Verbatim report of proceedings

Thursday, 8 July 2010 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: Miguel Angel MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vice-President

(The sitting was opened at 09.00)

2. Documents received: see Minutes

3. Future of the CAP after 2013 (debate)

  President. - The next item is the report (A7-0204/2010) by Mr Lyon, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the future of the common agricultural policy after 2013 (2009/2236(INI)).

We are pleased to welcome Commissioner Cioloş. In Strasbourg, the Commission designates one or another Commissioner to attend sittings on an ad hoc basis, but I think it is a sign of noteworthy responsibility that the Commissioner responsible for the area being discussed is present and is participating in this debate. I believe this to be an extremely positive detail.

  George Lyon, rapporteur. − Mr President, could I begin by offering my commiserations to my German colleagues and congratulations to my Spanish colleagues after last night’s excellent match.

I would like to set out what I believe are the two fundamental questions that we need to answer in terms of CAP reform. What is the CAP for? Why is it still relevant in the 21st century? In these times of economic crisis, debt-ridden public finances and austerity budgets, it is vital that the CAP provides answers to these questions if we want taxpayers to continue providing much needed support for our farmers in the future.

One of the fundamental challenges society faces is how to feed a growing world demand for food, estimated by the FAO to double by the year 2050. The big challenge of course is how to meet that doubling of food demand against a background of less land, less water and less energy due to the impact of climate change. How do we square that circle and avoid the perfect storm predicted by UK’s Chief Scientific Advisor, Sir John Beddington, when he said in 2009 ‘we head into a perfect storm in 2030, because all of these things are operating on the same time frame’? If we do not address this we can expect major destabilisation, an increase in rioting and potentially significant problems with international migration as people move out to avoid food and water shortages.

That is the scale of the challenge. I believe that tackling climate change and making our agriculture production more sustainable are objectives which must be at the heart of the reform going forward. They are vital steps if we are to continue to have guaranteed food security for our European citizens and still make a contribution to meeting growing global demand for food.

Reform should also encourage green growth through the development of small-scale renewables such as wind, biomass, biogas and second generation biofuels. That would help to create jobs and provide real opportunities for farmers to diversify and earn extra income. We also must respond to the call for greater environmental protection by ensuring farmers have an opportunity to participate in agri-environmental schemes with a goal of a majority of farmland being covered by such a scheme over the period of the next reform. By using the carrot, rather than the stick – that is a very important principle, the carrot encouragement rather than the big stick of rules and regulations – you will get buy-in from farmers to this agenda.

Fairness also has to be a key driver of the reform: fair to old Member States as well as new Member States in the distribution of direct payment envelopes across the EU; a fair distribution among farmers and Member States by bringing historic payments to an end by 2020. It cannot be right and justified to continue making payments based on how you farmed some 10 years ago. We also need a fair deal for farmers in the food chain to be able to take on the power of the multiples. So, fairness, and the principle of fairness, must be at the heart of the reform going forward.

We also have to address the issue of market volatility, but on this I would urge some caution. Yes, we still need intervention and private aids to storage. Yes, we need to examine other tools such as risk insurance and future markets. Yes, we need our special reserve budget line to fund action in terms of crisis. But we should reject any thought of a return to the wide-scale management of the markets we saw in the past. That has already been tried and it has failed. I would suggest that we do not wish to go down that road again.

In conclusion, I am confident that this House will back our reforms, modernising the CAP, setting it on a new course to deliver on the new challenges of the 21st century. By backing this report the Parliament will shape the debate, set the agenda, and I would invite the Commissioner to use our ideas to inform his proposals on CAP reform when he publishes them in November this year.

  Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am of course very honoured to participate in these debates, which particularly interest me since I have to make proposals on the reform of the common agricultural policy. As I said previously in my hearings before Parliament, I believe the relationship with the European Parliament is key to ultimately undertaking a reform of the common agricultural policy which is more in tune with the expectations of citizens and even better understood by European citizens.

I would like to sincerely thank Mr Lyon for the report that he is putting to the vote today, as well as his whole team and, of course, all the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, who have tabled amendments that have enriched the text.

I also welcome this report’s call and the will for better communication in respect of the common agricultural policy and the future of agriculture in the European Union. I think that, beyond its very important technical contents, this report is already a very good instrument for communicating information about the common agricultural policy, about what it has been until now, about the need for such a policy in the future and about the need for this policy to evolve.

I also note your call for a recast of the common agricultural policy in line not only with the Treaty of Lisbon, which sets clear objectives for the CAP, but also with the Europe 2020 strategy. I think that we have here the opportunity to better adapt our common agricultural policy to citizens’ current expectations, beyond its traditional objectives of ensuring the security of market supply.

You also recommend measures to help improve the functioning of the food chain and the balance between the different operators within the chain, as well as the transparency of positions and the negotiating power of agricultural producers. These are elements that will be reflected not only in the reform of the CAP, but also in other initiatives that the Commission will propose.

I also read very carefully your proposals on the future of direct payments as an instrument not only to guarantee the stability of farmers’ income, but also to ensure a minimum level of provision of public goods. Here we have, I believe, a new concept of direct payments and a new justification linked to the guarantee of a minimum basic income for farmers, but also the incentive to produce public goods.

I also noted the suggestion that the criteria governing the distribution of these direct payments should be reviewed, starting from this new criterion but also in order to ensure a more even distribution among the various Member States, regions and categories of farmers, with account also being taken of the specific nature of farming in less-favoured and difficult areas.

I also note, as Mr Lyon said, the need to continue to ensure that the CAP is focused on the market, and this must be achieved in a measured way so as to prevent farmers from being faced with very chaotic markets. From this point of view I think that the focus on the markets is fully compatible with the improvement of market management mechanisms as a means of ensuring, more specifically, that these markets can function properly without affecting, as I was saying, the achievement of objectives aimed at maintaining agriculture throughout Europe and preserving the diversity of our farming.

I have a few comments about the amendments which have been tabled and which are going to be discussed. I think that food production is an important objective of the CAP. This production is remunerated directly from the markets, but we must also take into account public goods, which are not remunerated from the markets and which must be covered by a public financial contribution. In agricultural production we can take into account these two aspects: food production and the production of public goods, with aspects which are remunerated from the markets and others which are not and which must be supported from the public purse.

As far as the structure of the common agricultural policy is concerned, I have said several times that, in my opinion, the common agricultural policy must consist of two pillars in order not only to make the achievement of the CAP’s objectives clearer, but also to ensure that the instruments at our disposal are managed better. We have instruments that must be applied annually, and of which the results can be measured each year, but we also have some measures that have to be applied over several years, as part of programmes that take several years to produce results. In order to ensure better management of the resources and means at our disposal under the common agricultural policy, I think that we need these two pillars, which must, of course, be complementary and which must have more clearly defined objectives. Then, and most importantly, it would be a good idea to clarify how the measures that they cover should be implemented.

As far as cross-compliance is concerned, I think that it has had a positive impact on direct payments. It has also clearly defined the starting point of public goods rightly remunerated from the public purse. Of course, we can simplify cross-compliance measures. We can ensure that their content is clearer for farmers, but also for the national or regional authorities which implement and monitor them. That said, I think that environmental cross-compliance linked to baseline direct payments is also a good starting point to later clearly define the other measures which stimulate the production of public goods.

In terms of market measures, as I was saying, I think that a focus on the markets is necessary, but we also need to protect safety nets and study new measures which may enable us to achieve the objective of a level of stability in market prices and income.

As far as the structures of small, medium and large farms are concerned, I agree that they must perform better – and this applies to small farms too – but we must be able to ensure that this change takes place in their specific environment, by harnessing their specific potential to a greater extent. We can therefore have a restructuring of these farms which is closely connected with a move towards the markets, but without a shift towards a single model of agriculture, so that we are able to maintain diversity in agriculture.

Following these remarks I will now listen closely to your comments and observations, and I can assure you, Mr Lyon, that I will examine very carefully the contents of the report voted for by Parliament and will definitely refer to it when preparing the Commission’s legislative initiatives in the months ahead.

  Giovanni La Via, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Budgets. − (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the Lyon report has the merit of having clearly defined a set of common agricultural policy objectives that is much broader than in the past and which is in line with the EU 2020 strategy.

As is clear from the report, this agricultural policy must remain European in scope, and so we must really put the brakes on all those who planned to renationalise it, who wanted national support for it. The forceful point is made that we need resources commensurate with the much broader objectives that have been set, not least to achieve public objectives and the objective of having public goods without the market. It is made clear, again by the report, that the resources earmarked for the new common agricultural policy must be in line with those enjoyed up to now by that policy.

  Michel Dantin, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, first of all I would like to thank Mr Lyon, as well as the team of shadow rapporteurs, who I feel cooperated effectively with him on this report.

As far as our group is concerned, this report conveys an ambition for European agriculture. It was written following the raw material crises of 2007 and 2008 and following the farming crisis of 2009, which taught us that liberalism is not the solution for agriculture.

Our agriculture is firstly intended to provide – to guarantee – food security for 450 million Europeans, but we must also take our place on solvent markets. It is clear that the conditions that have prevailed since the middle of the 20th century have evolved, that techniques have evolved and must still evolve, that they must change, and that agricultural policy instruments must also evolve. Agriculture must be supported in this evolution.

While the first pillar, financed solely from the EU budget, must support the level of societal demands that we attach to agriculture, the second, cofinanced pillar must continue to support the modernisation of agriculture and agri-foods so as to take the new contexts into account. This policy will also have to be fairer – yes, I did say fairer – between countries and between farmers themselves. It is clearly our wish to give hope back to the 14 million farmers and their families, in particular to ensure the replacement of the 4.5 million farmers who, today, are over 60 and who are going to leave the profession. The issue of generational change will be one of our concerns.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (PL) Mr President, the debates we have had in recent months in the European Parliament point unequivocally to the need for change in the common agricultural policy. None of us is in any doubt that the CAP should help ensure food security over the next few decades, providing good and healthy food while maintaining biodiversity and protecting the environment.

In the future, the CAP should to a greater degree respond to social needs, such as job creation and the position of women and young people in agriculture. I would like to emphasise strongly that farmers must be assured stable and adequate incomes in return for their hard work and supplying us with high-quality goods.

The report which we will adopt today includes proposals tabled by Members representing political groups and individual Member States. We have major decisions to make which will determine the choice of a particular route, so that money spent on the CAP in the future will bring benefits both to agricultural producers and to consumers.

Finally, I would like to thank Mr Lyon very sincerely for making it possible for us to work so well together.

  Marit Paulsen, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (SV) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Lyon has made a few, perhaps small, but nevertheless extremely important steps towards amending agricultural policy. We need the common European agricultural policy. Let us forget any thoughts of renationalisation. We also need to realise that we live in a new era with very difficult issues that it is our duty to resolve. This, of course, includes finding food for nine billion people. At the same time, there are also the enormous challenges we face with regard to the climate, and in respect of making the natural cycles work.

Let us not see agriculture as an environmental villain and environmental problem. Agriculture and forestry hold the fundamental solutions to our huge problems.

  Martin Häusling, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Lyon, first of all I would like to thank you for the report. We have worked well together as rapporteurs and I believe that we have found an excellent compromise that we can fully support. It is important that Parliament should send out a strong message indicating our intention to continue pursuing a common agricultural policy.

Of course, it is in the nature of things that we do not get everything we want in a compromise. However, what I believe is important for us, and what I would like to emphasise, is that we have the prospect of a greener CAP – I mean green not just in the sense of a sustainable energy policy, but also in the sense of a sustainable agricultural policy too – and that we start to view competition not just as a competitive stance in relation to the global market, but also paying more attention to the situation within European agriculture, focusing on competitive conditions within European agriculture, not only adhering to the rules of the WTO for future agricultural policy, but ultimately developing a strong common European agricultural policy of our own.

It is important that in future we designate the direct payments from the first pillar in line with a sustainable agricultural policy and that we have a strong second pillar for the development of rural areas, with a focus on jobs.

What we will not support – and this is something we also made clear at committee level – is an agricultural policy in relation to the global market that is based on export subsidies. We continue to reject this strategy and, unlike many others, we are more critical in our appraisal of the history of the current agricultural policy. In other words, we want an agricultural policy that moves away from industrialisation and greater concentration and from purely competition-based market policy. Instead we want to focus on the fact that agricultural policy is genuinely a policy for the future, which seeks to provide a policy for rural areas that promotes food safety and the safeguarding of soil, water and biodiversity. We also believe that we should deploy agricultural policy to combat climate change and, last but not least, as an important mechanism for securing jobs.

  James Nicholson, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, this report allows Parliament to outline our views before the Commission brings forward its proposals on the future of the CAP by the end of this year. While I and my group will be voting in favour of this report, I wish to make it clear that there are some parts which we do not agree with. Certainly, maintaining the second pillar structure is crucial and will prove to be central to the long-term success of the CAP.

However, on balance I believe it to be a good starting point for a comprehensive debate on the issue and shows that the Committee can work together. We have a major responsibility as a Parliament to ensure that any future reform ensures that agriculture as an industry can compete and can survive in the future. The CAP has seen vast changes, and we must ensure that it is fit for purpose in the 21st century. We must remember that the CAP is not just for farmers: it provides us with a safe and secure food supply and wide-ranging public goods and environmental benefits. In order to achieve these goals I feel that the budget must be at least maintained, and I want to thank the rapporteur for a very good report and his cooperation.

  João Ferreira, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Mr President, please accept my congratulations.

Previous CAP reforms have led to the liberalisation of agricultural markets. They have given rise to profound injustices in the distribution of aid – between countries, products and producers. They have destroyed regulatory instruments for production, such as quotas and production rights, along with mechanisms for intervention and market regulation. They have subjected agriculture to the WTO’s rules, whereby it has been used as a bargaining chip for other interests.

The result is plain to see: the unprecedented abandonment of production by millions of small and medium-sized farming enterprises, income insecurity and increasing price volatility, and the exacerbation of food dependence in countless countries and regions.

All this calls for a profound change in the CAP that will guarantee food security and sovereignty, giving priority to the need for countries and regions to develop production to meet their needs, while promoting environmental sustainability and rural development; promote more diversified production and prevent it from diminishing, while recognising the specific characters of the different sectors and regions; surpass, through modelling and capping aid, the current imbalances between products, producers and countries and finally foresee intervention mechanisms to ensure fair prices for production and to provide farmers with a level of income that will ensure the continuity of production and regular food supplies.

  Lorenzo Fontana, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I should like to congratulate Mr Lyon on his work, and also the Chair and the Secretariat of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. I am also grateful to Commissioner Cioloş, since he and the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development have certainly established a good working relationship, and that is very important. I hope that in the future, too, during the forthcoming stages of the legislative process, the Commission will continue to pay particular attention to producers and consumers, who have undoubtedly been heavily penalised because of the structure of the market and the recent crisis.

My region, Veneto, has 150 000 farms, and through their efforts they not only provide quality products but also ensure protection of the rural environment, which we believe is an asset that should not only be safeguarded but also encouraged.

However, in order to continue to be able to carry out their activities, our farmers are asking us to provide greater safeguards against price volatility and to keep allocating direct aid. It is also essential that we maintain the second pillar of the common agricultural policy. Rural development policy must be safeguarded primarily because it facilitates the development of the different types of local agriculture present in Europe, which are required to comply with ever higher quality standards.

In a competitive market in which they are often at a disadvantage, our farmers are appealing for the bureaucratic burden imposed on them to be reduced as part of the priority actions, since it certainly plays a part in making them less competitive.

  Diane Dodds (NI). - Mr President, I would like to thank the rapporteur for this report. It was good indeed to have a listening rapporteur, and his travels within Member States reflect that and also reflect the outcomes within the report.

The future of farming and the CAP must provide farmers with a viable secure income. Pillar one payments must continue giving farmers a direct payment which gives them a minimum level of income security. To achieve this, we will need a CAP budget which is at least maintained at the current level or, more importantly, increased to take into consideration the expansion of the Union.

Volatility within markets has been detrimental to the industry across Europe, and we need to retain the safety nets to maintain stability and ensure profitability. The distribution of CAP funds must take into consideration the cost of production in Member States.

The definition of fair must be examined in greater detail by the Commission and area-based payment which would result in farmers in Northern Ireland receiving less in their single farm payment would be detrimental to an industry where many farmers are on the verge of viability. Northern Ireland has many farmers who have a small area of land, but who farm intensively, and such a payment would neither reflect their work nor the financial burden they face. Regional variation must therefore be taken into consideration and catered for in the post-CAP 2013.

  Albert Deß (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Cioloş, ladies and gentlemen, today sees an important debate on George Lyon’s report and I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Lyon sincerely for the willingness to compromise that he showed in this document. We have managed to reach a good compromise that can be supported by many groups and I am hopeful that this compromise will be supported by a broad majority in the vote to take place at noon today.

The common agricultural policy in Europe was and is one of the most important pillars of the European unification process. In this report we describe the effects of the common agricultural policy post 2013. The European agricultural sector produces high-quality food, protects vital rural areas and many jobs, maintains and promotes our cultural landscape and biodiversity and can make a contribution to conserving fossil fuels through the production of renewable raw materials and energy. To ensure that European agriculture can continue to perform these functions into the future, we must find a concept for the period post 2013 that will enable it to fulfil these many tasks.

I welcome the fact that Commissioner Cioloş has clearly indicated that he wishes to see a continuation of a two-pillar system. My group will support this. The first pillar acts as a balance to the constraints under which European agriculture operates in relation to other agricultural regions in the world, while the second pillar involves the creation of a catalogue of measures to enable the 27 Member States to ensure that agriculture receives additional aid to enable it to fulfil its functions. The vast majority of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) will vote in favour.

  Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Socialists and Democrats are particularly pleased to see their main proposals reflected in the Lyon report: 80–90% of our amendments were considered, and we were able to endorse 49 of the 50 commitments voted on by the Committee on Agriculture.

We particularly welcome the fact that the Lyon report includes a clear willingness to maintain the truly Community-minded character of the CAP and a desire for it to continue to receive an adequate budget. It incorporates the condemnation of historical criteria for allocating aid to farmers and their replacement with new criteria, essentially based around the environment, the intention to move towards fairer distribution of support among farmers and Member States, as has been reiterated by several of my colleagues, and acknowledges that market regulation and risk and crisis management must have appropriate policy instruments. It also includes a new system of support based on compensation for the provision of services and public goods that benefit the whole of society but receive no remuneration from the market.

The Commission thus has many sources of inspiration for its communication, to be presented in November, and I welcome the fact that the Commissioner has already shown a willingness to accept our recommendations.

I hope that six months from now I will be able to congratulate Commissioner Cioloş with the same satisfaction I now have in congratulating my fellow Member Mr Lyon for his excellent work, which ennobles and strengthens the role of Parliament at the very moment when, with the Treaty of Lisbon, we are taking on powers of co-decision.

  Britta Reimers (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank our rapporteur for his constructive cooperation and for the important aspects highlighted by his report on the future of the CAP after 2013. This report calls for further development of the existing common agricultural policy rather than the development of a new policy. This is a good thing.

The primary function of agriculture is and remains the production of food for our citizens. The ever-increasing need for public goods, the growth in population numbers and the simultaneous shortage of natural resources make this more difficult to achieve. Farmers are required to produce more and more with less and less. This is impossible without increasing efficiency. The European Parliament, the Commission and the Council are responsible for securing the necessary framework conditions for this. If we in Europe want to maintain a healthy and diverse agricultural sector in the future, we will also need to take account of the needs of farmers, namely by imposing as little bureaucracy as necessary and by allowing as much entrepreneurial freedom as possible to enable them to earn a reasonable income for themselves.

  Alyn Smith (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, I shall be no exception in congratulating my Scottish colleague, George Lyon, on a very solid report. There is much in this report to be content with and I echo the comments of a number of colleagues this morning. I particularly like the very clear reference in the report that food production is the primary purpose of the common agricultural policy. Everything else is very worthy, very desirable, but secondary.

We must be clear in our own minds that food security is an integral part of our European national security and the primary public benefit of the CAP which is worth paying for in its own right. I pick up particularly on Mr La Via’s comments on the budget, which have been echoed by remarkably few colleagues this morning. Perhaps it is a little stereotypically Scottish to focus so much on the budget, but, unless we have sufficient monetary resources allocated to this policy, it is all pointless. I would be grateful for a few words from our Commissioner about how he proposes to defend that budget going forward, not least because a number of Member States, including Britain, want to end direct payments to farmers.

You can, however, rest assured of the support of this House in maintaining a workable CAP and a workable budget, and this forms a good basis for ongoing discussion.

  Janusz Wojciechowski (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, I, too, would like to express my regard for Mr Lyon, who has drafted a report containing a vision of the most important challenges facing European agriculture.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a problem concerning the elimination of disparities in subsidies paid in different Member States, and it is a very serious problem. When we look at current subsidies – and if we were to maintain this system – we see huge differences. There are countries where the subsidy is over EUR 500 per hectare post 2013, and there are countries – mainly the new Member States – where it is less than even EUR 100. We must face up to this problem and solve it. We cannot continue with such great differences in the long term. Solving this problem is going to be difficult.

I would like to thank Mr Smith, who has noticed the problem with the budget. We will not resolve this problem without having a bigger budget, because it is difficult to take from those who have more; we should, rather, give to those who have less. To quote the motto of the French Revolution: ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’ – we do not have a problem with liberty, but with equality and fraternity the need is greater, and I appeal to fellow Members from the old Member States to help solve this problem in a spirit of equality and fraternity.

  Bairbre de Brún (GUE/NGL). – (GA) Mr President, I also welcome this important report, although I am a bit disappointed that it fails to lay out a vision for the common agricultural policy (CAP) which will stop the depopulation of the countryside and ensure that active farmers can provide the goods and services demanded by society.

We need a CAP that will ensure high-quality food produced to high standards; care and maintenance of land, and protection of water, soil and biodiversity; a common policy to ensure jobs in rural areas and a strengthened rural economy, and one that will strengthen the fight against climate change.

It is necessary to amend the CAP to help those who need it urgently. Currently the largest proportion goes to big owners and to producers. A proper budget for the CAP is also important, and I express my thanks to Mr Lyon.

  Giancarlo Scottà (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, Mr Lyon, ladies and gentlemen, in a context such as this, farms need strong support in order to innovate and make progress.

The role of farmers needs to undergo a radical change: by systemising agricultural production farmers become agricultural entrepreneurs, and thus promote economic development. I believe it is fundamentally important for the recovery of countless abandoned areas of land to be used in the creation of short, closed agricultural branches – in other words, systems that link agricultural cultivation directly to sales. These systems can operate and become widespread throughout the European Union.

I believe that, under the new common agricultural policy (CAP), the Commission should support the creation of agricultural cooperatives so as to cut production costs and make farmers more competitive. The Commission must commit itself to defining a budget that is sufficient to achieve these objectives. The funding for the new CAP must be linked to results, so as to prevent waste and various kinds of speculation.

What is more, at this time of crisis, many young people want to return to farming. However, they are faced with various obstacles: land is too expensive, and rural development policies are difficult to manage; the fact that there are long waiting times for land and that it is granted on the basis of earnings rather than on the basis of the ideas expressed by young entrepreneurs prevents this group from realising its potential. I believe that the Commission must take a supportive and flexible approach to helping young farmers. An information policy must also be launched, starting in schools and universities, in order to promote a …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE). – (RO) I share the sentiments of my fellow Members who highlighted the quality of this report and the wide consensus it received in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development.

On the one hand, it is an ambitious report because it attempts to find solutions to the current major challenges; on the other hand, it is a balanced report which attempts to respond to the legitimate concerns of new Member States about benefiting fairly from the common agricultural policy.

I wish to stress in particular the articles referring to the common agricultural policy’s architecture. The CAP must continue to be based on its two pillars. Abolishing these would end up destroying the CAP or changing it into a policy devoid of any opportunity to help modernise agriculture and boost its competitiveness. Abolishing the rural development pillar would be a mistake and it would slow down the modernisation of agriculture in the whole of Europe, but in the new Member States most of all.

Another key point is to maintain a CAP budget at least at its current level. European farmers are obliged to comply with the highest quality standards, which is reflected in the quality of the food which Europeans eat and in our global competitiveness. However, farmers need support to be able to comply with these standards. A well-structured, properly financed common agricultural policy means safe, good-quality food for Europeans.

I believe that the vote on this report will enable Parliament to give the Council and Commission a clear, unambiguous signal regarding our position as representatives of Europe’s citizens.

  Paolo De Castro (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, over the next few years the challenges accompanying the development of the European agricultural system will be huge: the growing demand for food will have to be met through the sustainable use of natural resources, with a parallel increase in the level of environmental performance.

This outlook, which strengthens the relationship between the agricultural sector and the production of public goods, gives agriculture a new strategic importance: the creation of the future common agricultural policy (CAP) today represents the solution to these major challenges facing our society, and the policy will play a crucial role in responding to what is already a food crisis. Therefore, it is a case of producing more while polluting less: this is the difficult objective that European agriculture will have to fulfil over the next few years.

Based on these assumptions, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, which I have the honour of chairing, has produced an intense and concise piece of work – which Mr Lyon, with the involvement of all the groups, has overseen in an excellent fashion – in the shape of the report presented to Parliament today. It is a report that we are convinced will help lay the foundations of the future CAP and will provide the European Commission with some clear pointers so that it can prepare the year-end communication on the future of the CAP after 2013.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE). - Mr President, I too wish to thank my colleague George Lyon for his excellent work on this report. The CAP has many challenges facing it and in an enlarged Europe it is essential that the EU maintains a strong and properly resourced agricultural policy that will deliver for farmers, rural communities and society and will ensure food security. It is also important that there is no renationalisation of the CAP through cofinancing. The common agricultural policy must remain a common European policy.

Over the past 50 years the CAP has increased productivity, contributed to a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, secured the availability of supplies and provided consumers with quality food at reasonable prices. European citizens benefit significantly from agriculture in the form of food security, protection of the environment, combating climate change, sustaining rural communities and supporting farming families.

For the CAP to continue delivering for European citizens and to meet their demands, it needs to be strongly supported, and that of course means a strong budget. Secondly transparency and proportionality should be central to the future CAP. European agricultural policy should support farmers with the main aim of producing high-quality food and not hinder them or burden them with excessive administrative requirements and red tape.

Lastly, European farmers produce food to the highest quality and standards. All imports to the EU must be guaranteed to be produced to the same quality and standard as EU products. We also need to ensure a level playing field, fair competition and the future viability of European agriculture.

  Hynek Fajmon (ECR). – (CS) The greatest injustice of the current common agricultural policy consists in the fact that subsidies are portioned out in an unequal and unfair way between the old and new Member States. This year, farmers in the new Member States, which joined in 2004, will receive only 70% of what farmers receive in the old European Union of the so-called fifteen. Bulgarians and Romanians will receive a mere 40%. At the same time, all are operating in the common market of the European Union. I firmly believe that this injustice must be eliminated as soon as possible. All farmers throughout the Union must have an equal position and the same conditions for subsidies. I therefore support Amendment 6, which asks for this aim to be achieved as soon as possible, and I hope that my fellow Members will support it.

  Kyriacos Triantaphyllides (GUE/NGL). – (EL) Mr President, the common agricultural policy was designed to safeguard Europe’s independence in food production. In the 1970s, nearly 70% of the EU budget was spent on agriculture. However, following a serious of competitive reforms, agricultural spending in the budget fell to 35% for the financial period 2007-2013.

Unfortunately, today the revised CAP is being designed under the same conditions of competitiveness as the previous policy. It is insulting that the economic crisis is being used as a pretext to cut benefits to farmers. Moreover, it is the latter who are to blame for today’s conditions of crisis.

The basic objective of the new CAP should be to promote a global model compatible with healthy food, environmental protection and the fight against carbon dioxide emissions. We must not forget that the agrochemical model of conventional agriculture bears serious responsibility for the greenhouse effect and climate change and it must change, precisely because it works against the farmers, the people and the biodiversity of the planet.

  John Stuart Agnew (EFD). - Mr President, I declare an interest as a working farmer. Plans for the future of the CAP have to work at a practical level and it must be affordable. The military have a phrase ‘no names, no pack-drill’; however, a member of the PPE Group voted against this report in committee. This may be because, in today’s financial climate, cost is a worry and the report’s enthusiasm for non-agricultural objectives under pillar two diverts funds away from farmers.

The report’s obsession with climate change could lead to accepting advice that obliges arable farmers to pump tractor exhaust under the ground, increasing fuel consumption and spoiling seabeds as a consequence. My own experience of witnessing contractors’ attempts to inject dirty water under the ground to satisfy EU rules tells me what problems lie ahead. Ruminant livestock farmers may be required to reduce methane emissions by replacing hay and silage with more expensive cereal-based rations. If there has to be a CAP, let it assist farmers and not hinder them.

  Esther Herranz García (PPE). - (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, over the next few months we will be entering into a full debate on the new common agricultural policy (CAP). It is important to reach a satisfactory agreement, and so I hope that the Belgian Presidency manages to achieve what the Spanish Presidency did not. I hope that the Belgian Presidency can direct discussions in such a way that the Member States commit themselves to maintaining a truly strong CAP in the future, with a sufficient budget for meeting the needs of the 27 Member States, both new and old; I also hope that it will not be as it was in 2005, when there was a lack of money and a modulation had to be improvised.

In the upcoming reform of the CAP, we are gambling with the viability of a sector that not only provides intangible goods and services, such as care for the environment, but must also guarantee the supply of food to the European public. We have witnessed distressing shortage situations in the past, which is why the European Parliament should make security of supply based on EU production the main objective of the next reform, without leaving aside other contributions, such as the fight against climate change.

  Stéphane Le Foll (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, I understand that you had a short and happy night. I thank the Commissioner for listening throughout this debate and I would like to congratulate Mr Lyon on the work he has carried out in connection with the report he is presenting this morning.

What is the aim here? To make people realise that, in today’s world, agriculture, food and the environment are challenges for the whole of Europe. That is the aim. What do we mean by that? Rejecting the renationalisation of the CAP and increasing cofinancing, that is the first point. Maintaining an agricultural budget that is a match for these challenges and this major issue of food security, that is the second point. Ensuring that agriculture can provide the public goods demanded by society, that is the third element. The fourth element is regulating and preventing market volatility, which I believe is essential. We must return to this topic and we need to go a little further still.

My final point concerns the first and the second pillar. I warn all those who defend this structure – and they are perhaps right – that, ultimately, within the framework of the budgetary discussion, there is a danger of the first pillar being reduced significantly, with everything being transferred to the second pillar, itself cofinanced, which would contradict the objective we have set of avoiding the renationalisation of the common agricultural policy. I am saying that this morning because this is the debate we are holding.

Commissioner, I would like to finish with a simple idea. The CAP was created at the same time as the European Economic Community. We are now in the European Union. I really feel that we ought to have a major policy …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Richard Ashworth (ECR). - Mr President, in this changing world it is vitally important that the common agricultural policy goes on changing so that it can be relevant to the challenges of the future and not live in the past.

The reformed common agricultural policy is going to have a vitally important role to play in confronting issues like food security, market volatility and climate change, but I want to mention three other principles which, to my mind, are no less important.

Firstly, we must recognise that the best way of achieving the goals of the common agricultural policy is to create a viable, dynamic farming sector and I do not think we should lose sight of that aim.

Secondly, if you are going to achieve that, the common agricultural policy needs to be simpler, fairer and more transparent at point of delivery.

Finally, it needs to deliver value for money. All nations and all sectors are experiencing tough economic times at present, and I caution this committee to be utterly realistic about its expectations from the European budget. To my mind, that means we should ensure that funds are used effectively. The rapporteur has produced an excellent report. I congratulate him on his work and am happy to support.

  John Bufton (EFD). - Mr President, the future of the common agricultural policy will see increased focus on connecting it with climate change policy. In my constituency of Wales the existing schemes and pillar two will be replaced by the Glastir scheme that focuses on climate change objectives and carbon sequestration. Farmers will be paid per hectare for water conservation, reforestation and so forth. While reforming the CAP post 2013 it is important not to sacrifice pillar one for the sake of promoting new pillar two objectives.

The single farm payment is vital for many farmers reliant on subsidies that could be stripped at the drop of a hat. If Welsh farmers are unhappy about Glastir arrangements, will they be offered sensible alternatives, or will they be penalised in any way for not adopting the scheme? Choice without an alternative is no choice at all.

Wales has a strong history of agriculture and many communities depend heavily upon farming. Current reforms of agricultural policy based solely upon climate change ideology could jeopardise the Welsh farming tradition and Wales’s economic future.

  Iratxe García Pérez (S&D). - (ES) Mr President, the common agricultural policy (CAP) has been making efforts to adjust for a number of years, and we are now entering a new phase in this process of permanent reform.

Commissioner, the Lyon report recognises the role that agriculture, as a strategic sector, can play in contributing to the priorities of the new Europe 2020 strategy. We want a strong CAP after 2013 that maintains its common character, without detriment to the specific nature of some sectors or regions. Its market orientation will continue as at present. However, growing market volatility, combined with the requirements of the Union’s international commitments, may have a negative impact on farmers’ incomes.

We need a proper safety net. Direct aid must be financed entirely from the Union budget, and the CAP needs to have a budgetary allocation adequate for facing the new challenges and objectives ahead of it, at a level at least equal to that for 2013, as further cuts could compromise its effectiveness.

Commissioner, our farmers will once more have to make efforts to adapt. Any changes that do take place must be accompanied by realistic transition periods.

I would like to thank Mr Lyon and all of the shadow rapporteurs for their work. They have produced a report that we in Parliament can endorse, and which will be a positive signal for bringing to an end uncertainty for European farmers.

  President. - Now we have a problem: there are 23 Members who have asked to speak during the ‘catch the eye’ session. As you know, the Rules of Procedure make provision for five to speak. Moreover, 57 minutes were anticipated for this entire debate, and we have so far taken 59, with the Commissioner not having spoken yet, nor the rapporteur to close the debate.

As the issue seems to me to be very important – the evidence being the exceptional number of people who have asked to speak – we are going to allow 10 to speak, double the number for which there is provision.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Cioloş, departure from the historical method of establishing levels of support and the introduction of a new and fair distribution of resources from the common agricultural policy between farmers from the whole of the European Union, without distinguishing between ‘old’ and ‘new’ Member States, is one of the most important challenges for the post-2013 common agricultural policy.

I support the two-pillar model of support, in which payments are made to farmers and are designated for the development and modernisation of farms, and not to owners, who take the money but do not invest it in agriculture, hindering essential change. In accepting new challenges, the common agricultural policy must maintain its care for environmental values and food security. In addition, I propose leaving tried and tested instruments for market regulation untouched. Milk quotas are an example. If they are ended, what will we replace them with? Of course, there are certain ideas, but we do not have any certainty …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). – (RO) I wish to congratulate the rapporteur, shadow rapporteurs and all those involved in this project which is particularly important to the future of the CAP.

In a globalised world the European Union, with its Community market, must take uniform action in order to guarantee the security of food supply and promote renewable resources. It must also combat climate change and step up its research efforts in order to make the best use of the opportunities that research can offer.

The CAP must offer prospects and a stable framework, which will encourage the development of agricultural production through increasing productivity and competitiveness, as well as ensure that the market operates properly, thereby guaranteeing strategic supply independence in all the key production sectors.

I feel that it is crucial for us to maintain the common agricultural policy’s two pillars, making a clear distinction where we have Pillar I, which is strong enough to ensure a fair standard of living for farmers in all Member States…

(The President cut off the speaker)

  José Bové (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, first of all I would obviously like to thank our rapporteur, Mr Lyon, with whom I believe we all worked on the basis of mutual agreement to try to move forward, and I would like to say briefly, in just a few words, that the evidence is there for us to see.

The evidence is that, today, Europe is a net importer of agricultural raw materials. We must have an ambitious agricultural and food policy so that we can ensure that our citizens’ food needs are met.

Furthermore, today we have a CAP that must be reformed for three reasons. It is a CAP that is unfair, economically, socially and environmentally. Economically: the amount paid to producers is less than their production costs, and the CAP must allow for this problem to be resolved. Socially: aid is unfairly distributed between countries, regions and farmers. Eighty per cent of aid is allocated to 20% of farmers. Environmentally: we need a CAP which respects the soil, which respects …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). - (NL) Mr President, in a nutshell, the following holds true of the common agricultural policy: we now have more countries, more priorities and less money. That therefore means that the CAP requires thorough reform and such reform requires starting from scratch. As food is the most important collective asset of the agricultural sector, food production must be ensured, especially with a view to food security over the coming decades.

In addition, we want good-quality food in Europe and we set great store by animal welfare and the environment. Yet our farmers are not always rewarded by the market for these contributions to the public good. Their global competitors do not have to contend with such requirements or, if they do, the requirements which they have to meet are much lower. We therefore need support where the market fails. The fact that the report calls for aid per hectare is a positive thing. This will counteract further intensification of agriculture and make the achievement of environmental targets a more realistic prospect. That is how we can reward our farmers.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) We all know that the European Union’s common agricultural policy is a very complex and sensitive issue. The continuing application of the so-called historical principle in respect of support for agriculture – even after the expansion of the EU – has brought considerable disproportion to European economic policy.

It is therefore necessary to introduce objectively fair criteria to the system of sharing out financial support for farmers as soon as possible, as this will create the right conditions for proper economic competition between farmers on the single European market.

The funding must be shared out properly and in a balanced way, so that farmers in all countries of the EU have the right to equal levels of support and may compete against each other fairly.

In my opinion, we should therefore support Amendment 6 of the submitted report, which will help to bring justice to the support mechanism for European agricultural production.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, agricultural policy needs a coherent framework. This must strengthen the EU as a whole, while also taking regional differences into account. The second factor is particularly important for my home country, Austria, when one considers specific environmental and investment programmes.

