Пълен текст 
Процедура : 2006/2236(INI)
Етапи на разглеждане в заседание
Етапи на разглеждане на документа : A6-0088/2007

Внесени текстове :


Разисквания :

PV 22/05/2007 - 7
CRE 22/05/2007 - 7

Гласувания :

PV 23/05/2007 - 5.8
Обяснение на вота

Приети текстове :


Пълен протокол на разискванията
Вторник, 22 май 2007 г. - Страсбург Редактирана версия

7. Подпомагане на търговията от Европейския съюз (разискване)

  Przewodniczący. Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest sprawozdanie sporządzone przez Davida Martina w imieniu Komisji Handlu Międzynarodowego w sprawie projektu rezolucji Parlamentu Europejskiego w sprawie pomocy UE na rzecz handlu (2006/2236(INI)) (A6-0088/2007).


  David Martin (PSE), rapporteur. – Mr President, before turning to the substance of this report, I should like to thank my shadow rapporteurs for their cooperation in the preparation of the report and in particular to thank the Commission’s Trade DG and Development DG, which, I am pleased to say, have been very keen to engage with Parliament on this particular issue. Finally, I should like to thank Pelayo Castro Zuzuarregui, the Parliament official I worked with on this report. He is leaving us for a year – we hope it is only for a year! – to work for the Spanish Prime Minister. I have worked with him on this report and a number of other reports; I have found it intellectually stimulating to be in his company and I wish him well.

On the substance, Aid for Trade is a vital tool for linking developing countries to the global economy. However, I want to stress at the outset that it is not a substitute for the Doha Development Round, but a complement to it. It is clear that liberalising markets is not sufficient in itself to link developing countries into the global economy. You just have to look at the experience of the last 40 years: LDCs have seen their share of world trade almost halved from 1.9% to 1%, and this is despite tariff reductions following the Uruguay Round and other tariff reductions and recent efforts such as the European Everything but Arms scheme, which gives duty-free and quota-free access to developing countries. Therefore, liberalisation, which I would argue is important, clearly of itself has not been enough to engage the developing countries fully in the global economy.

I also do not argue – and I want to make this clear – that Aid for Trade is of itself a panacea. However, it is quite clear that there is now a growing consensus on the benefits that Aid for Trade might bring. The WTO ministerial meeting in Hong Kong in December 2005 set out an ambitious work programme for Aid for Trade and called for more assistance to help developing countries into the global economy. This followed Mr Barroso’s commitment at the G8 Summit in Gleneagles of EUR 1 billion of European Union money and EUR 1 billion of Member States’ money to assist in the Aid for Trade budget line.

While this is all most welcome and sounded quite dramatic at the time of the announcement, we have to realise that the increases are quite modest in substance: the European Union’s contribution will increase from a base of around EUR 850 million at the moment to EUR 1 billion, while the Member States – if they deliver – will go from EUR 300 million to a EUR 1 billion.

Last October the General Affairs Council called for a trade strategy to map out how we fulfil these pledges. My report indicates some of the key points I hope we will see in that strategy. Firstly, in relation to the scope of Aid for Trade, I want the measurement of the Barroso billion to be against the existing base, which has two categories: one being trade policy and regulation, the other trade development. However, I welcome the fact that the WTO task force has added three further categories: trade-related adjustment, trade-related infrastructure and productive capacity. These are vital aspects of the Aid for Trade agenda and I hope additional resources can be found to assist developing countries to deal with such matters as the phasing-out of preferences, reductions in government revenue as a result of tariffs being lowered, or help in adjusting to new competitive pressures due to regionalisation, such as EPAs.

My report argues that Aid for Trade should be demand-led and country-owned. In this context, the WTO’s enhanced integrated framework should become the key diagnostic tool for developing countries, assisting them to identify where Aid for Trade can bring maximum benefits. Within developing countries we must also ensure that the private sector and civil society are engaged with the process. While Aid for Trade undoubtedly represents a different approach to general development aid, it should, in my opinion, be based on the same fundamental principles of poverty reduction and sustainable development, and our main point of reference should continue to be the Millennium Development Goals.

