Rapporti verbatim tad-dibattiti

It-Tlieta, 11 ta' Marzu 2008 - Strasburgu

19. Ħin tal-mistoqsijiet (mistoqsijiet għall-Kummissjoni)

  President. − The next item is Question Time (B6-0013/2008).

I am sorry for those colleagues who have been waiting for this to start and, clearly, we will have to look at why we are so late in starting today.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Madam President, on a point of order, according to the parliamentary website Oral Questions, my question was No 3 on the list. The question was designed to be answered by Commissioner Mandelson, as its title clearly stated ‘WTO talks’ and Mr Mandelson is conducting those talks on our behalf. However, I now see that my question has been put into section 3, which means that it will not be verbally answered by Commissioner Mandelson. I am asking whether he is refusing to be accountable to the House for the WTO negotiations.

What is the point in tabling a question to a Commissioner who is present on the day if the Commissioner refuses to answer that question?

  President. − It is the Commission that decides who answers which questions.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Madam President, that is the problem, because the question, on WTO talks, was clearly for Commissioner Mandelson. He is the Commissioner who was conducting those talks, he is here today and he is refusing to answer the question.

  President. − Ms Harkin, your point is noted and we will do what we can.

The following questions are addressed to the Commission.

Part one

  President. − Question No 32 by Stavros Arnaoutakis (H-0075/08)

Subject: Negative impact on business of the international credit crisis

The current international credit crisis, which is leading the US economy into recession, is slowing down the rate of growth at world level. The effects on the European economy and business are substantial. Greek and other European companies are already coming under considerable pressure from the increase in imports from non-EU countries whose cheaper products are constantly gaining ground on the market. At the same time, a fall in European exports is forecast for the current year.

What measures will the Commission take to provide European companies with effective support to survive this crisis and become more commercially competitive at international level? Which sectors of commerce and which European products does it consider to be most vulnerable? Which should be protected as a matter of priority and how can that be achieved?

  Joaquín Almunia, Miembro de la Comisión. − Señora Presidenta, en respuesta a la pregunta del señor Arnaoutakis, debo decir primero que la economía mundial está en un proceso de desaceleración, se está enfriando, por hablar en términos climatológicos.

Las turbulencias financieras continúan; la economía de los Estados Unidos está en un proceso de acusada desaceleración —algunos opinan que está ya en el borde de la recesión—; los precios de las materias primas, el petróleo y otras materias primas, aumentan; y todo ello produce un impacto negativo sobre el crecimiento, aunque el crecimiento de la economía mundial sigue siendo apreciable.

La economía europea está sorteando estas dificultades relativamente bien. En nuestras recientes previsiones, presentadas el 21 de febrero, hemos hablado de un crecimiento para la Unión Europea este año del 2 %, —un 1,8 % para la zona euro—. Por lo tanto, hay un impacto sobre la economía europea, pero conviene no exagerar la dimensión de ese impacto.

En cuanto al comercio exterior, las últimas cifras publicadas por Eurostat revelan que, para 2007, la primera estimación habla de un déficit comercial en la Unión Europea de 27 de 185 000 millones de euros —un déficit comercial apreciable, pero, en todo caso, menor que el de muchos del resto de las zonas de países industrializados—, y la zona euro tiene un excedente comercial de 28 300 millones de euros.

Por lo tanto, en una economía global caracterizada por grandes desequilibrios, nuestro sector exterior está equilibrado en general. Y no sólo nuestro sector exterior, nuestras cuentas públicas también lo están básicamente.

Tercer punto: la mejor manera de hacer frente a la crisis de la economía mundial es mantener las reformas estructurales y las políticas macroeconómicas que nos han permitido sanear nuestras cuentas públicas, mejorar la estabilidad de nuestras economías, mejorar nuestra capacidad de crecimiento y hacer frente, en mejores condiciones que en ocasiones anteriores, a las turbulencias financieras.

En cuarto lugar, hay problemas concretos a los que hacer frente como consecuencia de estas turbulencias. Nos hemos referido a ellos en el debate anterior: no voy a repetirlas. Pero sí les recuerdo al señor diputado y a la Cámara que hay esas hojas de ruta, aprobadas por el Consejo Ecofin en octubre, que fijan la manera de reaccionar ante estas turbulencias financieras.

Y, en quinto lugar, debo recordar también al señor diputado y al Parlamento que en octubre de 2006 aprobamos una estrategia para la acción económica exterior de la Unión Europea, el programa «Europa Global» (Global Europe), donde se fija una nueva política comercial europea para mejorar nuestra competitividad de cara al exterior, con estrategias relacionadas con el acceso a los mercados, la protección de los derechos de propiedad intelectual, una contratación pública abierta en el extranjero, instrumentos de defensa del comercio, una política de acuerdos no sólo multilaterales en el marco de la Organización Mundial del Comercio, sino también una nueva generación de acuerdos comerciales bilaterales que complementen ese esfuerzo de avanzar en la negociación multilateral en la Ronda de Doha.

Para acabar esta respuesta, recordar que los hechos demuestran, y en particular para las economías europeas, que la integración de los mercados, que la globalización, que la liberalización comercial son beneficiosas para nuestras economías y comportan muchos más beneficios que inconvenientes o dificultades. La mundialización y, en el ámbito europeo, el mercado único son herramientas esenciales para que podamos mejorar nuestra competitividad y —como sabemos muy bien los europeos probablemente mejor que nadie en el mundo— el proteccionismo no es la solución.

  Σταύρος Αρναουτάκης (PSE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, θα ήθελα να σας ρωτήσω εάν υπάρχει κάποια εκτίμηση από την Επιτροπή για το πώς η διεθνής αυτή πιστωτική κρίση θα επηρεάσει τομείς όπως είναι ο τουρισμός και η ναυτιλία, που, ειδικά για τη χώρα μου την Ελλάδα, αποτελούν το 21% του ΑΕΠ, και ποια μέτρα προτίθεται να πάρει.

  Joaquín Almunia, Miembro de la Comisión. − No, no puedo darle cálculos tan particularizados ni tan detallados como me pide su Señoría. Es muy posible que las autoridades griegas hayan hecho esas estimaciones. Nosotros hemos estimado en nuestras previsiones actualizadas del mes de febrero el impacto de las turbulencias financieras y del entorno internacional económicamente más difícil en las economías europeas y hemos estimado que va a haber algo menos crecimiento, cinco décimas menos de crecimiento en la Unión Europea, cuatro décimas menos de crecimiento en la zona euro, con respecto a las previsiones que habíamos presentado en noviembre del año 2007. Y también medio punto más de inflación como consecuencia básicamente del shock del aumento de los precios del petróleo, de las materias primas y, muy en particular, de las materias primas alimenticias.

Hasta ahora, el impacto sobre las exportaciones es muy reducido, por no decir que no se aprecia hasta ahora, pero como estamos diciendo en repetidas ocasiones, sobre todo en estos últimos días en que los mercados de cambios manifiestan una gran volatilidad, tenemos la sensación de que la evolución, la volatilidad de los tipos de cambio en lo que nos afecta como europeos está llegando a unos límites que nos causan gran preocupación y debemos recordar a todos los demás agentes en la economía global que la excesiva volatilidad en los mercados de cambios es indeseable porque provoca consecuencias negativas en términos de crecimiento, de actividad económica, para todos.

  Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – Verslui įtakos turi ne tik tarptautinės krizės, bet, kaip jūs ką tik minėjote, ir valiutų santykis. Šalis, kuri turi stiprią valiutą gali silpnai konkuruoti tarptautinėse rinkose. Šiuo atveju euras yra tiek stiprus, kad verslas skundžiasi, jog eksportuoti tapo nenaudinga.

Ar galima imtis kokių nors veiksmų? Kartais šalys mėgina silpninti savo valiutą, kad gautų iš to didesnės naudos prekiaujant užsienyje.