There are some enormous challenges facing agricultural policy. Estimates indicate that the world’s population will grow to 9 billion people, while at the same time we find ourselves confronted with the effects of climate change, such as water shortages and drought. In order to resolve these problems, it is essential not only that the EU should cooperate more effectively internally, but also that it should operate in a coherent manner worldwide.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - Mr President, today’s discussion has been very encouraging from all sides of the House from an agricultural point of view. I particularly welcome the emphasis on encouraging young people into agriculture, which is absolutely vital; that there should be no renationalisation of the CAP; that the Commissioner said the two pillars should be maintained because without pillar one there will be no need for pillar two since it would be unprofitable to farm and therefore public goods would not be guaranteed; and, as Mrs Dodd said, we need to look at what we mean by ‘fair’, particularly taking into account varying costs and purchasing power right across the Union.

Also, Mr Lyon alone referred to the historical basis. I think it is very important for farmers right now that a clear signal be sent to them as to what is likely to happen, so that they will not be left to wild speculation, not knowing whether to buy or sell stock based on the historic model. I would therefore welcome a clear signal on that from the Commissioner as soon as possible.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I too would like to thank and congratulate our fellow Member, Mr Lyon, for his excellent report, which represents a first positive step towards a recast of the CAP.

The objective with the new CAP is to have a major European agricultural, food, social and environmental policy, not a Europe that is all about the unbridled free market. We want the CAP to be more legitimate in terms of public resources pledged and accepted by the taxpayer, fairer in the distribution of European funds among the 27 Member States and among farmers, and more effective in the proper use of public money.

New public mechanisms for regulating agricultural production will have to be established to ensure the food security of consumers. We are in favour of a strong CAP that has the budget it needs to achieve its objectives. To this end, the Lyon report quite rightly underlines the emergence of new challenges that the CAP will face: in particular climate change, water management, renewable energies, biodiversity and soil erosion.

This report calls for a simpler, more responsible CAP that responds more effectively to the needs of European farmers, in the interests of consistency and of preserving …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the common agricultural policy (CAP) is essential and will continue to be so for a long time yet, not least where employment is concerned. In Europe agricultural employment has fallen by 25% in less than 10 years, with the loss of almost 4 million jobs. If we want to solve the pressing unemployment issue, we cannot allow the CAP to drift and we must invest in it by guaranteeing adequate resources that lead to lasting growth. Therefore, the new CAP will have to guarantee at least the same level of funding as in the past.

However, Commissioner, Parliament’s request to you today is not to guarantee the same level of funding, but to increase it. The ultimate, non-negotiable requirement is for the funding that exists today to be matched, but the request is to increase – to increase substantially – the funding for agriculture. The Lyon report contains some highly positive elements, measures to curb price volatility, to support the sector, to guarantee farmers a fair income and to guarantee the current …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, we also advocate a strong common agricultural policy, aimed not only at farmers but also at the more than 500 million citizens of Europe, which is equipped with an ambitious budget capable of addressing the growing challenges that we face and, above all, which is in operation in all the European regions. Ensuring that this comes about is crucial to the Azores, where agriculture is an irreplaceable pillar of the sustainable development model.

This new CAP should abandon historical criteria for allocating funds, as this has been greatly detrimental to Portugal and Portuguese farmers. The new CAP should take account of the specific character of agriculture, providing a set of tools for market regulation and risk management, capable of ensuring proper market functioning and stability of agricultural production.

The CAP post-2013 should enhance the competitiveness of the European agricultural model, ensuring the proper distribution of value on the domestic market, generated by relations established along the food chain, and opening external markets …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  President. - I have two requests to speak in relation to observance of the Rules of Procedure. Mrs McGuinness has the floor first.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). - Mr President, just a point of order; I know other colleagues will share my concern about ‘catch the eye’ and you are all-powerful in this regard, but Members who are on the Agricultural Committee, who have actually worked on this dossier for a long time and who were at this debate at its very inception, in my view, deserve to have their considered opinions heard, and I could not catch your eye because you would not look at me, although I caught six other eyes around you, Mr President. Could I ask, while I have the floor, the Commission to comment on the possibility of less-favoured areas moving to pillar one? I will put in a written statement on this issue. I hope you support my point, colleagues.

  President. - Mrs McGuinness, I assure you that I have been looking at you nearly the entire time, and that I have seen you asking for the floor.

However, the problem is that this item is not structured like that: in other words, it is not structured so as to give priority to members of the corresponding committee, but is structured so as to give priority to those Members who ‘catch the eye’ of the President before anybody else. Those are the Rules of Procedure. Moreover, it is stipulated that five shall speak, although we have given 10 the floor.

This is a very important issue. The time for the groups was shared between Members so that everyone could have a minute, but almost nobody has spoken for less than a minute and a half, and so there is no way of responding positively, as we would all like, to anyone who wishes to contribute outside the time allocated to their corresponding groups.

Now Mr Obermayr has the floor, also in relation to observance of the Rules of Procedure.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I assume you were referring to me. I would like to pick up on what the previous speaker said. Of course I would like to thank you for your generosity in allowing ten speakers rather than five. We understand your time constraints, naturally, but I hope you will understand us too. This is a very important issue. There are parts of Europe that are operating under a considerable burden and that are under extreme threat. Naturally this is also true beyond the work of the committees.

Secondly, you indicated that the problem regarding the ‘catch the eye’ procedure has not been resolved. We would ask that this issue be resolved as soon as possible, because I do not know if we should start forming a queue the day before, or make a submission three days in advance and then spend the night here so that we might finally get a chance to speak. It is also important, if only 10 speakers are to be heard, that we should be told who the 10 are.

It would be helpful and fair to put the appropriate structures in place as soon as possible. That way, you will experience less stress and will be all the more popular if you can allow more people to speak. We will also be happy to have a solution that is fair to us. I beg your indulgence and thank you again for your understanding.

  President. - You are absolutely right. This idea of ‘catching the eye’ of the President is clearly entirely subjective, as the President has an eye, but he does not have a wide and multi-faceted eye like a reptile’s, meaning that those who catch his eye are those who catch his eye; the secretarial staff can help a great deal with this. Nevertheless, you are right: this is an issue that has not been handled in a reasonable manner – I understand this – by the Parliamentary Bureau.

For example, what Mrs McGuinness says, that members of the corresponding committee should have priority, seems entirely reasonable to me, but provision has not been made for that. The only provision made is that it is the President who runs the debate as he sees fit, which clearly puts the President in extremely complicated positions.

Furthermore, the Members themselves do not follow the Rules of Procedure, as the blue card is not to be used for asking to speak during ‘catch the eye’. The blue card is to be used for interrupting the speaker who is speaking at that moment, in order to ask him or her a 30-second question. However, there are Members here who are constantly getting the blue card out.

We will have to have a short course for Members to learn that the blue card has a specific use, and that in order to ask to speak during ‘catch the eye’, one has to raise one’s hand, raise one’s white card, or use some other mechanism rather than the blue card.

However, I do not wish to prolong the debate. We have fallen quite far behind, and there could have been two or three contributions during the time that we have spent on this issue.

  Dacian Cioloş, Member of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, I am not sure if many questions have been asked. I certainly noticed that some principles have been affirmed, which, as we have seen, were well reflected in the report.

In any case, the main thing I have taken from this debate is that we need a common agricultural policy, an agricultural policy that must be a Community policy, and that we also need a budget which must be commensurate with the objectives that we set for agriculture. I therefore feel that we need a realistic budget. In my opinion a realistic budget is a budget that is in keeping with the objectives set for the common agricultural policy.

What we notice is that we are demanding more and more of our farmers. Of course we are also demanding that the resources provided are used more effectively and accounted for in a clearer way. Incidentally, I see that my colleague, Mr Lewandowski, the Commissioner for Budgets, is here; perhaps he has come specifically to confirm to us that the CAP will have a budget commensurate with the objectives that we set it.

I have also taken away the fact that, if agriculture – the common agricultural policy – is to achieve the objectives that we set it, we must take into account all the differences between all the types of agriculture that exist in the European Union. We must take this diversity into account so that, in the regions where it expresses itself, these different types of agriculture can help achieve objectives not just regarding market supply, production and security of market supply, but also a move towards better recognition of the environment, the management of natural resources, and economic development capacities in rural areas. We must reflect on how agriculture and the agri-food sector can contribute to this.

I also took on board the fact that all of these thoughts on the future of the common agricultural policy must also help encourage young people, must give prospects to young people who want to become established, who want to invest in agriculture, so that agricultural activity is also an activity of the future and so that we can achieve our objectives.

I also want to send out a clear message and to answer Mr Kelly’s question about direct aid. I do not think there is any doubt that, if we are to have fairer agriculture and a more transparent and more effective common agricultural policy, we must define clear criteria for the distribution of this direct aid in line with the objectives that we are going to set. Therefore, in my opinion, historic references do not constitute fair, transparent or objective criteria. We need to replace these historic references with much clearer objectives, which will create a certain amount of fairness and enable the agricultural diversity that exists in the European Union to be better taken into account. That will give the Member States and regions the means to get a better return out of the resources they have.

To conclude, I would like to reaffirm that we need a common agricultural policy for Europe. We need a common agricultural policy for the entire European Union and, of course, a common agricultural policy which does not prevent the other regions of the world from developing their own agriculture.

  George Lyon, rapporteur. − Mr President, could I first of all just touch on some of the key themes that colleagues have raised during this debate. A new strategic importance for food production and the CAP: absolutely. Two pillars: absolutely, I agree with that. Food production at the heart of the CAP: yes, that is absolutely what the CAP is about. The rest are all add-ons to ensure that we have a profitable farming sector to be able to deliver the environmental benefits, to tackle climate change and all the other things we set out in the report.

A strong budget: yes, absolutely; fair to old and new Member States: so many Members raised that as an issue, and it is an issue we need to address. It needs to be objective and transparent as to how money is allocated between Member States. They need to meet the challenges of the Europe 2020 strategy. It is absolutely essential that farming and the CAP are seen as part of the solution to meeting these objectives, and not part of the problem.

I would like to pay tribute to Michel Dantin, Mr Häusling, Mr Olejniczak and Jim Nicholson, my shadow rapporteurs. We had tremendous cooperation in bringing together what I believe is a very strong report that sets out a clear vision of where this Parliament wants to see the CAP head after 2013. I would say that it puts this Parliament in a very powerful position when it comes to dealing and negotiating with the Commission and with the Farm Council. I would say to you, Commissioner, come alongside us and we can make sure that we deliver that vision together.

(Applause)

  President. - The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today, Thursday 8 July 2010, at 12.00.

I would like to apologise once again to those Members who we have not been able to allow to speak. As Mrs McGuinness says, they may present their contribution in writing.

I will be putting this issue to the Bureau, as it is one that needs clarifying. I will also be proposing to the Bureau – and I hope that you will all support this – that permission to speak during ‘catch the eye’ proceedings should not be granted to Members who are not present when the debate begins, when the rapporteur presents his or her report, or when the Commissioner takes the floor. We have a situation where Members have been indignant that they were not allowed to speak, but have not stayed to hear either the Commissioner or the rapporteur explain and set out the conclusions. An effort needs to be made towards rigour, but it needs to be made by all of us.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The common agricultural policy (CAP) is one of the European Union’s most important policies, when we consider that agricultural expenditure accounts for around 43% of the EU budget. Under Article 33 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the objectives of the CAP are to guarantee reasonable prices for European consumers and a fair standard of living for farmers.

The recent economic and financial crisis resulted in an average 12.2% reduction in farmers’ incomes between 2008 and 2009, stricter conditions on accessing credit and an increase in the unemployment rate in rural areas. The volatility of the prices of products on the agricultural markets has sharply increased and this increase is expected to continue. I therefore believe that provision should be made in the future CAP for a minimum safety net so that market price uncertainty can be managed and rapid, effective solutions provided for economic crises in the sector.

The Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that, by 2050, the world population will increase from the current 6 billion to 9 billion, and that doubling the demand for food will require an associated increase in global food production. Therefore, food security will be the main challenge for future agriculture, and the onus will be on the Union to continue to guarantee it for the sake of European citizens.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) Adapting the CAP to the new social and economic realities is a necessary step. We actually need to answer some key questions to be able to do this. I totally concur with the need to guarantee security of food supply. However, to what point do we want to be independent and how willing are we to pay more for this?

Until now, the CAP has kept prices high for foods which are cheaper in other countries. The EU cannot promote free trade while protecting its own agricultural market. Solutions need to be found which will allow the EU to enforce proper global quality standards so that the discrepancy between prices for agricultural products in the various countries can be narrowed.

However, I am concerned most about the impact which the CAP reforms have had on farmers. Decoupling payments has only succeeded in channelling direct payments to the major land owners, who are definitely not farmers. Decoupling is necessary to avoid overproduction. However, I call on the Commission to put forward some fairer criteria so that farmers can be the real beneficiaries of the CAP. We need incentives for farmers, especially to encourage young people to move to rural areas. However, this is not going to happen while maintaining the current direct payments system, which is ridiculous.

  Nessa Childers (S&D), in writing. – The common agricultural policy (CAP) has the potential to offer solutions to many of the problems currently affecting European farms, and this is obvious in no EU Member State more than in Ireland, where there is an equal commitment to both secure a fair and full CAP agreement and to move forward by implementing the changes necessary in 21st century farming. However, in order to secure the trust and commitment of Europe’s agricultural community, the new CAP needs to offer stability to farmers and a fair price, as is currently provided, for the goods which they produce. In return, European citizens will receive not just reliable, high-quality goods which are guaranteed to have been farmed to the EU’s high standards of practice, but will also benefit from the societal and cultural implications of the CAP, such as those contained in Pillar II. Above all, the EU needs to retain the trust of European farmers. The agricultural community is aware that change is on the way with this new agreement, and is currently poised to embrace it. In order to take advantage of this positive relationship, the institutions of the EU must ensure an agreement that is modern while being full and fair for all.

  Béla Glattfelder (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Europe will still need an effective and common agricultural policy after 2013. This is why the EU’s agricultural budget should at least be maintained at the current level.

Europe has a particular responsibility to guarantee food safety in the world. This is because it is in Europe that the safest food can be produced under the most stringent environmental protection standards. Therefore, the main task of the CAP is to preserve the agricultural production capacity of the European Union.

It is therefore vital to ensure that direct payments do not decrease.

In the case of the rural development support under the second pillar, it must be ensured that they are used primarily for agricultural purposes.

Farmers should be protected from the extreme fluctuations in intervention prices that have been common over the past few years. We need market intervention tools and, in certain sectors, such as wine and milk, measures are needed to limit supply. These would reduce farmers’ losses arising from price fluctuations.

The European food trade is much more concentrated than the food processing industry or agricultural production. Very often, hundreds of farmers are competing with a large hypermarket chain, and their bargaining position is much worse. This is why we must help improve cooperation between farmers. However, this requires an exemption from the stringent EU competition rules in agriculture.

Third country imports should be subjected to the same stringent environmental protection, food safety, animal welfare and other regulations as European farmers.

  Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE), in writing. – (DE) Mr Lyon’s own-initiative report involves Parliament at an early stage in the debate regarding the future of the CAP. I would like to thank all those involved for the work they have done. Forward-looking targets have been formulated for the entire Community.

For me there are three elementary points to be considered if we are to continue to secure comprehensive and sustainable agricultural development throughout Europe. 1. It is vital that we ensure that the CAP is adequately funded post 2013 and that we produce an appropriate budget.

2. The tried-and-tested two-pillar structure must be retained with a strong first pillar and an equally strong second pillar. The only way that we can maintain the European agricultural model is to ensure the production of our food to the highest standards in the first pillar and, in the second pillar, to provide good prospects for the development of rural areas, and job creation and infrastructure for farmers and non-farmers, male and female and, in particular, for young people.

3. The major fluctuations in the liberalised markets and the effects of climate change continue to necessitate a safety net. New objectives have arisen for us in terms of market orientation, product safety, animal protection and the need for environmental protection and biodiversity as a result of climate change. In the face of these challenges, good agricultural policy is the best policy for the future and is in the interests of all our citizens.

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE), in writing. – (LV) This resolution involves a transition from area as the historical basis for determining direct support payments in the next financial planning period. We thus provide for the possibility of a transitional period. Such a period is essential, but a full seven years would be an excessively long transitional period. Dragging our feet in implementing the new method could negatively impact the attainment of an important objective of the CAP reform – support that is targeted, fair, balanced, simple and transparent. One argument in favour of preserving the CAP budget at its 2013 level is the justified expectations of the new Member States that CAP support will in their case be comparable with that provided to the older Member States. I am convinced that the CAP can be powerful and truly common only if it is intended to secure fair competition between all European farmers. Undistorted competition in Europe is also a precondition for the competitiveness of European farmers in world markets. I should like to highlight the political will expressed in the resolution to strengthen the position of primary producers in the food supply chain, so that primary producers’ organisations can become more effective and so that they can talk to large retailers and processing businesses on equal terms. I hope that the rural development element in the CAP will be consolidated and that the main focus of attention in rural development strategy will be on rural communities, environmental improvement, the modernisation and restructuring of agriculture, the strengthening of cohesion, an improvement in the sale of produce and competitiveness, job preservation and creation in rural areas, and on climate change, renewable energy and biodiversity.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The future of the common agricultural policy after 2013 is extremely important for us. Many important things depend on the CAP – the structure of the European Union budget and the future of agriculture, farmers and rural areas. The entire European Parliament needs to be aware of the CAP’s significance for the future of the EU. What is crucial is, of course, the matter of direct payments, as is the need to eliminate disparities between them in different countries. Today, differences between the level of payments in different Member States are too great. This undermines the sense of solidarity, equality and community. What farmers need most of all is stable incomes, both now and in the longer term. Without this it is very difficult to modernise farms, and it will be difficult to maintain the beneficial influence of agriculture on the natural and cultural environment. Therefore, let us endeavour to help ensure that future changes in the common agricultural policy lead to stable incomes for European farmers. Thank you very much.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I welcome this report which is the first step in examining the shape and nature of the common agricultural policy (CAP) post 2013. This report reaffirms that there will be a CAP post 2013, that it should remain a common policy and that its budget should be at least maintained at current levels. The report is firm on keeping the policy an EU one, rejecting attempts to re-nationalise it. Farmers should take heart that this Parliament understands their concerns. The CAP post 2013 should support active producers and reward them for the food they produce and the many public goods they provide to society – including high animal welfare and environmental standards. Market support measures will be essential in providing adequate safety nets against extreme market volatility which is likely to be a feature of the market in the future. Only seven per cent of the EU’s farmers are under 35 years of age – this is a stark reminder that we need to ensure that the conditions exist to keep young people farming. It is essential that there should be a strong focus on young generations in the CAP post 2013 so to provide for the development of agriculture in an innovative and efficient way.

  Ivari Padar (S&D), in writing. – (ET) To begin with I want to thank my colleague Mr Lyon for drafting a very balanced report. I believe that this has already allowed us to create a good basis for discussion for the near future. Changing agricultural policy is perhaps one of the biggest tasks of this plenary session. It is true that we will only begin to taste the fruit of these laws much later, perhaps ten years later. Although the most important task of agriculture is to provide food, the importance of agriculture to the public interest is increasingly recognised, whether this manifests itself in social policy, environment or culture. A relatively small part of the population actually feeds 100% of the people, uses land economically and looks after the social balance of rural areas throughout the European Union. The report is a good basis for further discussions. Thank you for your attention.

  Ulrike Rodust (S&D), in writing. – (DE) I thank the rapporteur. Many ideas from my group have been worked into the report before us, and now we have a very good result.

Our primary goal must be to ensure high-quality food production in Europe.

In the discussion on the organisation of agrarian reform, there was frequent talk of compensation of public goods. In my opinion, this debate goes in the right direction.

Only if the citizens of the EU are convinced that efforts are really being made and money is not simply being paid out across the board will the common agricultural policy get the recognition that it deserves.

The development of rural areas plays an ever greater role. In order to prevent the obliteration and desertification of our agriculture, we must develop further instruments that will stop the rural exodus.

Active rural areas are an attractive living environment not just for farmers, but also for people who do not want to live in cities.

We should approve the report as it stands with a large majority in plenary in order to send a clear outward signal.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE), in writing. – (HU) When the European integration process started, the common agricultural policy not only secured food supply for the population, it also laid the foundation for a modern European agriculture and other specific policies. However, the European Union recently gained 12 new Member States. This means that the EU acquired a new agricultural population of 7 million people in addition to the 6 million it had before 2004. In addition, following the accession of the new Member States, the EU’s agricultural land of 130 million hectares increased by 40% to 185 million. At the time of accession, new Member States anticipated that, in time, their farmers would receive the same level of support from the CAP as farmers in the old Member States. However, this can only be achieved if the resources dedicated to agricultural policy are not reduced after 2013. The EU must take into consideration the different situations and needs of Member States, as European agriculture will only promote the interests of Member States, farmers and citizens alike if resources are not distributed unfairly due to differences in modernisation levels.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D), in writing. – (HU) The common agricultural policy requires fundamental and bold reform which takes into account the particular situation of new Member States. Maintaining the CAP is only reasonable in the eyes of European taxpayers and defensible at negotiations with ministries of finance if we can show that in addition to European food safety, agriculture can also provide social and environmental public goods for society. I believe that only a major reform can save the common agricultural policy. The agricultural investments of new Member States should be supported with subsidised benefits, otherwise European agriculture will operate at two, or, taking into account the situation in Romania and Bulgaria, three different rates of development. This will further increase the gap between the EU15 and the 12 new Member States. The achievement of ‘green’ agriculture in Europe and the production of environmental public goods require new investments, especially in the new Member States. Farmers should not be punished, but given financial incentives to help them purchase machines that allow environmentally and soil-friendly cultivation, gene pool replacement for cultivated species and investments to protect the environment and water purity.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. – (PL) In reforming the CAP, we must not forget the principles of integration, solidarity and community. Direct payments significantly affect the security of food supplies. Not only do they help stabilise farmers’ incomes, but they also compensate for the costs of having to comply with the ever greater requirements being imposed on agriculture. If we do not eliminate the disparities in the level of direct support, this instrument – the main financial instrument of the CAP – will continue to divide the European Union into old and new Member States. Departure from the historical criteria of distribution would not only be a symbolic gesture of fuller integration, but would also contribute to ensuring equal conditions of competition in a single Community market. Furthermore, it is essential that rural development strategy continue to be a key element of the CAP, supporting economic and social development in a broad sense. A fundamental role is being played, here, by continued restructuring and modernisation of farms as well as by the many innovations intended to increase efficiency and improve competitiveness in an enlarged Union. A strong second pillar is an opportunity to help young farmers make a start in agriculture as well as to improve quality of life, activate society and improve the situation of women in rural areas.

4. Implications for EU agriculture of the reopening of negotiations with Mercosur with a view to concluding an Association Agreement - Preparations for the forthcoming EU-Brazil summit on 14 July 2010 in Brasilia (debate)

  President. - The next item is the debate on:

- the oral question to the Commission on the implications for EU agriculture of the reopening of negotiations with Mercosur with a view to concluding an Association Agreement, by Mrs McGuinness, Mr Deß, Mr Papastamkos, Mrs Mathieu, Mrs Nedelcheva, Mr Dantin, Mr La Via, Mrs Jeggle, Mr Jahr, Mrs Klaß, Mrs Köstinger, Mrs De Lange, Mr Silvestris, Mrs Lulling, Mr Glattfelder, Mrs Herranz García, Mr Mato Adrover, Mr Dorfmann, Mr Kalinowski, Mr Daul, Mrs Patrão Neves, Mr Siekierski, Mr Béchu, Mr Niculescu, Mr Mayer and Mr Audy, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), Mr Nicholson and Mr Wojciechowski, on behalf of the European Conservatives and Reformists, Mr Bové, on behalf of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, Mr Lyon, on behalf of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, Mr Capoulas Santos and Mrs Kadenbach, on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament (O-0079/2010/rev.2 - B7-0315/2010), and

- the oral question to the Commission on preparations for the forthcoming EU-Brazil summit on 14 July 2010 in Brasilia, by Mr Yáñez-Barnuevo García, on behalf of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament (O-0091/2010 - B7-0317/2010).

  Mairead McGuinness, author. − Mr President, thank you for your clarification on the one minute, but can I just take this opportunity: a point of order. I was one of the authors of the first oral question. I am not at all happy that we now have a joint debate with two questions merging. I have tried since May to get the Mercosur question on the agenda. I do not believe it should be a joint question, and I want to make my opposition to what has happened this morning absolutely fulsome. I do not know how this happened or why this happened. I am extremely unhappy about it. Can I come back to this in the debate? I would like a clarification please, and I hope other colleagues will support me.

  President. - Mrs McGuinness, as you know, because you are a veteran Member of this House, it is the Conference of Presidents that has decided that the debate should be organised in this way, and so this is how it is being done. I have, naturally, taken note of your dissatisfaction on this issue, but I would ask you to understand that we are not going to start a debate about it now, because otherwise none of the Members who are supposed to be speaking will be able to do so.

  James Nicholson, author. − Mr President, I think we are in trouble here this morning because of a lack of consultation. I would have thought, as the authors of the Mercosur question, we should at least have been afforded the decency of being consulted as to why this has happened. I know the Conference of Presidents is the be all and the end all, but, Mr President, you are a very distinguished member of the Bureau of this Parliament and I hope you will take back to the Bureau the message that when agriculture is debated in this Parliament you have to give enough time for it.

Clearly there was not enough time this morning. You saw the demand and you saw the problem. Can we get this Parliament to work for the Members of Parliament, not for the administration of Parliament? We are the people elected here to represent our people, not the administration, which is paid big fat salaries...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  President. - Mr Nicholson, we have taken note of your words and will naturally pass your concerns on to the Parliamentary Bureau. It is not the administration that organises debates. The administration helps the political bodies organise debates.

  Mairead McGuinness, author. − Mr President, it is not because it is summertime and we are all cross. It is just because we make very valid points and we take our jobs seriously. I am going to take 30 seconds because I have two blank pages. I have asked five questions of the Commission. I do not intend to speak before I hear the answers. I will return at the end of the debate.

  President. – Thank you very much, Mrs McGuinness. I will grant you later the time that you have not used now.

  James Nicholson, author. − Mr President, I think many were taken by surprise at the recent decision by the Commission to reopen the negotiations with Mercosur on a free trade agreement. As we enter into a period where we will see reform of the CAP, and we have just been debating that, everyone knows that agriculture will be a major part of that agreement.

While I accept that the Commission services are within their rights to reopen discussions, they would have been much better advised to inform Parliament of their intentions. This issue has the possibility to open Pandora’s box in many sectors of Europe’s agriculture industry, and I therefore seriously question the wisdom of embarking upon any future deal.

There are serious ongoing problems in Brazil and Argentina with regard to animal traceability and other health and safety issues. The most recent report by the FAO mission in the state of Santa Catarina concluded that there were very few controls on cattle passing from Argentina to Brazil, or indeed between the different states in Brazil. By the same token, ear-tagging rules were not enforced. These are only some examples of the many I could list from the FAO report last October.

I must tell the Commissioner very straightforwardly that if he persists down this route he will be opposed every step of the way. I can to some extent understand why this may seem like an attractive option, as WTO discussions do not progress with any speed, but I really do believe that this has the potential to destroy the WTO. If Mercosur succeeds in achieving a deal with the EU, why should these countries continue to participate in WTO negotiations?

You must understand that there will be no reduction in the level of standards of animal health welfare or traceability. Consumers and producers in the European Union must be protected, and I do not think that a trade deal with Mercosur will achieve this. Indeed, it will have entirely the opposite effect.

  José Bové, author. − (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, reopening negotiations with Mercosur when the European Union is getting ready to redefine its agricultural policy reveals a dangerous lack of consistency on the part of the Commission. Europe already imports 500 000 tonnes of beef. Opening up our market even further would be to the disadvantage of the cattle breeders of Europe’s less-favoured areas, without any guarantee of respect for health and social standards. We cannot accept this.

Europe buys 38 million tonnes of soya and feed for cattle. These imports from Brazil and Argentina monopolise more than 19 million hectares. They are concentrated in the hands of three enterprises: Cargill, ADM and Bunch. Between 2001 and 2004 soya destroyed more than 1.2 million hectares of tropical and equatorial forest. It is one of the principal causes of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and the loss of biodiversity.

The European Parliament has decided to produce a report on the recovery of autonomy in respect of vegetable proteins for livestock feed. This decision is motivated by the need to have environmentally friendly agriculture and to combat climate change. These efforts will be completely undone by this draft bilateral agreement. Once again the European Commission is selling short its farming and its farmers in order to obtain chance gains for service companies. These concessions will not serve the interests of the farming families of Mercosur, only those of agro-industrial groups. Convincing evidence of this can be found in the report by the Tyson group, a US corporation and heavyweight in the international meat market, which announced that it has invested in Brazil – I quote, and it is in its report – to use this country as a platform for exporting to Europe.

Other enterprises, such as the Doux Group, had already anticipated this move by buying out the Brazilian Frangosul Group in 1998. Many poultry farmers, particularly in Brittany, paid the price for that deal.

Europe seems to want to pursue its policy of relocation by intensifying its attacks against farmers. We must stop this insane process by offering our citizens quality, locally produced food.

  George Lyon, author. − Mr President, I will try and be brief. There are real concerns about the reopening of the negotiations with Mercosur.

I represent Scotland, which has extensive beef production. This is a high-cost system, and it is vital that this production system continues if Scotland is not to see much of its land area abandoned because of cheap imports flooding into the market. There is real concern that we might see our Scottish beef industry sacrificed due to the need to negotiate and agree a deal with the Mercosur countries.

I would therefore like to raise a number of questions about this, which is not just a Scottish issue, but is also an issue for the Irish or French and right across Europe. In particular, I would like to ask you why there seems to have been no consultation with this Parliament and with Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture before the announcement was made. Surely, in the interests of courtesy at least, informing us ahead of the announcement would have helped try and ensure reasonable relations between Parliament and yourself on this issue.

Secondly, what negotiating mandate will the negotiators have in terms of agricultural products? Can someone please tell me what they are being allowed to negotiate on? How many tonnes of beef? How much access? Is there no tariff, or are there minimum tariffs? Can someone please tell us what the mandate is?

Two other points. When is an impact study going to be carried out to find out what the impact of any deal might be, regardless of its size? At the very least, we should know what the impact is before we sign up to something, especially at a time when we are renegotiating the CAP and we are deciding how future farm support is decided. The two are completely linked and therefore we need to understand what the impact will be.

Finally, what involvement does the Agriculture Commissioner have on this issue? To date, we have heard very little as to what his role will be in this negotiation, and whether he is responsible for setting the mandate for your negotiators. Will this Parliament be consulted before any final agreement is reached? I would like to hear some answers to these questions.

  President. - I would like to call everybody’s attention to the fact that the speakers who have contributed so far, including Mr Capoulas Santos, are the authors of the first question that we are debating, and that the speaker who is to follow, Mr Yáñez-Barnuevo García, is the author of the second question.

  Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, author. – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, Latin America as a whole and the Mercosur countries in particular are strategic partners of the European Union. We share a common history and social values with them. Moreover, it is a geopolitical area where freedom, democracy and respect for human rights have been making remarkable progress. The deepening of political and cultural ties and maximising mutual benefits in economic terms therefore makes perfect sense.

I therefore welcome the European decision to reopen negotiations on the association agreement with Mercosur, although I regret and condemn Argentina’s recent protectionist actions, which are totally in contrast with the spirit of openness shown by the European side.

However, I must alert the Commission to the potentially negative consequences for the European agricultural sector if these negotiations are not handled with care. We all know the extent of the imbalance in our trade with Mercosur and the respective production conditions and requirements for farmers on both sides of the Atlantic.

For this reason, along with the questions that were formally submitted in writing, particularly the one asking how the Commission intends to address the issue of sensitive products, I would like to know how it intends to react to Argentina’s understandable action.

  Luis Yáñez-Barnuevo García, author. – (ES) Mr President, today is a day for congratulations: the first of these is due to the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Moratinos, who has succeeded in bringing a number of Cuban political prisoners to Spain, or is on the point of doing so; also to Guillermo Fariñas, the political prisoner who, through his hunger strike, tenacity and sacrifice, has achieved freedom for these prisoners.

Above all, turning now to the issue that brings us here, I would like to congratulate the Council for starting negotiations on a major trade agreement, which is also political and relates to cooperation, between the European Union and Mercosur, which was decided upon at the Madrid Summit on 18 May of this year. Contrary to what is being said, Parliament has expressed its support repeatedly for these negotiations, within the Delegation for Relations with Mercosur Countries, the Delegation on the Euro-Latin American Parliamentary Assembly (EuroLat) and the plenary sittings themselves of several parliamentary sessions. We are talking about what could and should be the most extensive trade agreement in existence in the world, which will bring development, well-being, progress and employment to 800 million people, and spectacularly increase the exchange of goods, merchandise and services between the two regions.

Agriculture is only one part of this macro-agreement. Balanced agreements will need to be sought during the negotiations, but not with the mentality of protectionism, which is the enemy of development and well-being; European protectionism and also protectionism by some of the Mercosur countries. In any case, industry and services represent 97% of European gross domestic product, and agriculture only 2.1%. Fears therefore need to be faced in terms of their proper proportions and justification.

Commissioner, the next European Union-Brazil Summit, on 14 July, should serve, then, to promote and accelerate these negotiations, the completion of which has acquired even more importance during the economic crisis that we are going through; this agreement will contribute to a solution for it.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, as this is a joint debate and with the agreement of the Chair, I would like to address both the agricultural implications of an association agreement with Mercosur and the forthcoming Summit at the beginning of the session. I am thus happy to respond in any format decided by the Chair.

Starting with Mercosur, the relaunching of negotiations for an association agreement with Mercosur is of utmost importance for the EU, both politically and economically. Politically, Mercosur is the largest regional integration project in Latin America, which makes it superfluous to insist on the geopolitical importance of strengthening our ties with the continent. We have agreements in place with Chile and Mexico, and recently finalised negotiations with Colombia, Peru and Central America, so it is only logical to engage with Mercosur as well.

In economic terms, a successful agreement could bring considerable benefits to both the EU and Mercosur. In these difficult economic times, we cannot afford to overlook the potential of this agreement for our two regions in terms of jobs and growth.

Mercosur is a large and dynamic economic entity with a combined GDP of EUR 1 300 billion and with GDP growth rates expected to reach around 5% in 2010 and 4% in 2011. It is an increasingly important partner for the EU. In terms of EU exports, it ranks on a par with India and ahead of countries such as Canada or Korea. Over the past four years until the crisis hit, EU exports to Mercosur increased by more than 15% annually.

In terms of foreign direct investments, Mercosur is also a key partner. EU investments in Mercosur amount to more than EUR 165 billion – more than EU investments in China, India and Russia together. Given its size and potential, and also the fact that Mercosur is still a relatively protected market, the economic gains for EU business could be among the most important of the free trade agreements recently concluded or currently being negotiated by the EU with major trade partners such as Korea or India.

Relaunching these negotiations is also a sign of the commitment of both regions to continuing to promote free trade and to reject protectionism. The Commission has taken this decision after a thorough examination and in-depth internal debate. In reaching this decision, the Commission positively valued the indications given by Mercosur, during the informal dialogue at technical level, on issues like trade in goods, public procurement or some services sectors.

Let me add that immediately after the College had taken the decision I came to the INTA Committee and we discussed in depth the relaunching of the negotiations. I could even add that the Council is of the opinion that I treated the European Parliament much better than I treated them, so they were not pleased at all. We did this is on the basis of the mandate that we have, so we did not need a new mandate. This was a proper decision of the College, and Parliament was extensively informed immediately afterwards.

However, it must be very clear that the forthcoming attitude of our Mercosur partners surely allows negotiations to be relaunched, but is of course no guarantee of a successful conclusion. That is something quite different. In order to conclude, we will need to negotiate an ambitious agreement, notably in sectors such as trade in goods and services, or intellectual property, including geographical indications.

The first meeting with Mercosur took place last week in Buenos Aires. It was a rather technical round to touch base after more than five years of suspension, identifying where the negotiations had left off in 2004, on process issues and modalities for the negotiations going forward. We will of course keep the European Parliament and the Council fully informed about the evolution of the negotiations.

As regards your specific questions, the Commission is working on the basis of the negotiating directives adopted by the Council back in 1999. These directives task the Commission with negotiating a balanced and comprehensive agreement with Mercosur, with the aim of liberalising substantially all trades in line with the EU’s commitments at the WTO. This applies to all areas to be covered by the agreement, including agriculture.

The Commission is very well aware of the sensitivity of agriculture in these negotiations and will take this element into account when negotiating with Mercosur. Let us also keep in mind that we have substantial offensive agriculture interests in Mercosur as well, such as wine, cheese, fruit and vegetables and geographical indications. In this context, we are aware that accompanying measures might become necessary for the most sensitive sectors. It is, however, way too early to discuss what these measures could cover. We are only just starting the negotiations and have not yet entered into discussions on substance.

We have not put down agricultural offers at this moment in time and there was a question – I do not know by whom – about the position of the Agriculture Commissioner in this respect. It is not the Trade Commissioner who decides what agricultural offers will be put on the table. This has to be agreed between the Agriculture Commissioner and myself, and if we do not agree then it goes to the College of Commissioners and it is the College of Commissioners which takes the decision. That is the way it happens, so Mr Dacian Cioloş is fully included in these discussions.