I am pleased that much of what we called for in this report was reflected in the Commission’s communication published in April, and, perhaps naively, I like to believe that was part of the intense interaction between the Commission’s DGs and the European Parliament. I hope that, when the final joint EU trade strategy is adopted over the summer, it will also be reflected in that strategy document.

I have called in my report today for biannual reporting back to Parliament so that we can check that the Member States and the Commission have delivered on both the quality and quantity of the aid that they are promising. All institutions so far have shown a willingness to deliver collectively on what I believe is an important strategy that can make an important, if modest, contribution to linking the poorest countries of the world into the global trading system.


  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, David Martin, for what I regard as a very rich report on aid for trade. I am very glad that he has referred to the Millennium Development Goals, because they represent our guiding idea and targets. I agree with him that free trade, whilst a necessary condition for development, is not a magic wand, just as I agree with him that aid for trade, whilst a necessary component of any development strategy, is not a panacea.

I believe that this report expresses a very strong commitment to the aid for trade agenda which I fully share. I have also read the very useful suggestions and guidance regarding the content of the EU joint aid for trade strategy, for which I am very grateful. Furthermore, I welcome Parliament’s engagement in this process.

Since 2005, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission have developed a clear common vision on the main principles of aid for trade. We all agree that trade can be an important catalyst for growth and poverty reduction in developing countries, but the successful integration of developing countries into the world trading system requires more than better market access and strengthening of international rules. In this respect the General Affairs Council conclusions of 14 and 15 May this year recall the crucial role of aid for trade.

The challenge we are now facing is to put these principles into practice in the context of the EU aid for trade strategy on which the Commission and Member States are jointly working. This strategy should set out a roadmap to meet our financial pledges, give guidance to improve the effectiveness of our aid, provide a framework on monitoring and reporting of aid for trade, and address the capacity of the Commission and Member States to deliver aid for trade. The strategy will be ready in October of this year and will then be presented at the WTO aid for trade review, so this Parliament’s report is extremely timely.

I would like to address some specific concerns raised in the report, and first of all the issue of the broadening of the scope of aid for trade in relation to the EU financial pledges. Let me emphasise that the credibility of our pledges is of great importance and make it crystal clear that there will be no changes to the scope of our pledge. The EUR 2 billion target remains related to the categories of trade policy and trade development.

I attach great importance to the wider aid for trade agenda, which includes building productive capacities beyond trade development, infrastructure and adjustment aid. For these areas, which are very capital-intensive, we need clear political commitment to do more, but let me stress once again that these efforts will not be counted in relation to our financial pledges.

Regarding the lack of additional resources for EDF funding to ACP countries, we would be happy to do more, but the Commission does not decide on the budget for the EDF. EU Member States do that. There are limited exceptions only and these are also approved by Member States and dedicated to very specific purposes such as adjustment arising from the sugar reform.

Regarding the integrated framework, I am glad to confirm what I announced in Hong Kong. The Commission is ready to commit EUR 10 million over the first two years to the multilateral part of the enhanced integrated framework. In addition to this, the Commission will complement the multilateral window with substantial bilateral and regional funding to implement activities identified through the integrated framework and prioritised by the respective partner governments. We will also provide human resources and capacity in the field to contribute to a better functioning of the integrated framework.

The issue of adjustment aid is rightly highlighted in the report. However, I do not agree that the EPA negotiations deserve a special mention in this context. Adjustment aid is relevant in relation to all external trade shocks. They may result from trade negotiations but could also be a consequence of unilateral reform as in the case of sugar. In any outcome of the EPA negotiations, the implementation of obligations of ACP partners will be phased in over a very long period and this will facilitate adjustment and identify requirements that we need to help meet.