  Joaquín Almunia, Miembro de la Comisión. − Como sabe su Señoría, los mercados de cambio, en la inmensa mayoría de los países, y muy en particular entre las economías industrializadas más avanzadas, son mercados regidos por unos tipos de cambio flexibles. Es la ley de la oferta y la demanda la que fija en cada momento los tipos de cambio.

Lo que hay que desear es que todos los actores, todos los agentes en la economía global y, en particular, en los mercados de cambio, se atengan a las orientaciones que hemos acordado en el marco del G7, en el marco del Fondo Monetario Internacional, en las consultas multilaterales, que tuvieron lugar hace ahora un año, para tratar de afrontar los desequilibrios globales de la economía. Y una de las conclusiones de esas consultas multilaterales tenía que ver con la necesidad de dejar libremente que los mercados de cambio reflejen los fundamentos de cada economía, y es la mejor manera de que esos tipos de cambio no perjudiquen colectivamente a los actores, a los participantes en los mercados internacionales.

Hasta ahora, para la zona euro, si nos fijamos en las cifras que ha publicado Eurostat correspondientes al año 2007 —las primera cifras de Eurostat del año 2007, publicadas el pasado 15 de febrero—, a lo largo del año pasado las exportaciones de los países de la zona euro —entonces trece países— crecieron un 8 % el año anterior, mientras que las importaciones crecieron un 6 %. Pero es verdad, a la vez, que la evolución de los tipos de cambio nos preocupa; y, en particular, nos preocupa la evolución de las últimas semanas.

Y eso ha sido dicho a raíz de la última reunión del Eurogrupo, la semana pasada, tanto por el Presidente del Eurogrupo, el Presidente del Banco Central Europeo y yo mismo como Comisario de Asuntos Económicos.

Y tomamos buena nota de la voluntad, por un lado, de las autoridades estadounidenses, que siguen repitiendo públicamente que están interesados en mantener una moneda fuerte. Tomamos buena nota de los anuncios, de las declaraciones de intención de las autoridades de países como China y otras economías emergentes asiáticas, que dicen que son conscientes de la necesidad de ir introduciendo cada vez más flexibilidad en la gestión de esos tipos de cambio.

  President. − While we change to Commissioner Figeľ for the next question, may I take the opportunity to return to Ms Harkin’s earlier point of order. I have caused some enquiries to be made and my first point would be that we are dealing with Question Time to the Commission, not to a particular Commissioner.

The Commission has looked at the point you raised and has consulted DG Trade and DG AGRI and in their estimation, I am afraid, your question falls within the competence of Commissioner Fischer Boel. I cannot enter into debate, but I pass on that information to you so that you know the reasoning.

  President. − Question No 33 by Manolis Mavrommatis (H-0086/08)

Subject: Legal downloads of songs from the Internet

On 28 January 2008, an agreement was signed between the three biggest record companies (EMI, Universal Music and Warner Music) to make 25 million songs available on the Qtrax website for free downloading by users. While downloading is in progress, however, users have to watch the advertising on the site. This website is available to residents of Europe and the USA and it is estimated that the site’s creators will soon recoup their investment.

Given that there is no EU legal framework covering online music services - as, following the recent recommendation, the Commission does not intend to propose a legally binding framework - and that this agreement was made largely to safeguard the rights and profits of the record companies affected by illegal downloading, in what way are the rights of the artists protected within this framework?

In view of the fact that this website is also aimed at European citizens, does the Commission consider that competition in music services will be undermined since this agreement involves only three record companies which will make their songs available on the Internet free of charge and will enjoy the profits from advertising on the same website?

  Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − I am sure that Mr Mavrommatis recalls that Qtrax recently announced a new agreement with several major labels to offer the first free and legal advertisement-supported peer-to-peer service with major music labels on their website. It happened at the MIDEM Conference in Cannes in January.

However, it seems that no deal is currently in place that would allow free downloads of their music catalogues. Indeed, in reaction to the Qtrax announcement, the four major companies have publicly stated that no deal has yet been finalised, although negotiations are ongoing. At this stage, there are still uncertainties as to how many agreements Qtrax will eventually sign with the major music labels and as to the content and the scope of these agreements.

It is therefore too early to make any preliminary assessment of the impact on competition in the online music industry. However, it is clear that such a service would not only have to be licensed by the record labels, but the authors who wrote and composed the music would also, of course, have to be part of the agreement.

  Μανώλης Μαυρομμάτης (PPE-DE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, όπως αναφέρω στην ερώτησή μου, τρεις είναι οι εταιρείες που αποκομίζουν κέρδη. Ερωτώ και πάλι, κύριε Επίτροπε: Oι άλλες εταιρείες, που δεν προστατεύονται, θα πρέπει να πάψουν να λειτουργούν και να μείνουν έτσι απροστάτευτα τα δικαιώματα χιλιάδων δημιουργών, σε μια εποχή μάλιστα όπου οι μουσικές υπηρεσίες στο Διαδίκτυο γίνονται ολοένα και πιο ισχυρές; Ή να πιστέψω τον κ. McCreevy, που μας είπε ότι μια τέτοια οδηγία θα έρθει το 2010 στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο;

  Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − Firstly, I would like to assure you once again that the competition policy of the Union and this Commission is an ongoing process. We check and test and, if needed, we act or react.

Secondly, the adaptation of important rules or frameworks for online content or cross-border rules for the provision of services, including now for copyrights or even terms of protection, are part of the gradual adaptation. Some of them will probably be adapted this year. Some proposals have been on the table since autumn last year. So I think it is an important process, where we are working together, where a cultural context or impact is duly taken into account and cultural diversity protected and promoted.

We are not advising what individual companies should do in terms of the behaviour of others, but it is important that transparency and favourable conditions for creativity and for the dissemination of culture are preserved and promoted. I think this is our common cause and our common concern. I am sure that this is the case in the Committee on Culture and Education, of which you are vice-chairman, Mr Mavrommatis.

  Josu Ortuondo Larrea (ALDE). – Señor Comisario, supongo que usted sabrá que existe en algunos Estados un método para pagar los derechos de autor que consiste en establecer un canon, que deben pagar todos aquellos que compren aparatos grabadores, reproductores, que compren CD o que compren DVD. Yo le querría preguntar si a usted le parece que este método es aceptable, cuando hay muchísima gente que compra esos aparatos y que compra esos DVD y no los utilizan ni para descargarse música ni para reproducir ninguna cuestión que afecte a derechos de autor. Y a mí me parece que es un método que está castigando precisamente a los ciudadanos honestos. Yo quisiera conocer su opinión al respecto.

  Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − It is true that in some countries these copyright levies are really very high or the differences are striking.

This is one of topics which we are dealing with. We did it last year, and I am sure that the Commission will come back to these issues. My colleague, Commissioner Charlie McCreevy, is responsible for this file, and I see it in connection with other areas where either copyrights, terms of protection or authors’ rights are concerned or touched upon.

So I know about the issues, but thank you for the message, which is repeated by some countries and some industries. I am sure that this will be part of reviews in the near future.

  President. − Question No 34 by Avril Doyle (H-0090/08)

Subject: Carbon tariffs on imports?

On 23 January 2008 the European Commission put forward a far-reaching package of proposals COM(2008)0016 that will deliver on the European Union's ambitious commitments to fight climate change and promote renewable energy up to 2020 and beyond.

Central to the strategy is a strengthening and expansion of the Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), the EU's key tool for cutting emissions cost-effectively. Emissions from the sectors covered by the system will be cut by 21% by 2020 compared with levels in 2005. A single EU-wide cap on ETS emissions will be set, and free allocation of emission allowances will be progressively replaced by auctioning of allowances by 2020.

Under any international agreement, which would ensure that competitors in other parts of the world bear a comparable cost, the risk of carbon leakage could well be negligible. However, such an agreement is not yet in place.

In light of the above, can the Commission comment as to why carbon tariffs on imports into the EU were excluded from the EU ETS?