We also know that we will have to take into account previous agricultural offers made by the EU in the Doha Round, of which Mercosur is expected to be one of the main beneficiaries. In this context, let me clarify that relaunching the negotiations with Mercosur does not undermine in any way our commitment to a successful conclusion of the DDA. As a matter of principle, we only negotiate FTAs which are compatible with WTO rules and which, building on the WTO acquis, go much further in coverage than the Doha Round. I believe that if we make the right choices it is possible to successfully conclude both negotiations.

As regards food safety, it goes without saying that imports have to fully respect EU food safety requirements. Let it be very clear that there is no intention to negotiate away our health and safety requirements; not with Mercosur or anyone else! The EU approach in all trade negotiations is certainly not to decrease the EU level of protection. The WTO rules give us the right to establish our own level of protection provided that this is based on recognised scientific evidence – this is an inviolable right.

Finally, as regards the impact of a possible agreement, a sustainable impact assessment of a trade agreement between the EU and Mercosur has already been carried out and has been publicly available since March 2009. In addition, the Commission will complete this impact assessment with a more focused economic study in the months to come.

Now let me turn to the EU-Brazil Summit and start with a short overview of our relations. Brazil has uncontested international stature in line with the size of its territory, its population and its economic performance. It supports multilateralism, is a member of the G20 and is a key player in global debates on climate change, economic governance, the reform of the UN, trade issues and the eradication of poverty. Moreover, Brazil often acts as an informal bridge between Western and emerging and developing countries. Brazil is one of nine countries with which the EU has entered into a strategic partnership. The partnership dates back to 2007 and the joint action plan, which translates the partnership into concrete actions, to 2008.

The multiplicity of joint initiatives, the level of mutual understanding and the deepening of the relationship, which includes 18 ongoing dialogues, bear witness to our satisfaction with the implementation of the joint action plan. This will be the fourth EU-Brazil Summit at which we will aim to take stock of progress in our relations and discuss the main global challenges. The moment for such an assessment is particularly appropriate as President Lula’s term in office approaches its end.

As regards environmental issues, at the third summit in Stockholm we planned cooperation in view of last December’s Copenhagen Summit and a bioenergy initiative involving Brazil, the EU and the African Union. The forthcoming Cancún and Nagoya conferences on climate change and biodiversity are high on the agenda of the Summit, as enhanced coordination with Brazil is crucial to a successful outcome.

Further to a suggestion by President Lula at the EU-Mercosur Summit in Madrid, we are looking into a common position with Brazil for Cancún. The African Union Commission has received our joint proposal on trilateral cooperation on bioenergy and we hope to hear from them soon.

In terms of cooperation in multilateral fora, we are pursuing coordination ahead of the Seoul G20 Summit to gather Brazil’s support to obtain adequate representation of the EU in the UN system and to purposefully engage towards a conclusion of the Doha Round. Brazil is seeking to reinforce its influence with the global governance system and needs our support for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. As an advanced emerging economy, it takes a very different stand to the EU in relation to reform of the World Bank and the IMF.

Overall, what is certainly clear is that we have a shared agenda as globally relevant partners and we have to find ways to sort out our differences and seek convergence. At the Summit we will confirm our commitment to strengthening non-proliferation and encourage closer cooperation. Brazil opposed the Iran sanctions adopted last June by the UN Security Council. However, the EU welcomed the efforts made by Brazil and Turkey that led to the Tehran Declaration, pointing out its shortcomings but also emphasising its value as a potential confidence-building instrument and inviting Iran to seize the chance to resume serious negotiations. Although we diverge tactically, we find common ground on the principles enshrined in the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the need for Iran to demonstrate the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme.

I have dealt extensively with the negotiations with Mercosur in the first part of my address, but these will of course be raised in the Summit discussions. Unfortunately, I will not be in Brasilia, but given that we have only met recently to have the first technical talks after a long pause the Summit is unlikely to take firm decisions in relation to this negotiation. The Summit will also address regional issues: Cuba, Honduras, Paraguay and Venezuela. Brazil’s role in helping to stabilise Paraguay, its refusal to recognise the new Honduran Government, its engagement with Cuba and Venezuela are all on the agenda.

Lastly, tough work is still being finalised on some issues where we expect the Summit to deliver. First, the signature of a horizontal civil aviation agreement and an air safety agreement. Second, the announcement of a joint work programme on triangular cooperation with developing countries. Third, a letter of intent between the Commission and the Brazilian National Council of Justice to advance trilateral cooperation in electoral support and justice reform will be signed in Brussels on 14 July.

Our relationship with Brazil does not end with the Summit; we have other initiatives in parallel that help to give a fuller dimension to our bilateral, regional and global engagements, but I have more than exhausted my speaking time. I will try to give additional examples in response to your questions.

  Georgios Papastamkos, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (EL) Mr President, as regards the Mercosur countries, I would highlight the large deficit trade balance against the European Union in the agricultural product sector. Yet Argentina is blocking food imports from third countries, thereby seriously damaging exports of European agro-foodstuffs, including Greek peach jam. I should like to ask the Commissioner if he raised this issue last week during the first round of negotiations in Buenos Aires. Also, does Argentina’s stance raise questions of the incompatibility of its measures with the rules and obligations of the World Trade Organisation?

A brief digression: Commissioner, negotiations with the countries of the Andes and Central America have been completed. To be honest, the concessions made by Europe in the agricultural sector are causing reasonable concerns and raising specific questions: What justification is there for the quotas granted by Europe in the rice and sugar sectors, which exceed the productive capacities of these countries? Do the agreements include a net exporter clause, in order to prevent the development of a trade triangle? Can the Commission assure us that import prices will be maintained in the fruit and vegetable sector?

Commissioner, I too should like to add my voice to the voices of my fellow Members who spoke about the need for closer interinstitutional cooperation between the Commission and the European Parliament. The Commission needs to realise that the terms of interinstitutional cooperation changed under the Treaty of Lisbon, as did the interinstitutional culture. The more quickly you move in that direction, the more productive and correct cooperation will be between the two institutions.

  Edite Estrela, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (PT) Mr President, the first EU–Brazil Summit, which was promoted by the Portuguese Presidency in 2007, filled an inexplicable gap. Brazil was the only BRIC country with which Europe had no strategic partnership.

The strengthening of dialogue between the EU and Brazil makes perfect sense as it allows us to deepen cooperation in key areas such as energy security, sustainable development, biodiversity and climate change, etc.

The size of Brazil's population and its economic development and political stability make it a key player on the international stage.

Now that the 4th EU–Brazil Summit is about to take place, it is important to strike a balance between celebrating the progress achieved and examining how we can develop this partnership so that we can face common challenges and harmonise positions, with a view, for example, to the UN conference on climate change that will take place at the end of this year in Mexico. This summit is also an opportunity to advance negotiations with Mercosur in order to reach a conclusion on an association agreement and overcome the current differences.

  Marielle De Sarnez, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Mr President, we have just had a debate in this Chamber on the common agricultural policy, where we reiterated the importance of supporting a European model, unique in the world.

However, at the same time the Commission has decided, without any prior public debate, to reopen negotiations with Mercosur, the consequences of which risk being disastrous for our agriculture and, in particular, for our European livestock farming, which is already struggling. Beef imports will increase by 70%, poultry imports by 25%. They will flood into Europe at a lower cost because they are not produced in accordance with the same level of health, environmental and social requirements.

Commissioner, I would therefore like to voice my concern to you. Our agriculture is in great difficulty. Destabilising it further will have serious consequences. We cannot develop European trade policy without taking account of and defending one of our main assets. The Commission must hear this message and this demand.

  Elie Hoarau, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (FR) Mr President, many fellow Members are concerned about the ramifications that the reopening of negotiations on an association agreement with Mercosur might have on European agriculture.

My group and I share these concerns. Indeed there are fears – and, as the MEP for an outermost region, I have experience of the banana agreements – that an agreement with Mercosur may deal a severe blow to many European agricultural sectors. That is why an impact assessment is absolutely essential. There are also fears that Mercosur’s agriculture will become more production-driven – a little too production-driven – by this agreement, to the detriment of the small farms in these countries. A balance must therefore be found so that this agreement does not transform the continents of Latin America and Europe into superpowers essentially defined by mercantile dogma.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, China’s interventions in Central and Latin America have brought a new impetus to EU negotiations. With more than 200 million consumers, the Mercosur countries, which, as we know, share many of our values and interests, are the most important market for our domestic products in Latin America. We are targeting the world’s largest free trade zone with a total of 700 million inhabitants and a trade volume of EUR 100 billion.

Naturally this is a major argument in favour of a free trade agreement, something that should be supported in principle. However, the question remains why we have separate agreements with Mexico, Chile, Mercosur, Peru and Columbia, rather than one common agreement. Also, if individual agreements are to be concluded, then the smaller states need to be included, not just through trade associations. Clearly there is a lack of consistency here.

Nor must we lose sight of the misgivings of the agricultural sector in relation to cheap meat imports. After all, while we police our own farmers with bureaucratic rules and regulations for quality, environmental and animal protection standards, the same does not apply to the meat produced in the Mercosur countries. We must not further undermine the EU’s self-sufficiency, which is already no longer absolute, and must avoid driving up the number of Europe’s farmers leaving the land.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE). - (ES) Mr President, we are all pleased about the freeing of political prisoners in Cuba. However, on the subject of congratulations, I have not heard any offered to the Catholic Church and, in particular, to Parliament for the role it played, which has been key in the determined defence of all of those fighting for their freedom and dignity in Cuba.

With regard to the subject of Mercosur, there are several clarifications that need to be made. As Commissioner De Gucht has explained, the Commission put forward some negotiation directives for the purposes of concluding an association agreement between the European Union and Mercosur, which were adopted by the Council and by Parliament. Negotiations have been deadlocked for six years, and it is clear that they have been reopened within the framework of the Summit of Heads of State and Government of the European Union, Latin America and the Caribbean, with the support also of Parliament.

The objective, at this point in time, is to reach a balanced agreement that shows overall consideration for the interests of all sectors within the European Union. I do not understand why certain sectors or interest groups should come out of this negotiation at a disadvantage. It has not been like this for 10 years, and there is no reason why it should be like this in the future. It will depend on the firmness of our negotiators. In any case, if this situation were to come about, it is clear that the Commission would need to come up with compensatory measures for the sectors affected.

This is what has been done with third countries, with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, and with the most recent agreements with the Andean Community. The main reason that this has been done with these countries is the need to defend European Union producers, of bananas in this case.

IN THE CHAIR: Libor ROUČEK
Vice-President

  Marc Tarabella (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, during its meeting on 4 May 2010, the College of Commissioners decided to reopen negotiations on an association agreement between the European Union and the Mercosur countries. Everything leads us to believe that, if these negotiations result in an agreement, European agricultural producers will be faced with significant problems, in particular in the beef, poultry, cereal and fruit and vegetable sectors. Disastrous knock-on effects might also follow for other sectors, such as the pork sector for example. Here I must warn you of the unfair competition that this, the world’s third integrated market, might bring.

Indeed, while Europe wants to be seen as a pioneer in terms of health requirements, hygiene, traceability, respect for the environment and notably also social standards, by imposing a very restrictive cross-compliance system on its producers, beef production – and more specifically Brazilian beef production – still does not fully meet veterinary and health standards.

By accepting imports from Mercosur countries which do not meet European standards, we risk having to assume a heavy burden in the defence of our consumers’ interests and risk penalising European producers by applying double standards.

Commissioner, I would ask you to be particularly vigilant in this regard.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE). - Mr President, increased access to the EU market for Mercosur would decimate national industries, particularly – in my case – in my major concern: the beef industry in Ireland and elsewhere. This is not scaremongering. Ireland exports around 90% of its beef production, and the beef quota sought by Mercosur will be in direct competition with the Irish beef industry.

European farmers are operating under strict health and safety criteria. They adhere to all standards set for them and they guarantee high-quality, safe produce for consumers.

In the past the Commission continually assured European consumers and Members of this House of the quality of imports into the European Union. However, it was the farming organisations and MEPs which proved the Commission’s position wrong on the issues of equivalence of quality and standards between imports and EU products, resulting in the number of exporting units in Brazil being reduced from 3 000 to under 1 000.

So, Commissioner, my question is: given the past experience and the current sporadic nature of FVO missions, how can the Commission guarantee consumers that all imports coming into the European Union are of equable quality and comply with European Union standards? Can I just say, Commissioner, that the track record does not offer great hope or great confidence for me for the future.

  Daniel Caspary (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, negotiations have reopened with the Mercosur countries, and, if I interpret today’s criticisms correctly, the main issue is that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development was not informed. I agree that we must improve the coordination of all of these topics within the European Parliament.

Naturally, the opening of Mercosur negotiations is an extremely important issue for our fellow Members in the Committee on Agriculture. However, just as there has been an information deficit in relation to this issue in the Committee on Agriculture, my colleagues from the Committee on International Trade were not informed of the tabling of today’s oral question. I think that we, the Bureau and the groups in Parliament, must all take greater care to ensure that we really do pursue coherent policies and that all the relevant committees are regularly brought on board.

I should like to emphasise one point in particular. I am actually grateful that the Commission has reopened negotiations. On 5 May of this year, this House supported the reopening of negotiations in the Salafranca report. In other words, the Commission is doing exactly what Parliament decided by a large majority. Nonetheless, I would argue that we do not want an agreement at any price. Naturally the interests of agriculture, industry and the service sector must be taken into account as a whole. The fact that we can succeed in considering the interests of the agricultural sector in free trade agreements is evidenced by the free trade agreement with South Korea, for example, where the response from the agricultural sector has been very positive and where new market opportunities are being identified.

We have also received positive feedback in relation to the trade agreement with Central America, where new markets are also opening up, for example in the dairy sector. I would be grateful if the Commission would increase its efforts in the coming weeks to take all interests into consideration, that is those of industry and the service sector, as well as those of agriculture.

  Iratxe García Pérez (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, the reopening of the European Union-Mercosur negotiations comes within a positive context that will enable dialogue to be restored with regard to trade relations.

So far it is only talks that have resumed, and it is good that today’s debate has caused the Commission to take proper note of what we think.

Although the European Union stands to gain in sectors such as wine, olive oil, speciality meats, and preserved fruit and vegetables, it is logical to assume that in no case will these compensate for the impact that may be anticipated on EU livestock and agricultural production, such as sugar or cereals.

I would ask the Commission to work towards reaching an agreement that is balanced overall, and which takes into account the sensitivity of certain products. It should include the necessary mechanisms to prevent any failures, such as strict controls on the health and phytosanitary quality levels of imported products.

Another important issue would be preventing the results from overlapping with Doha, and the European Union from duplicating its allowances in the area of agriculture. That said, I echo the criticisms of the restrictive measures adopted by Argentina against certain European products, and I hope that the Commission acts firmly to resolve this situation soon.

  Albert Deß (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, clearly the Mercosur countries are important trading partners for us. However, Commissioner, this trade with the Mercosur countries should not be allowed to become a one-way street. The frequent claims made in public that Europe is closing itself off in the agricultural markets are quite wrong. We purchase over 90% of African agricultural exports and 45% of Central and South American agricultural exports. Europe is certainly not closed off to external trade.

What I would criticise, Commissioner, is the information policy pursued. It has not been good. As an agricultural policymaker, I first learned that these negotiations had begun when I opened the newspapers. In future we should not have to rely on the press for our information. I urge you to inform the agricultural sector represented here in Parliament about the progress of negotiations.

Another point I would criticise is the fact that the objective here is free trade that is not based on standards. How can it be that we demand high standards of consumer protection, animal protection and environmental protection in Europe, but do not require the same standards from imports? Let me offer just one example in this regard. Last year, Parliament passed the most stringent plant protection product legislation in the world. Many active ingredients are prohibited in Europe. Commissioner, we cannot have a situation in the future where food is supplied to Europe from countries in which active ingredients are used that are prohibited in Europe for reasons of consumer protection. Consumer protection is inviolable and we would do well to remember this in negotiations. Then we have nothing to fear from our competitors, and we European farmers will stand our ground against this competition.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Commissioner, there is a Hungarian saying that the longer the explanation, the more likely it is that the person offering it is lying. You are not telling the truth! The European Commission has only ever had one honest Commissioner, Mr Dacian Cioloş, who said that we must choose between the WTO and Mercosur, otherwise we will ruin European agriculture. This is the truth, Mr De Gucht. As far as you are concerned, the Spanish Presidency and the Commission have violated the Treaty of Lisbon because the European Parliament has been left out. Mr Gaspari can say that the Committee on Foreign Affairs granted authorisation, but Parliament has not been given a mandate. This is the other reason for my question. Incidentally, I would add that the new Member States can only lose out here. We favour liberalisation, but if Spain and Portugal have special interests, they should leave the European Union out of it. They should sort it out themselves. There is no need to provide an EU framework for this.

  Béla Glattfelder (PPE). – (HU) The European Commission defined the negotiating mandates some 11 years ago. The world has changed over the past 11 years. Environmental protection and climate protection have become major issues and the European Union itself has changed as the number of its Member States increased from 15 to 27. The European Commission has disregarded these developments. It has not requested a new mandate. This is a serious mistake. Negotiations based on 11-year-old mandates cannot be continued; they must be brought to an end. A new mandate must be created, taking into account the interests of the 12 Member States that joined the EU in recent years, as well as the global considerations of climate protection, environmental protection and animal welfare. Without a proper mandate, we can only reach unacceptable agreements.

  Mairead McGuinness, author. − Mr President, there was wisdom in my decision to hold back my contribution until I heard what I hoped would be answers. I noted the time that the Commission took – longer than any of us here in this Chamber – and I regret that I did not get specific answers to five very direct questions.

On the mandate, let me say that a mandate dating back to 1999 is way out of date and indeed most of the current Parliament would not have been around in 1999. Go back to the drawing board. The last speaker addressed some of the points that I would wish to make.

As you did not address the impact assessment, other than telling us you have done an assessment, let me talk to you about some of the impacts on our agricultural producers. The Mercosur Meat Forum, which represents Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay, urged the negotiators not to waste an extraordinary opportunity for them. Contrast that to the delight, or rather to the fear and trepidation and anger, among EU producers.

What will happen is there will be job losses across rural Europe and a reduction in our food production capacity. Look at the impacts of this on the environment, where Europe regards itself as a leader in terms of climate change, land tenure problems in these countries, the chopping down of forests, the impact on indigenous populations and forced labour, and specifically on beef.

For those of you who do not realise it, this is an attack on the high-quality end of our beef market. If we undermine that part of our market, we will destroy beef production and the market in the European Union. The US and Japan will not do a deal because they protect their producers and the high standards they value.

This Parliament imposes high standards of food production on our producers. We have failed to defend them in the past. The Commission has been found wanting, and we cannot allow an agreement of this sort to happen to the detriment of EU production at a time when we are reforming our agricultural policy. There is no consistency between agriculture and trade policy. This Parliament has to insist that there will be.

  Christophe Béchu (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, I would just like to say that it may be the case that we have not organised our agenda very well today.

If having free trade agreements means that we allow products to enter Europe that respect neither our social standards nor our environmental standards, the reform of the common agricultural policy will be pointless.

Clearly we cannot continue to take this hypocritical approach where, on the one hand, we impose environmental restrictions relating to health and safety traceability on our farmers, on the grounds that we have to protect consumers, and, on the other hand, we allow products that fail to meet these standards to enter our continent freely.

That is precisely the issue being discussed behind the scenes at the negotiations with Mercosur. Although we are being told that Parliament was very well informed and that matters have been as transparent and as clear as possible, the way in which things have been initiated does not give us a good impression of a negotiation that is being held at the same time as other negotiations are taking place at the WTO. For the sake of consistency, and of protecting consumers and our farmers, I feel that we cannot continue down this track.

  Spyros Danellis (S&D) . – (EL) Mr President, although the conclusion of a trade agreement with Mercosur will be to the mutual benefit of both sides, it will have massive repercussions on the agricultural sector. Even the President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, recognised this dimension, when he stated the Commission’s intention to take specific measures to combat the negative repercussions which will impact in particular on agriculture.

To be honest, certain agricultural sectors are already being damaged by bilateral agreements and, in addition, the higher specifications for agricultural production in the European Union do not safeguard its superior quality compared with cheaper production from third countries.

Commissioner, how do you intend to address this issue and what sort of objective criteria does the Commission intend to apply in order to ensure that this discrimination against various agricultural sectors is not strengthened?

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). - Mr President, this morning, as you are aware, we are discussing the CAP post 2013, and yet much of our discussion is being undermined by the reopening of negotiations with Mercosur. Where, I ask, is the consistency?

A few weeks ago, after it was announced that you were reopening negotiations with Mercosur, I had a short meeting with you. During that meeting you said that, if there was to be an ambitious deal, it was likely there would have to be concessions on agriculture. That is why I am extremely concerned. Already we are talking about possible concessions on agriculture, and I would like you to clarify this.

In your response you spoke about forthcoming summits on climate change. Are you doing any assessment on issues such as carbon leakage, deforestation, loss of biodiversity in the context of further imports of agricultural products from Mercosur countries? I come from Ireland, and we export 90% of our beef. Recent research has shown that Brazilian emissions are between three and eight times higher than the Irish equivalent. Will any of this be taken into consideration in your impact assessments?

  Giancarlo Scottà (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Spanish Presidency has decided to sign this agreement. This decision has caused some concern, as we have already heard, and in tabling this question my fellow Members are asking for clarification as regards the impact that the negotiations may have on European producers and products.

I wished to point out that the creation of a free-trade relationship between the two parties allows for imports into Europe of animal products containing antibiotic growth activators that have not undergone sufficient testing, and of genetically modified agricultural products that could jeopardise farmers’ food safety. I therefore call on the Commission to adopt an authoritative position so as to safeguard European quality production. The Commission must also undertake to ensure that Europe’s high production standards are recognised at international level and that these same standards are required of all imported products.

Lastly, I believe that the Commission should take account of the concerns expressed by the various associations in the sector, so as to ensure transparent and fair negotiations that do not harm the European economy.

  Diane Dodds (NI). - Mr President, I am extremely concerned that the Commission is adamant in continuing trade talks based on a mandate from 1999, which will undoubtedly have a negative impact on agriculture across the EU.

Sacrificing agriculture for gains in other areas is simply unacceptable. The beef industry in the United Kingdom is currently experiencing a fall in farm-gate prices. If there is a rise in imports due to these talks, I believe we will see an exodus of farmers from the industry. How is Europe going to provide for these people? Is it not unfair that our farmers have to compete with countries whose producers do not have to meet the same quality, safety and traceability benchmarks as farmers within the European Union? A Commission that claims to act in the best interests of the citizens must do so. We must end these talks and look after our farmers.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – (PL) Negotiations with the Mercosur countries were suspended in 2004. This year, they have been reopened, and are being conducted on the basis of a mandate dating from 1999. Such an important decision should have been preceded by a debate on policy in the European Parliament and in the Council. I do understand that the stakes in these talks are extremely high, because the Mercosur countries are an enormous market, a market for EU industrial products and services. However, we should also be protecting the interests of our farmers and the agriculture and food sector.

If a bilateral agreement on preferential trade were made with Mercosur countries, it might have very damaging effects, including in the poultry meat, beef and pig meat sectors, the sugar and dairy product sectors and also the ethanol sector. If that happened, it would be necessary to propose certain forms of compensation to farmers. Experts estimate that making such an agreement could result in very large losses of income among farmers. These will be even higher if the agreement is both bilateral and made at WTO level.

  Karin Kadenbach (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, as a signatory to the present question I would like to return to a specific issue, namely that of food safety.

In your initial remarks today you told us that products imported into the EU have to meet our requirements and that the WTO gives us the right to uphold our regulations, provided that they are based on scientific evidence. However, when I consider our agricultural production and the products themselves, not everything can be proven scientifically. Also important are the general conditions under which animals are raised, for example, as well as the general conditions under which agriculture operates.

In Europe we have some excellent legislation in relation to the future of biodiversity. We would like to hear some answers from you about how you intend to adhere to these principles of food safety, consumer protection, animal protection and environmental protection in this trade agreement. The politicians must be able to decide, even when the scientific evidence is unavailable. We do not want cloned meat from the Mercosur countries.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, a French socialist politician once said, ‘When you are in a political minority, you are legally in the wrong.’ You understood that we feel that the mandate is no longer valid. Commissioner, we must renew this mandate, and it is regrettable that the Council, which should give the necessary instructions, is absent.

I would also like to draw your attention to the political aspects of Mercosur. In trade, the key element is confidence. How is Mercosur qualified, politically speaking, to negotiate with the European Union? We have three regions in the world: there is the European Union, which wants integrated trade, the North American Free Trade Agreement and Mercosur. Mercosur was almost dissolved at the 2007 Summit. The countries do not agree on accessions. Venezuela almost did not accede.

How can we negotiate in such a politically unstable area? First check the political stability of Mercosur and then we will conclude trade agreements.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Mr President, I believe that we have talked a great deal about sustainability. We have been discussing it for two hours, but there is one thing that most certainly is not sustainable, and there is clearly exactly the same problem with every President: the fact that we do not know when to ask for the floor in order to have our request granted.

I have now been overlooked for the second time, even though I asked for the floor in plenty of time. I think this is an outrage. Clearly, it is necessary to ask each President, including the previous President, for clear rules to be laid down and for the President to take account of when we have to ask for the floor during catch-the-eye.

It is unacceptable for me to go immediately after a debate, after the previous agenda item, and ask very politely to be given a chance to speak, only to be ignored. Please tell us when you are going to ignore people. Please let us know if there is clearly no desire to allow someone to talk about as important a topic as sustainability. There is clearly no sustainability here if we have to ask every President to grant us our parliamentary right and allow us to speak. I would like to make an urgent request for clarification in this regard, because this is an unfair way of going about things.

  President. − Colleagues, by way of explanation, I have about 18 people on the list. I understand that everybody would like to take the floor but we have five minutes for the catch-the-eye procedure – one minute each – so I can take five speakers. Today I took eight speakers. I tried to distribute it evenly according to the strength of the political groups so, if you noticed, there were three speakers from the PPE Group, two speakers from the PSE Group, one speaker from the ALDE Group, one from the EFD Group and one from the non-attached Members. So I think I have done the maximum I could have done.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I will try to answer some of the questions because a lot of questions have been raised, but many were also already answered in my introductory statement.

First of all on the mandate. Several Members criticised the fact that we are working on the basis of a mandate going back to 1999. The 1999 directives task us – and I am quoting – ‘with negotiating a balanced and comprehensive agreement with Mercosur with the aim of liberalising substantially all trade in line with the EU’s commitment at the WTO. This applies to all areas to be covered by the agreement, including agriculture’. That is still true. That is still what we have to do, so nothing much has to be added to this mandate.

In the mean time, we have the problem of climate change and the world has changed since then. Yes, we have noticed that too, and we will take this into consideration in the negotiations. That is not the reason to change the mandate.

There was another Member who said that Council should be here and that Council should instruct us. The Council does not have to instruct us. We have a mandate to negotiate and, if the negotiation is over and eventually we come to a result, we initial, the Council signs and Parliament ratifies. We are not instructed by the Council. And happily so, because this is a Community matter and it is an exclusive competence of the European Union whereby the Commission has very clear competences. We will stick to that.

I am ready to discuss at length any of the elements. I have done so with the INTA Committee and I am ready to go back to the INTA Committee. You will be kept informed of what we are negotiating, what is put on the table and so on, but everybody has his role to play and we will play the role that the Commission has to play in this respect.

As for the problem of the protectionist measures taken recently by Argentina, these measures and practices are clearly of concern to the EU and we immediately asked Argentina for clarification. A letter was sent by the Director-General for Trade to his Argentinean counterpart on 12 May. A formal démarche was launched by the EU delegation in Buenos Aires and several meetings were held with the mission of Argentina and its Ambassador in Brussels to express our strongest concerns. We have also insisted that the commitment to reject protectionism in all its forms be directly included in the EU-Mercosur joint communiqué.

Last week in Buenos Aires we raised this topic bilaterally with the relevant Argentinean authorities, in the press and in the context of the EU-Mercosur first round of negotiations. Our message was very strong and very clear. We indicated that these measures, no matter whether they are based on legal written grounds or not, go against the spirit of negotiating an FTA with the EU and risk having a clear negative impact on the negotiating process.

We were further intending to discuss the issue with Argentina on 6 July in the joint committee, but Argentina announced its postponement last week. We will insist that we have this meeting as soon as possible.

In addition, they appear at first glance to be inconsistent with Argentina’s commitments in the G20 framework and possibly with its WTO commitments. We will continue monitoring this issue very attentively and, if these measures and practices were to be maintained, carefully analyse them before deciding on the best possible solution to address this problem.

It remains the position of the Commission that protectionist measures should be avoided particularly in the current global economic context, and one of the elements that was mentioned, the deficit with Argentina, is certainly a very good one.

On sugar:

(FR) The Commission is perfectly aware of the sensitivity of the sugar issue and that is why the offer to Colombia and Peru was limited to tariff quotas at zero duty for a modest volume and without an out-of-quota tariff reduction. Similar quotas are provided for within the framework of the negotiations with Central America. The Colombian, Peruvian and Central American aggregated quantities account for less than 2% of European consumption.

As for plant health, environmental and other measures …

I made it very clear in my statements that we are going to stick to the food safety requirements, and these are the ones that can be enforced within the WTO. We will do that. If you look at the imports of beef – and this is also partly in answer to Mr Tarabella, who has left the plenary in the mean time – he will notice that, subsequently to SPS problems with Brazilian beef, the imports decreased considerably. So we are imposing them: we are monitoring them and we are imposing them and will continue to do so.

But we should realise, also in this European Parliament, that a certain number of European requirements have been decided internally that are the result of a political process in which the European Parliament was very heavily involved and that we cannot impose through the WTO.

We have to stick to the ones that we can impose and make the WTO respect: we will certainly do so in the case of food safety. In the case of the others, there the European Union has to consider what they really want to do. They should realise that, if they impose that kind of requirement on our agriculture, this has economic and financial consequences. But those are not the ones that we can impose on other countries.

I have tried to answer most of the questions that were reiterated in the questions put by the Members, but of course I am ready for further discussion. I presume that this is not the last time we will discuss Mercosur in this plenary.

  President. − Commissioner, I am also sure that this will not be the last time we do so.

The joint debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) The resumption of negotiations in September between Mercosur and the EU is a process of the utmost importance for the EU. On the one hand, in a multipolar world where the BRIC countries are gaining ever more influence, it is vital that the EU establishes a privileged relationship with Latin American countries, where it holds more investment than Russia, India and China put together. In combination with a special trade relationship, this would ensure the consolidation of an enormous economic advantage on a global scale. On the other hand, we have the level of openness to trade relating to agricultural goods and the definition of health and plant health rules that are needed for exchange between the blocs. Mercosur’s competitiveness in agricultural markets has been strengthened and has increased in recent years, so there needs to be an impact study on the consequences of an agreement for European agricultural activity, which is in no condition to suffer more shocks at present. This means that we should not plunge into a process that will reach its conclusion too fast without taking account of potentially negative impacts on European agriculture, or excessive protectionism, which compromises the EU’s important position in this area of the world.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Reopening negotiations with the Mercosur countries without consulting the Member States was very dirty play. The negotiations were suspended in 2004 when it was realised that trade between the EU and members of Mercosur might have adverse effects on our agriculture. Most at risk of losses are the beef, pig meat and poultry meat sectors and the milk, fruit and vegetable, sugar and bioethanol sectors. It is estimated that signing the agreement would cause losses ranging from several billion euro to several times this amount. Liberalisation of trade between the Union and Mercosur must be preceded by an accurate analysis of the effect of such an agreement on the Community market and careful consultations with representatives of the parties involved. Opening our market to imports is not an entirely bad initiative, but only if the same standards are in force in all countries. Otherwise, the costs of concessions under the WTO will be borne by our farmers.

  Alan Kelly (S&D), in writing. – These Mercosour talks represent a potentially dreadful development for the future of European agriculture. I have to say that the Commission’s attitude to the matter has been appalling. It would appear as if they are lining up a deal and will be using agricultural standards as a currency to buy a deal with Mercosur countries. This attitude, I find, is appalling. It seems like farmers are the first victims of trade deals but the first to be blamed when trade deals do not work. I would like a more consistent and caring attitude from the Commission to the future of the family farm sector. It is heartening to see so many agricultural MEPs here from all the groups supporting the protection of agriculture. Dismissing Parliament’s concerns of will not work, Commissioner De Gucht, and I would urge you to consult us more if you wish to have any potential agreement signed off by Parliament.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) It seems that the Mercosur negotiations are only pursuing one goal: to hand over a defenceless European agriculture. I do not want to know how immeasurably high the profit for industry and the services sector will be – I want to know how high the damage for agriculture will be. No one can now estimate the damage that a potential agreement with the Mercosur countries could do to domestic agricultural producers. The sensitive agricultural sector must not be handed over in the negotiations. The same goes for the European consumers who find themselves confronted with food which is not manufactured under the high production standards of the EU. On the one hand, this is risky for the health of EU citizens, because the conditions under which imported food is produced are not clear, and on the other hand, European agriculture receives unequal treatment, because EU production and processing standards do not apply to agricultural imports from the Mercosur countries. If someone is prepared to give away everything for a profit or an advantage, then we have a phrase to describe them: ‘They would sell their own grandmothers’. Feel free to sell your grandmother, Commissioner, but do not give away our European agriculture.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The resumption of negotiations with Mercosur, decided unilaterally by the European Commission, does not bode well for European agriculture, which is experiencing an unprecedented crisis. Apart from the fact that there was no political debate prior to the reopening of these negotiations, this agreement clearly puts our European agricultural interests at stake. There can be no question of any new agricultural concessions, after the offers made in July 2008 within the framework of the Doha Round.

Back then we had already reached a ‘final limit’, and so to exceed it would be to kill our agriculture. While that may not be the morbid intention of the Commission, I do nevertheless wonder about its ability to ensure that the EU does not pay twice. Certainly, when faced with any attempt at protectionism, the best response to the economic crisis is to open up to trade, but not at any price and not to the detriment of the EU. As a member of the Committee on International Trade who is in a position to approve or reject the EU-Mercosur FTA, I will oppose a cut-price bilateral agreement, which would sacrifice European agriculture and would provide little satisfactory progress for the rest of the European economy.

5. Arrangements for importing fishery and aquaculture products into the EU with a view to the future reform of the CFP (debate)

  President. − The next item is the report by Alain Cadec, on behalf of the Committee on Fisheries, on arrangements for importing fishery and aquaculture products into the EU with a view to the future reform of the CFP (2009/2238(INI)) (A7-0207/2010).

  Alain Cadec, rapporteur. − (FR) Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, one of the strong ideas of this report is the need to establish a vital link between the common commercial policy and the common fisheries policy.

With this in mind, we can only welcome the fact that the Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Mrs Damanaki, who is our regular contact, and the Commissioner for Trade, Mr De Gucht, are reunited on the Commission’s bench. Two Commissioners for one report, what an honour! I must say that this dual representation of the Commission is surprising and flattering, and moreover, rather unusual.

Let us return to the report itself. Imports of fishery and aquaculture products from third countries account for more than 60% of EU consumption. This worrying level of EU dependence on imports is the result of a double phenomenon: firstly, there has been a decline in EU production, and, secondly, the EU market has been increasingly opened up to imports, as a result of the trade policies conducted by the Commission in the course of the last decade.

These developments are making life difficult for EU fishermen who, paradoxically, are finding it hard to sell their catches at sufficiently lucrative prices, even though demand exceeds supply for most species. European fishermen accept having environmental, social and health restrictions imposed on them, but bitterly resent the fact that they are not applied in the same way to products imported in huge numbers from third countries.

What is at stake here is quite simply the survival of an economically viable European fisheries sector, a supplier of jobs right across the industry, a provider of safe and good quality food, contributing to the preservation of the cultural identity of our coastal regions.

Ladies and gentlemen, the survival of European fisheries is non-negotiable. In essence, we are demanding the following. Firstly, the preservation by the European Union of significant tariff protection for fishery and aquaculture products, so that the preferences granted to certain third countries, in particular developing countries, still mean something, and so that the WTO mechanisms are still effective in ensuring that our processing industry receives supplies. We must shield these products from the tariff minefield by using the Swiss formula and demanding that they be treated as sensitive products.

Secondly, the trade preferences granted to certain third countries must be dependent on their complying with strict environmental, social and health standards, at the very least.

Thirdly, we call for the responsibility for conducting trade talks on fishery and aquaculture products to be transferred from the Trade Commissioner to the Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. This will mean that better account is taken of the specific characteristics of fishery and aquaculture products. I think this is the perfect time to review the terms of this fundamental debate. Indeed, we are on the eve of an important reform of the CFP.

Furthermore, we note that the Doha Round at the WTO has come to a standstill, giving us an opportunity to reconsider some ill-timed concessions that the Commission was preparing to make on behalf of the European Union. Furthermore, on the initiative of Commissioner De Gucht, who is here with us, the European Commission has just opened a public consultation period with a view to creating new guidelines for the common commercial policy, within the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy. The European Parliament henceforth has powers of codecision in relation to both trade policy and fisheries policy, and it fully intends to make its voice heard and to ensure that its point of view is respected in these matters.

In my view the first demonstration of this should be the Commission and the Council genuinely taking into account the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, we will be extremely vigilant in the coming months, and I personally intend to keep working on these issues.

  Maria Damanaki, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, first of all I would like to thank Mr Cadec and the EP Committees that have sponsored this own-initiative report. You have regretted that the green paper on the CFP reform did not pay enough attention to the issues you raise here. My objective today is to reassure you that the Commission is committed to the work, taking into full account all policies that would have an impact on the CFP reform. As I have already stated, the purpose of the reform is to turn around the negative spiral we are in now. We have a fisheries sector that is neither ecologically sustainable nor economically performing well. We need robust fisheries that ensure sustainable exploitation of the resources while allowing our fishermen, their families and the communities involved to make a decent living from their activities.

