. As is generally known, in order to achieve the Europe 2020 objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, as well as reducing unemployment, it is important to develop modern and efficient infrastructure that could ensure the development of a uniform and efficient common market. The volume of investment required in the area of transport, energy and information and communication technology over the next ten years is roughly EUR 1.5 trillion. In order to achieve the abovementioned volume of investments, significant amounts of private sector funding must be involved, and here I am glad to note that this report encourages that. In addition to increasing the attractiveness of investments, this report will help improve cooperation between private and public sectors. Here, one should certainly note the fact that, in future, it will be possible to combine EU support, Member State funds and funding from the European Investment Bank and the private sector. What is important is the influence that this report will have on cross-border projects, in which the project in question is perhaps not particularly important, but has a significant added value for Europe. Based on the above, I was glad to lend my support to this report.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D ), in writing. – (CS) I supported the proposal of rapporteur Göran Färm on general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of the trans-European transport and energy networks. The report addresses the pilot phase of project bonds, which should be launched next year. Project bonds are presented in the report as one of the funding facilities that might be combined with other public and private facilities such as public grants, bank or bond loans, guarantees, equity and others. I consider it important that this facility does not in any way intervene in the setting of traditional grants, which will thus be able to focus on the projects most needed in terms of balancing out the differences in infrastructure between the more and less developed regions. For the pilot phase, the Commission is proposing a contribution from the EU budget of EUR 230 million, obtained by redistributing resources from existing programmes. According to the Commission, however, this redistribution will not have an impact on the finances earmarked for supporting less developed regions.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE ), in writing. – (PL) Project bonds are an instrument that has been developed to finance projects in the Connecting Europe Facility, whose aim is to create transport, energy and digital networks. What is worrying is that levels of investment in Europe are falling and this trend began even before the crisis. In addition, networks in the East are not connected to the networks in the West and they need to be joined up. Project bonds are meant to provide an additional instrument for financing infrastructure investment, which will supplement the current system of financing. 2012 and 2013 are earmarked for a pilot project for the bonds and they are to be implemented fully in 2014. The purpose of the pilot stage is to test the reaction of financial markets to the new instrument.

The introduction of project bonds could accelerate the realisation of infrastructure projects by making it easier to obtain private funding. EU backing would provide security for the bonds. Such a containment of risk could encourage various market players to invest in infrastructure projects. Project bonds will not replace grant aid. They are meant as a supplement that will provide more effective and faster investment financing. In addition to the project bonds, private and state funds, whether EU or national, should both continue to play an important role.