Secondly, can the Commission further indicate the degree of support in the College of Commissioners on the issue of carbon tariffs on products from countries that have no CO2 reduction legislation in place?

Has the WTO a view on this?

  Σταύρος Δήμας, Μέλος της Επιτροπής. − Κυρία Πρόεδρε, αποτελεί πρώτη προτεραιότητα για την Επιτροπή η σύναψη μιας φιλόδοξης διεθνούς συμφωνίας για τις κλιματικές αλλαγές, που θα καλύπτει την περίοδο μετά το 2012. Η Διάσκεψη του Μπαλί αποτέλεσε σημαντικό βήμα στην προσπάθεια αντιμετώπισης σε παγκόσμια βάση των κλιματικών αλλαγών. Όλα τα μέρη της σύμβασης-πλαισίου των Ηνωμένων Εθνών για τις κλιματικές αλλαγές, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών, της Κίνας και της Ινδίας, συμφώνησαν να αρχίσουν επίσημες διαπραγματεύσεις.

Το ζητούμενο τώρα -και αποτελεί αυτό βασική προτεραιότητα για την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και την Επιτροπή- είναι να επιτευχθεί συμφωνία σχετικά με ένα μελλοντικό διεθνές νομικό πλαίσιο για το κλίμα πριν από το τέλος του 2009. Το πλαίσιο αυτό πρέπει να είναι γενικής εφαρμογής, να εξασφαλίζει τη δέσμευση συμμετοχής όλων και να έχει αποτελεσματικότητα. Για να επιτύχουμε το επιθυμητό αποτέλεσμα, που είναι όπως έχουμε πει η διεθνής συμφωνία, έχει μεγάλη σημασία να συνεχίσει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να διαδραματίζει πρωταγωνιστικό ρόλο, κάτι που έκανε άλλωστε με μεγάλη επιτυχία στο διάστημα πριν από τη Διάσκεψη του Μπαλί και, βεβαίως, κατά τη διάρκειά της.

Η δέσμη προτάσεων σχετικά με το κλίμα και τις ανανεώσιμες πηγές ενέργειας, την οποία υπέβαλε η Επιτροπή στις 23 Ιανουαρίου, έχει αυτήν ακριβώς τη σημασία, δηλαδή να διατηρήσει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση τον πρωταγωνιστικό της ρόλο και να αποδείξει καθαρά ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση είναι αποφασισμένη να προχωρήσει.

Το σύστημα εμπορίας δικαιωμάτων εκπομπών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης είναι το βασικό μέσο με το οποίο μπορούμε να κατευθύνουμε τις επενδύσεις προς καθαρότερες τεχνολογίες. Η εμπορία δικαιωμάτων εκπομπών εξασφαλίζει, με το ελάχιστο δυνατό κόστος, την επίτευξη των στόχων που έχει θέσει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση σχετικά με τα αέρια του θερμοκηπίου.

Η πρόταση της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για αναθεωρημένη οδηγία σχετικά με το σύστημα εμπορίας προβλέπει τη δημοπράτηση ως την κύρια μέθοδο κατανομής των δικαιωμάτων. Η δημοπράτηση, αφενός, παρέχει κίνητρα για επενδύσεις σε τεχνολογίες χαμηλών εκπομπών άνθρακα και, αφετέρου, αποτρέπει ανεπιθύμητες καταστάσεις από μη δικαιολογημένες κατανομές και αδικαιολόγητα κέρδη. Για το λόγο αυτό η Επιτροπή προτείνει από την έναρξη της τρίτης περιόδου εμπορίας και μετά να μην κατανέμονται πλέον δωρεάν δικαιώματα σε επιχειρήσεις ηλεκτροπαραγωγής, στο δε βιομηχανικό τομέα η δωρεάν κατανομή θα περιοριστεί σταδιακά με στόχο να καταργηθεί εντελώς το 2020.

Ορισμένοι ενεργοβόροι τομείς ή κλάδοι δρουν σε έντονα ανταγωνιστική διεθνή αγορά και, ως εκ τούτου, δεν μπορούν να μετακυλήσουν στους καταναλωτές το κόστος χωρίς να κινδυνεύσουν να χάσουν σημαντικό μέρος της αγοράς. Στην περίπτωση που δεν υπάρξει διεθνής συμφωνία υπάρχει ο κίνδυνος μετεγκατάστασής τους εκτός Ευρώπης, με αποτέλεσμα να αυξηθούν οι παγκόσμιες εκπομπές αερίων του θερμοκηπίου (διαρροή διοξειδίου του άνθρακα). Οι τομείς τους οποίους αφορά αυτός ο κίνδυνος διαρροής διοξειδίου του άνθρακα πρέπει να προσδιοριστούν με αντικειμενικό τρόπο. Για το λόγο αυτό η Επιτροπή προτείνει να εξεταστεί προσεκτικά το ζήτημα αυτό και να καταρτιστεί κατάλογος των τομέων ή κλάδων που είναι ευάλωτοι μέχρι το έτος 2010.

Μέχρι τον Ιούνιο του 2011 η Επιτροπή θα αξιολογήσει την κατάσταση στους εν λόγω ενεργοβόρους κλάδους επί τη βάσει του αποτελέσματος των διαπραγματεύσεων για τη διεθνή συμφωνία σχετικά με τις κλιματικές αλλαγές ή τις συμφωνίες κατά τομείς που ενδέχεται να έχουν συναφθεί. Επί τη βάσει της αξιολόγησης αυτής η Επιτροπή θα υποβάλει το 2011 έκθεση στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο και στο Συμβούλιο και, εφόσον κριθεί αναγκαίο, θα προτείνει συμπληρωματικά μέτρα. Μεταξύ των μέτρων αυτών θα είναι η δωρεάν κατανομή δικαιωμάτων εκπομπής αερίων του θερμοκηπίου στους ενεργοβόρους τομείς μέχρι και 100%. Επίσης, στην πρόταση της Επιτροπής αναφέρεται ως άλλο μέτρο και η καθιέρωση ενός αποτελεσματικού εξισωτικού ή αντισταθμιστικού μηχανισμού σχετικά με το διοξείδιο του άνθρακα. Στόχος είναι να τεθούν οι βιομηχανικές εγκαταστάσεις της Κοινότητας που διατρέχουν σημαντικό κίνδυνο διαρροής διοξειδίου του άνθρακα σε συγκρίσιμη και ισότιμη βάση με εκείνες των τρίτων χωρών. Σε ένα τέτοιο εξισωτικό σύστημα θα μπορούσε ακόμη να προβλέπεται η επιβολή όρων στους εισαγωγείς, αναλόγων με εκείνους που ισχύουν για τις εγκαταστάσεις εντός της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, όπως, για παράδειγμα, θα μπορούσε να είναι η υποχρέωση επιστροφής δικαιωμάτων για τις εκπομπές διοξειδίου του άνθρακα.

Όποια μέθοδος και αν συμφωνηθεί και όποια δράση και αν αναληφθεί, θα πρέπει να είναι σε πλήρη συμμόρφωση με τις αρχές της συμφωνίας-πλαισίου των Ηνωμένων Εθνών για τις κλιματικές αλλαγές, ιδίως δε με την αρχή των κοινών αλλά διαφοροποιημένων ευθυνών καθώς και ικανοτήτων, λαμβανομένης υπόψη και της ιδιαίτερης κατάστασης των λιγότερο ανεπτυγμένων χωρών. Θα πρέπει επίσης να είναι σύμφωνη προς τις διεθνείς υποχρεώσεις της Κοινότητας, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των κανόνων του Παγκόσμιου Οργανισμού Εμπορίου.

Τέλος, η πρόταση για το κλίμα και την ενέργεια έχει εγκριθεί συλλογικά από ολόκληρη την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή, συνεπώς την υποστηρίζουν όλα τα μέλη της.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – Thank you, Commissioner, for a very substantial reply to my question, which, incidentally, I tabled long before I realised I would have responsibility as rapporteur for the review of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme situation.