We need fisheries which are ready to meet the challenges of the market: both national and international, and both currently and for the future. I hear your concerns about unfair competition from third countries and the absence of a level playing field in terms of social conditions, environmental and sustainability requirements and health protection laws. Let me tell you that this same concern was voiced by all the Member States which took the floor at the last Agriculture and Fisheries Council. So here we need an answer.

While we are changing the rules for European fisheries in the context of our CFP reform, one of the biggest challenges we will have will be precisely to do our best in order to secure a level playing field for all products placed on the EU market. In this respect, for instance, we should all work together to fully and effectively implement our legislation against illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing.

I would also like to say that we remain committed to promoting the respect of all international principles and instruments of good maritime and fishery governance by our partners, as well as their responsible behaviour in terms of environmental protection and social conditions.

I strongly support your call for an increased coherence of our policies. We need to work together with a global and integrated vision. Two thirds of the fish consumed in Europe, as we have already mentioned, are already imported in order to ensure a steady supply of raw material to our processing industry and fair prices to consumers. Yet one third of the EU market is still supplied by an EU sector that represents jobs and this part of the social fabric of many regions in Europe. So, while we are in the middle of a serious reform of our common fisheries policy, EU trade policy should continue to take into account the complex nature of the EU’s fishing sector and its economic and social realities. I look forward to working closely together with my colleague Mr De Gucht in order to secure the necessary time for the adjustments that are needed, taking into account the pace of the ongoing CFP reform.

With reference to WTO negotiations, we are paying particular attention to the ongoing discussions on subsidies. It is our view that we should always be able to support environmentally friendly and innovation-oriented initiatives of our Member States. Concerning the revision of the market policy, I agree with the draft report that the new market policy of the CFP should revisit the instruments of the current common market organisation. The revision should aim at strengthening producer organisations in their ability to better link the supply to demand in terms of quality and volumes. It shall also support market supply and stability and review provisions of marketing standards and information to consumers.

This brings us to labelling. Consumers want to know more about the seafood they buy. They want to know where the fish was caught or raised; also they want to know whether the products respect the environment and whether they have been fished sustainably. The Commission is ready to work on legislative initiatives aiming at giving consumers the information they need.

Finally, a word on aquaculture. The Commission is fully committed to achieving the objectives of the strategy for the sustainable development of aquaculture, as we have already discussed in the EP report. We also share the view that developing aquaculture in the EU can lead to reduced dependence on imports and better respond to constantly rising consumer demand.

Before closing I would like to stress that today’s debate will provide an important contribution to the preparation of the CFP reform, but it will also send an important political signal – a positive signal – to the men and women of the European fisheries sector, who are prepared for tougher discipline but are also expecting a message of hope for their future.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, the Commission welcomes the European Parliament’s decision to prepare an own-initiative report on the import regime for fish and fishery products. The debate opened by the European Parliament provides a good basis to start reflecting on how to address trade negotiations in the context of a reformed common fisheries policy.

I would like to invite the Members of the European Parliament to take into consideration the following observations on the issues raised in the draft EP report.

The Commission is aware of the particular nature of the fisheries sector and its importance, especially for coastal communities. This sensitivity is taken into consideration in the implementation of the common commercial policy.

I would like to highlight that the EU’s trade policy has to reconcile the diverse interests of the various parts of the fisheries sector affected by the policy, including producers, processors and consumers. The Commission’s goal when pursuing its trade policy for fishery and aquaculture products is to achieve a balanced result between, among other things, an adequate supply policy, the situation and interests of EU producers and the demands of consumers, while taking into account potential development policy objectives.

We all acknowledge that the EU is strongly dependent on imported fishery and aquaculture products to satisfy its market demands, represented not only by consumers, but also by the processing industry. Given the existing trends and potential increase in dependence, the current reform of the common fisheries policy is a good opportunity for the EU to reinforce the economic performance of the sector and its ability to compete globally.

We should not ignore the likelihood that broader globalisation will continue in the future given current global trends in international trade, both at multilateral and at bilateral/regional level. In the context of free trade arrangement negotiations, the Commission has taken, is taking, and should take into account the complex nature of the EU’s fishing sector during market access negotiations and ensure there is a balance between the diverse interests affected by trade policy, as I have just mentioned. In the context of these global trends in international trade, the Commission will strive to secure the necessary time for the adjustments that will need to take place, taking into account the pace of the ongoing common fisheries policy reform.

Let me briefly refer to one of the main suggestions included in the report, which is the possibility of detaching fish products from NAMA in the framework of the DDA. I will be very honest with you on this point. At this stage of the discussions, besides being very difficult to segregate fish products from NAMA, other approaches such as a specific negotiating group could result in the EU coming under enormous pressure to further liberalise its market.

The Commission takes due note of the draft report’s call for the responsibility for the negotiation of fishery and aquaculture products to be transferred from the Trade Commissioner to the Fisheries Commissioner. According to the principle of collegiality which governs the Commission work, all the members of the Commission are jointly responsible for decisions and actions taken. This also means that the Trade Commissioner and DG TRADE, who are responsible for negotiations of fishery and aquaculture products, do not act alone, but negotiate in close cooperation with the Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Commissioner and DG MARE and with their direct involvement at all stages of the negotiations.

The Commission wants to reassure the EP that the specific needs of the fisheries sector are taken into consideration in the course of trade negotiations. Indeed, the Commission defends the interests of the EU sector in trade negotiations and takes into account its sensitivities as far as possible, even when faced with strong pressure from our trading partners.

In defending the interests of the EU fisheries sector in trade negotiations, the Commission also seeks to remove any trade barrier maintained by our trade partners that might threaten the export potential of the EU industry, with the aim of ensuring a level playing field in bilateral and multilateral trade in fish products.

Finally, the report voices concerns from stakeholders as regards ensuring a level playing field for EU products and third country imports. The EU is firmly committed to promoting both labour and environmental standards in the context of trade negotiations with third countries in parallel to market opening – for example, in the framework of a sustainable development chapter included in our trade agreements or in a number of international fora where these issues are addressed, such as the UN, FAO and regional fisheries management organisations, where the EU is an active participant.

I would like to conclude by showing my willingness and availability to further discuss with the Honourable Members of the European Parliament the Commission’s role in trade negotiations as far as fishery and aquaculture products are concerned.

  Yannick Jadot, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on International Trade. − (FR) Mr President, Commissioners, I think we must note the convergence of this Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries and its Committee on International Trade on this matter and on the proposals presented in connection with it.

It has been said that fishing is an extremely important sector for spatial planning, employment and cultural identity in Europe. It is also a sector which has an extremely strong impact on fisheries resources, and today a great majority of stocks are considerably overfished. Too often people would have us believe that the ultimate objective of a European common fisheries policy is to adapt the fisheries sector to globalised trade in fishery products, the extremely harsh effects of which we can see today, whether it be socially, economically or, of course, environmentally.

We therefore actively defend much stronger integration of social and environmental criteria into trade agreements regarding fishery products. We support the idea of withdrawing fishery products from non-agricultural market access (NAMA) rules, because a fish is not a sock or a washing machine, it is absolutely crucial to food security and biodiversity. However, we must be clear. Since we are bringing this into international negotiations, our European policy must be exemplary and we must move in the direction of having more and better paid fishermen who do not overexploit fish stocks, either in our territorial waters or in those in which we buy fishing rights.

  Antonello Antinoro, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to thank Mr Cadec for the work – the excellent work – he has done on such an important issue as the arrangements for importing fishery and aquaculture products into the EU.

I had prepared my speech on the need, for example, to focus on ensuring that imported products comply with the same health rules and the same requirements, but I see that others have spoken about this, so it would be rather pointless and a waste of time for us to go over it again. However, I must mention a fundamental aspect, which I seemed to perceive from Commissioner De Gucht’s speech and which the Member before me spoke about, namely that there are some minor conflicts today between the powers of the two Commissioners or between the powers that the two Commissioners should have.

All hypocrisy aside, I believe that it is important to emphasise this because, as has been said, the fisheries sector has a fundamental role to play if we want to ensure that our fishermen do not keep reducing their catch capacity because we have forced them to do so for the sake of our seas. If we want to ensure that people do not continue to regard our fishermen as the Cinderella figures of Europe, so to speak, then we will have to devote more attention to this matter.

Commissioner Damanaki and Commissioner De Gucht have both expressed their intention to devote themselves fully to this entire issue, but I believe that it is important to have just one line of approach. I also believe that the aspect regarding the Fisheries Commissioner, with everything that that entails subsequently within Parliament, is crucial to ensuring that the problem is solved and that this report becomes an important future perspective.

  Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (PT) Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, fisheries and aquaculture products make up an important part of the European diet, as we all know, and this means that we need to import more than 60% of these products to meet our needs, as Commissioner Damanaki has rightly stated. This simple fact amply illustrates the importance of the report by Mr Cadec, with whom, as a shadow rapporteur, I had the pleasure of working in the search for as broad a consensus as possible on protecting the sector, the jobs that it provides, and above all European consumers.

For this reason the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament is backing the key assumptions and basic conclusions of the report, particularly with regard to the concerns and recommendations on the need to guarantee the health and safety of imported fisheries and aquaculture products, and the environmental criteria that need to be made a requirement for catching, producing and processing these very products.

The report rightly addresses other issues that are equally deserving of support, but due to lack of time I cannot explain these here. For these reasons my group will obviously vote in favour of the report. Moreover, I would like to congratulate Mr Cadec on the excellent work that he has done.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, at the outset I want to congratulate Mr Cadec on producing this report. The decline in fish prices in recent years is directly and substantially caused by competition from imports of both wild and farmed fish. The producers of these products are not subject to the demanding regimes of EU operators in areas such as conservation and in areas such as hygiene standards. They enter the European market at a price that is uneconomic for European producers.

This issue must be addressed in the context of the reform of the common fisheries policy, and I know that Commissioner Damanaki will address this. There is a huge reliance on imported goods, as has been pointed out by both Commissioners, but when I look at my own country importing 46 000 tonnes per annum costing EUR 181 million, there appears to be a lack of awareness among consumers of imported fish versus wild fish.

If we are to resolve this problem, we must look at import substitution to reduce the 66% to 50% over a period of, say, 10 years, but in order to do that we must ensure that the red tape which is stifling the sector at the present time is simplified and that all DGs, and indeed all government departments and the various Member States, work in tandem in the best interests of this sector.

  Isabella Lövin, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (SV) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome Mr Cadec’s report on the importing of fish into the EU. Europe’s own catches have diminished at an alarming rate – by 26% since 1997 alone. More than 60% of all fish consumed in Europe today is imported. This should not need to be the case. If we managed our own fish resources at least according to the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), European catches could increase to double what they are today, while at the same time we would have strong and viable stocks.

With that goal in mind, we must now ensure that we do not transfer our problems of overfishing to other countries. The Cadec report mentions several important instruments that the EU can use. The first is the IUU Regulation. All fish that are placed on the EU market must have approved documents indicating where, when and by whom the fish were caught. That is a first step, but it does not go far enough. In large parts of the world, illegal fishing is a problem that poor countries do not have the resources to do anything about. In countries where corruption is rife, it is not difficult to acquire the right documents for a fish exporter. Therefore, the EU, as the world’s largest importer of fish, must take responsibility by providing tangible and technical financial support and contribute the resources that are needed to facilitate compliance and control in developing countries.

The second instrument is already in place in the United Nations. We have good international agreements, but we also need to implement them. During 2006, the EU pursued the question of an implementing agreement for, among other things, the FAO’s Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in the United Nations. We must continue to pursue this.

  Marek Józef Gróbarczyk, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Cadec warmly for such a bold report, which is of extreme importance to the common fisheries policy currently being constructed. Even while the report was being drafted, many areas of the common fisheries policy could be observed which, in our view, differ significantly from the opinion of the Commission, and this, unfortunately, also means the final form of the report. In the opinion of fishermen, this crucial report should have an enormous effect on the structure of the future common fisheries policy in terms of organisation of the market.

Mrs Damanaki, you repeated at many meetings that instead of criticising when discussing individual transferrable quotas, we should present proposals for solutions under the future policy. I am convinced that making use of the ideas contained in this report is an alternative to the concept being forced on us by the Commission.

  Diane Dodds (NI). - Mr President, Commissioners, first of all I want to thank the rapporteur for his report. On 24 July 2008, in response to the economic crisis facing Europe’s fishing fleet, the EU Fisheries Council approved temporary and specific measures aimed at promoting and restructuring the fleet. Just as many fishermen tried to avail themselves of these measures, they were hit with the fallout from the global recession. The value of nethrops or langoustines sold by my fishermen in Northern Ireland to other parts of Europe plummeted. This at the same time as imports of shellfish and fish have become increasingly available.

Europe needs fish. We need fish imports, but I would contend that these should not come at any cost. On the one hand, my colleagues want to stop our fishermen receiving any subsidy. However, the contradiction comes that, as we seek to remove these subsidies, European policy allows fish imports of unregulated fishery and aquaculture products that undermine the sustainable and economically viable fishing industry we strive for.

Europe cannot have it both ways. There is a lack of consistency, and it is to reverse this that I support Mr Cadec’s report.

  Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, this report originated as a response to the frustration and lack of defence of the EU fishing sector.

Commissioner, this sector is not asking for protectionism, what it is asking for at this stage, given the history of disregard by those in charge of the Directorate-General for Trade, is that it is not sunk even further.

In this regard, we particularly support the request in the report by Mr Cadec that negotiations on the fishing chapters are transferred from the remit of the Directorate-General for Trade to that of the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, as is the case with agriculture, as we are also dealing here with products that are particularly sensitive, tuna being the classic case.

On the subject of tuna, we have a scandalous example in the waiving of the rules of origin without the conditions being taken into account in the agreements with Papua New Guinea and Fiji, which only serves to favour our main competitors: Thailand and the Philippines.

Commissioner, are you aware that, in addition to strangling the EU sector, thanks to your policy, Papua New Guinea is entering a phase of very low-quality job creation and zero sustainable development? Are you aware of the reports by non-governmental organisations operating in the region of child labour, insanitary conditions and lack of hygiene in factories, the disastrous environmental impact on the Madang coast and illegal fishing? Is it your responsibility to prevent this?

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE). - Mr President, the behaviour of Members of this House today is disgraceful. It would not happen in any other parliament in the world. If there is no respect for the Chair of the Committee on Fisheries and for fisheries in general, I propose that you adjourn the sitting until such time as people have respect for this House and stop having these meetings.

(Applause)

  President. − Mr Gallagher, we have to carry on. I would like to ask all colleagues to please keep quiet so that we can work for 10 more minutes and finish this important report and important work.

  Ulrike Rodust (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Mrs Damanaki, European fisheries policy is facing enormous challenges. Our fishermen have to cope with diminishing stocks and at the same time have to deal with competition on the global market that is not always fair. We urgently need to introduce radical reforms in order to put an end to overfishing in European waters and to ensure the survival of European fisheries.

I agree with Commissioner Damanaki that we should not ask too much of our fishermen by on the one hand demanding that they make radical reforms while on the other liberalising trade. Doing both of these things at the same time will place too high a burden on our fishermen. The best way to increase competitiveness is to allow fish stocks to recover. Another way to enable European fisheries to survive would be through better marketing. Under certain circumstances, European consumers are prepared to pay more for European fish if they are better informed about its origin.

  Britta Reimers (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioners, I would like to congratulate Mr Cadec on his successful and balanced report. I would also like to thank him for his excellent cooperation.

There are major challenges involved in regulating the import of fishery and aquaculture products into the EU. With a volume of 12 million tonnes and a value of EUR 55 billion, the EU fisheries market is the largest in the world. This market is growing rapidly and is increasingly dependent on imports from third countries. It is therefore important for us to control the conditions under which the products from third countries are produced and imported.

We have now submitted two amendments in plenary. These relate to the need for us to recognise the special economic situation in the peripheral regions of Europe. However, we do not hold market liberalisation alone responsible for the difficulties. The huge introduction of fish products onto the EU market, which has been described as unfair, also has no direct effect on...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, I do not have much time, so I would like just to underline one of the themes of Mr Cadec’s report. Fish should not be treated in the same way as other industrial products, but should come under the WTO trade rules which apply to sensitive products. EU trade policy pays little attention to the specific nature of this sensitive sector and the interests of EU producers. Therefore, it is a good idea to evaluate the desirability of fisheries products no longer being subject to the industrial non-agricultural market access rules, in order to facilitate the alignment of trade in fisheries products with the requirements that apply to food and sensitive products.

  Catherine Trautmann (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, I would like to congratulate our fellow Member Mr Cadec on his excellent work.

The text put to the vote today marks a certain change in the way our institution views the concept of free trade. Without being protectionist, the line defended here may be described as less naïve.

We all agree that European production is insufficient, and rather than immediately resorting to imports, we must first try to intensify our efforts to safeguard and regenerate stocks, including through the use of aquaculture, to ensure the sustainability of the sector and its jobs in the Union, as well as European fisheries that are less dependent on third countries.

As for imports, we must guarantee that the European market in fishery and aquaculture products does not suffer unfair competition as a result of less strict health and social conditions and ludicrously low tariffs. That is why I favour a European label, in accordance with our standards, both environmental and social.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, Europe is currently the biggest European market for fishery and aquaculture products, importing approximately 60% of fish consumed. Community production of fish is not and cannot in the near future be enough to satisfy the demand for these kinds of products, and importing them has become a necessity.

In this context, it is important to safeguard two fundamental aspects: firstly, creating the conditions necessary to ensure that EU consumers have access to good quality imported fishery and aquaculture products; and secondly, establishing a framework of fair competition, both for imported products and for those caught and produced by the fisheries and aquaculture sectors in Europe.

It is therefore necessary for fishery and aquaculture products that are imported by the European Union to fulfil the same environmental, social, health and quality standards as those imposed on EU products. Reform of the common fishery and aquaculture products market is also necessary, particularly the revision of the mechanisms used to counter phenomena such as the gradual suppression of customs duties and the growing competitiveness of imports.

This report by Parliament, which has been led admirably by Mr Cadec, is timely and considers a number of important proposals for the sustainable development of the fisheries sector and related sectors, including marketing.

  Josefa Andrés Barea (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner Damanaki, Commissioner De Gucht, thank you for being here at this debate on a very important report on the import arrangements.

Fishing is an important issue, in relation to which two essential issues need to be emphasised: the fact that we are not self-sufficient, and the fact that unfair competition takes place a great deal of the time, as a result of which there is a need to secure fishing in Europe and to prevent unfair competition.

I would like to address this to the Commissioner for Trade: you cannot continue considering fishing to be a ‘non-sensitive product’; it should not continue to be governed by non-agricultural market access rules; it cannot be a product like industry; it needs to be a ‘sensitive product’ and it needs to be governed by the rules of the World Trade Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

We cannot therefore be sustainable, we cannot guarantee the maintenance of species and we cannot engage in true market activity if we do not consider fish to be a ‘sensitive product’.

  Robert Atkins (ECR). - Mr President, I rise again to suggest through you to the Conference of Presidents that someone needs to get their act together. We were told originally that there would be votes at 12.00. This has moved by five minutes every five minutes. People have planes to catch; it is inconvenient; it makes a mockery of Parliament. Someone get a grip!

(Applause)

  President. − We indicated that the votes would be postponed until 12.15 or 12.20, so please let us carry on with the answers from our Commissioners. I am sure that we will be able to vote at 12.20.

  Maria Damanaki, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I cannot get a grip, but what I can do is to be very brief.

I would like to say that we are taking care of all the concerns mentioned by the Members. As Mr De Gucht and I have already mentioned, we are trying to find a balance. We need a viable fisheries sector and we have some obligations to the WTO and other international bodies. I would like to reassure everybody that we are doing our best to contribute so that our CAP reform will be for the best future of our fishermen.

  Alain Cadec, rapporteur. − (FR) Mr President, I consider the behaviour of our fellow Members completely disrespectful and unacceptable in a Parliament such as ours. What you are doing here is scandalous. You make me feel ashamed. All you are worried about is voting and going home. We are working on an important report, so at least have the decency to listen to people or leave the Chamber.

Anyway, ladies and gentlemen, following my little outburst I have no doubt that in a few minutes you will largely vote in favour of this report, and since I have the opportunity, I must thank our colleagues in the Committee on Fisheries, in particular the Chair Mrs Fraga Estévez, who agreed to take up this matter and entrust me with this report.

I would also like to thank the shadow rapporteurs Mr Capoulas Santos, Mrs Reimers, Mr Gróbarczyk and Mrs Lövin for their contributions to all the discussions and the amendments.

I would also like to thank all those who contributed to this report and the sector representatives who enabled me to carry out my research work, in particular the officials from the Directorate-General of Trade (DG Trade) and the Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG Mare). I am thinking of Zoltan Somoguy and Miriam Garcia Ferrer from DG Trade and Pierre Amilhat, Christian Rambeau and Juan Ranco from DG Mare, and I would like to thank you, Mrs Damanaki, for being here, and you too, Mr De Gucht, even if I am not entirely satisfied with your answers – which are not really answers since they preceded my speech.

In any case, I would also like to thank Mauro Belardinelli from our group, Ollivier Gimenez, my assistants, Emilie Herrbach and Vincent Guerre, and to give a special mention to Philippe Musquar, who helped me greatly with this report and assisted me in its conception.

I will finish my speech by thanking you in advance for your vote.

  President. − By way of explanation, Mr De Gucht did not reply because of the noise in this room, so I would like to apologise to both our Commissioners for the noise.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place shortly.

IN THE CHAIR: Jerzy BUZEK
President

6. Voting time

  President. − The next item is the vote.

(For the results and other details on the vote: see Minutes)

***

I have an announcement to make. Ms Eva Dudzinska is sitting to the right of me. She has spent almost 35 years in the European Parliament. For the last 10 years her activities have been closely linked to the plenary. She is now retiring. I would like to thank her and wish her all the best for the future.

(Applause)

6.1. Agreement between the EU and the USA on the processing and transfer of financial messaging data from the EU to the USA for purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (A7-0224/2010, Alexander Alvaro) (vote)

– Before the vote:

  Alexander Alvaro, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, my fellow Members will perhaps understand that, after the European Parliament rejected this agreement in February, it is now necessary to make it clear that in the meantime, working with the Commission, we have managed to make a noticeable improvement to the text.

I would like to use this opportunity to thank my fellow Members from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left who have worked on this for their help in producing an agreement under difficult circumstances that protects both the right of our citizens to privacy and also their right to security. I would like to recall that this has been our first opportunity to breathe life into the Treaty of Lisbon rather than it merely being a lifeless text.

– After the vote:

  President. – I would like to thank and congratulate Mr Alvaro, and also the previous rapporteur, Mrs Hennis-Plasschaert, and all the fellow Members who have put so much work into this agreement. Thank you very much.

  Rui Tavares (GUE/NGL). - Mr President, I call your attention to an amendment to this report that asks for the Council and the Commission to deal with Parliament in the appointment of the EU official to be posted to Washington to control the extraction of data. I kindly ask that you personally get in touch with the Council and the Commission as soon as possible in order to do this with proper parliamentary oversight.

  President. – Thank you for reminding me. I will get in touch with them about this.

6.2. European External Action Service (A7-0228/2010) (vote)

  President. – I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Brok, and also our negotiators: Mr Brok, Mr Verhofstadt and Mr Gualtieri. This was a major piece of work, and many European Parliament committees also contributed. We have achieved a broad consensus. I would like to thank everyone. I would also like to point out that in the near future we will have the two important reports being drafted by Mrs Gräßle and Mr Rapkay, so we have to keep working on this.

6.3. Kosovo (B7-0409/2010) (vote)

– Before the vote:

  Jelko Kacin (ALDE). - Mr President, on Monday morning there was an assassination attempt on our colleague Peter Miletic, a member of the Kosovo Assembly and a group leader of the Serb minority Liberal party Samostalna Liberalna Stranka. He was shot twice and wounded.

He is one of us, a parliamentarian. An attack on an MP anywhere amounts to an attack on democracy. This attack was aimed at the efforts to bring lasting stability to the region of the Western Balkans. He is in intensive care in hospital in Mitrovica. Let us wish him a quick and full recovery and express to him our full political and human support.

(Applause)

  President. – We all concur with what you have said.

– Before the vote on Amendment 11:

  Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I call for the words ‘all the people’ to be deleted when reference is essentially being made to the dialogue. Therefore, the final sentence should be: ‘considers that both parties should take a pragmatic approach to the dialogue for the benefit of Kosovo and Serbia’.

(The oral amendment was adopted)

– Before the vote on paragraph 4:

  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE). - (DE) I would just like the official title of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice to be included.

I will read it in English. The official wording is ‘the Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo’.

(The oral amendment was adopted)

– After the vote on Amendment 5:

  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, this refers to the very recent violent events in Kosovo, one of which my colleague, Mr Kacin, has already mentioned where an ethnic Serb Member of the Kosovo Parliament, Petar Miletić, was shot last Monday. Together with this Parliament, I wish him a very speedy recovery.

There was another incident and it was not possible to make reference to it before the end of the amendments so I will read this oral amendment: ‘Expresses its deep concern at the deadly blast that killed one person and injured 10 others that took place in Mitrovica North on 2 July during the demonstrations against the opening of the civil services centre and at the attack of 5 July on an ethnic Serb member of the Kosovo Assembly; strongly condemns all acts of violence and calls on the parties to act responsibly; urges Eulex to make every efforts to defuse tension and prevent further violence and calls on the Kosovo police, with the assistance of Eulex, to start, immediately, thorough and impartial investigations into the events in order to bring the perpetrators to justice’.

(The oral amendment was adopted)

6.4. Albania (B7-0408/2010) (vote)

– Before the vote on Amendment 2:

  Libor Rouček (S&D). - Mr President, we are changing one word: ‘all electoral material’ should be replaced by ‘the electoral material’, so ‘the’ instead of ‘all’.

(The oral amendment was adopted)

6.5. Situation in Kyrgyzstan (B7-0419/2010) (vote)

6.6. AIDS/HIV in view of the XVIII International AIDS Conference (Vienna July 18-23, 2010) (B7-0412/2010) (vote)

– Before the vote:

  Michael Cashman (S&D). - Mr President, given the importance of this vote in advance of the Vienna Conference, I request a role-call vote on the final vote.

  Francesco Enrico Speroni, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, my group opposes this.

(The request was rejected)

  Astrid Lulling (PPE). – (FR) Let us calm down! As Luxembourg nationals speak and write in French and German, before the vote on this very sensitive resolution, may I draw your attention to the fact that there is an enormous difference between the French and German texts of paragraph 17.

In the German version, it states that the Member States and the Commission are invited …

(DE) to support measures in the field of safe abortions

(FR) … to support measures for safe abortion. I have been told that this part of the sentence does not feature in either the French text or the English text.

Mr President, if you could clarify whether it is the French text that is authentic, that would definitely help many Members to come to a decision during the vote.

  President. – We will correct all the translations so that they are in harmony with the original texts. We will check this. Thank you.

  Michael Cashman (S&D). - Mr President, given the vote that we have just taken, I wonder if the political party that objected would remove its objection and now allow us to have a roll-call vote on the final vote.

  Francesco Enrico Speroni, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would reiterate our opposition.

(The request was rejected)

– After the vote:

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). - Mr President, I do not want to delay the proceedings, and I am glad to see that Mr Cashman is in such good voice. I think it would be a good thing if we had a free vote across this House on issues of this kind. Then they could determine the true view of Parliament. We have one side that whips the House and only one side that allows a free vote. If we really want to determine the view of Parliament on issues of this kind, there should be a free vote across the House.

(Applause)

– After the vote:

  Michael Cashman (S&D). - Mr President, if someone is named in this House, it is their right to reply. I was named. I therefore want to say to Mr Mitchell and others that, whichever party decides to vote, each of us has our own free vote and the House voted democratically.

(Applause)

6.7. Entry into force on 1 August 2010 of the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) and the role of the EU (B7-0413/2010) (vote)

6.8. Future of the CAP after 2013 (A7-0204/2010, George Lyon) (vote)

– Before the vote:

  Ulrike Rodust (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, I have not asked for the floor to raise a point of order, but I would like to ask you, Mr President, and my fellow Members to be aware of the following: there is a problem with the translation here. I have tabled an amendment to the Lyon report, recital Ae: ‘whereas the CAP must be geared to the maintenance and development of multifunctional, sustainable agriculture throughout Europe.’ Unfortunately, the word ‘extensive’ has been used in the translations. However, the word ‘flächendeckend’ in the German translation has a completely different meaning. It means ‘in all of the regions of Europe’. There should be agriculture (‘flächendeckend’ agriculture) even throughout mountainous regions. ‘Extensive’ means something entirely different.

  President. – Thank you for pointing this out. We will correct the texts and harmonise them with the original.

– After the vote on paragraph 44:

  George Lyon, rapporteur. − Mr President, there seems to be some confusion as to what we were actually voting on there. The interpretation told us it was 44, and yet you are announcing that 45 has been accepted. There is some confusion that you need to sort out and get the votes right and call them right.

  President. – We were voting on paragraph 44, as I told you. I repeat: the amendment has fallen, and paragraph 44 has been adopted. That is the outcome of the vote.

  Pablo Arias Echeverría (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, we have just voted on paragraph 44, and although my vote was in favour, I put down ‘against’ because there was some slight confusion: we were told that we were voting on 45, when in reality we were voting on 44.

  President. – Ladies and gentlemen, if there are so many protests – please listen – we are voting on paragraph 44 again. We are voting on paragraph 44. The vote was not clear for me, either, because you did not raise your hands.

– Before the vote on paragraph 59:

  Elizabeth Lynne (ALDE). - Mr President, we need clarification. I do not know whether it is you announcing it wrongly or whether it is the interpretation but, in the English, we got 52 again. We did not get a call on 59, so we do not know where we are.

  President. – Now we are voting on paragraph 59. You have paragraph 59 on the screen at the moment. This is a separate vote.

– Before the vote on recital C:

  Elizabeth Lynne (ALDE). - Mr President, can I just say that Recital AE is before C. We have not voted on AE yet.

  President. – We have completely different information here. We now have to vote on recital C.

– Before the vote on recital AE:

  Albert Deß (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, since it was explained at the start of this vote that the German version was the original text, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) will dispense with a split vote. My group is able to vote in favour of recital Ae.

  President. – Mr Deß, I will explain. The request was made not just by the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), but also by another political group, and so we will continue as planned and take a split vote, because this has also been requested by another group.

  Albert Deß (PPE). - (DE) In that case I will ask my group to vote in favour twice. Since the German version is the original text, we do not need to vote against in the second vote.

  President. – Ladies and gentlemen, Chairs, please listen carefully.

6.9. Arrangements for importing fishery and aquaculture products into the EU with a view to the future reform of the CFP (A7-0207/2010, Alain Cadec) (vote)

7. Corrigendum (Rule 216): see Minutes

IN THE CHAIR: László TŐKÉS
Vice-President

8. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Report: Alexander Alvaro (A7-0224/2010)

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). - Mr President, I voted in favour of the agreement between the European Union and the United States to share financial data for the purposes of terrorist finance tracking.

We are well aware of the threat terrorism poses to our own security as well as that of our partners across the Atlantic. I do not need to remind you of all the terrorist attacks that have taken place on European soil throughout the last decade. It is also obvious that our American partners represent a very important strategic ally, not only in the area of global security, but also economically and in other areas as well.

The commitment to such a strategic partnership was clearly expressed by Vice President Joe Biden in this House just a few months ago. We should therefore be proud that we finally gave consent to the agreement that is so important for efforts to track terrorist activities, especially since the new agreement contains significant improvements, and clarifications made by the European Parliament have been largely taken into account.

  Gerard Batten (EFD). - Mr President, there are many reasons to vote against this resolution but too many to cover in just 60 seconds. We must of course oppose terrorism but that must not be used as an excuse for governments to spy on their citizens. The confidential information concerned belongs to the citizen, not to the European Union, the Parliament or indeed the nation state.

Any such agreement should be concluded between sovereign nation states, answerable to their own people through the democratic process. In any case, this is a one-sided agreement and we have no reason to believe that the United States will honour it. The agreement breaks UK data protection law, which bans the sharing of information without consent between overseas third parties. The British Government has an opt-out clause on this, and I hope they overcome their usual spinelessness and oppose and vote against it in the same way I did.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE). – (PL) I endorsed the Alvaro report. In order to be effective, we must have workable instruments for fighting terrorism. One very important preventative tool involves monitoring and reducing the financial resources which reach and belong to terrorists. Very often, in fact, money is the fuel for terrorist activities. If there is no money, terrorist activity is held back, and that is, of course, the aim of our efforts. Better monitoring of the flow of money can be a fundamental hindrance to terrorist activity and preparations for acts of terror, so I am very glad that we have managed to reach an understanding and that we have adopted both the agreement and the report.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). - (FI) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report by Mr Alvaro. I think it is very important that we can fight terrorism together, and it is very important that nations that have the same values can work together. It is important to strengthen transatlantic relations between the European Union and the United States of America, and, as we know, our values are the same.

Obviously, data protection legislation has to be respected here, but there must be a limit: we cannot hide behind data protection in cases of terrorism. In this respect it needs to be very clear. I believe and hope that in this way we can continue the fight against terrorism and thereby bring peace to this world.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, there is always a delicate balance to be drawn between civil liberties and security. Several times since the twin tower attacks nine years ago I think we have got that balance wrong.

We have got it wrong because of a false equation in politics, whereby politicians think that their action needs to be in proportion to the extent of public outrage, rather than in proportion to the need to remedy an identified problem. This Chamber has made that mistake, but it has not been alone. National parliaments have done the same thing on both sides of the Atlantic.

On this occasion, though, I believe we have got the balance right. We have taken our time, we have put in sensible safeguards, and I think that we are enabling the security forces of the world to collaborate effectively in the fight against terror without an unacceptable price in terms of civic freedom. This is exactly the kind of thing the European Union should concentrate on: a cross-border issue which cannot be left to the Member States. If it did this kind of thing all the time, the rest of us would not have such a problem.

Report: Elmar Brok (A7-0228/2010)

  Joe Higgins (GUE/NGL). – (GA) Mr President, I voted against the report on the European External Action Service. The External Action Service must be placed in the context of the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the changes made to this common policy by the Treaty of Lisbon.

The Treaty of Lisbon provides more resources to strengthen the ammunition and military industry in Europe, and because of the same treaty it will be easier for the big European countries who are military powers to mount a military mission. There is no doubt that in future the strongest powers in the Union will be willing to engage in military campaigns outside Europe when they think that this is in their economic interests, just as the United States has done.

The External Action Service will be an instrument for promoting the economic, political and military interests of European capitalism, and this will not contribute to global peace but quite the opposite.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). - Mr President, I supported Elmar Brok’s report. The united position of the European Parliament has taken maximum advantage of the new opportunities the Lisbon Treaty offers. I support especially the European Parliament’s political and financial supervision of the European External Action Service. I am satisfied about the consent of the High Representative to create such a special human rights and democracy structure as the EEAS headquarters. But, most importantly, we continue to support the practical implementation of an adequate geographical balance, with an EEAS staff comprising representatives from all 27 Member States. This process has only begun. I think it is important that the 2013 review should also cover this issue of equal representation.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of this report because I am convinced that the creation of the European External Action Service (EEAS) is a fundamental step, a historic step in the development and evolution of EU foreign policy.

I especially welcome the passage in the report which stresses the importance of ensuring greater policy coherence of the EU’s external action as a whole through consultations between the EEAS and Member States’ diplomatic services. This would avoid duplication of work while ensuring long-term consistency in the promotion of the EU’s strategic interests and fundamental values abroad.

  Diane Dodds (NI). - Mr President, I voted against this report. While many here are no doubt ecstatic at the creation of the EEAS as another milestone on the road to Union, the UK electorate gets angrier with the erosion of national sovereignty and is perplexed at the idea that UK foreign policy should – or could – become subservient to someone who is not elected by the British people.

Our Foreign Secretary now pledges to work closely with the High Representative because the EEAS is going to have a considerable bearing on the future success of Europe’s global role. The irony will not be lost on UK taxpayers that the same government, asking departments to show the effects of 40% cuts in departmental spending, endorses a service estimated to cost EUR 900 million that British taxpayers neither need nor want. Those of us who opposed the creation of the EEAS out of principle in 2008 still oppose it.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE). - (FI) Mr President, in the vote on establishing the Union’s External Action Service I supported the amendments that focus on the inclusion of national parliaments in the supervision of the service. Otherwise, I voted in line with my group’s position on the matter. The need is obvious: it is time the EU was acknowledged more clearly not just as a global payer, but also as a global actor. The change is necessary, as our role as the UN’s biggest provider of finance, one that has largely gone unnoticed, has shown.

Besides, I hope that the change to this role will also be reflected in the structure of the UN Security Council. It is to be hoped that international organisations such as this will be able to review their concepts regarding current global structures.

  Inese Vaidere (PPE). – (LV) Thank you, Mr President. The European External Action Service offers the possibility of making European Union foreign policy more effective, more unified and strategically more coherent. It is high time we proved that we can work in a coordinated way and that our influence in the world has not diminished. The European External Action Service will represent the common position of the whole European Union. However, without taking into account and harmonising individual Member States’ interests and delicate issues, the Service will not be able to function effectively. This practice must become the priority of European Union foreign policy. Adequate geographical representation must be an unambiguous fundamental principle in the formation of the Service. From the earliest days of its activity, we must ensure professional and also proportional representation of Member States’ diplomatic corps in this Service. The compromise that has been introduced – meaningful representation – places a special responsibility on the foundation of this Service, in order that all Member States are truly properly represented in the newly established Service, and I am grateful to Mr Brok for his splendid work on this report. Thank you.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, we have made a decision today, which will accelerate creation of the European External Action Service. I want to draw attention to some important problems which we should take into account.