Finally, we noted your request to look into the IMF’s trade integration mechanism as part of the EU aid for trade strategy. We think that this is more appropriately addressed in cooperation with other international donors, for example as part of the global aid for trade review at WTO level.

Let me once again express my deep appreciation for this Parliament’s political support for aid for trade, as well as our willingness to cooperate with the European Parliament to make further progress, and I look forward to doing so.


  Margrietus van den Berg (PSE), Rapporteur voor advies van de Commissie ontwikkelingssamenwerking. – Voorzitter, handel en ontwikkelingssamenwerking zijn zeer nauw met elkaar verweven, zoals de commissaris terecht zei. Willen we de millenniumdoelstellingen in 2015 realiseren, dan kunnen en moeten hulp en handel elkaar aanvullen.

De ontwikkelingslanden hebben onze hulp nodig om hun regionale markten verder te ontwikkelen. Daarbij is een versnelde verbetering van de regels van oorsprong essentieel. Europa en de ontwikkelingspartners moeten gezamenlijk zoeken naar een task force voor ontwikkeling, die deze opbouw van de lokale markten handen en voeten kan geven.

Deze task force moet bestaan uit deskundigen op het gebied van handels- en ontwikkelingsbeleid en kan helpen bij de ontwikkeling en implementatie van concrete handelsversterkende maatregelen. Daarbij moeten we onder meer denken aan alternatieve belastinginkomsten, versterking van de productiecapaciteit en standaardisatie en creatie van gezamenlijke buitengrenscontroles. Vooral de human resources moeten verder worden ontwikkeld. Dergelijke praktische ondersteuning zou een echte hulp zijn bij het tot bloei laten komen van de lokale markten en onderlinge handel. Voor de grote infrastructuur denken wij eerder aan de EIB.

Deze handelsgerichte hulp mag echter geen sigaar uit eigen doos zijn. Dus niet uit het bestaande ontwikkelingsbudget worden gefinancierd. De PSE-Fractie wil nieuw geld, anders zou namelijk minder geld beschikbaar zijn voor het halen van de millenniumdoelstellingen en dat is tenslotte het centrale streefdoel waar ook de commissaris zich zojuist van harte achter stelde en waarmee we hem succes wensen.


  Maria Martens, namens de PPE-DE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, commissaris, lange tijd hebben we ontwikkelingslanden op allerlei terreinen gesteund, behalve op het gebied van handel. Mede daardoor zijn landen en hun economieën in grote mate subsidie-afhankelijk gebleven.

Economische groei blijkt onontbeerlijk om armoede effectief te bestrijden. Kijk naar de geweldige vooruitgang die landen in Azië hebben doorgemaakt. Korea is een goed voorbeeld. Meer en meer komen we er dan ook achter dat handel buitengewoon grote kansen voor de economische groei van arme landen biedt.

Ontwikkelingslanden hebben vaak nog niet de juiste infrastructuur om op de wereldmarkt te kunnen opereren. Daarom hebben deze landen onze ondersteuning nodig en daarom is er de handelsgebonden hulpverlening. Deze is erop gericht ontwikkelingslanden in staat te stellen om te functioneren op de internationale markt. Via handelsgebonden hulpverlening kunnen landen bijvoorbeeld de regelgeving verbeteren op terreinen die de handel raken, zoals belastingen en douane. Het gaat om het verbeteren van wegen en waterwegen, bestrijding van fraude en corruptie, versterken van de productiecapaciteit en ook diversificatie. Veel landen zijn immers afhankelijk van slechts één landbouwproduct. Diversificatie van producten bevordert een stabielere economie.

Ook is capaciteitsopbouw nodig om goede onderhandelaars op te leiden. Voorzitter, omdat handelsgebonden hulpverlening dit doet, de arme landen hulp bieden, om hun economieën te versterken en hun onafhankelijkheid te vergroten, daarom ben ik blij met dit initiatief.