My question was quite specifically about where we stand, ‘we’ really being the College of Commissioners at this stage, in relation to a possible introduction of carbon adjustment tariffs, or carbon allowances, in the event that we do not get international agreement. I agree with you very much that we need a level playing field for EU industry and third-country production in this area.

I just want to tease out whether this option – and I am not being protectionist, and I really support the globalised world we live in today – of a potential carbon adjustment tariff is still out there on the table. I feel it should be, so I am asking you whether that is the position of the College of Commissioners on this issue, to mark the seriousness with which we treat the whole need to reduce CO2 emissions and the whole climate change debate. We do not need to be aggressive about it, but we need to be determined about it.

  Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. − I fully agree with you, and this is a very responsible position. I am very glad that you are going to be the rapporteur for this very important piece of legislation.

Of course, we discussed everything. I remember that in Nairobi we had a specific discussion on this issue. We discussed it in my services, with other services and with other Commissioners, and what we concluded as being a wise, balanced position is to include in the proposal a provision which will take care of the problems that energy-intensive sectors could face in the event that we do not have an international agreement, or that an international agreement does not impose carbon constraints in other countries as ambitious as the European Union’s. What we have decided is that, by 2010, we shall identify with objective criteria which are these sectors, and by June 2011 we shall assess the situation of whether we have an international agreement or even international sectoral agreements. Accordingly, I hope, and I sincerely believe, that we will have an agreement by the end of 2009, one which will tackle climate change problems effectively.

However, if we do not have an agreement, or if it is not ambitious enough, then there are provisions in our proposal that permit us to assess the situation and, accordingly, either provide emissions allowances for up to 100% of the allocations of these energy-intensive industries or permit the inclusion of importers into our emissions trading system and, of course, the obligation to pay for similar amounts of allowances as local producers will do, so equalising the situation – or even a combination of these measures.

Therefore, we are giving the necessary assurance to our industries that we will be looking at the problems. At the same time, we are giving a warning to other countries: they had better agree on an international agreement. Therefore, by having this very balanced position, we are achieving all the objectives, and I hope that Parliament and the Council will vote on and adopt the legislation as soon as possible, by the end of the year or early next spring.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE-DE). – Ik ben heel blij met de opstelling van de Commissie, van de commissaris, en de zeer evenwichtige aanpak. Toch heb ik nog één heel belangrijk zorgpunt, namelijk dat wij de oude technologie, die niet efficiënt is en ook nog tot uitstoot leidt, nog steeds richting ontwikkelingslanden exporteren. Ik vraag de commissaris of wij wat dat betreft geen aanvullend beleid kunnen voeren dat in dezelfde lijn ligt. Kunnen wij op korte termijn initatieven in dezen verwachten?

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – In a debate this afternoon on the CAP, we discussed imports into the EU and we called on the Commission as a matter of urgency to develop a plan to push through European non-trade concerns in the WTO talks.

Surely the issue of climate change must feature high on our list of priorities and carbon tariffs on imports into the EU is certainly important in this regard.

So I would just like to ask the Commissioner, as Mrs Doyle did in her original question, does the WTO have a view on this, and what is it?

  Stavros Dimas, Member of the Commission. − I fully agree that we should not export technologies which are going to pollute abroad. Actually, our first concern will be that we shall not permit the relocation of sectors or industries outside the European Union, not only because we are going to lose jobs and we are going to create employment problems but also because we do not want to carry on emitting and polluting in countries that do not have carbon restraints as we have.

So we should be very careful and we should apply our utmost attention to not permitting this phenomenon to occur. Of course, when we are preaching that the main way for developing countries to fight climate change is by improving energy efficiency, we have to be very careful what we are exporting to them.

Regarding the World Trade Organisation position on carbon tariffs, we do not know their position, because the question has not arisen, but, after examination within the European Union, we think that there is no problem, because what we have tried to do with the inclusion in the emissions trading system, which is a bit different from border tax, is to equalise the situation. We do not favour our industries; we put them in the same position as similar industries and sectors which are producing in countries with no carbon constraints.

By the way, in the United States they are having the same discussion, because in the Liebermann-Warner bill for the introduction of an emissions trading system in the United States they have a similar provision. This discussion also took place in the United States and they also think that this is compatible with World Trade Organisation rules.

Part two

  President. − Question No 35 by Colm Burke (H-0092/08)

Subject: Intercultural dialogue in EU

In this Year of Intercultural Dialogue in the EU the Commission has planned many events. An emphasis should be placed on involving young people in the events of this year so that they may benefit from the rich cultural diversity in the EU.

What specific measures does the Commission envisage in order to involve young people in the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue?

  Ján Figeľ, člen Komisie. − Ďakujem pekne pani predsedajúca a takisto pánovi Burkemu za otázku.

Chcel by som povedať, že ambícia tohto roku, Európskeho roku medzikultúrneho dialógu, je podporovať dialóg kultúr ako proces, v ktorom všetci žijúci v Európskej únii môžu zlepšiť vlastnú schopnosť zaoberať sa viac a otvorenejšie komplexným kultúrnym prostredím v každodenných životoch. Zameriava sa na pozdvihnutie predovšetkým vedomia alebo povedomia, osobitne mladých ľudí, a vytvorenie ich aktívneho európskeho občianstva, ktoré je otvorené voči svetu, ktoré rešpektuje kultúrnu rozmanitosť a je založené na spoločných hodnotách. V tomto kontexte mládež a vzdelávanie sú kľúčové oblasti pre dialóg kultúr spolu s oblasťami, ako sú migrácia, menšiny, viacjazyčnosť, zamestnanosť, takisto médiá, náboženstvo, umenie, kultúra.

Európska únia spolufinancuje 7 vlajkových projektov na celoeurópskej úrovni, ktoré sa zameriavajú hlavne na mládež, povzbudzuje dialóg kultúr medzi mladými ľuďmi cez tzv. kolaboratívne umelecké projekty, rozprávanie príbehov, mediálne projekty, mediálne kampane, mestskú kultúru, výmeny medzi znevýhodnenými sídliskami alebo komunitami a rozvíja dialóg s umením, imigrantov a imigrácie a podobné témy.

Európska únia tiež spolufinancuje v rámci tohto roku jeden projekt za každý alebo v každom členskom štáte, v ktorých sa veľmi veľa v skutočnosti zameriava na mladých ľudí a na vzdelávanie. My sme v stálom kontakte aj s tzv. riadiacou skupinou platformy občianskej spoločnosti pre interkultúrny dialóg, ktorý zahŕňa členov reprezentujúcich, napr. aj Európske mládežnícke fórum, ale aj EFIL, čo je Európska federácia pre medzikultúrne vzdelávanie alebo učenie.

Takže zakončím tým, že napríklad aj komunikačná kampaň samotná o význame tohto roku, o význame dialógu kultúr zahŕňa veľmi veľa aktivít, ktoré sa vzťahujú na mladých a prichádzajú z návrhu občianskej spoločnosti alebo z iniciatív Európskej únie. A, samozrejme, kompendium alebo komplex všetkých informácií je prístupný na internete v rámci webovej stránky http://www.interculturaldialog2008EU" ; teda celý proces je veľmi komunikatívny, napomáha partnerstvám, napomáha zviditeľňovaniu dobrých projektov, dobrých skúseností a som presvedčený, že toto posilní proces – dialóg kultúr ako proces, nie ako jednorazová udalosť.

  Colm Burke (PPE-DE). – Thank you very much, Commissioner, for your very detailed reply, and I welcome the developments which you referred to. I know you, as Commissioner, and the Commission are working very hard on this programme.

In relation to the 27 individual governments, what programme have you asked them to get involved in with regard to supporting what the Commission is doing? In other words, while it is fine that we are putting up seven flagship projects, is each individual government also going to put forward a flagship project within each of their own individual countries?

  Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − I said that this is a common cause, a common endeavour, and there are many good ideas and ongoing initiatives at European and national level, plus many at regional and municipal level. I am happy that there is this kind of strong interest, even internationally, to see opportunities and to seek the opportunity to promote an intercultural approach instead of ‘multi-culti’ comments and laments. I think we need this.

I do not intend to read out the projects themselves; they are quite inspirational – especially at EU level – because these were selected from many at EU level, and they are very different to those as the level of the Member States. In fact we have 28, because in Belgium there are two main communities and support.

We think that the Member States which involve the young generation, which are really open to the future, are probably the best examples of addressing the challenges of living in diversity, and also promoting unity. Projects like Diversidad, which is run by the European music office. Here we see a combination of very popular activities: music, music interpretation, listening to music, learning via music, and dialogue with urban culture. The International Yehudi Menuhin Foundation; Ton monde est le mien, something which reflects that we need others to understand ourselves; A Unique Brussels, which is a network of EU institutes of culture; Alter Ego, a contribution to intercultural dialogue, cross-cultural understanding, and European citizenship by young people through collaborative art projects, which can make them reach beyond their normal social circles.

One project is by the European Cultural Foundation – Stranger. This is about young people expressing themselves and creating a platform where they can link their experience to the wider European context.

Last but not least, I think it is very important that Parliament is involved as much as possible, individually or collectively. There are many occasions – events in Brussels, for example – on different topics connected to intercultural dialogue. We as a Commission will invite the Committee on Culture as a body (this also means Members) to all the events we are participating in or co-organising. We will have, for example, a European Youth Week in November, and I think they should come. Some of the events should be organised in the premises of Parliament in Brussels, with the participation of parliamentarians and, of course, young people from all countries including non-EU members.

There are many occasions where you can have a say and, especially, set an example and show your commitment. I believe this should not be just a one-year story. It must be a long-term objective and a process where we learn, participate and mature in order to ensure a better century than the 20th century, which was one of many divisions, conflicts and ideologies opposing human dignity. So I think there is strong momentum for your involvement.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE). – I am just wondering, in the whole area of intercultural dialogue and the involving of young people, whether the Commission has looked at the excellent work that is being done in the north of Ireland in this particular area: in the north, between the two different communities that have been at loggerheads for so long, and on a cross-border basis. I think there is something specific there that could be drawn on, and I would ask the Commission whether it has looked at it and, if not, could they do so.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – I shall be very brief. I just want to ask the Commissioner whether there are any measures proposed in the area of volunteering.

This is surely an ideal opportunity for people from different backgrounds to work together by choice, particularly, let us say, in the area of youth volunteering, with programmes that would set out to ensure that people who do not normally volunteer would get involved – because sometimes volunteering tends to be a white, middle-class activity – and in the area of intergenerational volunteering. Are there any measures in those areas to promote intercultural dialogue?

  Ján Figeľ, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, on Northern Ireland, I would firstly like express my congratulations in relation to the new atmosphere and what I would describe as very positive expectations of gradual and sincere reconciliation and commitment to the shared values. I even plan to go there, which may be the best answer. I think that greater involvement of Northern Ireland’s students, teachers and professors in EU exchanges and cooperation in the ERASMUS programme would also help to bring the larger European community and populations closer. So I plan to visit this part of the European Union.

Secondly, as regards volunteering, it is a very important topic because volunteering is an expression of solidarity, humanity and togetherness. On the other hand it is also a non-formal education or learning process. We need it for employment, new skills, new knowledge and social skills and also for the promotion of citizenship and for values which unite us. We do more than we used to. For example in the new programme, Youth in Action, there is a much bigger volume of money and importance in the European voluntary service. It is now more open to international engagement. We have larger numbers and I think this is one of the answers.

This year we would like to come up with an initiative on volunteering where more recognition and better conditions for volunteering could be developed. Of course we need Member States to participate and I am happy that France in particular is willing to deal with volunteering as a topic – volunteering and young people. This morning I met the minister responsible for health, youth and sport policy and we agreed on certain priorities. This is one of three priorities for the youth area under the French Presidency, so we will take some steps forward.

  President. − The next question on the paper was by Mr Higgins. I am sorry to say that I cannot accept the question, because he is not in the Chamber. I know that you would like to work in cooperation. Unfortunately, the exchange was not notified to us previously and, therefore, according to our Rules, I cannot take it. I am very sorry I cannot take it and I must give priority to those Members who are present in the Chamber.

  President. − Question No 37 by Bernd Posselt (H-0100/08)

Subject: German-Czech-Austrian cultural cooperation

What trilateral or bilateral cross-border cultural cooperation projects has the Commission supported between the Czech Republic, Germany and Austria during the past year, and does it see any possibilities for assisting such projects on a significant scale in 2008?

  Ján Figeľ, člen Komisie. − Pani predsedníčka, ďakujem za otázku pánovi Berndovi Posseltovi. Chcel by som povedať, že kultúra a jej financovanie na národnej úrovni je zodpovednosťou členských štátov. Je to princíp subsidiarity, ktorý rešpektujeme a ktorý je dôležitý, ale Európska únia má za úlohu a snaží sa o napomáhanie a dopĺňanie aktivity členských krajín, nie o nahrádzanie ich zodpovednosti.

Po druhé, je dôležité pamätať na to, že program Kultúra 2007 na obdobie 2007 až 2013 podporuje transnárodnú alebo cezhraničnú mobilitu profesionálov v oblasti kultúry, prác v oblasti umenia a tiež kultúrnej a umeleckej tvorby a stimuluje dialóg medzi kultúrami. Tieto projekty musia byť založené aspoň na participácii troch subjektov z minimálne troch štátov, a to zároveň vytvára časť odpovede na otázku Bernda Posselta. Spolupráca medzi operátormi z Českej republiky, Rakúska a Nemecka môže byť preto podporovaná, ak takíto partneri sú vybratí na báze kvality projektov, ktoré sú podávané ako odpoveď na výzvu zo strany Európskej komisie.

Čo sa týka osobitne projektov z týchto troch členských krajín, ktoré boli financované v minulom roku, rád by som pripomenul, že program Kultúra 2007 beží ešte len jeden rok a niečo. Presné výsledky na otázku o type projektov, ktoré boli financované v tomto krátkom období, ešte len budeme mať. Jednoducho v tejto chvíli ešte nie sú všetky výsledky za projekty za minulý rok. Avšak v predchádzajúcom období 2000 až 2006, ak to môžem porovnať, celkovo 116 kooperatívnych opatrení bolo podporovaných a 39 viacročných projektov spolufinancovaných, v ktorých bola buď bilaterálna spolupráca z týchto krajín alebo trilaterálna, teda zo strany Rakúska, Nemecka a Českej republiky. 28 z týchto projektov bolo financovaných na báze rozpočtu na rok 2006, čím vlastne boli umožnené aktivity v minulom roku 2007.

Celý zoznam všetkých schválených a financovaných projektov je publikovaný na webovej stránke Európskej komisie, takže to by som považoval za vyčerpávajúce.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE-DE). – Vielen Dank, Herr Kommissar, für Ihre Antwort. Sie haben vorhin viel über Veranstaltungen in Brüssel gesprochen. Doch auch Veranstaltungen in den Regionen sind sehr wichtig, und deshalb zwei kurze Ergänzungsfragen.

Erstens haben Sie eben auch von bilateralen Programmen gesprochen: Ermöglicht dies auch rein deutsch-tschechische Programme, oder müssen da drei Länder einbezogen werden? Das könnten neben Österreich etwa auch die Slowakei oder Polen sein.

Zweite Zusatzfrage: Geht das auch über die Euroregionen?

  Ján Figeľ, člen Komisie. − Ako som povedal, traja partneri z 3 krajín sú podľa nového programu podmienkou pre krátke jednoročné programy, pre viacročné potrebujeme viac partnerov. Tým sa vlastne istým spôsobom adaptuje ten rozsah alebo kvantita na pomery rozšírenej Európskej únie.