Firstly, foreign policy requires coordination with many other areas, and it is difficult to separate it from work in the area of, for example, development policy, trade policy, the operation of global financial institutions or economic affairs in a globalised world. Secondly, the EU diplomatic service should reflect the character of the Union. Responsibility for important regulatory, supervisory and budgetary functions rests with the European Parliament. Thirdly, the unclear situation concerning who has control of the EEAS is causing great concern. This may lead to the establishment of another Union institution. Fourthly, there is a lack of clearly defined competences in the area of forms of cooperation with the diplomatic services of Member States. Fifthly and finally, let us remember that good diplomacy is built up over many years. The EEAS should build on the values and identity of the European Union.

Lastly, I would like to say that at world level the Union should be better prepared for crisis management and civilian and military capabilities in the area...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, I voted in favour of the report on the European External Action Service because I know that this is the result of the Treaty of Lisbon, the Reform Treaty. Despite that, I do have a few questions and concerns regarding this new service. Right back in the early days, when it started to be put together, they said that it would be cost­neutral. Now, however, we all know that it will cost European taxpayers a great deal.

Obviously, the High Representative needs resources. Nevertheless, when we are establishing new institutions, new systems, it is always worth stating at the outset what they are all about, to avoid the impression that we are moving forward on the basis of what might be seen as white lies.

What worries me about this is that the large Member States will have an even greater say in affairs as a result of this service. That is why I hope that when people are chosen for various positions in the service, the whole of Europe might be fairly represented and that the European national parliaments can also have a role to play in it. In this way we could ensure that the service operated in a more equitable fashion.

  David Martin (S&D). - Mr President, I welcome the vote on the External Action Service but, now we have taken this vote, I think it is important that we move away from procedure and structures to actually getting on with the work of the Service. It is important that Catherine Ashton, now that she has a team, puts the core European values into action.

Human rights have to be her top concern. In particular, she has promised that there is going to be a human rights desk officer in every external office. She needs to deliver on that, but there also has to be a structure for that desk officer to report back to the centre, to make sure we get some joined-up government in terms of the way the European Union deals with human rights.

At the moment, with many countries, not least China, we have a human rights dialogue that is totally meaningless. The External Action Service, if it is to be worth the money and effort we are putting into it, has to start delivering on European values and human rights in particular.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, there is something quaint, almost touching, about these debates about creating a European External Action Service, as though the European Union did not already have the full apparatus of a diplomatic service. Go to any third country and you will find an EU embassy that towers over any of the Member State legations. The European Union’s diplomatic corps has already squeezed out the national services. Baroness Ashton has about twice the salary of William Hague, the British Foreign Secretary, and she controls a budget about 20 times as large as that of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

In a way, this would not be quite so bad if the common foreign policy of the European Union were demonstrably superior to that which is being pursued by the Member States, but it is not. What is it doing? It is isolating Taiwan and cosying up to the tyrants in Beijing, it is refusing to deal with the anti-Castro dissidents in Cuba, it is cosying up to the Ayatollahs in Tehran, and it is funnelling money to Hamas. I think we could just about manage to do better. We are the fourth-largest military power on the planet and the fifth-largest economy. I think we can run our own foreign policy to suit our own interests!

  Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I voted against the Brok report for four reasons. The architecture of the service has numerous weaknesses, the details of which still cause us great concern.

The second point is that the European Union ambassador will manage Commission funds in future. That exposes these funds to numerous risks, and the safeguards against these risks are still extremely unclear.

The third point is the relinquishment of the rights of this Parliament in a Council regulation. We are de facto codecision-makers in this procedure and yet we have allowed the Council regulation to anticipate our parliamentary rights. Therefore, as regards my dossier – the Financial Regulation – I would like to say that I do not consider myself bound by today’s decisions.

The fourth point is the question of how we actually treat each other in Parliament. We adopted a parliamentary reform during the last parliamentary term as well as procedures that we have now all trampled underfoot, including with the approval of the Bureau and that of the President. Why carry out a parliamentary reform that stipulates procedures if, when it matters, we violate these procedures and do not follow them?

For these reasons, I cannot vote in favour of this report.

Motion for a resolution: Kosovo (B7-0409/2010)

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – (RO) I voted differently to the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) on the Kosovo resolution. Unfortunately, I did not have any option other than to vote against this text.

There are a number of basic issues in this resolution which I agree with and I think that we can all support. Kosovo’s inhabitants must enjoy a viable democracy, with a fair, impartial judicial system, and a society free of corruption where human rights and the rights of minorities in particular are respected. In a nutshell, I would like to see lasting stability and economic development for the province of Kosovo as part of the Western Balkans’ European prospects.

However, I am from a country which has not recognised Kosovo’s independence. From this perspective, I find the numerous references in this text to the features of a state, such as country, government, citizens, borders and so on, unacceptable.

I regret that the position of states which do not recognise Kosovo’s independence was not given greater consideration.

  María Muñiz De Urquiza (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, as we have indicated on other occasions, no vote by the Spanish Socialist delegation may be interpreted as acceptance of the international recognition, implicit or explicit, of Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence.

Likewise, with our vote against we would like to express our opposition to Parliament requesting that Member States of the European Union give international recognition to a territory whose secession is not supported by either a United Nations Security Council resolution or an agreement between the parties. We affirm that the international law that applies is determined by what is laid down within Resolution 1244/99 of the United Nations Security Council.

However, we are not questioning a European outlook for the Balkans and its inhabitants, and we believe that inter-regional dialogue, as was promoted by the Spanish Presidency of the Council at the High Level Conference that took place in Sarajevo on 2 June, may be an effective route towards this.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). - Mr President, I voted in favour of the resolution. I would like to commend the fact that the European Parliament engages in discussion with the Commission and the Council on the very important issue of Kosovo’s future.

Kosovo can be considered the last piece in the complex Balkan political puzzle. It is therefore vital that we put the piece in the right place and manage the process in a harmonious and peaceful way. The independence of Kosovo has already been recognised by 69 countries, including 22 EU Member States. It is important to note that EU integration prospects serve as the strongest incentive for the Balkan countries to undertake necessary reforms and also as a factor for regional stability.

Kosovo is not an exception. Therefore, if we want to anchor Kosovo in Europe and ensure regional stability in the Balkans, it is vital that we come up with a common approach towards the whole region and Kosovo in particular.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, as rapporteur for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) I would like to thank Mrs Lunacek for her excellent cooperation. The text that we have adopted today is much better than the one that came from the committee, because we have made it clear in the text that the division of Kosovo is not an option. That is a crucial point. We have demanded – as was already the case in the draft produced by the committee – that the remaining five Member States recognise Kosovo. That is the logical thing to do, because as long ago as 2005 and 2007, the European Parliament called for Kosovo to be recognised with a three-quarters majority. Most Member States have now done this.

We therefore need to bring clarity to the situation, because we need to make it clear that there will be no new negotiations on the status of Kosovo. Mr Panzeri, for whom I have high regard, was quoted in the media today as saying that he is in favour of renewed status negotiations. That would be highly dangerous, and it is therefore essential that clarity is established here and that this report reinforces the indivisibility and recognition of Kosovo as well as the involvement of Kosovo in the screening process, in other words in the pre-accession strategy.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, from the earliest days of the Treaties of Paris and Rome, the European project has elevated the goal of supranationalism over that of freedom or democracy and, in fairness, it is exporting its ideology. We are effectively maintaining a protectorate in Kosovo, as we do in Bosnia, for the sole purpose of artificially holding together a multi-ethnic state.

I was an early supporter of Kosovan independence. It seemed to me a very clear case, where more than 90%of people had voted in a referendum for self-government, that they should be granted it. But we surely ought to extend that principle to national minorities within that territory and to aim at ethnographic frontiers – in other words to allow the Serbian population, conveniently clustered close to Serbia proper, to do de jure what they are doing de facto and have government from the hands of their own countrymen.

There is a conflict between supranationalism and democracy. You can hold a multi-ethnic state together – as the Yugoslav Federation was and also the Ottoman Empire, the Habsburg Empire and the Soviet Union – but as soon as you give people the vote, they opt for democratic self-determination. We should recognise it.

Motion for a resolution: Albania (B7-0408/2010)

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). - Mr President, I also voted in favour of this resolution because I think we should once again reiterate our support for the European integration aspirations of the countries in the Balkan region within the stabilisation and association process.

Albania is certainly a country which has made tangible progress in the context of the reform process. However, it is also a country which needs to do more to get closer to EU norms and accession criteria. More substantial efforts are needed to consolidate democracy and the rule of law and to ensure the country’s sustainable development. The political crisis following the June 2009 parliamentary elections is deplorable. We must make clear to our Albanian partners that fully functioning representative institutions – parliament being the most important one – are the backbone of a consolidated democratic system and perhaps the most important political criterion for EU integration.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, the ex-Communist Socialists in Albania are trying to destabilise the successful government there. This is something we reject, but, unfortunately, exactly the same thing is being attempted right now in Macedonia. Two days ago, the Socialist opposition leader of the country, Mr Crvenkovski, was here in this House. He held confidential talks with Commissioner Füle, and afterwards – which is against all of the EU rules – a press release was issued from these internal talks, claiming that the Commissioner had agreed that he was right to pursue his internal political polemics. This was not the case, and I also said this to Mr Füle yesterday. An EU Commissioner must not be abused for the purpose of socialist propaganda and for internal political ends.

The Macedonian Government has democratic legitimacy. It does first-class work and it is putting the country on the path towards European Union membership. The opposition has the right to oppose, but it does not have the right to abuse the European Union for that purpose.

Motion for a resolution: Situation in Kyrgyzstan (B7-0419/2010)

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). - Mr President, I voted in favour of the resolution because I would like to join my colleagues in condemning the violence that erupted in Kyrgyzstan last month.

It is deplorable that hundreds of armed Kyrgyz men stormed the city streets, shooting civilians and setting fire to shops, choosing their targets purely on the basis of ethnicity. I would like to extend my condolences to the families of the approximately 300 dead and the 2 000 who were injured or hospitalised. It is important that the EU keeps pressure on the Kyrgyz authorities to conduct a credible, impartial and independent investigation into the violence.

  Inese Vaidere (PPE). – (LV) As a result of the ethnic aggression in southern Kyrgyzstan in June, hundreds of people have lost their lives, thousands have been injured, and tens of thousands have been forced to flee their homes. This testifies to the need for the European Union to become more actively involved in the resolution of these processes in Central Asia. Aid to Kyrgyzstan should be targeted at people and not at a specific government. As late as the Central Asian delegation meeting on 22 June, the ambassador of Kyrgyzstan, Mr Azilov, insisted that the violence was not an act of ethnic cleansing, and that foreign media were not presenting an objective assessment of the situation. Uzbekistan has a different opinion in this question. As the report indicates, several human rights activists have been arrested without due cause in Kyrgyzstan. These facts must be borne in mind when evaluating European Union strategy towards the existing political power in Kyrgyzstan. Talks must be held in parallel also with other states in the region, especially with Kyrgyzstan’s neighbours Russia and China. Those countries also have significant influence in this region. The report calls on the government of Kyrgyzstan to carry out a credible and responsible investigation into the conflict, possibly in the presence of foreign observers. That is why I support this report, since this investigation is desperately necessary. Thank you.

Motion for a resolution: AIDS/HIV, in view of the XVIII International AIDS Conference (Vienna, 18-23 July 2010) (RC-B7-0412/2010)

  Anna Záborská (PPE). – (SK) After almost thirty years of the European Union’s active policy, especially in African states, the report submitted today talks about a growth in the number of people infected with HIV/AIDS. It states that in 2008 alone, 2.7 million more people were infected. The EU has invested billions of euros and the number of people infected is increasing.

I would like to ask if this is a reason to consider whether we are by chance doing something wrong. Has it already been 30 years? It seems that the distribution of condoms does not help against the spread of HIV/AIDS as much as faithfulness between partners.

Nor is the right to abortion a solution, as doctors can already ensure that a woman infected with the HIV virus has a healthy child. Our African friends often say to us: ‘Not only are we poor, but you want us to be fewer in number.’

A policy of sexual and reproductive rights will not help Africa. I would therefore like to ask the European Commission to evaluate the effectiveness of money spent on the fight against HIV/AIDS.

Motion for a resolution: Entry into force on 1 August 2010 of the Convention on Cluster Munitions and the role of the EU (RC-B7-0413/2010)

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – (RO) I preferred to abstain on this resolution as the deadline specified in Article 2 of the text, which also refers to Romania, may be too restrictive in the context of the negotiations in Geneva on the convention for banning certain types of conventional weapons.

I think that the UN mechanism provides an adequate multilateral framework for examining and negotiating an international legal instrument which will regulate the cluster munitions regime, at a time when 110 states are involved in negotiations.

Report: George Lyon (A7-0204/2010)

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, the common agricultural policy is a success story. I was therefore pleased to see the broad support in Parliament, as we have already achieved a great deal: firstly, a stable food supply for the population, secondly, maintenance and preservation of the cultural landscape and, thirdly, the renewal of important resources and protection of the environment and of the flora and fauna.

Of course, there are new and future tasks. These include green growth, renewable energies and combating world hunger. With the common agricultural policy, we are to a certain degree creating a source of jobs throughout the EU that is independent of the size or the form of the undertaking. The Lyon report defines these tasks of the common European agricultural policy extremely well, and it explicitly acknowledges the two-pillar structure of the common agricultural policy. We must now work together to provide suitable financial resources for these political tasks.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I voted in favour of the Lyon report because I agree with the rapporteur on the need to draw up a common agricultural policy that, firstly, continues the broad reform process that has taken place in recent years and, secondly, can provide concrete and innovative solutions to the numerous challenges to be faced in the coming years.

I believe, in fact, that the five fundamental elements described in the report – namely, food security, sustainability, agriculture across Europe, biodiversity and environmental protection, and, lastly, green growth – are an excellent starting point for guaranteeing a future common agricultural policy that takes account of ongoing, rapid development not just in Europe but also, and more specifically, worldwide.

  Christa Klaß (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, with the Lyon report on the future of the European agricultural policy we have enabled a clear opinion to be formed and given the Commission clear and implementable standards.

I voted in favour of the report and I am pleased that it has broad support here in this House. With growing demands for a healthy environment, healthy food and foresight and sustainability in agricultural production, the European Union must also be prepared to subsidise and support these essential areas.

Europe has a duty to guarantee food security for its citizens. As an area with a naturally favourable climate, Europe also has a responsibility to ensure that people world-wide are supplied with food. However, in so doing the European Union needs to work better and in a more coherent way with the rest of the world. Europe must guarantee a suitable livelihood for rural communities. There is one thing we need to bear in mind: if necessary, we could also import food, but not in a way that meets our conditions. We must produce and maintain a healthy environment here. Our farmers need a fair wage.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). – (PL) I endorsed this report. However, I would like to say I am in favour of retaining partial intervention in agricultural markets in difficult situations. This is not inconsistent with free market principles.

We must give more attention to the development of rural areas, expansion of infrastructure, educational affairs and the demographic situation. The number of young farmers continues to fall, while we have increasing numbers of older farmers. The conditions and standard of living on farms and in rural areas are significantly lower – much lower and much worse – than in urban areas. Furthermore, the incomes of farming families amount to around 60% of those of families who support themselves by other means. Farmers have held protests about this.

In summary, we should aim for the sustainable development of agriculture and rural areas.

  Inese Vaidere (PPE). – (LV) Thank you, Mr President. I support this resolution because it emphasises several preconditions for the future of the common agricultural policy which deserve support. It stresses that financing for the policy must be preserved for at least the next long-term financial period. Secondly, it requires that direct payments to farmers be fully financed from the European Union budget. Thirdly, it refers to securing fair competition, which is currently the most significant thing that is lacking from the provisional common agricultural policy. Although my country, Latvia, has now been a Member State of the European Union for a considerable time, our farmers receive approximately EUR 90 per hectare in subsidies, whereas Greek farmers are paid approximately EUR 550, and German and French farmers above EUR 300 per hectare. These destructive discrepancies distort competition and the whole European Union market. What is more, they widen the gap between new and old Member States, ignore the principles of cohesion, delay their implementation and hamper countries’ economic development. The new policy must be framed fairly, with support of equal value, so as to eliminate destructive discrepancies and ensure fair competition throughout the European Union.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). - (FI) Mr President, I have to say that I voted in favour of the Lyon report. On a few points I had what I might call national reservations, or I voted a bit differently. We have to realise that, although this proposal of Mr Lyon’s is an excellent and comprehensive one for agriculture and its reform in the European Union, the common agricultural policy is not in every respect directly suited to every situation – I speak as someone from a small nation, Finland, where the conditions for engaging in agriculture are very different from those the large Member States, such as France and Germany. That is why I introduced a few derogations when I voted.

I hope that in future the European Parliament and the Union can pay greater attention too to the small-scale agriculture, the small countries and the agriculture practised there, because agriculture, in a way, is a national life assurance policy. Every Member State needs its own agriculture and has to ensure that it is preserved.

  David Martin (S&D). - Mr President, I voted against the Lyon report because all over Europe governments are cutting their budgets. In the United Kingdom nurses and teachers face cuts in their pay and pensions. Police numbers are being cut and prisoners are being released because we cannot afford to keep them in prison. Yet here in the European Parliament representatives of the Conservative and Liberal parties that make up the UK Government somehow find it within themselves to vote to retain farming expenditure up to 2013 and beyond 2013 at 2013 levels.

I find that entirely unacceptable. I find it wrong that the agricultural community should be ring-fenced in a way that no other section of society is. If it is right for public servants to face reductions in their income, then it is right for others in our society to face the same reductions. The Government in the UK and governments across Europe are saying we are all in this together. If we are in it together, we all have to feel the pain together.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, I think one can understand why, when the political leaders of Europe saw their war-ravaged countries at the end of the Second World War, they wanted to promote the idea of food security and the common agricultural policy.

However, if you look at the policy 60 years later, let us look at the cost to the EU citizens. Let us look at the fact that citizens pay three times: once in tax to pay for the bureaucracy, once in tax to pay for subsidies, and then the higher prices that they have to pay in their shops. Surely, rather than talking about the reform of the common agricultural policy, we should be looking to abolish it. Scrapping the CAP would allow efficient farmers to thrive. It would allow taxpayers to keep more of their own money and deploy that money more usefully, and it would allow consumers lower prices.

Reform is not enough – it is time to scrap the CAP.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). - (FI) Mr President, I voted in favour of the Lyon report. It is balanced, and it guarantees and ensures that all over Europe people can engage in agriculture and produce food, thereby assuring a food supply for its citizens.

There were a few points on which I voted differently from my group, because I believe that in certain situations we need market regulation and intervention. They are needed to guarantee the food supply as well as sustainable development.

Report: Alain Cadec (A7-0207/2010)

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I voted in favour of the report, and there were two things about it that were particularly important to me. The first one is of an environmental, social and qualitative nature. In this regard, it is important for imported products to satisfy the same requirements as products produced within the European Union, because what is the use in us managing our fish stocks in a sustainable way if other trading partners then almost eradicate the stocks in the world’s oceans?

The second aspect is an economic one. If self-sufficiency within the EU is only 40% and the fish stocks on the global markets are at risk, then it is clear that here, too, there is a particularly good opportunity for aquaculture. We ought to develop this economic sector, provide it with scientific support and, above all, structure it in a sustainable way, because there are jobs in aquaculture, too, as well as, ultimately, added value for our European Union.

  Inese Vaidere (PPE). – (LV) Thank you. This report emphasises that the ecological and economic viability of European Union fisheries must be conserved, including non-industrial fishing of a constant volume in coastal waters, and of a type that would help to preserve the cultural identity of the relevant region, secure jobs in all stages of production and the supply of safe and high-quality produce. Unfortunately, the reality is that Latvian fishermen receive such meagre quotas and such meagre European Union support that it is more economical for us to scrap boats and stop fishing. This is a truly tragic situation, in which a traditional sector of the economy is being destroyed in a country with a 550 km coastline. Damage is being done to small-scale fishing as a whole, with a European Union policy that supports industrial producers with fishing practices that are often harmful to the environment. For this reason, I supported this report, which calls for the current situation to be changed.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I voted in favour of this fine report from Alain Cadec and I attended the debate in Parliament earlier but there was no time for the ‘catch the eye’, so I am taking this opportunity to say a few words.

Firstly, the primary obligation of the European Union is to take care of our own citizens, especially when it relates to the fishing industry, because they have been involved in it for years, and their ancestors for hundreds and thousands of years, and they must be protected.

Secondly, products coming into the European Union should be to the same standard – or maybe a higher one – as products originating from inside the European Union.

And finally, we must do much more to promote aquaculture. That would greatly help to solve this problem.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, I would like to thank you and all your staff for all your patience. I must say when I first came across the idea of the CFP, I thought the C in the CFP stood for communist, rather than common, fisheries policy. Here we actually see the idea of central planning, where central planners decide how much fishermen in each nation can catch and, like communism, it has been a disaster. It has led to a depletion of fishing stocks and ever more fishermen are complaining about the lack of quota they have been given.

Surely it is time to learn from the lessons of successful fish preservation and conservation. Let us look at the property rights-based systems in Iceland and in New Zealand where, as the previous speaker has said, the coastal communities are looked after because they are given their rights in perpetuity which they can sell on, they can trade, or they can leave to future generations. Surely, that is the best answer because it has been a success and has conserved fish, rather than the CFP system which has been a dramatic failure in Europe.

Written explanations of vote

Report: Alexander Alvaro (A7-0224/2010)

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) We voted against this disgraceful terror agreement, which provides personal data on every inhabitant of the EU to the US secret services within the framework of ‘anti-terrorism collaboration’. The representatives of capital in the European Parliament who voted for the ‘SWIFT agreement’ are unaware of its content, given that only ‘trusted’ MEPs were allowed to read the ‘confidential’ text, while the European Parliament has rejected it twice in the last six months. They were persuaded that the USA had guaranteed that ‘the secret services would ensure that personal data are protected’.

Approval of the ‘terror agreement’ confirms that the European Parliament supposedly democratically legitimises these deeply reactionary, anti-grassroots, euro-unifying policies. Moreover, it plays a leading part in the institutionalisation of a legislative framework of state terrorism and repression which puts a stranglehold on democratic rights and grassroots freedoms. No ‘terror agreement’ respects grassroots freedoms. These measures target the fight and resistance of the peoples, their vanguard, the communist movement, and the radical powers which refuse to bow down to the barbarism of the exploitative capital system. As long as capital and its political face step up measures to repress and put a stranglehold on the rights of workers and consolidate and safeguard its sovereignty, the greater the resistance, disobedience and inevitable fight to overturn the power of the monopolies and their reactionary unions will be.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In February 2010, the European Parliament refused to sign an EU/United States of America agreement on the transfer of financial data and requested the resumption of negotiations. Today, the terms of this agreement have been considerably improved, in the interest of European citizens. This time therefore I voted in favour of the agreement, particularly as it provides in the long term for the establishment of an entirely European data extraction system. This agreement is therefore a temporary solution, enabling the European Union and the United States to combat terrorism, but cannot be considered definitive.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) I decided to abstain on the Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the transfer of bank data by SWIFT for the purposes of combating terrorism. The agreement is a significant step forward compared to the previous version. After raising its voice, the European Parliament was able to obtain a number of guarantees which strengthen data protection and the rights of the people concerned.

Nonetheless, in my opinion the choice of Europol as the authority responsible for the transmission of data is unsuitable. Europol is not an independent authority, but a police agency which I doubt is in a position to monitor impartially the compliance of transfer applications by the US authorities. Given the highly sensitive nature of the personal data transferred, I could not vote for this agreement.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) It is a fact that, in the wake of 11 September 2001, no human being takes his or her security and physical safety for granted. The crux of any measure designed to restore faith among Europeans is therefore the protection of personal information: it is crucial to ensure that such information remains private, but processing it – especially if it is financial information – is a significant means of combating international terrorism. I therefore voted in favour of Mr Alvaro’s report on the agreement that defines the conditions under which the US Treasury will be able, from 1 August, to access the financial data of around 8 000 institutions and banks in 200 countries, managed by the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT). In view of the necessary safeguards such as the possibility for European citizens to lodge an administrative appeal and receive the same treatment as US citizens, and the crackdown on the length of time in which information is stored, cooperation between Europe and the United States is, in this case, a proper tribute to the negative effects of globalisation.

  Emine Bozkurt (S&D), in writing. − (NL) The delegation of the PvdA (Dutch Labour Party) to the European Parliament endorses this agreement, in the hope that in the foreseeable future we will be able to see an end to the mass transfer of data relating to European citizens. The agreement states that Europe will develop its own system for the collection and sorting of bank details. That will offer the opportunity to individualise transfers. By keeping the data under our own supervision, we will be better placed to protect the rights of our citizens. The European Commission will submit a proposal to this effect within a year and we should be able to implement such a system of our own within three years. From that moment on, the issue of reciprocity will become relevant. Our European supervisors in the US will be able to verify what happens to any European bank details on a daily basis. Europol will be charged with the task of verifying and approving US requests. Under pressure from the European Parliament, the agreement which we have already concluded is coming up for review. We have not had all our wishes granted, but what we have achieved is a guarantee that the US will not be able to nose into our data just like that. The new agreement strikes a balance between protecting privacy and guaranteeing security. In the meantime, the fight against terrorism will remain our overriding concern.

  Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the Alvaro report concerning the new SWIFT agreement, which outlines conditions for the transfer of certain banking data stored by SWIFT at the US Treasury Department as part of the fight against terrorism. Using the new powers conferred upon it since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, we have forced the Commission to renegotiate a more balanced agreement with the United States. While this agreement is satisfactory, certain points could still have been improved. Today’s positive vote is not a blank cheque to the Americans: Parliament will remain extremely vigilant in the months ahead, particularly with regard to the procedure modifying Europol’s powers, designation of the independent authority present in Washington and the establishment of a European TFTP.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the new SWIFT report, as safeguards have been negotiated with the European Council and with the United States which were not in the agreement presented to the European Parliament four months ago. This agreement over the transfer of banking data to the United States stipulates that the EU must develop a system to avoid any bulk transfer of data, which was not stipulated in the previous agreement.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted against the report on the transfer of bank details by the European Union to America, for the same reasons that I and my group opposed the previous attempt to impose this agreement, despite any ‘technical’ improvements made by the report. The European Parliament should not approve the European Commission’s agreement to hand over personal data to the US government and secret services on the pretext of the ‘fight against terrorism’. I oppose the Commission’s insistence on transmitting information in general on financial transactions to the USA, because this infringes respect for personal data and this is information and material that will be used, without any fundamental control, by the US secret services for their own purposes.

  Derek Roland Clark (EFD), in writing. − UKIP voted against the Alvaro report today because we do not want to give the EU greater power over personal data. This measure will lead to a gross violation of personal privacy. Confidential and private financial data belongs to the individual and not to the EU or the European Parliament.

We are resolutely opposed to the spread of terrorism, but personal confidentiality must be protected where there is no prior suggestion of wrong-doing. If the UK is to enter into an agreement with the US it must be a fully reciprocal arrangement and not the almost one-way-traffic one that the EU has signed up to here. This is a matter for national governments to decide, and not for the European Parliament.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In February I voted against the agreement because it violated the principles of necessity and proportionality, as well as the integrity and security of European financial data. This new agreement is better than the previous one. There have been improvements, such as a narrower definition of terrorism, the exclusion of Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) data, the monitoring mechanism and recognition of the rights of the European public. This agreement, however, continues to allow the mass transfer of data (bulk data). The choice of Europol is wrong. Europol is neither a judicial authority nor a data protection authority. Giving Europol new functions would only be possible by changing the legal basis, with input from the European Parliament. The wording of Article 20 in the agreement diminishes the effectiveness of the recognition of various rights which have just been considered at the request of Parliament. I look forward to the Commission submitting an initiative to create a European Terrorist Finance Tracking Program (TFTP), and expect that this will provide a more solid solution, allowing data mining only to take place within the EU. For all these reasons I decided to abstain from voting, as I still cannot conscientiously accept that this agreement has reached an acceptable level.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The fight against terrorism must be a priority for the European Union. Pro-active cooperation with the United States in this context, namely in terms of information and data sharing, is central to increasing efficiency in the fight against terrorism, to prevent future attacks and ensure the security of the European public. I am therefore voting in favour of the measures proposed in this report. The amendments made to this agreement not only reflect the majority of concerns expressed by the European Parliament at the time of its rejection on 11 February, but also express the need for proportionality in the treatment of this data, namely as regards their processing, storage and subsequent deletion. I also emphasise the strengthened guarantees the new agreement gives to European citizens in terms of data protection, namely the right to appeal against judicial and administrative decisions, the right to transparency and communication of information to the citizens in question and the definition of the sphere of the data’s application, restricted to activity directly related to terrorism or its financing.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Six months ago, the European Parliament acted as a defender of fundamental rights by rejecting the agreement between the EU and the US concerning the transfer and processing of banking data – the so-called ‘SWIFT’ agreement. Thanks to the action of MPs and of our group in particular, a new version was drawn up. It contains significant underlying improvements, such as the elimination of ‘bulk’ data transfers. More protection will therefore be afforded to the rights of individuals, whilst acknowledging the importance of tracking financial data in the fight against terrorism. That is why I chose to vote in favour of the new agreement. However I will continue to be particularly attentive to the following points: the prerogatives of European data protection authorities and the choice of Europol as screening authority; the effectiveness of the ‘right of redress’ of people whose privacy rights have been flouted; and the monitoring and evaluation of the relevancy of data transmitted to the American authorities.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the conclusion of the new Agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of Financial Messaging Data for the purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, because I felt that the new proposal tabled by the Commission offered EU citizens increased assurances, in particular as regards data protection. In fact I believe that any transfer of European personal data to a third country for security purposes must respect procedural safeguards and rights of defence as well as comply with applicable national and European data protection legislation.

A few months ago the first version of the agreement was too vague and did not offer similar guarantees. That is why we said ‘No’. Today I am delighted that our proposals for improvement have been taken into account, including the introduction of a similar exchange system at European level and the guarantee that follow-up monitoring will be entrusted to European officials who must be able to oppose data extraction on US soil.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. − I supported the Agreement between the EU and the USA on the processing and transfer of financial messaging data from the EU to the USA for purposes of the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program. Thanks to the considerable efforts of the rapporteur and the members of the LIBE Committee, the current text of the agreement contains considerable improvements on the previous version of the agreement. Of particular importance for the future of combating terrorism whilst protecting the fundamental rights of citizens to protection of their personal data is Article 2 pertaining to the drafting of a legal and technical framework for an EU data extraction capability. The Commission should carry out this task in an assiduous and timely fashion. The addition to the agreement of Article 2 has the potential to greatly reduce the quantity of bulk data sent for analysis beyond the EU’s borders. Articles 15 and 16 ensure that citizens have strengthened access to redress and increased transparency.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the SWIFT agreement on the transfer of bank data to the US, as I believe that the agreement negotiated with the Council and the US now includes safeguards relating to the protection of citizens’ data, eliminating the possibility of transferring raw data to third countries. This is an important agreement in the fight against terrorism, and it will ensure that the fundamental liberties of European citizens are protected.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The phenomenon of terrorism and the growing impact that it has come to have on European society places essential values such as respect for individual privacy and the need to safeguard collective security under strain.

In this context, the agreement between the European Union and the United States of America on the handling of data was previously condemned by this House, which did not consider it sufficient. The new version is an improvement on the last one. I hope that this agreement justifies the reasons for its conclusion and that the parties know how to properly interpret its provisions, so as to hinder and combat the financial activities of terrorists.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The progress in this process is a positive demonstration of the benefits and advantages of institutional cooperation in successfully consolidating European integration. After the concerns and recommendations expressed by the European Parliament, a balanced agreement was reached with the United States for the transfer and treatment of financial payment data messages, above all bearing in mind that this is a process in the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program. I would emphasise that safeguards have been added to protect citizens’ rights, the conditions of any subsequent transfer to third–party countries and the risks of undue use of information and economic espionage. The possibility of correcting situations of data transmission that may subsequently be judged to have been undue has also been guaranteed. This agreement ensures better regulation of procedures and cooperation that is useful and healthy for institutional relations with the US.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) It is unacceptable that four months after Parliament rejected the SWIFT agreement, Parliament and the Council have reached an agreement with the US authorities to conclude an agreement which does not guarantee security or privacy, on the pretext of combating terrorism. It is unfortunate that the majority in Parliament have now voted in favour of this agreement.

There is great uncertainty surrounding exchange and access to databases, whether by the US authorities or EU agencies, which could lead to uncontrollable dangers. Criminals and the innocent, suspects and non-suspects alike will all be caught up in a process that does not provide any assurances, as is being shown, of its effectiveness.

The implementation of this agreement, as we said previously, means maintaining flawed measures that are being taken as part of the so-called fight against terrorism with a view to the suppression of rights.

We support the need to fight all forms of criminality, but this must be done above all by focusing on the origin and prevention of these phenomena and not by placing the emphasis on vague security measures that infringe civil liberties and the fundamental rights and guarantees of citizens, further weakening the democracy in which we live.

We do not accept an exchange of liberty for more security because, in the end, we will lose both. We rather support a more secure society with broad democratic rights and freedoms.

  Evelyne Gebhardt (S&D), in writing. − (DE) The fight against terrorism requires international cooperation governed by agreements. However, these must not erode the fundamental rights of citizens laid down in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. In modern times in particular, these rights also include the protection of data, which is not adequately guaranteed by the SWIFT agreement negotiated with the United States. Combating terrorism must not become an excuse for inadequate data protection. Other serious shortcomings in this agreement include, for example, the inspection of bank data without judicial approval, the long retention period for data, something that is impermissible under German constitutional law, as well as an inadequate opportunity for people to defend themselves in court against the unfair use of data. These are serious infringements of fundamental rights. However, the European Union is not permitted to unduly curtail existing fundamental rights. I therefore still reject this SWIFT agreement.

  Sylvie Goulard (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Today, after careful consideration, I voted in favour of the revised SWIFT agreement. The compromise is certainly not perfect, but we must combine the demands of the fight against terrorism with respect for civil liberties. This new version also brings improvements, in particular as regards the purpose of data transfer.

When it comes to an issue as sensitive as the protection of personal data, I would have liked even greater rigour, particularly on the following points: granting an independent authority – not Europol – responsibility for checking the compliance of applications or the effectiveness of the right to compensation for people whose rights have been violated.

Out of solidarity with my political group, to which we owe last February’s battle, and therefore much of the progress made, I have decided to support this agreement. Alongside my colleagues I will be very attentive to the implementation of the conditions of this agreement by the US, but also very vigilant as regards the commitments of the Council and the Commission. If promises are broken, I will advocate the termination of the agreement, once it is up for review.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) It is with special attention that I have been following the negotiations between the EU and the US on the SWIFT agreement since its last rejection, thanks to the action led by the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. Since February, the European Parliament, firmly applying its new powers, has been able to make significant progress and obtain additional guarantees: the ‘twin track’ approach backed by our group, regular reviews of the agreement, an initial evaluation in six months, a progress report after three years, rights to access and to make rectifications, the possibility to block the transfer of certain data, oversight of data extraction by a European authority in the US and so on. However, whilst there has been ample progress, this accord is not perfect and there are also numerous flaws. It is after extensive reflection that I have decided to vote in favour of this new agreement, because a legal framework for the fight against terrorism is necessary and because we are eventually heading towards a future European system for data transfer control allowing data extraction on European soil. From now on, it is up to European institutions to exercise strict and vigilant control of the implementation of the conditions of the agreement.

  Matthias Groote and Bernhard Rapkay (S&D), in writing. − (DE) The German Social Democratic (SPD) delegation in the European Parliament is in favour of combating international terrorism and providing permanent protection for personal data with the highest possible degree of determination and effectiveness. In view of the importance of data protection, the SPD delegation did not make its decision lightly. After long and careful consideration, however, we are now able to vote in favour of the agreement: the Social Democrats have succeeded in providing for the establishment of permanent European monitoring in connection with the extraction of the data directly on the ground in the US Treasury Department – including the facility to stop the extraction of data. For us, the top priority was limiting the transfer of bulk data. SEPA data are not covered by the agreement; most transfers are not affected at all. The five-year data retention period is intended to be reviewed annually, whereby any data that is not needed is to be deleted sooner than this. In addition, an annual review of compliance with all data protection standards, with the involvement of data protection supervisors, is provided for. Even though we would have preferred the monitoring role and the transfer of data to be given to a judicial authority, Europol must carry out its mandate for approving the data transfer, provided for in the agreement, under the strict scrutiny of the EU. Although Europol has a reliable data protection system, it needs to be brought into line with the Treaty of Lisbon so that it can perform its duties under full democratic scrutiny.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Alvaro report on the Agreement between the EU and the USA on the processing and transfer of financial messaging data for the purposes of combating terrorism, because I feel that this agreement now strikes a balance between the objectives of security in the fight against terrorism and the objectives of freedom in the protection of citizens’ privacy.

Unlike the SWIFT agreement which was presented in February and which I voted against, this agreement is more protective of personal data: citizens will have the right to access and rectify data concerning them, their right to administrative and judicial appeals is guaranteed, and several limitations and restrictions have been introduced in relation to the transfer of data.

Nevertheless, Parliament will have to remain vigilant concerning the modification of the powers of Europol, which is responsible for the control of transfers, as well as the future introduction of a European Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.