Handelsgebonden hulpverlening, het is al gezegd, is geen wondermiddel, geen panacee voor ontwikkeling, maar wel noodzakelijk om ontwikkelingslanden aansluiting te laten vinden op de internationale markt. Mijn complimenten aan rapporteur David Martin voor de inhoud en ook voor de plezierige samenwerking, waardoor er een inhoudelijk sterk en breed gedragen verslag voorligt.

Voorzitter, commissaris, om dit instrument ook effectief te laten zijn, vraag ik de Commissie om een goed werkprogramma - haalbaar en realistisch - en een goede samenwerking met de lidstaten.


  Sajjad Karim, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur for the way he has dealt with this report. As ever, Mr Martin has been open and willing to engage in compromise with colleagues, producing a report which demonstrates a real consensus in the Committee on International Trade. That said, having asked the shadow rapporteurs not to bring forward amendments at the plenary stage in order to preserve the spirit of that consensus, it would have been respectful had the PSE Group kept to that agreement. Nevertheless, I think we have done enough to ensure that the consensus will hold through the plenary.

I was unsurprised by the depth of common ground between us on the crucial issue of the EU’s Aid for Trade. The G8 summit in Gleneagles where the Commission and EU governments both pledged EUR 1 billion in aid to the world’s poorest people was preceded by a hugely popular campaign. Through the Make Poverty History marches, the Live Aid concerts and other efforts, millions of people have made their voices heard. They are angry, and right to be, about unfair trade rules and highly protected markets that work against those living in poverty and they are passionate about the need for change. If we are to build on the phenomenal mobilisation of public opinion, the pressure must continue at every level, domestic and international.

The key question is whether there is the political will to drive that change. Aid for Trade must ensure that the poorest nations have the capacity to benefit from increased trade liberalisation, efficient customs agencies, better infrastructure, tax regimes which do not rely on import and export duties and anti-corruption measures to ensure that the money gets to the people who have earned it.

Ultimately we will be judged not by how much is promised but by how much is delivered. Pledges on aid are always more easily made than kept. We are all too familiar with the double counting and relabelling tricks that recycle all pledges as new money.

The EU’s Aid for Trade package has a unique role to play to ensure sustainable development, growth and prosperity in the developing world. As such it must be new money over and above existing commitments and trends and it must not come at the cost of monies already earmarked for other crucial development projects such as health and education.

Whilst Aid for Trade is a long-term driver of development, meeting short-term targets, such as the Millennium Development Goals, must remain central to the EU’s international development policy. There too we must do better: some USD 50 billion more a year rather than the current commitment over a five-year period. If sustained political will is required to deliver Aid for Trade, then political courage is needed to ensure we deliver the MDGs in sub-Saharan Africa.

Aid works best when it is delivering a common set of objectives agreed between donor and recipient. We have to concentrate on finding solutions which best fit a country’s needs. That means responding to the demands of civil society and the private sector. As a Parliament, we have already thrown our weight behind the fair trade movement.

If we are to help reduce the poverty in which they live, we need mechanisms to ensure the aid reaches the people who need it most. This report provides the Commission with some clear and reasonable guidelines to that end. It is up to you, Commissioner, to deliver on them.


  Frithjof Schmidt, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Auch wir danken dem Kollegen David Martin für die gute Arbeit. Lassen Sie mich mit einer positiven politischen Entwicklung beginnen. Es ist gut, dass der zuständige Rat, „Allgemeine Angelegenheiten und Außenbeziehungen“, am 15. Mai anerkannt hat, dass Zollsenkungen für viele Entwicklungsländer massive Einbrüche bei den Staatseinnahmen bedeuten. Und es ist gut, dass er betont hat, dass hier Kompensationszahlungen notwendig und erforderlich sind. Andernfalls würden wir Gefahr laufen, dass unsere Handelspolitik schnell zum Zusammenbruch jeglicher Entwicklungspolitik in diesen betroffenen Ländern führen könnte.