My nemôžeme suplementovať alebo teda nahrádzať z malého rozpočtu to, čo by mali naozaj oveľa viac podporovať národné vlády alebo subnárodné autority, ako sú regióny alebo štáty veľkých federálnych celkov. A keď som spomenul bilaterálne tak preto, lebo z tých 3 krajín, ktoré sú v otázke Bernda Posselta, dvojica z nich v niektorých prípadoch mala za partnera iného, ale otázka participácie tým bola čiastočne pokrytá.

Chcem povzbudiť nielen pána Posselta, ale aj potenciálnych partnerov, že spolupráca napríklad regiónov alebo euroregiónov, spolupráca miest, ale aj kultúrnych operátorov v tom všeobecnom slova zmysle je dnes možná a podporovaná nielen z programu Kultúra, ale aj z programu Európa pre občanov, teda občianskeho programu, ktorý okrem iného sa opiera o právnu bázu definovanú článkom 151, teda o občianstvo v zmysle kultúry alebo s kultúrnym rozmerom, a tam je dnes už príklad tisícov veľmi tradičných partnerstiev medzi municipalitami, príp. mimovládnymi organizáciami, najrôznejšími zoskupeniami na báze občianskej „People to People“, ktoré spolupracujú.

Po tretie, rád by som dodal, že ešte väčším zdrojom pre celkovú vitalizáciu kultúrnych aspektov, obnovy kultúrneho dedičstva, spolupráce štátov pri udržiavaní, sprístupňovaní kultúrneho dedičstva sú aj štrukturálne fondy. Veľmi povzbudzujem ministrov alebo partnerov pri diskusiách o kultúre, aby pamätali, že toto charakterizuje Európu viac než biznis alebo geografia, a preto investovanie do kultúrnych statkov rozvíja aj potenciál, aj identitu Európy, robí nás atraktívnou, a to jednoducho sa má diať na miestnej úrovni, tam, kde ľudia žijú. To nie je len o Bruseli, hlavných mestách, ale o našich regiónoch, mestách a obciach.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (PSE). – Aš norėčiau paklausti, jūs paminėjote, komisare, kad tikrai už valstybes nares niekas kultūros politikos neįvykdys, Briuselis ypatingai nieko negali padaryti, bet vis dėlto, ypač naujosiose šalyse menininkai, kultūros žmonės pasijuto nejaukiai, pasijuto apleisti per tuos pastaruosius dešimt–penkiolika metų.

Ką Komisija daro ir galėtų padaryti kad paplatintų geriausius pavyzdžius, kaip naujose šalyse palaikomi menininkai, apie tas naujas idėjas, naujus projektus šitoj srity, gal jūs galėtumėte konkrečiai kažką pasakyti?

  Reinhard Rack (PPE-DE). – In den Beziehungen der drei Länder Tschechien, Deutschland und Österreich gibt es auch jede Menge historischer Belastungen. Gibt es spezifische Programme beziehungsweise plant die Kommission, hier entsprechende Schwerpunkte zu setzen, um beispielsweise die Vertriebenenverbände, die gerade bei diesem Thema für mehr gemeinsames Verständnis sehr wichtig wären, in solche europäischen Programmarbeiten einzubinden?

  Ján Figeľ, člen Komisie. − Ďakujem pekne aj za ďalšie otázky. Svedčí to o tom, že kultúra a identita, pamäť sú dôležité a zároveň pohľad dopredu alebo rozvoj kultúry. My napomáhame týmto aspektom, opakujem, subsidiarita je o zodpovednosti, nie o alibi, že nespolupracujeme, lebo to patrí kompetenčne členským štátom. Komisia sa naozaj usiluje vytvárať čo najlepšie prostredie pre kultúrny dialóg, výmeny, spoluprácu a myslím, že ovocie je veľmi evidentné.

Spomínal som program, môžeme porovnávať čísla, sedem rokov predtým, sedem rokov teraz, ale, čo chcem povedať ako veľmi závažné, je napríklad, že v minulom roku sa po prvýkrát podarilo z hľadiska Komisie, ale aj celej Únie presadiť, dohodnúť spoločnú európsku kultúrnu agendu v čase globalizácie. Bolo to v máji navrhnuté a v novembri členskými štátmi odobrené. Po druhé, dokázali sme sa dohodnúť, že v oblasti kultúry, kultúrnej agendy budeme používať novú metódu spolupráce – otvorenú metódu koordinácie. Predtým by väčšina povedala, že je to sotva možné, alebo že je taká divergencia názorov, že sa nezhodneme.

Ale čo je kľúčové pri tom, je samotný obsah, pretože je dôležité, aby spolupráca bola zameraná na praktické potreby kultúry v tom širšom slova zmysle, ale aj kultúrnych odvetví alebo tvorivých odvetví, aby jednoducho kultúra rástla. Čo sa podarilo prvýkrát v minulom roku, boli závery Lisabonskej rady na jar, kedy kultúrne odvetvia alebo tzv. kultúrny priemysel je prvýkrát spomenutý v lisabonskej stratégii, ako dôležitý príspevok pre hospodársky rast a zamestnanosť. To pomáha prekonávať takú klasickú dichotómiu, že kultúra stojí peniaze a biznis prináša peniaze. Tam kde je kultúra, tam sú hodnoty, tam sú aj ekonomické dimenzie rozvíjané, zdravo udržateľné. Tam, kde kultúra chýba, má problém aj biznis, aj politika, všetko. Čím chcem povedať, že kultúru treba vnímať ako dôležitý aspekt a napomáhať jej z rôznych uhlov, tak aby sa jej darilo, preto som rád, že aj v Komisii sa nám tento horizontálnejší prístup viac darí aj na základe rozhodnutí z minulého roku.

Aby som dlho neodpovedal, nové členské krajiny prispievajú svojimi kultúrami, svojím obrovským dedičstvom, čerstvou pamäťou na rozdelenú Európu alebo minulosť, ktorá je oveľa dramatickejšia v druhej polovici 20. storočia, ale v mnohom sa aj môžu učiť ako staršie štáty, napríklad oveľa vitálnejšie financujú kultúru, rozvíjajú vzdelávanie v kultúre a mnohé záležitosti, ktoré jednoducho treba pozdvihnúť aj v nových členských krajinách. Kultúra nemôže byť reziduálna, z hľadiska politiky alebo štátu, že, čo zvýši, dáme na kultúru, samozrejme, treba niečo, ale nie je to priorita, nie je to centrálna téma.

Po druhé, rád by som povedal, čo pán Rack predniesol záťaž minulosti. Pamäť je dôležitá, už som naznačil, pre identitu, pamäť nás učí neopakovať tragédie minulosti a práve už som Berndovi Posseltovi pripomenul občiansky program. Občiansky program v týchto siedmych rokoch umožňuje spolufinancovať zo strany Európskej únie projekty na udržiavanie pamäti na obdobia diktatúr, resp. na obete nacizmu a stalinizmu. Myslím, že je to veľmi dôležitá výzva, lebo jednak umožňuje nám pamätať, že toto všetko – sloboda, demokracia, spoločná Európa – tu nie je od počasia alebo automaticky, že isté pokušenia k totalite, nejakému zjednodušovaniu existujú vždy, v malom alebo väčšom rozsahu, a že potrebujeme v každej generácii rozvíjať hodnoty, pretože technológie, budovy, to sa dedí veľmi ľahko, ale hodnoty je treba od mala dostávať do vedomia a svedomia všetkých.

Takže chcel by som Vás skôr povzbudiť, aby tieto nástroje v rámci kultúrnej alebo občianskej spolupráce boli používané, využívané pre dobro pamäti, pre dobro vedomia, svedomia a som presvedčený, že to je práve úloha tých, ktorí prežili takéto obdobia, ktorí pamätajú, ktorí sú z krajín možno predtým v takej šedej zóne alebo za železnou oponou, ale v každom prípade dnešná Únia by mala byť priestorom pre pamäť a budovanie Spoločenstva.