  Olle Ludvigsson and Marita Ulvskog (S&D), in writing. − (SV) The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament has succeeded, together with the Spanish Presidency, in negotiating improvements to the agreement on the exchange of bank data with the United States. The quantity of bank data that is transferred has been limited (there is to be no transfer of data for transactions within the EU) and personnel appointed by the EU shall examine and approve the transfers in real time.

Even though a certain amount of progress has been made in the negotiations, the fundamental problem of the bulk transfer of bank data still remains. This means that innocent citizens’ data will continue to be transferred to US authorities, which we Swedish Social Democrats find unacceptable. Furthermore, we see serious shortcomings, from both a legal and a practical point of view, in allowing Europol to be the authority that is to monitor the transfers.

For these reasons, we have chosen not to vote for the agreement with the US on the transfer of bank data.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − Given the concessions and provisions which the EU has secured regarding the SWIFT agreement on financial data sharing, I am now happy to support this agreement. In particular I am pleased that our Group has helped to secure guarantees on the prohibition of random searches, the direct oversight of the programme by an EU official and annual assessments of data retention periods. The continued monitoring of this agreement will be crucial, however, to ensure the terms remain acceptable to this Parliament and European citizens.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour because I think that supporting the agreement negotiated between the European Commission and the United States is the right action to take and the sign of a great sense of responsibility.

The transfer of personal data is an extremely sensitive issue in Europe, with its painful experiences of totalitarian regimes that would churn out and distort such data. Under the new agreement it will be possible to transfer a certain amount of bank data to the US authorities, provided that the transfer complies with the strict rules on personal data protection, which we MEPs are committed to monitoring. Such information may be consulted only if it is deemed important for the purposes of conducting counterterrorism investigations: access to it is conditional upon the presentation of satisfactory evidence by the US authorities.

The new agreement is a victory for all the European institutions, and for our European Parliament in particular. Indeed, our requests for increased protection of European citizens’ privacy have been granted, with Europeans being offered a dual guarantee: firstly, complete transparency as regards the way in which their data are accessed and used, and, secondly, proper appeal procedures to ensure that their privacy is protected. These are satisfactory guarantees that will ensure that these two requirements – safety and protection of privacy – can both be satisfied and safeguarded.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted against this report. It is tantamount to approval of United States interference in Europe with the complicity of bodies such as SWIFT. It supports the possibility of transferring to the United States the personal data of each and every citizen, so vast is the scope stipulated in the agreement between the Council and the United States. It does not call for any genuine guarantee of the protection of these data or opportunities for redress. This report and the agreement that it ratifies are a symbol of this Europe’s enslavement by American imperialism.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The fight against terrorism is of concern to the EU, as it is to the entire democratic world. All mechanisms that help to discover possible attacks are fundamental to this fight’s success. The SWIFT agreement is a very powerful weapon in the fight against terrorism, as it gives access to privileged financial information regarding financial transfers between countries. The renegotiation of this agreement with the US is an opportunity for the EU to contribute effectively to the uncovering of new terrorists and potential attacks. There is currently a great desire for cooperation on the part of the US, facilitating an agreement that efficiently protects transmitted data and where there is maximum possible reciprocity. The project for solution approved today is a good starting point for the difficult negotiations ahead with the US.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I voted once more against the SWIFT agreement on the processing of European banking data and its transfer to the United States under the pretext of the fight against terrorism, as I believe the United States’ claim to be unacceptable and to be a threat to the freedoms and rights of European citizens. Through this proposal, the most conservative forces have tried to hand us over bound hand and foot to US interests without giving a thought to the security or privacy of citizens. The European Parliament cannot allow the civil rights and freedoms of Europeans to be adversely affected under the pretext of the fight against terrorism.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Data protection with the SWIFT agreement is simply a sham. Storing up limitless data packets over so long a period of time in the absence of any judicial intervention runs counter to our understanding of a modern state founded on the rule of law. That it should be the European police authority Europol – which has its own interest in data for combating terror – that will monitor compliance with data protection rules and the actual existence of suspicion of terror, is putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. Furthermore, the idea that the Data Protection Commissioners, which have often shown themselves to be toothless, can obtain a block or a deletion in the USA is downright laughable. An increase in data protection is thus nowhere near being in prospect, and as a result the SWIFT agreement received a clear ‘No’ from me.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the Alvaro report because I consider it important to combat terrorism. Terrorism is a threat and as such must be combated. The United States is a key partner in the fight against terrorism; we need to cooperate with it in order to identify and stop any possible financing, which is what really sustains terrorists.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. − (DE) Under the guise of combating terrorism, the account data of honest European citizens are being transferred in bulk to the United States. The re-hashed SWIFT agreement does very little to change this situation. We cannot promise our citizens adequate data protection, because: - Sensitive data is stored wholesale, instead of only in individual cases where there are grounds for suspicion. - The data will be arbitrarily stored for a whole five years. - Compliance with data protection is intended to be guaranteed by Europol, even though this agency has an interest in the data itself. The executive is therefore monitoring itself – is this seriously supposed to be an independent control body? - EU citizens whose rights have been violated have de facto no chance of taking successful legal action. Citizens would first have to cope with the cost of instituting legal proceedings in the United States! What was first celebrated as a success for the European Parliament in February has now become a washout. Even the rapporteur admits that he is not totally satisfied. It does not provide any real, effective data protection and should therefore be rejected.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The final agreement satisfies the majority of Parliament’s requests, protecting both the security and the private lives of EU citizens and guaranteeing legally binding solutions to the problems under examination. The agreement also marks a new phase in Parliament’s powers, ensuring European democratic oversight of international agreements. In addition to the improvements within the agreement, the Council and the Commission have made a legally binding commitment to set up the legal and technical framework allowing for the extraction of data on EU soil. This commitment will in the mid-term ensure the termination of bulk data transfers to the US authorities. The establishment of a European extraction system represents a very important improvement, as the continued transfer of data in bulk is a departure from the principles underpinning EU legislation and practice.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the new SWIFT agreement at today’s plenary of the European Parliament. This is a very important agreement which aims to stamp out terrorism and organised crime by combating illegal financing. It is important that this new agreement also safeguards respect for the personal data of European citizens. The new agreement refers to the need to create a European TFTP (Terrorist Finance Tracking Program). This is a commitment which needs to be implemented within five years. The European Parliament, Commission and Council therefore have a duty to proceed immediately with the implementation of this commitment, so that Europe has even better tools to protect the security of its citizens in the immediate future.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour because I agree with the agreement reached and in order to fulfil my duty and responsibility of supporting the agreement negotiated between the EU and the US. We are aware of the need for a balance between respect for individual privacy and the need to safeguard collective security, but the phenomenon of terrorism, with which many Europeans live every day, necessitates extraordinary measures. I feel I should mention that, due to being involved in the internal electoral process of my national party, the Partido Social Democrata, I was unable to vote in favour of the previous agreement, as I had intended. I am aware of the sensitive nature of this question in Europe, the result of experiences that have left their mark on people while under totalitarian regimes which, without any legitimacy, invaded their citizens’ privacy. This is not the case here. We are legitimately fighting terrorism in new, ever more innovative ways, as the only way of ensuring the protection of European citizens’ fundamental freedoms. The present agreement enables the transfer of banking data, but introduces proper security and privacy safeguards. Strict rules are stipulated for personal data protection, making access to them conditional on presentation of proof that the competent authorities are carrying out an anti-terrorism investigation.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − The adoption of the new SWIFT Agreement by a majority in Parliament is a blow for the negotiations on a binding protection of fundamental rights in international security cooperation. There were some improvements to the first draft, but there is still fundamental criticism of the massive data transfers without initial suspicion and the over-long data retention periods. The grand coalition of conservatives, social democrats and liberals has therefore accepted lower standards than the existing principles of the rule of law and is risking a regulation that is in breach of EU law. We Greens have therefore opposed the new agreement and, as a progressive force, aim for stronger privacy protection and the principle of the rule of law in transatlantic cooperation.

As Parliament’s rapporteur for the comprehensive data protection agreement planned by Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding, I will personally work with the US administration and the US Congress on binding rules in this field. It is therefore really sad to see that the European Parliament has weakened its influence on the United States by accepting the SWIFT agreement today. A real change towards binding fundamental rights protection in the fight against terrorism requires greater courage and effort.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − (DE) I do not want my vote against the new agreement to be seen in any way as a ‘No’ to the fight against terrorism. Terrorist acts must be prevented and every terrorist act must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. On the other hand, there is the protection of citizens’ rights. Citizens’ rights are not a foregone conclusion – we have fought for them. I am convinced that if there had been a longer discussion phase for this agreement it would have resulted in both sides – the US and Europe – being able to achieve a fully satisfactory outcome.

Report: Elmar Brok (A7-0228/2010)

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The Greek Communist Party MEPs voted against the joint motion for a resolution by the conservatives, liberals and social democrats to establish a European External Action Service, because it is based on the reactionary ‘Treaty of Lisbon’. It implements the provisions for the militarisation of the EU (civil-military committee, crisis management centre, satellite centre, military committee, Euro-army, EULEX and so forth), in order to apply the US preventive war doctrine. It is a tool of the NATO strategy and wars. It gives the EU the right to engage in military and civil intervention on the pretext of fighting terrorism, even inside the Member States. The EEAS restricts the ethnocratic sovereign rights of the Member States even further, by allocating responsibilities to the EU in almost all the policy sectors of a state. It will be a tool for applying the precedence of Community law over the national laws of the states. It strengthens the imperialist intervention mechanisms and repressive mechanisms of the EU (Frontex and so on) and creates new ones (such as a European prosecution service). We condemn the unacceptable, furtive procedure followed by the representatives of the European Parliament, the Commission, the Presidency and the High Representative and Vice-President of the Commission to conceal the worsening antagonism and opposition between the major imperialist powers.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the compromise negotiated by my colleagues Elmar Brok and Guy Verhofstadt with the High Representative, the Council and the European Commission, and thus the establishment of the European External Action Service. This compromise was the subject of extensive negotiations and it currently seems satisfactory and balanced to me. It allows the European Parliament to reinforce its prerogatives and preserve the Community method. More than anything, it was today necessary to guarantee the rapid implementation of this EEAS in order to leave room for nominations and to emerge from the unsatisfactory system that has been in place over the last months.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) Negotiations on the establishment of a single independent EU body, as laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon, are coming to a close. I hope that the Council will also keep to the agreement and the decision on the European External Action Service will be adopted at the end of July. We must ensure that the EEAS begins its work as soon as possible and that its operation contributes to the forming of a high level European foreign and security policy, ensuring the consistency of the EU’s external actions and strengthening the role of the European Union on the world stage. The European Parliament must strive to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny, by implementing a common foreign and security policy and actively exercising legislative, budget formation and discharge functions. We must ensure that the work of the EEAS is based on the principle of budget neutrality and that we avoid the duplication of the tasks, functions and resources of the EEAS with other institutions. Furthermore, we must resolve the issue of responsibility and accountability both for matters concerning the use of EU budget money and for the allocation of powers.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of adopting the report drafted by Mr Brok because it marks an important step towards the European External Action Service coming into operation.

The European Parliament will play an important role in the operation of the European External Action Service as it will be consulted prior to any EU mission being launched in third countries. In addition, the latter’s budget will be subject to political control from Parliament.

Romania is ready to offer the services of staff with the necessary expertise to work in the European External Action Service, right from the moment when it is set up. My country has shown its commitment to European crisis management missions. We have contributed more than 200 experts, police officers, military police officers, diplomats, magistrates and soldiers to most of the European Union’s civilian and military missions.

I would like to end by emphasising that the principles of competence and geographical balance must be respected as part of the staff recruitment policy.

  Dominique Baudis (PPE), in writing. – (FR) With the new competences that it has acquired since the adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Union needs to rely on strong diplomacy. The European External Action Service (EEAS) represents considerable progress in this respect.

I voted in favour of the European Parliament’s resolution on the EEAS because, in order to succeed in her mission, the High Representative urgently needs to acquire a competent diplomatic arm. My decision is based on the conclusions of the Madrid Conference of 21 June, where an institutional balance was found.

The European interest of the initial draft has been retained. The Commission, the Council and Parliament will now be able to work together to establish an effective and operational European diplomatic service. I am confident that subsequent negotiations on the establishment of the EEAS will respect this balance.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) From the outset, some aspects of the creation of the European External Action Service have been unclear and controversial. We should examine with some concern the possible contradictions that may emerge between the activity of the future EU diplomatic service and that traditionally carried out by the Member States. Will the Member States no longer be free to define their own foreign policy? It may not be an imminent situation that I am expressing concern about, but it is still worth asking ourselves what impact the creation of a European service such as this will have in the medium to long term. To put it clearly: if the idea is basically to emulate the US model, whereby foreign policy is managed directly and exclusively by the federal government over the heads of the 50 states, then it ought to be remembered that the US Government is elected by the people, and every four years its foreign policy is granted democratic legitimacy, which the European Commission, the European Council – and even the future European External Action Service – do not have. Therefore, by voting against the Brok report I am expressing my preference for an intergovernmental European foreign policy, since relying on the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) at European level would not guarantee the supranationality of the decisions taken in such a sensitive area.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) European taxpayers are going to have greater control over the way in which the EU’s financial resources are spent by the European External Action Service. It is commendable that the European Parliament has received increased budgetary powers in this area at a time when the Service’s budget will be subject to scrutiny by the legislature. The European Union currently employs approximately 7 000 diplomats and civil servants who will ensure that the EU’s objectives will take precedence over national and even intergovernmental objectives. All employees of the European External Action Service will be politically accountable to the European Parliament, with its extended powers following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. Parliament has scored a victory in that it has successfully imposed the notion that a large part of the European External Action Service’s work should involve promoting human rights and safeguarding peace in the world. This demonstrates that the European Union is consciously assuming its extremely important role as an exporter of basic human rights which, unfortunately, have been deliberately violated at the moment in many countries in the world.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service. This is a very important step in strengthening Europe’s role in the world and for coordinating the foreign relations policies of the 27 Member States. In negotiations with the Council and the Commission, the European Parliament saw the Union dimension of the European External Action Service strengthened, thereby leading to an increased role for Parliament itself in the political and budgetary areas of this new entity.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted against the report on the European External Action Service, because it is being established using obscure procedures, with confused competences and a very clearly restricted role for the European Parliament, the only elected institution of the EU, which is limited solely to budgetary aspects. Furthermore, I voted against the EEAS, because it is designed to be a tool for the further militarisation of the European Union, as it also includes military action, even in cases of humanitarian assistance and intervention. The European Union should not link its foreign policy or policy of solidarity in the event of crisis to military action and militarised structures and mechanisms. It should design policies and bodies which will safeguard an autonomous and peaceful role in international relations, far removed from US military opportunism and intervention. It should act with respect for international law and the UN Founding Charter for a world of peace and solidarity.

  Derek Roland Clark (EFD), in writing. − I abstained on the vote on Amendment 80 because, while the case for national governments to scrutinise the control of EEAS must be guaranteed, this amendment also guaranteed the right of the European Parliament to do the same. It is not acceptable to a sovereign nation for a European organisation to scrutinise its foreign service. It is not the business of the EP to do so.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. − (PT) It was with enormous satisfaction that I voted in favour of the Brok report. Following several months of debate in Parliament, with the Council and with the Commission, white smoke has finally risen from the negotiations. I hope that now the European External Action Service will apply the Charter of Fundamental Rights, in compliance with the spirit and purpose of the Treaty of Lisbon, so that the Community method will be given priority in development policy and in how the EU’s foreign aid is apportioned, and that the Member States, (and more precisely, certain foreign ministries of certain Member-States) take to heart the creation of this new entity, as well as the new competencies and attributes that have been given to its High Representative, as a result of the entry into effect of the Treaty of Lisbon. I also hope that what certain Member States or those responsible in the governments of these countries see as interference in their sphere of competencies, as a nation or government, does not persist, and that the Portuguese Government fights for representation that will bestow prestige upon us for the quality, competencies, attributes and the proportional number of the national agents involved. As Members of this House, we do not want a service that is the result of intergovernmental checks and balances, but a service that belongs to the Union.

  Luigi Ciriaco De Mita (PPE), in writing. − (IT) A common foreign policy and a common economic policy are the necessary objectives of the European integration process. It should be remembered that the single currency was also chosen to speed up the integration process, which had come to a standstill in Nice. Given the way in which it is being organised, the European External Action Service is in danger of adopting a paralysing ‘do nothing’ approach, rather than being the start of a virtuous unifying process.

  Proinsias De Rossa (S&D), in writing. – I welcome the Brok report as amended. It was essential to resist the proposal to subsume development policy as part of our foreign policy. We need an autonomous development service answerable to an autonomous Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid. Now, arising from this report, the Commissioner for Development is responsible for the whole cycle of programming, planning and implementation of the Development Cooperation Instrument (DCI) and the European Development Fund (EDF). We need ensure the implementation is pursued in accordance with the spirit and letter of the agreement. There remain elements of the proposal that could give rise to different interpretations. However, the amendments introduced by the European Parliament reinforce the Commission’s authority over the operational budget and, therefore, guarantee parliamentary oversight and a clear line of democratic accountability.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service (EEAS), as the agreement that has been reached reinforces the Community identity of the EEAS and its political and budgetary responsibility before Parliament.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In November 2006, Parliament adopted a resolution which recognised the strategic importance of the European languages of universal communication – English, Spanish, Portuguese and French, in order of number of speakers – as a vehicle for communication and a means to solidarity, cooperation and economic investment. In 2008, the European Commission acknowledged that these languages form an important bridge between people and countries in different regions of the world.

At a time when the organisation and functioning of the EEAS is being set out, I believe that it is crucial for it to take full advantage of the communication capacity of the global European languages that I mentioned, and to adopt them as working languages. The rules and practice governing languages in this service will reveal the extent of its commitment to external communication.

Having said this, I cannot but rejoice at the creation of the EEAS, and I hope that it will produce results to live up to what is hoped of it. The European Union has much to gain from a competent and efficient EEAS, which is capable of being the EU’s voice on the world stage and actively cooperating with the diplomatic services of Member States.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The goal of the present decision is to establish the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service (EEAS), a body functionally independent of the Union under the authority of the High Representative, created by Article 27(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon. The European Parliament also has a role to play in the Union’s foreign policy, namely in terms of its political control functions (set out in Article 14(1) of the TEU), as well as its legislative and budgetary functions assigned in the Treaties. The High Representative must also regularly consult the European Parliament on the main aspects and fundamental decisions of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and should ensure that Parliament’s positions are duly taken into account; the EEAS assists the High Representative in this task. They should make specific provisions in terms of the access of Members of the European Parliament to confidential information in the sphere of the CFSP. Having no objections to present, I voted in favour of the approval of this decision.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We voted against this report, which is the result of negotiations between the Council and the majority in Parliament on one of the crucial points in the Treaty of Lisbon and a keystone of federalism in the European Union, which now has a legal character, as advocated in the European Constitution. It is noted that this service will involve more than 5 000 people in the EU embassies in various countries around the world.

To exacerbate the situation, we notice that proposals made by our group have not been adopted, in particular those which argue that the EU’s military structures should not be part of the European External Action Service, and that there should not even be any institutional link between them. The same thing has happened with regard to the EU intelligence structures.

The rejection of the proposal that we presented for the Council to cease development and abolish the military and civil-military structures under its jurisdiction, as well as cease funding for military and civil-military activity, is particularly worrying. There is therefore much cause for concern over the future of the European Union and the route it is pursuing.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – (PL) In Laeken nine years ago, during the previous Belgian Presidency, work began on the Constitutional Treaty, which was intended to strengthen European Union foreign policy, making it cohesive and visible in the international arena. In spite of many complications related to reform of the EU treaties, today the Belgians have the opportunity of finalising their efforts and launching the European External Action Service – on the first anniversary of the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009. We, as Members of a European Parliament strengthened by the Treaty, can help with this. After many months of negotiations of the European Parliament delegation with Mrs Ashton, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the EEAS is developing in the way advocated by Parliament. The report by Mr Brok and Mr Verhofstadt is an important document which summarises all this work and is worthy of support. What has Parliament managed to win in the negotiations with the High Representative? Firstly, a European Union diplomatic service, not an inter-governmental service, and this means an assurance that 60% of posts will be appointed by the European Union. Secondly, political and budgetary supervision of the EEAS by Parliament, which means the ability to interview candidates for the posts of heads of delegation and to inspect the finances of the institution, as we do for the Commission and the Council. Thirdly, an equal distribution of posts in terms of nationality and gender, and also a review of the composition of the service in 2013 in order to correct any imbalances.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I am pleased with the agreement reached between the three European institutions and Baroness Ashton on the establishment of the European External Action Service. It is a balanced service in terms of its organisation and composition, and will be created to assist Baroness Ashton in her work as High Representative of the European Union. Furthermore, it will have the effect of strengthening the European Parliament’s political and budgetary control powers. I sincerely hope that best use will be made of this service in the interests of the European Union. The latter will thus demonstrate genuine political coherence and will speak with one voice on the international stage. It can only emerge greater from this, and its actions will be more legitimate and effective.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The proposal made by Baroness Ashton is unacceptable. It implies the standardisation of European diplomacy under the aegis of herself and the Commission, and the negation of Member States’ powers in the matter. This report has the slight merit of calling for all Member States to be represented among the European diplomatic staff at the beck and call of Baroness Ashton and the Commission. That is what we have been reduced to in this Europe – to begging for the right to remain silent, but fairly! I shall vote against this text.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon brought with it the creation of the European External Action Service (EEAS), thereby laying the foundations for a strong European diplomatic service. The creation of the EEAS is intended to ensure coherence in European external action and the conducting of a Common Foreign and Security Policy.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I voted against the report on the European External Action Service (EEAS) because I believe that this body will institutionalise the militarisation of the European Union. I wanted to express, through my vote, my total rejection of the negotiation process relating to the creation of the EEAS, as the rapporteurs and Baroness Ashton have yielded to pressure from some Member States and have totally forgotten the democratic rules. The EEAS will turn into a sui generis institution operating outside the basic mechanisms of control of any democratic system. I believe that there is a need to ensure that the European Parliament, the only EU institution to be democratically elected, and national parliaments have not only budgetary control, but also political control over the EEAS. Of particular concern to my group is the substantial military orientation of the EEAS and the fact that the greater part of the civilian component of European foreign policy would come under the umbrella of European Security and Defence Policy – more specifically, everything relating to development cooperation and conflict resolution. It is for these reasons that the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, which is committed to the values of peace and the demilitarisation of the EU, does not support the creation of the EEAS.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Following the difficult debates on the European External Action Service held in recent weeks within the competent parliamentary committees and the various political groups, I would like to thank our colleague Mr Brok for his strong involvement in this matter. Today’s vote lays the foundations for a strong diplomatic service at European Union level. Thus the Community identity of the service will be reinforced and its political and budgetary accountability to the European Parliament will be guaranteed. Moreover, at least 60% of the staff of this new service will be EU officials. It is nevertheless regrettable that the hearings, at the European Parliament, of the special representatives for foreign affairs remain ‘informal’; I hope that this issue will be resolved within a few years. In spite of everything, the European Parliament’s power of review is strengthened, in particular regarding Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) missions financed from the EU budget.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. − I decided to vote in favour of the report on the European External Action Service (EEAS) and fully support the setting-up of what is a key innovation of the Lisbon Treaty and a historic decision for the future of Europe. Only seven months after the entry into force of the new treaty, together we managed to reach a consensus, securing the political and budgetary accountability of the new service to the European Parliament. This supervisory role will guarantee a truly democratic control of the service, which is of paramount importance to me.

This report will ensure geographical balance as well as better coherence between the different aspects of the EEAS. It is not about duplicating diplomatic services within the EU, but about strengthening the EU’s diplomatic services. Such an agreement is clear evidence of the European Union’s commitment to gathering its force and promoting its values in a more effective way. It will allow the EU to exert a real influence in the international arena. This is a chance for the European Union but also for its Member States.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Timely coordination of the different areas of EU external policy by the Commission is clearly important. The establishment of the European External Action Service under the authority of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the Commission has the potential to make the EU’s external action more effective on the world stage, above all so as to avoid inconsistencies and duplication of work, and to ensure long-term consistency in the promotion of the EU’s strategic interests and fundamental values abroad.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) As a member of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, in which the European External Action Service (EEAS) was widely discussed and where I was able to express my opinions, and as a member of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), I give my support and vote in favour of the present report. The European Parliament presented a united position among political groups, who had as their common interest to make maximum use of the new competencies conferred by the Treaty of Lisbon, especially to this House, both in terms of political control and financial control of the EEAS. I am reiterating my initial and constantly repeated concern, including by means of proposals to alter the report’s projects, which can be summarised as the need to ensure the geopolitical balance of the EEAS about to be inaugurated. I would stress the High Representative’s commitment to create a team based on geographical balance, with representatives from all 27 Member States, banishing any kind of discrimination and equally promoting equality.

  Bernhard Rapkay (S&D), in writing. − (DE) As the Committee on Legal Affairs’ rapporteur for the European External Action Service, I would like to point out that, including as a result of its amendments to Article 6 of the High Representative’s proposal, the report that has been agreed on today has absolutely no binding effect for me as rapporteur or for the European Parliament as a whole in the discussions on the adaptation of the Staff Regulations. This includes, in particular, the footnotes that were adopted in the text today. A report on a legislative proposal on which the European Parliament was only consulted cannot have any binding effect for the areas in which the European Parliament, by virtue of a different legal basis, has the power of codecision.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Parliament’s approval paves the way for a more coherent and effective European foreign policy that better meets citizens’ expectations. A better service could have been possible, though.

We regret that Ms Ashton, the Commission and a number of national governments did not have the guts to embrace a more ambitious solution. We support the compromise because Parliament managed to improve Ms Ashton’s original proposal considerably. A strong human rights structure, safeguards for development policy and against renationalisation of Community policies, strengthened democratic scrutiny, a more transparent foreign affairs budget and gender balance in recruitment are cases in point.

The deal is not flawless, however. Its weak points include the unclearly defined crisis management structures, the lack of permanent deputies for Ms Ashton and the limited scope of the EEAS’s consular services to citizens. Much will now depend on how the compromise is implemented – the ball is therefore back in the court of Ms Ashton, the Member States and the Commission. They must work together, create a common esprit de corps and overcome divisive competition.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. − (DE) As always, it is difficult to accommodate and balance the various different interests and positions. However, in the current tug-of-war, we should not and must not lose sight of the overarching goal of achieving an efficient and coherent EU external policy. The following factors have yet to be clarified: • Staff – who and how many? • Equality – the staff should be selected on the basis of gender equality principles. • What powers will the EEAS have? • Budgetary supervision should lie with the European Parliament. • Something that is very important for taxpayers: how high are the costs? In any case, these costs should be within sensible and comprehensible limits. In this regard, we must utilise synergies in order to achieve maximum quality and cost savings.

Motion for a resolution: Kosovo (B7-0409/2010)

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The parliamentary group of the Greek Communist Party voted against the motion for a resolution, because it seeks to consolidate the illegal secession of Kosovo imposed by the force and weapons of NATO and the coercion of the EU and other imperialist forces. The resolution acquits NATO of the war and the dismemberment of Serbia and supports the long-term presence of NATO troops and bases in Kosovo and the area as a whole and Euro-unifying interventions through the installation of their forces via EULEX. This resolution attempts to prejudice the ruling by the International Court in The Hague on the legality of the secession of Kosovo. The EU imperialist policy, which supports the resolution, exacerbates the problems of workers in Kosovo, exploitation, corruption, crime and the rate of capitalist restructurings, offering them immigration as the only way out. It exacerbates instability in the area, the oppression of the Serbs and the inhabitants of Kosovo as a whole and the problems caused by the presence of EULEX and NATO.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Kosovo is part of a very sensitive geographical zone, on which the EU should maintain constant focus. I would like first of all to emphasise the deplorable lack of cohesion within the EU as to what political line to adopt with respect to this country, denounced by this resolution. In effect, five Member States of the European Union have yet to recognise Kosovo’s independence, which was nonetheless requested in 2008. We therefore need, not only for the internal cohesion of the European Union, but also for its credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world, a common political stance, notably on points as basic as the issuing of visas. It also seems to me that the European integration process for all the countries of this region is an important element in the region’s stabilisation, a stabilisation that is in the interest of our community as a whole. Where Kosovo is concerned, the prospect of joining the European Union is a powerful catalyst for the implementation of necessary reforms, notably the reforms pertaining to human rights, which have already been brought up and which we need to encourage. It is without hesitation that I support this resolution, which addresses these important issues.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I voted against the motion for a resolution on the European prospects of Kosovo, because it considers and treats it as an independent state. The resolution does not respect UN Security Council Resolution 1244/99 and even calls on the five Member States of the EU, including Greece, which have not recognised the unilateral independence of Kosovo to do so; in other words, to violate the UN resolution. Consequently, the resolution does not help to address the problem and does not help to consolidate stability and peace in the area. The resolution also calls for an even stronger presence of EULEX in Kosovo.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted against this resolution. This resolution, the analysis of the situation and the suggested direction attest to how right anyone who opposed Kosovo’s secession was.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Kosovo has still not received unanimous recognition by the Member States. The cautiousness with which some regard this new country will certainly be based on political and strategic motives, but also on reasons of a more practical nature, resulting above all from the worrying way in which corruption and organised crime are rife in that territory, preventing Kosovo from truthfully claiming that it has rule of law.

Like other states in the Balkan region, it would be good if Kosovo presented evidence that it has embarked upon the path of no return regarding the adoption of policies and reforms which, on the one hand, back up its European choice and, on the other hand, strengthen its own political body, laying down roots for its citizens to take up democracy and reject violence, particularly ethnic violence, as a way of resolving conflicts. Kosovo still has a long way to go.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The present resolution records Kosovo’s declaration of independence on 17 February 2008, which was recognised by 69 countries, and encourages Member States to work together in their joint approach to Kosovo, bearing in mind Kosovo’s planned accession to the EU. My opinion is that, despite the very difficult legacy of the armed conflict, the prospect of joining the EU constitutes a powerful incentive for the necessary reforms in Kosovo, and I appeal for practical measures to be taken to make this prospect more tangible to its citizens, through the application of human rights and the strengthening of the rule of law.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The simple fact that various EU Member States have still not recognised Kosovo’s independence is enough to tell us that the content of this resolution is unacceptable. Unfortunately, once again the majority in this Parliament is giving cover to an act that is illegal under international law. As considered in the amendment tabled by the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left and rejected by the majority, the resumption of dialogue and negotiations in accordance with international law is the only path likely to lead to stability and lasting peace in the region.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), in writing. − (IT) Mrs Lunacek’s motion for a resolution clearly shows the limited progress made by the country and I believe that the problems highlighted make its joining the EU even less plausible, as this would accentuate the heterogeneous character of the Union, to which the latest accessions are contributing. In a similar vein to what I have said about the integration of Albania into the EU, I believe that we find ourselves at a crossroads: Europe must choose whether to limit itself to being a body based merely on geographical criteria or if it wants to become more organic, coherent and composed of states which, in their diversity, in any case demonstrate shared characteristics which are coherent with the European ideal. The central fact that five Member States do not recognise the sovereignty of the country remains an obstacle which, at the moment, renders Kosovo’s accession to Europe paradoxical. For these reasons, I cannot support Mrs Lunacek’s motion for a resolution.

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (CS) The draft resolution on the European integration process in the case of Kosovo is a document whose author clearly does not live in the real world and does not realise that Kosovo is not recognised as a member of the international community. The effort to replace pressure with an improvement in the internal economic situation, to enable the coexistence of the original inhabitants, in other words Serbs, Gorani, Roma and other current ethnic groups with the majority Albanians, to prevent the bullying of minority inhabitants and to take a firm approach to the clans distributing drugs throughout Europe – these are the key issues which can contribute towards improving the situation in the area and strengthening cross-border cooperation. It is still not possible to resume the registration of citizens, and the country is still completely dependent on foreign economic aid. There is a lack of political will to ensure at least fair local elections and conditions for the functioning of local authorities. The fight against corruption and organised crime remains a purely formal matter in this territory, and the same applies to decentralisation and civil service reform. It has therefore had no real impact on the situation in the country so far. The rampant, widespread corruption and the smuggling of weapons and drugs sow unrest in the region. It is strange that the currency in this territory is the euro. Particularly as the basic preconditions for using the common European currency have not even superficially been met. It is clear that the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left cannot agree to such a draft.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I was very unpleasantly surprised to read in newspapers early on this week that an armed man fired four bullets at a Serb MP in the Kosovo Parliament. This attack took place four days after the explosion in Mitrovica during a Serb demonstration. The EU basically needs to deal with the process of establishing democracy and reinforcing stability in Kosovo. For this reason, the draft motion ought primarily to have reflected the realities in the province, such as the long-winded reform of the justice system and the difficulties encountered by European missions in communicating with the local authorities in Pristina. Regional cooperation among the Western Balkan countries is key to their economic development, but in particular to establishing mutual respect and respect for the rule of law. In particular, cooperation between Belgrade and Pristina, especially at a local level, is fundamentally important to citizens, above all in the worst-affected sectors such as the environment, infrastructure and trade. Last but not least, as regards the recognition of Kosovo’s status, the message in the resolution we are debating ought to have made it clear that it does not reflect the position of all EU Member States.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Five EU Member States, including France, have not recognised Kosovo’s independence. Consequently, it is unacceptable to present a report today that advocates the integration of Kosovo into the EU. Moreover, I have too much respect for the inhabitants of that province to want them to have to apply the Copenhagen criteria in addition to suffering the consequences of the recent conflicts. I shall vote against this unacceptable and provocative text.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The regional stability and the integration into the EU of countries of the western Balkans region has always been one of the EU’s priorities. In this difficult process there are countries in the region that have become close to the EU quicker than others, such as Serbia, the former-Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Montenegro. For various reasons, this process has been slower for Kosovo, and its citizens are still unable to travel to EU countries without a visa. We urgently need to move beyond this situation, and this effort depends entirely and exclusively on Kosovo, which will have to implement the necessary reforms for this purpose.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I voted against this resolution on Kosovo because it encourages the five Member States that have not recognised the unilateral independence of Kosovo to do so. The Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left has always been against the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo because it represents an act that is against international law. By contrast, we remain committed to dialogue being resumed in a manner that is satisfactory to both parties, on the basis of United Nations Security Council resolution 1244/99, in accordance with international law, as the only possible way of achieving peace and stability in the region.

  Francisco José Millán Mon and José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE), in writing. – (ES) On behalf of the Spanish delegation within the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), we would like to state that the reasoning behind our vote on the resolution on the process relating to the European integration of Kosovo is that this resolution treats Kosovo as if it were an independent state in an entirely normal situation, without taking into account the fact that the status of this territory continues to be very controversial within the international community – an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice is also pending – and Kosovo has not been recognised by five Member States of the European Union, including Spain.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − The European Parliament today sent a clear signal that the future of independent Kosovo lies in EU integration. This is a signal of encouragement for the government as well as the citizens of Kosovo. In addition, it is a clear request to the five EU Member States which have not yet recognised Kosovo as a state to promptly do so in order to raise the effectiveness of our support. A clear majority of MEPs rejected a further discussion on the question of Kosovo’s status, bearing in mind that a statement from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is due in July. With this resolution, Parliament is in favour of starting talks on visa liberalisation as soon as possible. The people of Kosovo should no longer be refused the freedom of travel which the EU will have probably granted to the other states in the region by the end of the year. My resolution calls for this necessary step to urgently be implemented to free the Kosovars from their regional as well as international isolation.

Motion for a resolution: Albania (B7-0408/2010)

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The Communist Party of Greece voted against the motion for a resolution, because it is against the accession of Albania to the EU, for the reasons for which it is against the accession and continuing membership of Greece in this imperialist international union. Accession will be to the benefit of euro-unifying and Albanian capital, especially in energy, mining and transport, and of aggressive imperialist EU and NATO plans and to the detriment of the workers, poor farmers and small and medium-sized businesses.

The motion for a resolution calls for the package of capitalist restructurings being imposed by the disreputable, anti-grassroots political system of the bourgeois parties in the country, in cooperation with the EU, to be stepped up and promoted. This anti-grassroots attack, which caused popular uprisings in the 1990s, is resulting in privatisations, massive unemployment, migration, abandonment of the countryside, increased exploitation, crime and corruption. It attempts an unprecedented open intervention in the internal affairs of the country and in the system of political opposition and calls for anti-democratic regulations in the operation of political parties and parliament. The policy of the EU and of the bourgeois powers in Albania in terms of progress towards accession is exacerbating the development problems of the country, the position of the workers, the drain of capital and migratory flows and carries huge risks in terms of security in the area.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In voting for this draft resolution on the process of including Albania in the EU, I have chosen to back its two principle ideas. On one hand, I lend my support to the idea of the long-term inclusion of this country, which is justified in particular by the great effort and progress already made. In effect, positive steps have been taken to fight against corruption as well as to reinforce Albania’s democratic framework. On the other hand, there is significant progress still to be made in terms of consolidating democracy or even with regard to the sustainable development of the country. The political crisis that followed the legislative elections of June 2009 in Albania showed all of us that this country can still fall prey to serious difficulties. That is why it will need all our support.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) This report demonstrates what European propaganda can produce when it wants to overlook the mistakes of the past; it is true that Mr Chountis’s report highlights the problems within Albania, but at the same time it almost seems to be saying that we are obliged to accommodate the Balkan countries in the Union, as if it were written in the stars and no one could oppose it. I completely disagree: Albania has glaringly obvious problems today with regard to its internal political stability, and a very high level of corruption. Its accession would cause further problems, in addition to the ones that the Union has already had to face and must continue to face today following a major enlargement that practically doubled the number of Member States. There is no reason, except for the hunger for power and centralism of EU bureaucrats, to persist with Albania’s accession to the EU; in view of the current situation within the Balkan republic, I cannot see what possible contribution its accession could make to the cause of European integration.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this resolution, as it is my understanding that Albania should proceed along its path towards possible entry into the EU. The Union should continue its strategy of expansion in a gradual and strict manner. It should also function as a driving force for the implementation of important reforms in countries that are candidates or potential candidates for Union membership. Nevertheless, everyone knows that the road to joining the Union is a demanding one. The conditions governing entry to the EU are clear and well known, and not always easy to fulfil. In the case of Albania, there is still a long way to go, as this report makes clear. To begin with, it needs to comply with the Copenhagen criteria, including the process of stabilising democratic institutions. In this sense, I would like to underline and support the efforts of Prime Minister Sali Berisha to find an effective solution to the current political crisis and, at the same time, criticise the ignoble behaviour of the socialist opposition. The pace at which each country progresses along its path to entry into the European Union is, therefore, determined by the candidate, or potential candidate country. I hope that Albania proceeds along its way towards the Union in a determined and unhesitating manner.