Es ist absolut notwendig, dass wir dagegen etwas tun. Wir brauchen dafür aber zusätzliche Mittel, die nicht auf die Entwicklungshilfegelder angerechnet werden, wenn wir die Millenniums-Entwicklungsziele erreichen wollen. Es muss verhindert werden, dass bei den Schwerpunkten der Entwicklungshilfe eine Art Verdrängungseffekt entsteht: weg von der Armutsbekämpfung und dem Kampf für die Millenniumsziele, hin zur Förderung der Exportorientierung.

Das wäre eine falsche Tendenz, die wir mit dem Einsatz dieser zwei Milliarden erzeugen könnten, wenn wir hier nicht bewusst politisch gegensteuern. Die Stabilisierung der lokalen Märkte ist für die Entwicklungsstrategie in der Regel wichtiger als die Exportorientierung gerade der schwächsten und der ärmsten Länder. Es geht hier um die Kohärenz unserer Politik. Aid for trade darf den Schwerpunkt der Armutsbekämpfung nicht relativieren, für die Finanzierung sind also zusätzliche Gelder erforderlich. Mich würde da auch wirklich interessieren, aus welchen Haushaltslinien das Geld genommen wird. Aid for trade darf ferner nicht dazu beitragen, dass die Stabilisierung lokaler Märkte, die im Zentrum einer Entwicklungsstrategie stehen müssen, unterminiert wird.

Das ist die Aufgabe bei der Umsetzung des großen Konzeptes Aid for trade für die Kommission, und ich appelliere an Sie, Herr Kommissar, auf diese Aspekte besonderes Augenmerk zu legen.


  Zbigniew Zaleski (PPE-DE). – Panie Przewodniczący, Komisarzu, Sprawozdawco! Dlaczego pomoc dla handlu? Dlatego, że handel ma poważną misję do spełnienia. Kilka punktów.

Dobry handel od wieków zbliżał ludzi bez inwazji w ich tożsamość, wartości, życie społeczne i polityczne. Europie zależy na równych partnerach wśród dużych, a szczególnie wśród małych aktorów tej sceny. W handlu muszą być jasne reguły, uwzględniające dobro każdej strony. „Fair and free trade” to hasło godne wsparcia.

Sprawiedliwy handel nie zafunkcjonuje bez odpowiedniej infrastruktury, bez uzgodnień, na przykład powstających w ramach WTO. Bez wypracowanych odpowiednich skryptów postępowania na linii producent-odbiorca.

Nie można zapominać, że pomoc handlowa oznacza też wsparcie dla zagrożonych własnych sektorów, na przykład cukru czy owoców miękkich.

Ponadto należy wspierać wymianę transgraniczną między Unią a sąsiadami, na przykład Ukrainą.

Scena wymiany światowej jest na tyle zróżnicowana, że istnieje potrzeba standaryzacji i uświadomienia tych standardów wszystkim obywatelom. Dlatego trzeba stworzyć program pomocy wykorzystujący historyczne doświadczenie europejskie, bogactwo europejskiej oferty towarowej, usługowej oraz know-how i przekazać na to finanse. Nieduże, ale konieczne.

Przez analogię powiem, że dobry handel jest zdolny nie tylko podnieść standard życia, szczególnie w krajach biednych, czego dotyczy ten raport, ale także przyczynić się do bardziej pokojowego rozwiązania światowych konfliktów.

Panie Przewodniczący! Kończąc, nawiążę do anegdotycznej oceny, że „Ryanair” robi więcej dla wspólnej Europy niż niektóre instytucje europejskie, bo zbliża ludzi; powiem, że „fair and free trade” zrobi więcej dla integracji i dobrostanu mieszkańców Ziemi, w tym krajów biednych, niż wątpliwe polityczne decyzje.

Handel jest spoiwem świata, niech zatem Europa będzie promotorem pomocy dla tak rozumianego handlu, i to Komisarza zobowiązuje.