  President. − In view of our time constraints we will now move to the questions to Commissioner Mandelson. Questions 38 to 40 will therefore be answered in writing.

  Jim Higgins (PPE-DE). – The debate on the Lamfalussy Process was allowed to run 30 minutes into Question Time. As a result, I could not be here. I understood questions were starting at 18.00, that there would be 30 minutes for the first Commissioner, and then I would be the second questioner for the next Commissioner.

The procedures of this House are absolutely crazy. This is supposed to be a model of organisation. The kind of organisation and the kind of procedures that we have here would not be tolerated in the most disorganised village or town council within the European Union. It is absolutely crazy.

Question Time should be sacrosanct and there should be absolutely no overrun. It discriminates against those Members who put down questions well in advance and there is absolutely no excuse for it.

  President. − I made the point at the beginning of Question Time that we were running late, and that this was extremely unfortunate. I will try to find out what the reasons were that we seemed to have so many debates before that had caused that late running. I take that very seriously, having responsibility for Question Time.

Now, as far as your own question is concerned, I had noted that there are other Members in this Chamber who have waited patiently throughout for their questions to be answered and did not leave for other engagements. I know that we all have difficult calendars and agendas, but I have had, therefore, to follow the Rules strictly and give priority to those Members who have stayed in the Chamber. I am sorry, but the Rules are quite clear.

  President. − Question No 41 by Georgios Papastamkos (H-0076/08)

Subject: Settlement of dispute between the EU and the USA concerning GMOs in the World Trade Organisation

On 11 January 2008, the reasonable period of time (RPT) expired for EU compliance with the ruling of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body concerning measures for the authorisation and marketing of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). According to statements by the US Government, the USA agreed with the EU temporarily to suspend the procedure to apply trade sanctions 'in order to provide the EU an opportunity to demonstrate meaningful progress on the approval of biotech products.' The US also expressed its displeasure at the French Government's intention to activate the safeguard clause to prohibit the cultivation of a variety of GM maize, as other EU Member States have already done.

What is the Commission's scope for negotiation to achieve an 'amicable' settlement of this matter and avoid reprisals against the EU while, nevertheless, enabling the EU to maintain a strict regulatory framework in relation to GMOs?

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. − Settlement of the dispute referred to by the honourable Member would be facilitated if the European Union showed to the complainant that its regulatory procedure was working satisfactorily and led to approvals without undue delay, whenever risks to health or the environment were not identified or were manageable.

Furthermore, a solution would have to be found regarding the national safeguard measures subject to the WTO proceedings, which are found not to be scientifically based and thus not to be compatible with WTO rules.

In both cases, the Commission needs to count on cooperation by Member States. The obligations on us, therefore, are clear and we cannot evade our responsibilities.

Meanwhile, the United States has agreed not to move to immediate retaliation. However, respective proceedings could resume following a determination by a compliance panel that the European Union has failed to implement the WTO panel rulings. The effective functioning of the European Union regulatory system on genetically modified organisms is not only of interest to the WTO complainants but also to the European Union itself.

Most of our current sources of animal feed are countries developing biotechnology products. Therefore, our timely authorisation of safe GMO products for feed use is necessary to ensure the competitiveness of the livestock industry in the EU. For example, the EU pork industry is facing increasing difficulties in obtaining feed at reasonable prices, while prices for porkmeat are falling. In other words, the longer the delay for our authorisations, the greater the risk to farming needs in Europe.

  Γεώργιος Παπαστάμκος (PPE-DE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, σε περίπτωση ενός εμπορικού πολέμου μεταξύ της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών της Αμερικής για τους γενετικώς τροποποιημένους οργανισμούς, ποιο είναι το εύρος (amount) των πιθανών κυρώσεων που εξετάζονται και με ποιον τρόπο θα εφαρμοστούν;

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. − The amount of retaliation would be determined by the WTO implementation panel. But potential retaliation could be very significant. Indeed, it could run to hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of trade. It could be applied to EU products coming from different Member States, not only those that have adopted national safeguard measures against GMOs.

So those Member States responsible would not only be putting their own producers and exporters at direct risk of retaliation. They would, through their actions, be putting in jeopardy the exporters of many Member States besides their own.

I hope that they will consider these implications and these consequences when they come to review the action they are taking.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE). – I should like to thank the Commissioner for his clarity, because this is a huge issue for the animal feed industry. But does he see – as I see – an increasing unwillingness among consumers to take on board the reality of the EU feed market? He mentions very effectively the issue of the impact on our poultrymeat and pigmeat sector on competitiveness. Perhaps at a later stage we can discuss the wider issue of WTO rules in relation to non-trade and the negotiations currently under way on the competitiveness of agriculture in general.

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. − I think that what we are seeing is a great deal of misinformation, misrepresentation and scaremongering, which is influencing some sections of public opinion. I think that if there were a more representative range of information sources and more objective information given to our public, and some of the ramifications and consequences of some of these actions taken into account, then they would quite possibly come to other conclusions.

Of course consumers should know what they are consuming. Consumers should also have a choice between GMO and non-GMO. At the moment they are being denied that choice by prejudice against GMOs.

  President. − Question No 42 by Bart Staes (H-0079/08)

Subject: In-depth evaluation of Economic Partnership Agreements

ACP governments which have agreed to liberalise trade in goods have insufficient negotiating power on matters of real concern to them. While they have to make major concessions in the EPAs, Europe is not entering into any binding commitments on important issues such as improving the rules of origin, the allocation of subsidies or the extension of development aid.

Does the Commission agree that these countries should be given more time to arrive at properly negotiated EPAs, that they should have better support in boosting their negotiating capacity, and that an in-depth evaluation and review on the existing agreements – which are still far from being the ‘development instruments’ they should be – is therefore necessary!

Question No 43 by Thijs Berman (H-0080/08)

Subject: Economic Partnership Agreements

The expiry of the 1 January 2008 deadline regarding Economic Partnership Agreements with ACP countries has given rise to considerable uncertainty in these countries. Agreements concluded on exemption clauses for exports, safeguard clauses, improved rules of origin, the allocation of subsidies or the extension of development aid are often inadequate and therefore enjoy little support in the countries concerned. Is the Commission prepared to carry out an in-depth evaluation of the existing agreements? What specific measures will it undertake to that end, and within what time-framework?

Question No 44 by Claude Moraes (H-0085/08)

Subject: Impact measurement of Economic Partnership Agreements

The Commission has recently agreed a full Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the Caribbean, as well as a series of interim deals meant to eventually lead to full EPAs with other countries or regions. The progress made so far was presented very clearly to the European Parliament Development Committee this January, and we acknowledge the hard work which has been put in from the Commissioner´s side.

You also pointed out the tasks ahead, however. Among others, you mentioned that it will be vital to find ways to monitor the implementation and impact of new agreements.

Does the Commission have any rough estimates at this point of the positive impact of the latest agreements on the income of African farmers, as well as on the final prices for European consumers? How does the Commission plan to go about the development of techniques to monitor and measure implementation and impact?

Question No 45 by David Martin (H-0122/08)

Subject: EPAs

Can the Commission provide the latest information on EPAs?

Question No 46 by Sarah Ludford (H-0124/08)

Subject: Economic Partnership Agreements

Why have you not managed to convince critics that EPAs are fair to developing countries?

Question No 47 by Hélène Goudin (H-0153/08)

Subject: Partnership agreements with developing countries

Most ACP countries have signed economic partnership agreement (EPAs) with the EU. A whole series of voluntary organisations do not consider that the agreements will attain the stated objectives, i.e. promoting economic development in the contracting countries. The Commission's spokesperson has stated that EPAs could in future be put up for debate and thus be renegotiated. On the other hand, the Trade Commissioner has distanced himself from the possibility of renegotiating the existing agreements.