  Bairbre de Brún (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (GA) Although I voted for this report, in my opinion the people of Albania should decide whether they wish to be part of the EU.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Albania is no exception to the instability in the Western Balkan region, and knows that this crisis threatens to jeopardise the reforms which have been undertaken and which were largely aimed at a growing rapprochement with the European Union. If you recall the days of Enver Hoxha’s dictatorship, it is clear that Albania offers few guarantees that it can persevere on the path it has taken and raise its level of development and respect for the rule of law and individual freedom to acceptable levels in the light of European standards. An important step may have been made with the country’s accession to NATO, but this is still not enough for the EU to consider Albania a strong candidate for accession.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Despite the resolution recognising the progress made by Albania in the reform process, it emphasises that significant additional efforts are needed to consolidate democracy and the rule of law and to ensure the country’s sustainable economic development. I believe that the prospect of entry into the European Union will give impetus to several reforms in the Western Balkans and play a constructive role in enhancing the region’s capacity for peace, stability and conflict prevention, improving good neighbourly relations and addressing economic and social needs through sustainable development. Each country’s progress towards EU membership depends, however, on its efforts to meet the Copenhagen criteria and comply with the conditions attached to the stabilisation and association process, which I hope are successfully achieved by the country.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) It is out of friendship for the Albanians that I voted against this text. How can we want them to enter a European Union which pursues the interests of its financial elites to the exclusion of all else? No enlargement is conceivable as long as the EU advocates competition between peoples and the defence of the interests of the privileged. Furthermore, post-Communist Albania has demonstrated only a limited ability to combat organised crime, which is rife in that country. I voted against this text.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Regional stability and the integration of countries in the Western Balkan region into the EU has always been a priority for the Union. The prospect of integration with the EU therefore leads the countries of this region to make additional efforts in implementing the reforms needed to reach the targets required for these countries to become full members of the EU. The efforts of these countries to enhance peace, stability and conflict prevention in the region should be emphasised, along with the strengthening of good neighbourly relations. Albania is at an advanced stage in the integration process, and has already responded to the Commission’s questionnaire for the preparation of an opinion regarding its request to join the European Union.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. − I voted in favour of this resolution on Albania because it confirms Parliament’s support for Albania’s European prospects, once the country has reached a level of political stability and reliability and the Copenhagen criteria are fully met. It notes the progress made in the reform process, stressing that further substantial efforts are needed in terms of the consolidation of democracy and the rule of law and of the sustainable development of the country. The resolution welcomes the adoption of the proposal on visa liberalisation and calls for the introduction of a visa waiver for Albanian citizens by the end of 2010. It stresses the importance of the separation of powers and the respect for an independent judiciary, calling for particular progress to be made on the issue. The issues of corruption and organised crime, and trafficking in human beings are among the most worrying situations in the country on which the resolution takes a stand. The report also deals with minority rights, the Roma, trade union rights and the social situation, women’s rights and consultation of the government with civil society on the draft laws and reforms undertaken. It encourages the development and use of renewable energy, public transport and environmental legislation.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I welcome the adoption of this resolution, especially because it welcomes the progress made in respect of the judicial system, but underlines that implementation of the reforms is still at an early stage; takes the view that judicial reform, including the enforcement of court decisions, is a key prerequisite for Albania’s EU membership application process, and underlines the importance of the separation of powers in a democratic society; stresses that a transparent, impartial and efficient judiciary, independent of all political or other pressure or control, is fundamental to the rule of law, and calls for the urgent adoption of a comprehensive long-term strategy in this field, including a roadmap for adopting the necessary legislation and implementing measures; calls on the opposition to be involved in the drafting process and to give full support to the reform of the judiciary; stresses, moreover, that the judiciary needs to be provided with sufficient funding to enable it to operate effectively throughout the country; looks forward, therefore, to new assistance initiatives from the Commission and welcomes, in this regard, the recent inauguration of a Serious Crimes Court in Tirana.

  Søren Bo Søndergaard (GUE/NGL), in writing. − (DA) I voted in favour of the resolution, because it contains a number of correct calls for improvements in Albania. However, my ‘yes’ should under no circumstances be construed as a direct or indirect call on the Albanian people to join the EU. This matter is entirely up to the Albanian people themselves.

  Eva-Britt Svensson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − While I have voted in favour of this report, it is my firm view that the people of Albania should decide whether or not they wish to join the EU.

Motions for resolutions: Kosovo (B7-0409/2010) and Albania (B7-0408/2010)

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) Both Albania and Kosovo have made progress implementing democratic reforms to strengthen the rule of law and to ensure sustainable development for the country. However, we must continue to strive for the objectives, particularly in the fight against corruption and organised crime, strengthening the administrative capacity of state institutions and ensuring the primacy of law. In Albania the political tension over the parliamentary election results that has already gone on for a year is harming the country’s efforts to become an EU Member State. Albania’s political forces must begin a constructive dialogue to reach an agreement on the results and an election law ensuring a new fully transparent election process. I voted for the resolutions, because they also call on EU Member States to seek new means of interacting with these Balkan countries. One of these measures is to promote people-to-people contacts through academic exchanges between pupils, students and scientists.

  Ernst Strasser (PPE), in writing. − (DE) We would like make the following comments about the subject of visa liberalisation in this resolution. We should, in principle, support visa exemption for the countries of the Western Balkans. However, the prerequisite for this is that all the conditions laid down are fully met.

Motion for a resolution: Situation in Kyrgyzstan (B7-0419/2010)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the joint motion for a resolution drafted by various political groups. This resolution confirms the necessity of unblocking a sum greater than that already paid out to Kyrgyzstan specifically for the purpose of responding to the flash appeal launched by the United Nations, which aims to collect the USD 71 million required for emergency aid. In addition, I think it is necessary to provide this country not only with emergency aid, but also with the tools required to stabilise its situation and ensure there is no repetition of this type of event. Instruments should therefore be introduced to help re-establish security in Kyrgyzstan.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Despite successes at an official political level, Kyrgyzstan remains steeped in instability and conflict, and there is no sign that the situation will soon become stable. This country, which gained independence after the breakup of the Soviet Union, has shown that it is incapable of adopting better standards with regard to human rights and respect for individual freedom.

I believe that the European Union can adopt a stabilising role as a mediator and, in what is effectively a post-conflict situation, it should actively contribute to the difficult task of effective peacemaking and democratisation in a country that has Russia and China for neighbours.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This resolution expresses grave concern at the tragic, violent clashes which broke out in southern Kyrgyzstan recently and extends its condolences to the families of all the victims. I would stress this resolution’s call for every effort to be made to secure a return to normality and to put in place all the necessary conditions so that refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) can voluntarily return to their homes in safety and dignity. It also calls on the Commission to step up humanitarian assistance, in cooperation with international organisations, and to start short- and medium-term reconstruction programmes to rebuild destroyed homes and replace lost assets and to carry out rehabilitation projects in conjunction with the Kyrgyz authorities and other donors in order to create conditions conducive to the return of refugees and IDPs.

  Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz (PPE), in writing. – (PL) In relation to the disturbances and the clashes which took place on 11 June in southern Kyrgyzstan, and in particular in the cities of Osh and Jalal-Abad, during which around 300 people lost their lives and over 2 000 were wounded, I think the European Parliament, as a guardian of democracy, law and order and respect for human rights should react decisively to every such event, trying to prevent the processes of destabilisation such as currently are being seen in Kyrgyzstan. Therefore, I would like to express my solidarity and support for the nation of Kyrgyzstan by supporting this resolution and voting for its adoption.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) It is with great concern that I view the violent clashes that took place recently in the southern Kyrgyzstan cities of Osh and Jalal-Abad. Therefore, and given the EU’s commitments to the region, in particular through its Central Asia Strategy, we must make a strong aid commitment to Kyrgyzstan. The gravity of the situation means that a substantial increase in the humanitarian aid provided by the EU is needed, to be allocated to all those who have been affected by these serious conflicts.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I welcome the adoption of this resolution mainly because it calls for a substantial increase in EU humanitarian aid to the people affected by the recent violence in southern Kyrgyzstan, as well as for comprehensive use of the Instrument for Stability, and because it stresses our belief that a new level of EU engagement in southern Kyrgyzstan will be necessary in the longer term as well; reiterates Parliament’s call to the Commission to prepare proposals for a reallocation of funds under the Development Cooperation Instrument designed to put the EU in a better position to give a sustained response to the new situation in Kyrgyzstan; and maintains that a focus on human security is essential in the EU’s Central Asia policy.

Motion for a resolution: AIDS/HIV in view of the XVIII International AIDS Conference (Vienna, 18-23 July 2010) (RC-B7-0412/2010)

  John Attard-Montalto, Louis Grech and Edward Scicluna (S&D), in writing. − The Maltese labour delegation voted in favour of the joint motion for a resolution on the EU response to HIV/AIDS, especially since it addresses fundamental issues and priorities relating to a global and tragic problem affecting – to a very large extent – the lives of many people, especially women and children in poverty-stricken regions like sub-Saharan Africa, which has 22.4 million people living with HIV/AIDS. Although – prima facie – it seems that there is no direct reference to the promotion of abortion in the resolution, my delegation does not support clauses which might condone abortion.

  Carlo Casini (PPE), in writing. − (IT) Once again we have the regrettable situation in which arguments proposing unjust solutions to the issue of the right to life are being applied to the discussion of a real and serious problem (in this case the fight against HIV), thus making it impossible to vote in favour. The use of the words ‘sexual and reproductive health’ has now become the means by which to convince parliaments to promote abortion. We must not let ourselves be deceived.

Everyone, including myself, for a start, must promote sexual and reproductive health, but when the words indicate a different and, in fact, opposite state of affairs (whereby killing a human being is understood as a woman’s right to freedom), it then becomes necessary to expose the deceit. Abortion in the world is a real tragedy, but it is a real tragedy in our Europe too! My intention in voting against the resolution is not to hinder the wide-ranging efforts to combat AIDS, but to oppose the method and the content that I mentioned.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the resolution on AIDS/HIV in view of the XVIII International Aids Conference, because efforts need to be intensified to establish a priority approach to HIV/AIDS for global public health, and to facilitate universal access to health care, education and employment for the people affected by this virus. It is vital to combat stigmatisation and discrimination against carriers of HIV/AIDS and to ensure that their rights are protected.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Political groups should reach a broad consensus on a subject like this, and they should have refrained from seeking to use it in favour of this or that agenda. Given the existence of a joint motion for a resolution signed only by the left-wing and the extreme left-wing parties in Parliament, it is easy to see that this objective has been sadly undermined. We should be concerned with the people, their illness and the suffering it causes them, and the impact of this on society, particularly in the least developed countries. We must work to find better solutions to combat this scourge and mitigate its effects, for the sake of these people.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The scourge of AIDS remains a serious humanitarian problem worldwide, and it therefore requires an integrated response at global level that mobilises the states, institutions, and societies of the various regions and continents. The social stigmatisation that continues to prevail on this issue and the continued spread of the disease, with a high mortality rate and particularly devastating effects on the least developed countries and those with the worst humanitarian situations, must mobilise the concern and commitment of the institutions of the EU and the Member States towards making actual resources available for a comprehensive and effective response, capable of ensuring the necessary harmonisation of policies for prevention and for the adequate treatment of the disease. Nevertheless, I do not agree with associating the fight against HIV with a sensitive issue like abortion.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The resolution takes a wide-ranging approach to the problem of AIDS/HIV, supported by current data. It emphasises the key issues, which of course we support, including, among others, advocating universal access to health care and the need for governments to comply with this, and making a public health service available for all; the need to promote, protect and respect human rights, especially rights to sexual and reproductive health, for carriers of HIV/AIDS; drawing attention to economic, judicial, social and technical obstacles, along with punitive legislation and measures that impede an effective response to HIV; the need for fair and flexible funding for research into new preventative technologies, including vaccines and microbicides; calling for the Member States and the Commission to reverse the worrying decline in funding aimed at promoting sexual and reproductive health and related rights in developing countries.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) It is with force and conviction that I voted in favour of this resolution which requires the Member States of the European Union, on the eve of the next international AIDS conference in Vienna, to produce new laws to provide accessible and effective anti-HIV medicines, to encourage more awareness campaigns in developing countries, to increase financing for the research of new vaccines and microbicides and to fight against patient discrimination. More than 33 million people are living with AIDS worldwide, with very limited access to antiretroviral drugs, and I hope that these few recommendations will be followed at next week’s international conference.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) Ahead of the next International AIDS Conference in Vienna in July, it seemed essential for us MEPs to send out a strong message to governments. Consequently, I voted for this resolution, which calls on the Commission and the Council to step up their efforts to address HIV/AIDS as a global public health priority by putting human rights at the heart of prevention, treatment and support.

The proportion of sufferers who receive treatment is still too small today, and laws are needed to provide affordable and effective anti-HIV drugs. I strongly condemn the bilateral trade agreements which continue to put trade interests before health, in defiance of an agreement signed with the World Trade Organisation. Also, as the resolution underlines, we must combat all legislation that criminalises HIV transmission and encourages the stigmatisation of, and discrimination against, sufferers.

Finally, the statistics on the proportion of women and young girls affected have demonstrated the failure of the current prevention policies, and in my opinion that is why it is essential to adopt an ultimately realistic approach, by increasing the funding of research into new vaccines and microbicides.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) HIV/AIDS is still one of the leading causes of death globally, accounting for 2 million deaths in 2008, and is projected to remain a significant global cause of premature mortality in the coming decades. The number of new infections continues to outstrip the expansion of treatment, and two thirds of the people in need of treatment in 2009 were still not receiving it, which means that 10 million people in need did not have access to the necessary effective treatment. I therefore argue that the EU must make every effort towards greater investment in the areas of research, treatment and education, so as to improve this situation. An end to the stigmatisation of, and discrimination against, carriers of HIV/AIDS must also be promoted. I would also argue that the EU must be especially sensitive to the problem in sub-Saharan Africa, which, with 22.4 million people living with HIV/AIDS, remains the most heavily affected region.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour of the joint resolution by all groups in Parliament on HIV/AIDS, as it deals with important elements of this problem, such as, for example, defending the universality of access to public health services for all citizens. The resolution also requires governments to fulfil their obligation to make a public health service available to all citizens. The resolution also protects the sexual health and reproductive rights of those who are HIV positive. It also highlights the need for financing that is in line with the requirements of research into new preventive measures, including vaccines.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Up to the present day, HIV/AIDS continues to be a worldwide plague which it has barely been possible to deal with. Developing countries in particular continue to have a high rate of new infections, and, as a result, a high death rate. However, within the European Union too, more and more newly-infected people are being registered, and the number of unreported cases might be much higher. The fear of knowing one has the disease and of having to live with a stigma is still very prevalent. In order to stop the disease, much research is being carried out, also within the EU. Since research in the area of HIV/Aids is essential, I voted for the resolution.

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE), in writing. – (FR) On the eve of the next international AIDS conference, which will take place in Vienna from 18-23 July 2010, I must give my support to the resolution adopted today by sending out a strong message to national governments. In fact it is essential to establish new legislation to provide affordable and effective anti-HIV drugs, including antiretrovirals and other safe and effective drugs. I must point out that only 23% of patients affected by HIV are aware of antiretroviral treatments in Europe and Central Asia. For example, the Baltic States are the countries of the European Union that need to implement AIDS prevention policies most. Thus I appeal to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights to gather more information on the situation of people with HIV/AIDS and to ensure that these sufferers still have the right to a full social, sexual and reproductive life.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am submitting this explanation of vote because, although I voted in favour of most of the paragraphs, I would stress that I abstained on paragraph 17. I only abstained because the French version – unlike the Portuguese version – indicated the possibility that sexual and reproductive health could include acceptance of abortion as a means of promoting them. As an advocate of the right to life, I could not in good conscience vote in favour. I would stress that the use of the phrase ‘sexual and reproductive health’ cannot be turned into a way of persuading parliaments to promote abortion. Nevertheless, I would reiterate my total commitment to the fight against HIV/AIDS.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − The joint resolution was adopted as negotiated with 400 votes in favour and 166 against, despite the PPE Group requesting split votes on sexual and reproductive rights, which it does every time. It also shows that the PPE Group is divided on the issue. I am happy with the result, especially because all our considerations related to sexual and reproductive rights are in.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) HIV/AIDS infections are a global phenomenon and are nothing to do with either so-called risk groups or specific regions. It is not a problem, today, of drug addicts or homosexuals, but of everyone. At greatest risk are young people, educated people, white people and people working for large corporations.

Almost half of those living with HIV are women. They are more susceptible to infection, because the virus passes much more easily from men to women than vice versa. The XVIII International AIDS Conference in Vienna on 18-23 July this year will stress the necessity of intensifying the information campaign addressed to women and young people. Women must have universal and easy access to information on health aspects of sex, reproduction and medical services. Also essential is the free distribution of anti-HIV drugs to women in pregnancy, to prevent transmission of the disease from mother to child. School education programmes on sexual and reproductive rights are crucial for HIV/AIDS prevention.

The most visible effects of the lack of sex education in schools are the cases of HIV infection and other sexually-transmitted diseases among young people, and early, unplanned pregnancies in young women. The HIV/AIDS epidemic, because of its extent and lethal danger and the large percentage of cases among young people, should be sufficient reason to introduce proper sex education to schools. This is why I voted for adoption of the resolution on HIV/AIDS in the context of the XVIII International AIDS Conference.

  Charles Tannock (ECR), in writing. − The ECR Group is wholeheartedly in favour of human rights for all, regardless of race, gender, and sexual orientation. We strongly support advancing treatment, prevention, and access to healthcare for all, and promoting awareness and education in the fight against HIV and AIDS.

However, we believe that reproductive rights, which include abortion, is a conscience issue for the individual, and that the proposals within this resolution encroach too far upon the sovereign state’s right to set the agenda for its own healthcare and abortion policy.

For these reasons the ECR Group has decided to abstain on this resolution.

Motion for a resolution: Entry into force on 1 August 2010 of the Convention on Cluster Munitions and the role of the EU (RC-B7-0413/2010)

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Convention on Cluster Munitions aims to prohibit the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of this category of weapons and provides for their removal and destruction. I supported the joint motion for a resolution, which invites all Member States to ratify this Convention to thereby allow the Union’s adherence to it. It is therefore essential to take the necessary measures so that the countries that have not yet ratified the Convention do so. Where the Member States having already signed are concerned, the entry into force is an opportunity to take the necessary measures to implement the Convention, by destroying stockpiles, eliminating remainders of weapons, providing aid to victims and so on.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) I signed and voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on the entry into force of the Convention on Cluster Munitions and the role of the EU, not only because this is an issue of the highest importance, but also because Greece is, unfortunately, one of the countries which has not even signed this Convention. This Convention needs to be applied immediately by all states. Cluster munitions tend to have a high death rate and pose a serious risk to citizens, especially when used close to residential areas. They continue to have tragic consequences even once the conflict has ended, because use of these munitions causes multiple civilian injuries and deaths, as unexploded shells which remain in the ground are often discovered by children and other unsuspecting innocent victims.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All countries that still remember participating in wars know the devastating consequences of cluster munitions. Parliament’s support for their prohibition and eradication is fully justified. I fear, however, that the willingness of politicians and the ratification of the Convention by several States might not be enough to readily achieve the desired results.

Having said that, this is indisputably an important step in the right direction, and the European Union and its Member States have a duty to support it.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. − (PT) Given the European Union’s inalienable role in the defence of peace, security, and respect for liberty, for life and for the human rights and quality of life of peoples, I support this resolution and stress the need for a positive and rapid response to the call for all the Member States to sign and ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions ‘without delay’. I would highlight the fact that cluster munitions are extremely deadly and constitute a serious risk to the civilian population, including in post-conflict periods. Regrettably, children are the main victims of this type of explosive material. I advocate Europe’s commitment to the fight against the proliferation of weapons that kill indiscriminately, and I hope that the Member States and institutions of the EU will take coherent and determined action in this respect toward third countries.

  Paweł Robert Kowal (ECR), in writing. – (PL) Our motion for a resolution is balanced. It welcomes the actions of Member States which have signed and ratified the Convention on Cluster Munitions, but also recognises that some Member States, in view of their situation, will not be able to sign the Convention at this time. Our text calls on those countries (including, for example, Poland) to take action to comply with requirements (such as a significant reduction in the number of unexploded munitions and a smaller scatter range) which, as a result, reduce potential losses amongst civilian populations – as part of an additional protocol to the Geneva Convention on Conventional Weapons. This route has been chosen by Poland and other EU Member States, such as Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Romania and Slovakia, and also by the US.

  Sabine Lösing and Sabine Wils (GUE/NGL), in writing. − Unfortunately, the joint resolution’s recitals contain a positive reference to the European Security Strategy (ESS) and the Common Security and Defence Policy, which I and my group reject. But due to the very high importance of the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) adopted by 107 countries I and the GUE/NGL group signed the joint resolution on the entry into force of the CCM and the role of the EU, as this joint resolution must be seen as a great success in order to ban cluster munitions.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) The signing of the Convention on Cluster Munitions by 20 Member States is a good demonstration of the EU’s commitment to the fight against the proliferation of weapons that kill indiscriminately. We cannot forget that this type of weapon is the main cause of the deaths of thousands of civilians, killing indiscriminately, particularly children and other people who are innocent and unaware of the danger.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) Unfortunately, the joint resolution contains positive references to the European Security Strategy and the Common Security and Defence Policy, which both my group and I reject. However, due to the great importance of the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) approved by 107 countries, both I and my group, the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left, also endorse the joint resolution on the entry into force of this Convention and the role played by the European Union. I believe that the joint resolution may be considered an advance towards the banning of cluster bombs, and so I voted in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) Cluster munitions are one of the most insidious weapons, since they mainly kill innocent people when they are used. Above all, children are in danger of setting off unexploded devices by accident, and they can receive serious injuries from doing so. The CCM (Convention on Cluster Munitions), which has been signed by 20 Member States, prohibits the use of these weapons and requires countries which have them in their arsenal to destroy them. I agreed with the resolution, because the CCM is the first step in the right direction of prohibiting these deadly weapons for good. I voted against the resolution because I do not believe that the agreement can force countries to prohibit cluster munitions.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − With an overwhelming majority, the European Parliament has sent a strong signal against this perfidious threat to humans in war and crisis areas. Thousands of people continue to be affected by cluster munitions to this day: almost exclusively civilians, and in particular many children who frequently confuse the bomblets with balls and toys. Thus, the European Parliament took the only possible position on this indiscriminate and inhumane weapon: a united ‘no’ to cluster munitions in Europe and throughout the world. The European Parliament demands that all Member States and candidate countries which have not yet signed or ratified the international treaty to ban cluster munitions should do so as soon as possible, preferably by the end of the year. We Greens were successful in our demand that the countries which have not yet been named, should be named – allowing civil society to apply pressure where it is needed most. Estonia, Finland, Greece, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Turkey have yet to sign and ratify this treaty. Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden have signed but still have to ratify the treaty in their national parliaments.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR), in writing. − The ECR Group is very much in favour of all efforts to minimise the suffering of combatants and civilians and thereby voted in favour of this resolution. However, we take the view that nothing must be done to impair the operational effectiveness and security of our armed forces. We should therefore be clear that ‘cluster munitions’ as defined by the Convention on Cluster Munitions do not include munitions which self destruct or self deactivate: in other words, those that will be used by the responsible armed forces of our nations.

I personally disapprove of the language in paragraph 10 which calls on the High Representative to make every effort to ‘realize the accession of the Union to the CCM’. One of the many unfortunate consequences of the Treaty of Lisbon is that the EU itself is now able to accede to international conventions. This should be the prerogative of sovereign nations, not an organisation such as the EU, although it is clear that there are those that seek, most regrettably, to turn the EU into a sovereign state.

Report: George Lyon (A7-0204/2010)

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The common agricultural policy (CAP) is one of the European Union’s most important policies, and following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the reform of the CAP, like any new legislation on agriculture, cannot be approved without Parliament’s consent.

Farmers produce goods for use by society as a whole, but they are not the only ones affected by the CAP, because there is a relationship between agriculture, the environment, biodiversity, climate change and the sustainable management of natural resources such as water and land; there is also a clear link between agriculture and the proper economic and social development of the EU’s vast rural areas. Farmers also provide food, which we need in order to live.

This initial resolution on the future of the CAP represents the contribution made by us MEPs to the debate on how to reform the CAP in conjunction with the introduction, in 2013, of the new multiannual budget, and on how to define the basic principles that should govern the process of creating a new common agricultural policy. With this vote Parliament has focused on how to address the new challenges, such as the fight against climate change, food security, food quality, the competitiveness of businesses and farmers’ incomes.

  Charalampos Angourakis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The report on the future of the CAP after 2013 promotes the euro-unifying policy to uproot poor farmers from medium-sized farms and strengthens large capitalist agricultural production. The CAP, ‘health check’ reforms and WTO decisions have had a dramatic impact on poor medium-sized farms. Before Greece joined the EEC/EU, it exported agricultural produce; today it spends EUR 2.5 billion importing products which it can produce. Twenty thousand jobs a year are lost in the agricultural sector, production is falling, agricultural income fell by 20% between 2000 and 2008 and 75% of farms have annual gross profits of between EUR 1 200 and EUR 9 600.

The report considers the painful consequences for small and medium-sized farms to be a success. The aim of the report is to adapt the CAP to the strategy of monopoly capital for the agricultural economy, as expressed in the EU 2020 strategy: ‘competitive farming’, large corporate properties in the agricultural economy which will concentrate the land and Community subsidies at the expense of poor, medium-sized farming and rabid competition for a share of the euro-unifying and global markets. The Commission decision to suspend or abolish Community subsidies/aid for farming to all Member States which do not satisfy the financial discipline requirements of the Stability Pact moves in a similar direction.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) There are currently 13.6 million citizens in EU Member States employed directly in the agricultural, forestry and fisheries sectors, with an additional 5 million people working in the agri-food industry. They generate more than EUR 337 billion in production annually at EU level.

Given that the EU must ensure food security for its citizens and the long-term development of the agricultural sectors, agriculture must undergo major changes to maintain productivity, at a time when it needs to adapt to more stringent environmental restrictions than are currently in place.

The policies on reducing the farming of land in order to combat climate change will restrict the size of the areas farmed and impose additional conditions on agricultural production aimed at reducing the impact on the environment and climate. Furthermore, the EU’s common agricultural policy will have to be adapted to a new economic and social climate at local and regional level, which will take into account the increase in energy costs.

This report has correctly identified the key problems which the common agricultural policy will have to tackle from 2013 on, which is why I voted in favour of it.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Lyon report aims to ensure and improve the future of the common agricultural policy (CAP) after 2013, in keeping with the context of the economic crisis and the severe financial difficulties being faced by Member States, taxpayers, farmers and consumers. Therefore, the European Union will have to respond to increased demographic pressure as well as growth in demand from the internal market. However, as specified in this report, for which I have voted, it is not merely a matter of intensifying production. The challenges faced by the CAP and our farmers will essentially be to produce more foodstuffs with less land, less water and less energy. Several amendments have been tabled in the plenary part-session. I voted in particular in favour of Amendment 1, which insists on the high nutritional value of agricultural products. However, I voted against Amendment 2, which called for the elimination of the two-pillar structure of the CAP.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted for this report. The background to the reform of the common agricultural policy is one of economic crisis and serious financial difficulties facing Member States, taxpayers, farmers and consumers. The new CAP will have to adapt to a changing European and global context and withstand many challenges. European agriculture must ensure food security to its own consumers and contribute to feeding a steadily growing world population. This will be very complicated because the energy crisis, the rising cost of energy and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will act as constraints to increased production. Moreover, the impact of climate change will close off the option of bringing large tracts of extra land into production and as a result, EU and global agriculture will have to produce more food with less land, less water and less energy. I feel that the foundation stone of the CAP should still be to ensure that European agriculture is competitive against well-subsidised trading partners such as the US, Japan, Switzerland or Norway, providing EU farmers with fair trade conditions. It must also continue to support agricultural activity across Europe, with a view to ensuring local food production and a balanced territorial development.

  Bastiaan Belder (EFD), in writing. − (NL) The own-initiative report by my fellow Member Mr Lyon is an important one. The European Commission now knows the European Parliament’s position as regards this dossier and will have to take it into due account when tabling new proposals. As far as my party is concerned, the common agricultural policy (CAP) will continue to exist after 2013. Agriculture is important to our citizens. Food security, landscape, the environment, animal welfare, climate etc. are causes to which agriculture can contribute a great deal. However, a firm policy will need to be backed up by sufficient financial means. There are challenges that we have already mentioned and there will be new ones to contend with. The Union now consists of a great number of Member States. I endorse this report because it calls for comparable funds to be appropriated for agriculture in the post-2013 budget. That said, some reformulation will be necessary. First of all, we need simplified arrangements and less red tape. In addition, we will have to progress from a model where not all farmers receive aid to one where aid is based on acreage. A transition period where we proceed with caution will be of major importance in this respect.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) With the 2007-2013 programming period now over, the new common agricultural policy will have to rise to a very important challenge on behalf of our farmers: that of guaranteeing at least the same level of financial resources as in the past and distributing them equally between old and new Member States on the basis not only of the number of hectares, but also of other objective assessment criteria. I voted in favour of the Lyon report because I fully support its aim of regionalising and maintaining aid in the form of coupled payments for vulnerable agriculture territories and sectors. I also believe in the importance of the policy of promoting geographical indications, and in simplification, in compliance with EU standards on the part of third-country imports, and in the strengthening of the position of the various parties in the food chain.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This report gives agricultural policy a strategic role in terms of food security and sustainable development. The development of green technologies in the field of agriculture has great potential for job creation and these technologies will make a decisive contribution to the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. In this report the European Parliament has set out its position on reforming and financing the common agricultural policy after 2013. The report also deals with the links between agricultural policy and fighting climate change.

  Ole Christensen, Dan Jørgensen, Christel Schaldemose and Britta Thomsen (S&D), in writing. − (DA) The report as a whole: ‘We Danish Social Democrats have chosen to vote against the report on the EU’s agricultural policy after 2013, as we do not believe that it properly expresses the desire for an otherwise much needed reform. We would have liked to have seen the EU leading the way and stopping all payments of export subsidies by 2013 at the latest – irrespective of the actions of the other WTO trade partners. This was not included in the report. In connection with the payment of subsidies, we would have liked higher requirements to be set for the environment, climate and sustainability than the unambitious requirements that are in place today. This was not included in the report. We would also have liked to have seen a significant reduction in the proportion of the EU budget being allocated to agricultural aid. This was not included in the report either. In light of this, we Danish Social Democrats are unable to support the final report on the EU’s agricultural aid after 2013.’

Amendment 3: ‘We Danish Social Democrats believe that EU subsidies should be removed from European agricultural policy. Free and fair trade should be the guiding principle for an agricultural area based on sustainability. We voted against this amendment, as we believe that the amendment itself is contradictory, as it calls for EU aid to be provided without distorting free and fair trade. However, the distortion of free and fair trade is precisely what the EU’s subsidy schemes are doing today.’

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I gave a decisive ‘yes’ to maintaining an equal distribution of payments within the common agricultural policy from 2013 onwards for farmers from both new and old Member States, which would help eliminate an injustice for Member States which have recently joined, including Romania.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) We are at a crossroads in the definition of what the future reform of the common agricultural policy must be. This is an issue that concerns Europeans, naturally, but also the citizens of the world. That is why this reform should not be the business of experts, but rather of farmers and consumers. We have to rethink the general objectives of a new common agricultural policy. Europeans have new expectations in terms of food production and supply. They want an agriculture that respects the environment, that meets high standards with regard to quality, traceability, food product safety and carbon footprint. This new policy should also be part of a global vision, with one major challenge: to be able to respond to the doubling of demand for food production and supply that will take place between now and 2050, in a context characterised by water scarcity, reduction of arable land and by a new energy agreement dictated by the fight against climate change. The global organisation of agricultural markets needs to be rethought, taking into account the two main inspirations of a common agricultural policy: guaranteeing food safety and saving the lifeblood of small farmers and their families, both at home and in the world’s poorest countries.

  Diane Dodds (NI), in writing. − I voted for this report but must stress my continued support depends on the Commission now taking account and securing a number of objectives:

1. We must have a CAP budget which is capable of providing our farmers with a viable and secure income, and consumers with food security.

2. We must maintain Pillar 1 payments, rewarding farmers for work, securing the industry with direct payments.

3. We must define what we mean by a fair distribution of CAP and look at production costs. An area based payment which rewards Northern Ireland less than current levels will destroy an industry already on the edge of viability. Regional variation is vital.

4. We must maintain market control measures which control price volatility and ensure profitability.

  Leonidas Donskis (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) The European Parliament resolution on the common agricultural policy is an ambitious and targeted reform. It has my vote and that of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe. The most important thing is that it acknowledges the injustice done to farmers of the new Member States. This resolution calls for us to meet the expectations of the 12 new EU Member States that joined after 2004 and to treat them fairly when distributing European Union money. As the European Parliament’s powers in this matter have increased since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, I hope that the Council does not revert to unequal direct payments for farmers of the old and new Member States and will not approve any additional general funding, which might damage fair competition in the single EU market. The new CAP should ensure that farmers are provided with efficient and targeted support, which should benefit the wider society, especially consumers. It draws attention to food security and the supply of high quality products at a reasonable price. As a liberal I can only justify the current CAP budget if the new common agricultural policy is one creating added value instead of distorting the market, if it makes the EU more competitive in respect of its trade partners, creates jobs and fosters balanced development of agriculture and the countryside, conserving the environment and landscape. The reforms proposed by the European Parliament are a positive step which I and the family of European liberals welcome and look forward to seeing.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the future of the CAP post-2013 because it is necessary to strengthen CAP policies and ensure an adequate budget in order to respond to the challenges that European agriculture is facing, such as climate change, food security and quality and the competitiveness of the sector.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted against Amendment 69 of this proposal because it brings the global construction of the common agricultural policy (CAP) under threat and endangers the interests of Portuguese agriculture, as it proposes cancelling funding for structural measures without guaranteeing that these will be replaced using the changes to the first pillar. Furthermore, such a proposal involves procedural difficulties in the future distribution of Union funds to farmers, while the current system, as it is, needs to be simplified, not made more complicated. I would also stress the fact that the Portuguese state has been wasting hundreds of millions of euros in first pillar funds. With the abolition of the second pillar and the transfer of some of the measures of the second to the first, many measures that are currently supported will cease to be so, particularly because of the obvious budgetary impossibility, and the result will be a weakening of the CAP. In truth, we cannot understand what benefit the possible transfer of CAP funds to other policies could bring. Instead, we are advocating measures to secure the only truly common policy that exists in the EU.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The CAP has increased productivity, ensured security of supply and provided consumers with quality food at reasonable prices. The new CAP will have to face new and urgent challenges, and should provide a framework for the future based on stability, predictability and flexibility in a time of crisis.

CAP reform should be reviewed in the context of the economic crisis and combating climate change, and maintaining its competitiveness in a global context. It is expected that the agricultural sector will be able to make an important contribution to achieving the priorities of the new Europe 2020 strategy in terms of combating climate change, innovation and creation of new jobs through green growth, and continuing to ensure security of food supplies for European consumers by producing safe and high quality food.

However, I believe that the CAP should make its priority the production of the so-called first generation of public goods, and its guiding principle food sovereignty, so that Member States can be self-sufficient. I would also advocate market regulation in the dairy sector, from production to marketing. In this context, I believe that maintaining milk quotas is vital.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Among other aspects, the profound changes which need to be made to the common agricultural policy (CAP) should include establishing the principle of the right to food and food sovereignty; prioritising food self-sufficiency and the ability of countries and regions to develop production to meet their national or regional food needs; and supporting activities which promote local production and respect the local environment, protect water and soil, increase the production of GMO-free food and promote the biodiversity of seeds for farmers and the diversity of species for domestic cattle. This was the thrust of one of the various amendments that we have tabled to the report under discussion.

The rejection of this amendment and the principles that it contains by the main political groups in Parliament merely highlights the route that they intend to follow. This route is also noted in the report. Despite advocating some important aspects, such as the rejection of renationalisation of the CAP, the rejection of a reduction in the overall budget and arguing for fairer redistribution of aid between countries and producers, the report maintains the view that was predominant in earlier reforms of the CAP – the total liberalisation of agricultural markets and the subjection of the CAP to the interests of EU negotiations in the WTO. We consider such a view unacceptable.