  Gianluca Susta (ALDE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, non sfugge a nessuno, in quest'Aula e nel mondo economico e produttivo dell'Unione europea, il fatto che un sempre maggiore APC può favorire uno sviluppo più libero e nel contempo più giusto e controllato del mercato.

Se l'Unione europea vuole rimanere la prima potenza economica del mondo e lo spazio di maggiore libertà e minore disuguaglianza sociale, raccogliendo anche la forte spinta che è venuta e viene dal Parlamento, deve non solo favorire lo sviluppo della capacità dei paesi in via di sviluppo di promuovere scambi commerciali esterni in presenza di una loro, purtroppo forte, perdita di competitività sui mercati mondiali, ma anche incrementare l'aiuto per il commercio nella consapevolezza che liberalizzazione e aiuto non sono iniziative tra loro contrastanti.

In questo quadro, la pur significativa somma di 2 miliardi di euro non è ancora sufficiente, occorre chiarire il concetto stesso di APC facendo proprie le conclusioni della Task Force dell'Organizzazione mondiale del commercio per gli aiuti sugli interventi finanziabili e integrando al massimo politiche di sviluppo e commercio stesso, come previsto dal quadro integrato, anche in funzione della riduzione della povertà.


  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (UEN). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie i Panowie Posłowie! W Unii Europejskiej wiele mówi się o zrównoważonym, wielostronnym systemie handlowym oraz uczestnictwie w handlu i czerpaniu z niego korzyści przez kraje rozwijające się.

Troska ta nie idzie jednak w parze z poprawą sytuacji krajów najsłabiej rozwiniętych. Wręcz przeciwnie, udział tych krajów w światowym handlu zmniejszył się w ostatnich czterdziestu latach prawie o połowę, tj. z 1,9 % do 1 %. Wyraźnie widać również wypieranie przez silne wielkopowierzchniowe sieci handlowe drobnego handlu oraz transfer dochodów z krajów słabiej rozwiniętych. Fakty te dowodzą, że globalizm i liberalizacja w handlu wyraźnie służą koncentracji kapitału w krajach silniejszych i mnożeniu ubóstwa w krajach słabo rozwiniętych.

W ostatnich latach obserwujemy nowe podejście do handlu w Unii Europejskiej. Objawia się ono dbałością o eksport artykułów przemysłowych kosztem artykułów rolnych. Powoduje to stopniową utratę bezpieczeństwa żywnościowego w całej Unii, a szczególnie w nowych państwach członkowskich. Fakty te powodują konieczność wprowadzenia nowego podejścia Unii Europejskiej do handlu międzynarodowego oraz opracowanie wdrażania krajowych strategii rozwoju handlu.


  Γεώργιος Παπαστάμκος (PPE-DE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ουδείς αμφιβάλλει ότι η βοήθεια για το εμπόριο συνιστά μία ιδιαιτέρως σημαντική πρωτοβουλία. Υποβοηθά την πληρέστερη και αποτελεσματικότερη ενσωμάτωση των αναπτυσσομένων χωρών, ιδίως των λιγότερο ανεπτυγμένων εξ αυτών, στο πολυμερές εμπορικό σύστημα.

Όπως ελέχθη, το εμπόριο πράγματι δεν αποτελεί πανάκεια για την ανάπτυξη. Μπορεί όμως να ενισχύσει την εν γένει οικονομική και κοινωνική ανάπτυξη των κρατών αποδεκτών.

Η ειδική και διαφοροποιημένη μεταχείριση των αναπτυσσομένων χωρών στο πλαίσιο του ΠΟΕ είναι ως ένα βαθμό επιβεβλημένη, ιδίως ως προς τις λιγότερο ανεπτυγμένες χώρες. Θα πρέπει ωστόσο να σημειωθεί ότι η ανάληψη πολυμερών δεσμεύσεων και η συμμόρφωσή τους με τους κανόνες του ΠΟΕ συνιστούν κίνητρο για μεταρρυθμίσεις οι οποίες θα αποβούν επωφελείς για τις ίδιες τις αναπτυσσόμενες χώρες.