Can the Commission clarify the situation in this regard? Will developing countries which have signed partnership agreements with the EU be able to renegotiate them?

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. − Things have moved on since the Commission’s update to the Committee on Development in January of this year. The legal texts have been jointly checked for the Caribbean economic partnership agreement, and we are beginning the process leading to signature and ratification. In other regions, we have been preparing the interim agreements for signature and have been reflecting on how to replace these with full EPAs.

I have just returned from a visit to southern and eastern Africa taking in Lesotho, South Africa, Botswana and Zambia. I held ministerial meetings with the SADC and ESA regions, and I had extensive discussions with President Mbeki on both EPAs and the DDA, incidentally. I was struck in all meetings with ESA and SADC by the commitment of the regions to move forward with the negotiations, not to look back and not to unravel what has been achieved, with all the disastrous implications for trade security that that unravelling would have. This was reflected in joint declarations in which we made clear our shared commitment to agree full EPAs by the end of this year.

We have also held senior official meetings with central Africa and west Africa in recent days. Central Africa wants a full EPA by July, and west Africa intends to reach a full EPA in mid-2009. Finally, the Pacific region is consulting internally, but the agreed objective remains to finalise a full EPA in 2008.

My clear sense is that most of the regions are now coming out of a period of stock-taking and reflection after the developments of last December and are clearly restating their commitment to move towards full EPAs. This is an important sign that their commitment to integrating trade and development strategies in a progressive, forward-looking way. It is a commitment I welcome.

Our objectives for full EPAs for whole regions and covering the full range of trade, trade-related and development issues remain unchanged. In the mean time non-LDCs like Kenya, Côte d’Ivoire and others say they have protected thousands of agricultural jobs through the interim agreements, and LDCs like Tanzania and Lesotho praise improvements in rules of origin. Sensitive agricultural sectors are protected, and the ACP now have time and space to work out how to reach full regional agreements.

EPAs need to be closely monitored in both aid and trade aspects. This is why the Caribbean EPA establishes compressive monitoring arrangements, including parliamentary and other consultative subcommittees. The interim agreements will be replaced with full EPAs that include similar provisions before any substantive liberalisation commitments apply on the ACP side.

  Bart Staes (Verts/ALE). – Commissaris, ik neem nota van uw antwoord. Wij zullen dat nader bestuderen. Maar u kan toch niet ontkennen dat de meeste van de ACS-landen toch wel een zeer gebrekkige onderhandelingscapaciteit hebben en toch soms voor het blok staan, voor een fait accompli. Ik heb vorige week nog – en dat heeft niets met de ACS-landen te maken – een vakbondsleider uit Guatemala, de heer Pinzon, ontmoet, die mij vertelde over zijn moeilijke situatie als vakbondsleider in de onderhandelingen tussen de Europese Unie en Centraal-Amerika. Dit is een algemene toestand in landen waar bepaalde bevolkingsgroepen en bepaalde posities uitermate zwak zijn.

Mijn vraag is: kan u er in dat soort handelsakkoorden, zowel in de EPA's als in die met andere blokken in de wereld, zoals bijvoorbeeld Centraal-Amerika, voor zorgen dat bepaalde rechten, bijvoorbeeld vakbondsrechten en internationale arbeidsrechten, bindend worden opgelegd, zodat die gerespecteerd worden? Ik ben geen specialist ter zake, maar ik heb de indruk dat hier belangrijke gaten in de akkoorden zitten.

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. − Guatemala, when I last looked at the list of ACP countries, is not included in their number. We do not have any in Central America.

So, I would advise the honourable Member to find different sources for his information, from those who actually live and work in ACP countries.

  Glenis Willmott (PSE). – Economic partnership agreements (EPAs) were originally conceptualised as trade and development agreements going beyond pure market access.

Could the Commissioner comment on growing concerns that the interim partnership agreements are creating growing trade enmity amongst African nations, the example of Kenya being one? Kenyan support for these agreements has been viewed by its neighbours as undermining the continent’s zeal for a more radical position on EPAs.

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. − I am very sorry, I do not know what neighbours of Kenya have taken this position. As far as I know, unless the honourable Member can advise me which particular country she is talking about, they seem to have subscribed to the interim agreements in the same way as Kenya.

All I would say is that the interim agreements concern goods market access. They are interim agreements that were made before the WTO’s deadline at the end of December so that countries like Kenya, which are not LDCs and are therefore not covered by ‘everything but arms’, would have their trade preferences and access to the European market secured, so that there was no trade disruption after 1 January. It is for that reason that our counterparts in Kenya and other similarly placed countries have recorded their satisfaction with the lengths we went to and the flexibility we showed to make sure that they came over the line by the end of the year.

  David Martin (PSE). – Would you accept that, apart from making the ACP-EU relationship WTO-compatible, one of the key aims of the economic partnership agreements is to ensure that South-South trade increases?

In that context, would you examine the possibility of increasing and better targeting our aid for trade to make sure that the benefits of South-South trade are realised through these EPAs?

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. − I strongly support that point and I would use this opportunity to appeal to our Member States to fulfil what I regard as their side of the bargain by fulfilling the commitments they have made to provide aid for trade, to match the commitment that has been made by the Commission.

It is a very important commitment that we have made, which Member States have previously said they would match. I hope they do so in practice now and live up to the expectations of our colleagues in ACP countries.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – As a non-specialist in this area – unlike, probably, many of the other questioners – I am just interested to know how, and rather puzzled as to why, the opponents of EPAs made so much of the running in the press. Why was it not possible to get across better the advantages of EPAs? Is it simply that those opposing them did not accept the benefits of trade liberalisation, which I do, and just wanted to keep protectionism?

Why is it that the Commission and others were not, perhaps, able to get their voices heard sufficiently in the press?

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. − Where our voice was heard was where it matters – amongst policy-makers, ministers and decision-takers. I cannot account for the press; the days when I could account for what was written in the press have long since passed behind me.

In the case of many of our negotiating partners amongst the ACP, they took the arguments very well indeed. Having put in place interim agreements, in most cases now they are very keen not only to sign them fully, but to proceed to negotiate a full economic partnership agreement, to move on from goods to services, investment and other trade-related rules, because they know that is where the further bulk of the development value of these agreements lies.

Obviously, there has been a sort of cacophony put up about EPAs – in the main, though not entirely, by people who are suspicious of trade, are anti-globalisation (whatever that means), and who believe that ACP countries would be better off, in a sense, more isolated from the international economy, but, I would say, trapped in the past. I do not think that has anything to recommend it, but it has the attractiveness of providing simplistic slogans which are easy to absorb and easy to write about, whereas the actual policy substance and content of what this is about is more complex. But those who take the trouble to grasp it see the value and see the potential benefits. That is why many in the ACP are trying to grasp them.

  Paul Rübig (PPE-DE). – Herr Kommissar, mich würde interessieren, ob bei den Partnerschaftsabkommen mit den Entwicklungsländern Strategien im Bereich der erneuerbaren Energien angedacht werden, weil es für uns natürlich wichtig ist, dass überall dort, wo Produktion auf vorbildlicher Ebene stattfindet, die Kosten so weit wie möglich gesenkt werden, während der Verbrauch von schädlichen Gütern auch entsprechend besteuert wird. Könnten Sie sich vorstellen, dass man das in derartige Abkommen mit aufnimmt?

  Peter Mandelson, Member of the Commission. − There is a sustainability dimension to all the trade agreements that we are pursuing by negotiation and the economic partnership agreements are no exception.

However, we have to be guided by the interests of the ACP countries and their negotiators and by their perception of their interests. So, whilst we will not be shy in putting such issues on the table, I cannot vouch for the reception they will receive from those with whom we are engaged in these negotiations.

  President. − Questions which have not been answered for lack of time will be answered in writing (see Annex).

  President. − That concludes Question Time.

(The sitting was suspended at 19.55 and resumed at 21.00)

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. MARIO MAURO
Vicepresidente