  Anne E. Jensen (ALDE), in writing. − (DA) The three members of the Danish Liberal Party today voted in favour of the report on the EU’s agricultural policy after 2013. The report focuses on modernising agriculture and making it more efficient, ensuring that improvements are made in relation to the environment and animal welfare, the contribution of agriculture to energy and climate policy as well as simpler rules for the agricultural sector. There are a few statements regarding the EU’s agricultural budget that we do not agree with, and the Danish Liberal Party will continue to work to bring about a gradual phasing out of the EU’s agricultural aid. In general, however, the report represents the consolidation and further development of the reforms of the EU’s agricultural policy that have been carried out over the last few years.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. − (DE) The new common agricultural policy (CAP) is intended to enter into force for European agriculture from 2014. The Lyon report represents the prelude to the intensive negotiations over the next three years on the CAP after 2013. For the first time in the EU agricultural reform, the European Parliament has full power of codecision and will act as an important negotiator among the Member States, the Council and the European Commission. With the first proposals in the Lyon report, the European Parliament sets a very clear direction: a clear commitment to the common agricultural policy with its two pillars, the direct payments and rural development, which also deserve to be safeguarded in the agricultural model after 2013. Only the CAP, the funding for which in the next financial planning period will be maintained at at least the level of the 2013 budget, can guarantee a multifunctional agriculture throughout Europe and, with it, the supply of good quality food. An appropriate model needs to be found for my country, Austria, in particular – one that safeguards the small structures and provides a viable balance for mountainous areas. In addition to food production, agriculture also makes a significant contribution to preserving the cultural landscape. I support the Lyon report, as my amendment for safeguarding agriculture throughout the EU and the mountainous areas has been incorporated and will provide a stable perspective for the future for young farmers.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I believe that European agriculture needs a common policy that will remain as such to prevent inevitable disparities between Member States and to guarantee that the common agricultural policy (CAP) is financed entirely, and fairly, by the European budget. I therefore voted against the renationalisation of the CAP, since the new policy will require sufficient funding if it is to be supported better in the light of the major challenges that this sector, which is crucial to the EU’s food security, will have to face in the coming years. Indeed, food security is a consumer right that must be safeguarded in the same way as the guarantee of ‘second-generation’ public goods such as the environment, regional development and animal welfare.

  Marine Le Pen (NI), in writing. – (FR) While I welcome this report, which is concerned about the future of farming, I do not share the view that the common agricultural policy has succeeded in achieving the objectives of ensuring a fair standard of living, stabilising markets, producing high-quality food at reasonable prices, developing economic activity in rural areas and guaranteeing our food security and food sovereignty. The reality is quite different. One need only look at the state of a great farming nation like France, which has recorded a 34% income reduction in its accounts.

As in the past, the CAP after 2013 will be unable to protect our farmers from speculators and savage global competition, or to compensate for the excesses of the multinationals of the food processing industry and large-scale distributors. The CAP after 2013 will remain wedged between the ultraliberal and internationalist market logic of the European Commission and a future ‘green’ CAP, in reality serving the neo-capitalists of ecological business. This is a logic that sacrifices our rurality, but not for the good of poor countries or less-favoured or desertified areas in Europe, and which justifies renationalising the CAP as soon as possible.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Agriculture is and will remain a strategic sector for the European Union economy, which will need to face up to the future challenges and guarantee independence and food security for Europeans through its common policy. I voted in favour of this particularly important report because I believe that in the forthcoming programming period the common agricultural policy will require support from a consolidated, well-structured budget, commensurate with the challenges which lie ahead of us. I think that we must establish close links between rural development policy and regional policy in order to ensure a degree of consistency with interventions of the same kind carried out in a particular region, thereby fostering territorial cohesion within the European Union as well. I also believe that it is essential to consider regions’ territorial features and priorities. We must promote common norms and objectives, taking into account the specific nature of each region. This will enable us to achieve dynamic, multifunctional and sustainable agriculture in Europe.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report on the common agricultural policy after 2013 because I feel that the European Parliament, endowed with new powers since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, is clearly demonstrating through this excellent report that it is assuming its new responsibilities.

Parliament is in favour of maintaining a common agricultural policy worthy of the name, including after 2013, with a budget that is at least equal to the current budget, in order to ensure high-quality production and security of supply in the 27 Member States. I am delighted that my amendments along these lines have found their place in this text.

My call for us to maintain certain market measures acting as a safety net for farmers and the prices of their products has also largely been supported. We must be able to prevent overproduction crises, among others, in order to safeguard farming activity in all European regions. It is also advisable to retain specific tools to manage the production potential that some sectors have.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Lyon report on the future of the CAP, and in particular for retaining the two pillars. Today’s vote in plenary on the Lyon report is very important and symbolic, since the MEPs are the first to take up a position and present their proposal for the CAP after 2013. I have every confidence in Commissioner Cioloş to take account of the results of this vote in the proposals that will be presented by the European Commission in November.

The main priorities of European agriculture, such as food security, market regulation and spatial planning, are clearly reaffirmed, as are the consequences in budgetary terms, which must be in line with the ambitions of the CAP. The biodiversity support measures must not be forgotten. Biodiversity must be at the heart of the CAP provisions, since its protection is no longer a luxury where the conservation of species and habitats is concerned.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The 2009 crisis showed the weaknesses of the system of measures to support agriculture. Its effects were felt in farmers’ income, which suffered a 12% reduction on an income which is already around 50% lower than the European Union average. The strategic plan for the post-2013 period must be proportionate to the importance of the sector, which employs around 30 million workers. It must include the strengthening of the common agricultural policy, an appropriate fiscal policy and maintenance of its budget, in consideration of the many beneficial effects of agriculture on the environment, health and climate change. It is important to guarantee reasonable consumer prices and a fair income for farmers by using targeted aid. Agriculture must have a greater role in the EU 2020 strategy, and plans must be set out for intelligent, sustainable and inclusive growth. Market instability grows with increasing measures to guarantee the safety and sustainability of products because this situation places European producers at a competitive disadvantage in relation to imports. It will be difficult to ensure reasonable consumer prices and fair remuneration unless stricter rules to guarantee respect for the principle of European preference are introduced.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. − The European Parliament has increased powers under the Lisbon Treaty, specifically in the area of agriculture policy. With extra powers come responsibility, and the endorsement of the Lyon report on the future of the common agricultural policy (CAP) post 2013 shows the Parliament taking its responsibility seriously. We recognise that the CAP must be maintained, that there must be an adequate budget and that food production is part of the bundle of ‘public goods’ which farmers provide and must be rewarded for. We voted to hold on to the two-pillar structure. Market support measures are recognised as being an important part of the CAP. We have rejected any attempts to renationalise the policy. The report calls for a move away from the historical payment system by 2020, calling for an area basis plus objective criteria to replace the current regime. The Commission must come forward with ideas in this regard – but caution is required. The Lyon report allows for national flexibility in aligning the CAP to meet local, regional and national needs, including the need for the option to re-couple for specific reasons. Our first priority is to safeguard the budget – when this is achieved we can begin to really debate the detail.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This text has the merit of recognising market failures and advocating the fight against climate change. There its merit ends. Despite the failures recognised, the text promotes the liberalisation of the markets, farmers’ responsiveness to market signals, the competitiveness of European agriculture on global and regional markets, and green capitalism. This framework is of no more help in combating climate change than the carbon market, biofuels and GMOs on which this text prides itself. On the contrary it supports productivism and the devastation of local crop farming here and throughout the world.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted against Amendment 69 of this proposal because it brings the global construction of the common agricultural policy (CAP) under threat and endangers the interests of Portuguese agriculture, as it proposes cancelling funding for structural measures without guaranteeing that these will be replaced using the changes to the first pillar. Furthermore, such a proposal involves procedural difficulties in the future distribution of Union funds to farmers, while the current system, as it is, needs to be simplified, not made more complicated. I would also stress the fact that the Portuguese State has been wasting hundreds of millions of euros in first pillar funds. With the abolition of the second pillar and the transfer of some of the measures of the second to the first, many measures that are currently supported will cease to be so, particularly because of the obvious budgetary impossibility, and the result will be a weakening of the CAP. In truth, we cannot understand what benefit the possible transfer of CAP funds to other policies could bring. Instead, we are advocating measures to secure the only truly common policy that exists in the EU.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (ES) The current common agricultural policy (CAP) provides assistance to a delocalised and speculative industrial system of production, which benefits large agricultural operations and not small producers. The decoupling of assistance favours large landowners, and threatens small operations and family-run farms. Despite the failure of the Lisbon Strategy, the EU has not changed its economic policy. It is not committed to food security, but to competitiveness, which only favours large multinationals. I believe that the agricultural sector needs to be considered as strategic within the European Union. I therefore believe that fundamental reform of the CAP is needed, in order to guarantee access for small producers to assistance, land, seeds and water, and thus to support a social, productive and sustainable agricultural model.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) The last few decades have been marked by a massive decline in farming throughout the EU. The common agricultural policy has been reformed innumerable times, and each time the agricultural assistance rules have become more complicated and the bureaucratic expenditure higher. It is also problematic, in connection with this, that the EU prescribes high standards in quality and in animal and environmental protection, but then allows imports from countries in which these rules do not apply and in which production is naturally considerably cheaper. In order to sustain food security and self-sufficiency within the EU, at least in part, it is essential that small farming structures and farming in remote regions can be sustained. A simplification of the CAP only makes sense if it is not accompanied by a restructuring which forces yet more farmers into sideline farming, or even closure of the farm, and hastens the death of farming. The simplifications provided for in the report will certainly make farmers’ lives easier, and I therefore endorsed it.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I support the structure and approach of the Lyon report. This own-initiative report represents an important foundation for the definition of the guidelines that the European Parliament intends to follow in respect of future agricultural policy, pending the publication of the Commission communication at the end of the year. For the first time, then, Parliament is indicating, with one voice, the means by which to launch a constructive dialogue on the content and priorities to be assigned to ensure competitive agri-food production and the sustainable development of rural areas. There are many challenges facing European agriculture and they have a significant impact on the economies of many Member States. However, they are also the subject of debate with regard to the budget to be allocated to the European Union, since the aim is to turn these very challenges into an opportunity for the agricultural sector to grow and for many European farmers to develop.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I welcome the adoption of the Lyon report by the European Parliament, which is a result of the excellent work of its rapporteur, aided by the shadow rapporteurs and the contributions of all the Members who submitted amendments, took part in the debate and committed to consensus building. This report is a true reflection of the consensus possible between Members from all 27 Member States and various political families, which is particularly significant in itself, and even more so in the context of Parliament’s new co-decision powers. The report, which is the final result of several rounds of negotiations, adopts positions that will structure the future common agricultural policy (CAP) and that we consider fundamental: not reducing the budget, not renationalising the CAP, keeping the two pillars of the CAP, implementing a new system for apportioning grants, distinguishing between first- and second-generation public goods, not making it impossible for the Council to revoke the decision to abolish the milk quotas, the need for a safety net, increasing the transparency of the food chain, and the need to simplify the CAP. It is now important to monitor the internal work of the European Commission until the final communication is published in November.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted for this report, but I am giving this explanation of vote to stress that, in paragraph 44 on the management of the market, I voted against the first part of the paragraph proposed by the rapporteur and for the second part of it, which finally sets Parliament’s decision out as favourable to Portugal’s strategic interests. In fact, the version proposed by the rapporteur created the possibility of abolishing the milk quotas, albeit if its interpretation is stretched. I am aware of and support the position of the Portuguese agricultural sector, which has been reiterating its conviction that ending the system of milk quotas could be severely detrimental to Portuguese producers. In fact, 93% of the milk produced in the EU is sold on the European market and it represents a significant proportion of the income of EU dairy companies. The milk quotas will allow the maintenance and sustained growth of milk production in the 27 Member States; this will contribute to adapting supply to demand (European and international) in the dairy sector and allow prices to stabilise, making sustainable incomes possible. Abolishing this system without an alternative proposal will lead to production being abandoned in countries where it is less competitive; Portugal falls into this category.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − The Greens/EFA have been able to include an important number of amendments which focused on environmental and social conditioning of direct payments, measures against climate change, a broader and more inclusive approach to rural territorial development and fair income for farmers. We also have been able to introduce a clear distinction between different levels of competition in farming and marketing of food products and supported a clear statement to replace the current basis of historical yields and income by payments to farmers by an inclusion of the principle of ‘public goods’ in direct payment calculations. Thus, the adoption of this report is highly satisfactory.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D), in writing. – (CS) I have supported this report because I believe that the European Union’s common agricultural policy must remain a common agricultural policy and that there should be no future renationalisation in this area. It must be an important objective of the common agricultural policy to have equal conditions for farmers in the European Union, especially as far as direct payments are concerned.

  Brian Simpson (S&D), in writing. − Yet again the European Parliament has abdicated its responsibilities by failing to reform the CAP. I believe this report should be renamed the ‘increase in subsidies to inefficient farmers’ report. Why should taxpayers’ money be used to stabilise markets, to keep prices artificially high and to prop up agriculture at difficult economic times when farmers already receive other subsidies from the taxpayer? I, on behalf of the EPLP, do not believe that this report goes anywhere near far enough in pushing for ambitious change. It penalises the efficient farmer and props up the inefficient one. It penalises developing countries by calling for a delay in phasing out export refunds in the worst kind of blatant protectionism. It fails to address the major problem of rural sustainability by sticking rigidly to a direct payment system which acts like a brake on the promotion of diversity and the protection of the countryside. We will be voting against this cop-out of a report in the hope that one day efficient farming will be rewarded, countryside stewardship will be recognised as important, consumers will not be ripped off by artificially high prices and the developing world will get a fair deal. That is what CAP reform should be about.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I supported this report as it has strategic relevance for countries like Portugal and the outermost European regions, and Parliament has made a massive effort to vote for it in this first year of its term.

The common agricultural policy is a key part of the EU’s financial and budgetary framework for the post-2013 period, and it deserves detailed analysis. Domestic agricultural production, which can greatly contribute to food security and trade with third countries, and reducing the trade deficits of Member States, is a key aspect of this policy.

European farmers ensure high levels of safety and quality in food production, respecting stringent clauses regarding environmental and animal protection, and they should be rewarded, not undermined, for doing this. In order for this to happen, conditions must be imposed on third countries with which the European Union has trade agreements, and these must be similar to the standards imposed on producers in the European internal market.

It seems to me that there is still a need for an agricultural budget that allocates its funds fairly and gives especial attention to regions like Madeira and the Azores, which face permanent constraints due to their remoteness and insularity, small area, adverse climate and geographical situation, and they should receive permanent support for this reason.

  Anna Záborská (PPE), in writing. – (SK) A good agricultural policy is one which is based on what the consumer needs, and not on what the producer wants. Only 5% of EU inhabitants, including in Slovakia, are employed in agriculture, but we are all – 100% of us – consumers of agricultural products. What the consumer cares about is quality and price. This applies not only to cars and televisions, but also to bread, vegetables, meat and milk. However, the common agricultural policy turns the whole issue completely on its head, because it is based on what farmers need. The submitted report, in the spirit of the former approach of the EU, pays too much attention to effects and ignores causes. One example will suffice: the report wants, through incentives and subsidies, to boost the low level of interest shown by young people in agricultural work and country life. However, a functioning market and a competitive environment would solve this problem in a natural way. Perhaps the only at least partially positive aspect of the report is the demand for fairness, which is particularly important for Slovakia and the new Member States. If the EU decides to continue even after 2013 with the former costly and ineffective policy of support for farmers, it should apply equal rules for everyone.

Report: Alain Cadec (A7-0207/2010)

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The fisheries sector represents a strategic resource within the EU where supplying the population is concerned, and it makes a significant contribution to local development, employment and the preservation of the cultural traditions of coastal communities. Unfortunately in recent years we have seen production gradually scaled down, not least because of certain EU provisions to safeguard the marine ecosystem, such as the Mediterranean regulation, which is intended to promote more sustainable fishing, but which has actually brought an entire sector to its knees. Our fishermen are being forced to fish less, but demand is increasing and therefore so too are third-country imports. If unfair competition is to be prevented and consumers safeguarded, imported products must comply with the same rules as EU products. In fact, imported products are often cheaper, but they are also of inferior quality and their safety cannot be guaranteed. Therefore it is important to strengthen fair, transparent and sustainable trade in the sector, including as regards the need to introduce stringent certification and labelling criteria in relation to the quality and traceability of fishery and aquaculture products.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This own-initiative report, which focuses on the arrangements for importing fishery and aquaculture products into the EU, aims to protect the retention within the European Union of fishing and aquaculture sectors that are environmentally responsible over the long term and economically viable. In essence, we are witnessing an increase in the importation of products originating from fishing and aquaculture at the expense of our community production. Now, like the rapporteur, it seems critical to me to restore our communal production. Nonetheless, we realise, with our rapporteur in mind, that this must be carried out in keeping with sustainable management; for example, the quantity of fish caught must be limited for the purpose of managing our natural resources. Furthermore, it seems necessary to promote responsible consumption, in which quality and viability of production would take precedence.

  Bastiaan Belder (EFD), in writing. − (NL) The report by my fellow Member Mr Cadec comes at a good time. It comes after the consultations on the Green Paper on the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) and well ahead of the new European Commission proposals for legislation. Imports of fishery and aquaculture products have increased enormously, but that increase has been necessary. The consumption of fish is still on the increase in Europe and that increased demand cannot be sufficiently met either by increasing even further the amount of wild fish landed or by European fish farming. However, it is of great importance that these imports should have to comply with the same requirements as European fishery products and we cannot confine that equivalence of requirements to food security alone. In my opinion, the environmental and social circumstances must also be taken into account. Imports are necessary. I am not in favour of protectionism by stealth, but we do need to prevent unfair competition. Large amounts of cheap imported fish are now posing a threat to European production, to both fisheries and fish farming. For that reason, I will be voting in favour of this own-initiative report.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Cadec. At such a historic time as this, I think that the issue of the arrangements for importing fishery and aquaculture products, or rather the problem of defining the conditions under which products from outside the EU are placed on the single market, is crucial. Given that 60% of internal demand is now met by exports and that it is expected to increase significantly by 2030, Europe must provide answers to the questions and legitimate concerns of those operating in the sector. I therefore share the view of Mr Cadec: investigation and monitoring is required so that the development of EU policy in this area does not result in differences in treatment between producers from the Member States and those from third countries.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) This report is about the importing of fisheries and aquaculture products by the EU and the conditions under which it should take place. Imported products must satisfy the same quality criteria as those produced in the EU. The report calls for the creation of an ecolabel for fisheries products. This would mean that consumers had information about the origin of the products and the sanitary, social and environmental conditions under which they were fished.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Bearing in mind the strategic importance of the fisheries sector both for supplying the population and for the food balance of the various Member States and the EU as a whole, I believe that, in a similar way to the agricultural sector, the fisheries sector is a strategically important sector depending on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of natural resources.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) As agriculture, fishing and aquaculture do not lend themselves to a pure free-trader approach, the EU’s production is failing to meet European demand, given that currently 60% is covered by imported products. Nevertheless, we have to make sure that future EU importation schemes make it possible to strike the right balance so that European production, already in a state of crisis, does not suffer unfair competition from third countries. In the negotiations of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), fishery products should be considered ‘sensitive products’ in the same way as certain agricultural products, which would make it easier to maintain tariffs on imports originating from third countries. In this way, European fishermen would be protected by a reasonable and flexible tariff as well as by an ecolabel. At the same time, developing countries need to be able to develop their own fishing. For this to happen, we need to question the relevance of international agreements allowing the purchase of fishing licences in developing countries and allowing the fleets of third countries to carry out industrial fishing along their coasts, depriving them of an immense part of their natural resources.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted in favour of the report on the arrangements for importing fishery and aquaculture products into the EU in view of the future reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP), as I believe that issues relating to the import of fishery and aquaculture products to the EU should be given particular attention in the light of these ongoing reforms of the CFP.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Having voted on Mr Milana’s report on a new impetus for the sustainable development strategy for European aquaculture in the previous session, we are now called on to vote on another regarding the arrangements for the import of fishery and aquaculture products.

According to the report, Europe currently imports 60% of the fish it consumes. In addition to this, consumption is expected to rise between now and 2030, and this rise will almost entirely be covered by an increase in imports.

Without looking to European production to meet our demand (something that would be impossible both now and in the future), the truth is that the future reform of the common fisheries policy (CFP) cannot neglect to consider the issue of imports and seek a better solution, whether by increasing European production (not only by increasing the size of catches, but also by investment in aquaculture), whether by requiring that the imported fish complies with the same standards as that caught or produced in the EU, or whether by giving the consumer sufficient information about the origin of the fish. As the rapporteur argues, this is an issue which will deserve serious consideration in the reform of the CFP.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU market, which amounted to approximately 12 million tonnes and EUR 55 billion in 2007, is the world’s largest market for fishery and aquaculture products, ahead of Japan and the United States. Having grown rapidly since 2005, this market is increasingly dependent on imports. In fact, its level of self-sufficiency is now less that 40% – in other words, the rate of dependence on imports is more than 60%. Consumption forecasts indicate that demand could rise by approximately 1.5 million tonnes by 2030, and that this increase will have to be met almost entirely by additional imports.

I advocate a proposal for a regulation that would consolidate all the Community provisions on aquaculture in a single document, just as I did in the June plenary part-session. In this context, and given that Portugal is the largest consumer of fish per capita in Europe, I believe that aquaculture is a strategic priority for the EU. For this reason I am particularly glad that a sustainable aquaculture policy has been advocated, so as to reduce dependence on imports in the fishery and aquaculture products sector.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The work on the collection and systematisation of data that was made possible by this report must be valued, as it is helping us to build a current picture of a situation that is, in many respects, troubling, as this report rightly acknowledges.

The existence of EU countries with sustainable fisheries and aquaculture sectors is, from an economic, environmental and social standpoint, incompatible with the trade policy which is being conducted by the EU. Deregulating and liberalising international trade and directing it towards competitive rather than complementarity logic (which should guide it), means promoting the interests of importers and distributors, but at the same time condemning thousands of producers to ruination and forcing them to abandon their livelihoods, increasing food deficits and jeopardising the basic criteria for food and environmental security and quality.

The fisheries and aquaculture sectors (like agriculture) are vitally important strategic sectors which are not compatible with a mercantile approach, whereupon there needs to be a trade regulation, which includes the possible use of trade defence instruments, as suggested in the report. We would also like to highlight the case for urgent reform of the common organisation of the market for fishery products, which we also support.

  Christofer Fjellner (PPE), in writing. − (SV) I have today voted against the own-initiative report on arrangements for importing fishery and aquaculture products into the EU. I fully support the need to change and revitalise the EU’s fisheries and aquaculture sector. However, the report assumes that the problems can, to a certain extent, be solved by providing protection against competition from the outside world. European fisheries cannot survive in the long term with protectionism and subsidies. The problems in the EU fisheries and aquaculture sector should be solved in the context of the forthcoming review of the common fisheries policy.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) It is time to make up for the underestimates and delays of the past. Fishing is a key sector in our economic and social system and as such it must be respected. Looking ahead to the common fisheries policy reform, we have a duty to take determined action to guarantee incomes, the stability of markets, and better marketing of products, including aquaculture products. In addition, greater attention should be paid to food security aspects in order to safeguard consumers.

This is why I voted in favour of this resolution; in considering the negative impact of the liberalisation of markets on local economies, it underlines the strategic importance of reasonable tariff protection. We must in fact curb competition from low-cost imports of non-EU products, which often do not meet environmental, social, health and quality standards.

We must also introduce stringent criteria for certifying and labelling in respect of the traceability of products, in order to inform consumers of the geographical origin of products on sale, the conditions under which they were produced or caught and, above all, their quality. Lastly, I should like to emphasise that in a market that is largely dependent on imports, withdrawing products from the market in order to destroy them is no longer justifiable. The money saved as a result could be made available to programmes conducted by producers’ organisations.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. − (DE) The sustainable development of European aquaculture, fish farming and natural fish ponds, as well as the establishment of better basic conditions are essential for the competitiveness of the European fisheries industry. The quality of imported fishery products is extremely important in this context. In view of the continual increase in imports from third countries, we must ensure that these imports also meet European standards. The European fisheries industry has high quality standards and a great deal of specialist knowledge, and these are hallmarks that we must continue to protect. In this context, I welcome the IUU Directive for combating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing that entered into force in January. It is an important step towards preventing global distortions of competition and supporting honest, law-abiding fishermen. I support Mr Cadec’s report, which highlights a far-reaching and important aspect of the European fisheries industry.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I voted in favour of the report on the arrangements for importing fishery and aquaculture products into the EU with a view to the future reform of the CFP because I believe it is essential to have rules that are in line with the sector’s requirements. The European Union is the world’s largest market for fishery products, and it is well known that EU production on its own cannot meet internal demand. The priority is therefore to ensure that third-country imports meet the environmental, health, social and quality standards imposed by the EU, in order to prevent unfair competition from importing countries in the form of cheap, low-quality products. The report adopted today by Parliament also makes strong calls for the application of more stringent and transparent criteria in respect of the quality, traceability and labelling of fishery products.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. − (PT) As the world’s largest importer of fishery products, the EU market shares political responsibility with other major fish importing countries for ensuring that the World Trade Organisation trade rules respect the highest possible global standards of fisheries management and conservation. The EU must make efforts to sustainably increase fish production from aquaculture so as to reduce imports in the fishery and aquaculture products sector. I am especially concerned about the possibility of importing genetically modified fish and bringing it to the marketplace: in my opinion its sale in the EU must be prevented. I therefore advocate a stringent policy of certification, which could control these problems effectively. I also support the idea of a strong commitment to research and development in the field of European aquaculture, since it represents only 2% of world production.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. − (DE) For its survival, every state needs to maintain food self-sufficiency. Fishing is important for food, and also ensures a variety of jobs. As in agriculture, we are prescribing high environmental, animal protection and quality standards for our domestic fishermen, which are naturally reflected in the price. With imports, however, adherence to our own rules can hardly be monitored. Therefore it is all the more important that there are clear rules here for importing, but also for food labelling and quality, and that we do not encourage competition with the domestic economy. We also need to be concerned that we do not score an own goal with aquaculture by adding extra burdens to the ecosystems or making domestic fishermen unemployed instead of providing more environmental protection. The measures proposed are a step in the right direction, and I have voted for the report.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. − (IT) The question of the arrangements for importing fishery and aquaculture products into the EU and in particular the conditions under which products originating outside the Union are admitted – alongside or in competition with European fishery and aquaculture products – is of major importance and any analysis of these sectors of the European economy must necessarily address it. Regulation of this subject is essential in a context in which the level of European self-sufficiency is currently very low, with more than 60% of demand met by imports.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − This report was originally a defence of a protectionist stance with respect to imports, mostly in the belief that EU fishermen should have preferential access to the EU market, except when they cannot catch enough, in which case EU processors should be able to import. Since our belief is that too much international trade leads to over-exploitation and depletion of fish stocks as countries seek to increase their exports, there was a good basis for common ground. Indeed, we got a good number of our amendments adopted, the most important one pointing out that, even if international trade in fish products can lead to increased food security in developing countries, it has also led to increased fishing in order to supply the export market, which can exacerbate stock depletion. Other amendments stressed the need to strengthen resource management and fisheries surveillance, and the need for responsible consumption, and noted that fish supplies come from a wild natural resource which is limited in quantity, which means that there is a limit to how much fish can be caught, exported and consumed.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Community strategy for the sustainable development of aquaculture was recently approved. Of course, it is now time to regulate the issue of importing fishery and aquaculture products, as the EU is currently the largest market for these products in the world. However, there is not enough production to meet the demand, so the EU is dependent on these imports. It is therefore necessary to regulate the way in which these imports are carried out to ensure that the quality and good practice required of Community producers will also be required of third countries.

I agree with the rapporteur on the issue of customs protection. It does not seem practicable, especially in this day and age, to abolish customs tariffs and yet expect our products to substitute and be competitive against those of third countries.

As I noted earlier, the issue of fisheries and aquaculture is one of the priorities set out by Madeira in the economic and social development plan currently in force, whereupon the region is in the process of promoting competitiveness in the sector through sustainable management of resources, diversification of fish production, evaluation of products in terms of quality, and training for those involved in fisheries with a view to increasing productivity.

For these reasons, I voted in favour of this report.

  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Today, I endorsed the Cadec report, which raises many important aspects of the protection of the EU market for aquaculture products in the context of reform of the common fisheries policy. I supported the report because I wanted to emphasise one threat in particular which it mentions: the lack of sound and wide-ranging information for consumers on the health properties, composition and origin of particular species of fish. When there is a lack of knowledge among consumers, the only argument in the market becomes price. European producers offer products which are often of much higher quality in comparison with imported ones, but in an uneven fight they are condemned to lose. Therefore, it is necessary to tighten up legislation on identification. Thank you.

9. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 14.10 and resumed at 15.00)

IN THE CHAIR: Diana WALLIS
Vice-President

10. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes

11. Debates on cases of breaches of human rights, democracy and the rule of law

11.1. Zimbabwe, in particular the case of Farai Maguwu

  President. − The next item is the debate on seven motions for resolutions on Zimbabwe, in particular the case of Farai Maguwu⁽¹⁾.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki, author. – (FI) Madam President, human rights violations in Zimbabwe have been discussed before by this Parliament. Unfortunately, once again we are forced to address them. This time it is the case of the human rights activist Farai Maguwu. He is simply a prisoner of conscience. He has been arrested and imprisoned for standing up for the human rights of others and then providing the media with information on human rights in the country.

The European Parliament is appealing for his release and for all human rights violations in Zimbabwe to be investigated and, obviously, ended. This case is especially blatant and, being so, particularly unpleasant, in that someone who stands up for the human rights of others himself has to suffer.

  Véronique De Keyser, author. – (FR) Madam President, behind the Farai Maguwu case lies the whole issue of diamond mining.

Zimbabwe is a voluntary member of the Kimberley Process, which allows signatories to sell diamonds on the international market provided that this trade does not finance armed conflict. However, during the meeting on the Kimberley Process held on 20-21 June in Tel Aviv, the participants were unable to reach an agreement on the following question: should human rights not be integrated into the Kimberley Process too? Several international NGOs have condemned human rights violations in Zimbabwe’s diamond mines, violations perpetrated by the security services. One of their informers was Farai Maguwu, the Director of the Centre for Research and Development on human rights, based in Manicaland. That is why Mr Maguwu was arrested on 3 June and why, since then, he has been detained in very difficult conditions, having allegedly breached state security provisions. This is clearly unacceptable.

With this resolution we are calling for the immediate release of the prisoner, the demilitarisation of mining, the inclusion of human rights clauses in the Kimberley Process, and the redistribution of diamond wealth to the people, for example through a dedicated sovereign fund.

We also call on the Commission and the Council to be extremely vigilant as regards issues of good governance and democracy in Zimbabwe and in the dialogue that we are having with this country, which has been characterised by its insufficient progress.

  Judith Sargentini, author. − (NL) Madam President, we are dealing with two issues here or, to be precise, one person and one issue. First of all, we are dealing with Farai Maguwu, a human being and a human rights activist, who was arrested in Zimbabwe and then badly mistreated in prison. Secondly, we are dealing with the strange role that the monitor of the Kimberley Process has played. This monitor is supposed to oversee the situation in Zimbabwe and yet he has actually established contacts with the Zimbabwean Government and used information which he received from Mr Maguwu, and thus put Mr Maguwu in an awkward position. Ultimately, then, we are also dealing with the Kimberley Process itself.

In my previous role as lobbyist for development organisations, I participated in the negotiations to bring this system in. It has proven to be a successful system. It has cut off, or decreased the amount of, finance for the wars in Congo, Angola, Sierra Leone and Liberia raised through the sale of diamonds. However, we are now running the risk of the Kimberley system being used to legitimise another practice, and that is human rights violations by regimes. They are not covered by this resolution and that is why we are demanding an amendment. This resolution by Parliament sends out the message that conflict diamonds, or blood diamonds, are all there is to it. After all, all diamonds are mined in appalling conditions. That would be an enormous step forward, because that would enable us to denounce not only the situation in Zimbabwe, but also the already longstanding human rights abuses by the Angolan regime against the Lunda. So far, we have had no success on that score, because the Kimberley system is a collaboration of countries which take a dim view of other countries interfering in their home affairs. However, this signal from the European Parliament could be the first in a series of signals that bring about change there.

  Alain Cadec, author. − (FR) Madam President, firstly I will say that, compared to this morning, there is finally a little peace and tranquillity in this House!

Ladies and gentlemen, I supported the resolution on the human rights situation in Zimbabwe, and in particular the case of Farai Maguwu, because our Parliament cannot remain silent in the face of the violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms perpetrated in Zimbabwe for several decades now.

The Director of the Centre for Research and Development, Farai Maguwu, was arrested by the authorities in his country after condemning the human rights violations in the diamond fields. In doing so he was merely exercising his right to freedom of expression and his right to seek information on human rights and fundamental freedoms as a whole. Parliament is calling for his release and for Zimbabwe to respect political rights and fundamental freedoms, in order to allow civil society to express itself without fear.

Furthermore, Zimbabwe must scrupulously adhere to the commitments it made on diamond production in the context of the Kimberley Process, so as to escape the vicious circle of financing armed conflict.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat, author. − (FR) Madam President, the Chamber is quiet, I would say perhaps a little too quiet, and I for one regret that there are not more of us interested in these issues. To say that the situation in Zimbabwe is tragic is unfortunately an understatement. It is tragic as regards the economy, society and above all democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. The last elections took place in a climate of fear. The arrest of Farai Maguwu, the Director of the Centre for Research and Development, following an interview with Mr Chikane, a monitor for the Kimberley Process, is therefore, unfortunately, just one more episode to add to the long list of human rights abuses in that country.

The mining conditions in the Marange diamond fields are particularly dreadful: forced labour, torture, contraband, even murders; everything is under military control and done for the benefit of Mr Mugabe’s friends. Time and again these conditions have been condemned by NGOs, including that of Mr Maguwu. This is why it is so surprising that Mr Chikane tabled a positive report concluding that mining at the site meets the requirements laid down by the Kimberley Process. The intersessional meeting in Tel Aviv failed to reach a decision on the follow-up to this report. Commissioner, can you confirm for us that, in the absence of consensus among the Member States, the European Union has indeed opposed the resumption of legal diamond exports from Zimbabwe; that it will continue to do so at the St Petersburg conference; that it will fight for the extension of the Kimberley Process to include respect for all human rights; and that it will do everything in its power to ensure that Member States take the measures necessary to prevent the import of diamonds from Zimbabwe, while such a situation prevails there? Can you help us understand the reasoning behind Mr Chikane’s decision to give the green light, when it seems that some of the notes in his dossiers have been seized by secret service agents?

The European Union is the main contributor of humanitarian aid to Zimbabwe. Its attitude in this matter must therefore be exemplary. It must maintain its positions. Can you tell us what the position of the European Union will be in St Petersburg?

  Geoffrey Van Orden, author. − Madam President, since being elected in 1999, I have done my utmost to galvanise opposition from this Parliament to the massive catalogue of injustice that Mugabe and his henchmen have inflicted on the people of Zimbabwe. I have to say this is one area where this House speaks with one voice.

Today we are discussing the systematic abuse of workers in the diamond fields of Zimbabwe by government security forces. Zimbabwe is a full member of the Kimberley Process, the informal body that governs the global trade in rough diamonds and which so far has taken little action to stop such abuses. I call on the Kimberley Process to consider tough measures against Zimbabwe for non-compliance and I join the condemnation of the recent arrest of Farai Maguwu, a man of conscience, who dared to expose the violence perpetrated by the Zimbabwean security forces at Chiadzwa.

The Zimbabwean Government must immediately release Mr Maguwu and, for that matter, all other political prisoners, and we should recall that the right to free speech was one of the main commitments made by all parties in last year’s global political agreement. At the moment the basic medical and food needs of a large section of the Zimbabwean population are met by international aid. The Zimbabwean Government should use the substantial revenue that diamond mining is likely to generate to create a diamond trust fund to kick-start the economy and to provide the health, education and social funding currently provided by international donors.

Regrettably, Zimbabwe still has a long way to go before we can say that its people live in freedom and democracy and under a respected rule of law. It is time for a dramatic change and the EU and the countries of southern Africa should be bringing more pressure to bear to bring about good governance in Zimbabwe.

  Michael Gahler, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Madam President, the fact that Farai Maguwu was arrested on account of his publication of information on the conditions in the diamond fields of Marange shows who has the real power and where the true holders of power in Zimbabwe are to this day, and that the Government of National Unity, this forced coalition government, in fact only exercises power in the old part, namely in the area where those who are supported by Mr Mugabe live.

For this reason, I think it is important for us to continue to denounce these conditions and, as the European Union, continue to maintain our black list of those who continue to suppress the people in Zimbabwe.

For it is those who arrested Farai Maguwu who are at the same time profiting from the diamond mining and who are pocketing the sales revenue for themselves and not making it available to the people via the country’s budget. I therefore hope that we will denounce this situation with a very broad majority and that both the EU and Southern Africa will finally call for an end to these conditions.

  Michael Cashman, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, things have improved in Zimbabwe but sadly they have not improved enough. We have seen the crackdown on Mr Maguwu and on other human rights defenders. We have also seen the closure and the arrest of lesbian, gay and bisexual people engaged in HIV prevention and advice.

If I stand up and speak as an Englishman, they will dismiss it. As Europeans, they will dismiss us. But let me say the obvious to the African countries: you know what is happening in Zimbabwe is wrong. Unless you do something about it collectively, you will lose any moral authority in the continent and in the world. We talk about Africa being in your hands, and the future of Africa being in your hands. To stand back and do nothing while people are arrested because they seek to expose human rights breaches and to defend ordinary women and men, to do nothing, Africa, is to be complicit.

  Paweł Robert Kowal, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL)</