Το σταδιακό άνοιγμα των αγορών τους και η εξωστρεφής οικονομική και εμπορική πολιτική συμβάλλουν στην ενίσχυση της ανταγωνιστικότητάς τους επιτρέποντας τη μεταφορά τεχνολογίας και τεχνογνωσίας.

Οι αναπτυσσόμενες χώρες εμφανίζονται όμως ιδιαίτερα διστακτικές στις πολυμερείς διαπραγματεύσεις σε κλήσεις περί ανοίγματος των αγορών τους. Για τον σκοπό αυτό, η βοήθεια για το εμπόριο είναι καθοριστικής σημασίας προκειμένου οι χώρες αυτές να ανταποκριθούν σε νέες υποχρεώσεις και να εφαρμόσουν τους πολυμερείς εμπορικούς κανόνες, να αμβλύνουν το κόστος προσαρμογής τους στις μεταρρυθμίσεις και να εντάξουν αποτελεσματικότερα το εμπόριο στις αναπτυξιακές τους πολιτικές.

Εξυπακούεται ότι η βοήθεια για το εμπόριο θα πρέπει να συνοδευτεί από τις κατάλληλες εσωτερικές πολιτικές στις αναπτυσσόμενες χώρες προκειμένου να μεγιστοποιηθεί το αποτέλεσμα. Και σ’ αυτήν την προσπάθεια, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση καλείται να διαδραματίσει ηγετικό ρόλο για τη διαμόρφωση μιας αποτελεσματικής, συνεκτικής, στοχοθετημένης ατζέντας βοήθειας για το εμπόριο.

Τελειώνοντας την παρέμβασή μου θα ήθελα να συγχαρώ τον Επίτροπο, κύριο Mandelson, για τη στήριξη αυτής της πρωτοβουλίας όπως επίσης και για τη διασύνδεση των εξωτερικών πτυχών της ανταγωνιστικότητας με τις εσωτερικές πρωτοβουλίες για την ανταγωνιστικότητα της ευρωπαϊκής οικονομίας που ήταν το θέμα της προηγούμενης ενότητας της συζήτησής μας.


  Arūnas Degutis (ALDE). – Pirmiausia norėčiau pasveikinti šalis nares ir Komisiją, kuri įsipareigojo iki 2010 metų padidinti pagalbai prekybai skiriamas lėšas iki 2 mlrd. eurų. Tai rimtas įsipareigojimas, jį vykdant reikės daug tarpusavio koordinacijos.

Šiam tikslui pasiekti būtina bendra Europos Sąjungos strategija, kurioje turi būti nurodyti būdai pirmiau įvardytam tikslui pasiekti. Taip pat sveikinu šį laiku parengtą Tarptautinės prekybos komiteto pranešimą, kuriame pateikiamas Parlamento požiūris kompleksišku pagalbos prekybai klausimu. Remiu kvietimą Komisijai du kartus per metus teikti Parlamentui pranešimus, kuriuose būtų įvertinta ES pagalbos prekybai teikimo pažanga.

Nors minėtieji šalių įsipareigojimai duoti tik pagal tradicinį pagalbos prekybai apibrėžimą, pateiktą Ekonominio bendradarbiavimo ir vystymosi organizacijos, ateityje reikėtų labiau atsižvelgti į PPO pateiktas išvadas ir siūlomą šio apibrėžimo praplėtimą, įtraukiant „prekybos infrastruktūrą“, „kūrimo produktyvumo galimybes“, kitaip tariant, imtis visų įmanomų priemonių, kad pagalba prekybai būtų labiau visa apimanti, lankstesnė ir efektyvesnė.


  Tokia Saïfi (PPE-DE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, l'Union européenne affiche aujourd'hui des engagements ambitieux en matière de développement.

Je m'en félicite car il y a urgence, urgence d'aider les pays en développement à réduire la pauvreté, à atteindre les objectifs du Millénaire et à bénéficier d'une croissance économique durable. Appelons donc de nos vœux la traduction de ces objectifs par des actes concrets et efficaces.

À ce titre, on ne peut que saluer les engagements pris en faveur de l'augmentation de l'aide au commerce. Je souhaiterais mettre en avant quelques points qui justifient le caractère essentiel de cet instrument. Celui-ci répond, tout d'abord, à l'exigence de cohérence, laquelle doit guider les actions extérieures de l'Union européenne: en articulant les différents domaines de son action extérieure, l'Union européenne répond à deux principes, mieux légiférer et renforcer l'efficacité de son aide. Cet instrument répond aussi à la réalité du système commercial multilatéral en aidant les pays en développement et les pays les moins avancés à tirer profit des avantages résultant de l'accès au marché.

Enfin, cet instrument contribue à la mise en œuvre des accords commerciaux. On peut citer ici les accords OMC ou les accords de partenariat économique. L'aide pour le commerce contribue ainsi à faire du commerce international un instrument au service de la réduction de la pauvreté par le biais du développement économique.

Enfin, pour être efficace, l'aide au commerce doit répondre à plusieurs impératifs: être assortie d'engagements concrets, notamment en faveur de l'assistance technique, faire l'objet d'un contrôle et d'un suivi de sa mise en œuvre, renforcer l'appropriation locale et la gestion axée sur les résultats. Cela est essentiel pour que l'aide au commerce permette aux pays en développement de bénéficier des avantages résultant du système commercial multilatéral et de se donner les moyens d'accroître effectivement leurs capacités dans le domaine des échanges. Aussi invitons toutes les parties prenantes à ne pas relâcher leurs efforts, afin que l'aide au commerce soit en mesure de tenir ses promesses.


  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I would like to welcome and commend all those who have spoken on this subject this morning. I do not find myself in disagreement with anyone who has contributed. I agree, for example, with Mr Papastamkos, who said it is very important that, when we are pursuing trade and reform policies of our own, we are able to put in place flanking measures properly supported with adequate funds which enable developing countries to adjust to those reforms too. I agree with Mrs Saïfi that this has to be a results-driven process, which is why I attach importance to proper reporting as part of an effective aid-for-trade monitoring and reporting pillar, both in respect of what we do in the EU and in relation to the WTO.

If I might, though, just make two responses: first of all, to those who have questioned whether there is any question of double counting, recycling of money, robbing Peter to pay Paul or robbing Paul to pay Peter (which might be preferable!) – in fact neither is happening. Aid for trade, in our view, should never imply less aid for other sectors. The increases in aid for trade for both the Commission and the Member States are less than the overall ODA budget increases. Therefore, there is no need to reallocate resources from other sectors to meet the aid-for-trade pledges.

Secondly, one or two Members raised the issue of fair trade. In my view, our strategy should confirm full support for any activity which involves the private sector – especially SMEs – and civil society to ensure that aid for trade facilitates the creation and growth of enterprises to compete in international markets, for example, voluntary initiatives such as fair trade, eco-labels and comparable corporate scheme standards. The strategy should also address related issues of labour market and social adjustment and the ILO’s core labour standards.

Last of all, I think that Max van den Berg’s point about rules of origin, their improvement and simplification is very important. It is something on which I have focused and not made, along with my colleagues in the Commission, as much progress to date as I would like to have done, and we need to add speed.

Lastly, I think Mr Schmidt made some important points about aid for trade and its possible impact on local markets, and I shall certainly reflect on those. But I would like to thank David Martin once again for what has been an excellent and welcome report.




  El Presidente. Con la intervención del Comisario Mandelson queda cerrado el debate.

La votación tendrá lugar mañana a las 12.00 horas.

Правна информация - Политика за поверителност