Index 
Verbatim report of proceedings
PDF 1253k
Thursday, 23 September 2010 - Strasbourg OJ edition
1. Opening of the sitting
 2. Future allocation of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) for the cross-border cooperation programmes (CBC) budget (debate)
 3. Import of Laogai-made goods into the EU (debate)
 4. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes
 5. Verification of credentials: see Minutes
 6. Composition of committees and delegations: see Minutes
 7. Documents received: see Minutes
 8. Council positions at first reading: see Minutes
 9. Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes
 10. Written declarations included in the register (Rule 123): see Minutes
 11. Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting: see Minutes
 12. Dates of forthcoming sittings: see Minutes
 13. Adjournment of the session
 ANNEX (Written answers)


  

IN THE CHAIR: Jerzy BUZEK
President

 
1. Opening of the sitting
Video of the speeches
 

(The sitting was opened at 10.05)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bernd Posselt (PPE).(DE) Mr President, you are an excellent President of this House, but I would like to protest about the people who plan our work here. We have known since last week that there was very little on the agenda today. Why then can the people planning the work not be so flexible as to give us better speaking times? I would gladly listen to Mr Brok, Mr van Nistelrooij, Mr Surján and others for five or ten minutes to allow them to make a substantial contribution. That would make sense. Thus, I would make an earnest plea. Many of my fellow Members would have gladly spoken today if a more sensible and flexible approach had been taken.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – I take that comment very seriously. I have Mr Rouček with me, who will now chair the discussion, and will certainly be able to add time to your speech as necessary. Maybe not five minutes if the time allocated is two minutes, but let us say that we can exceed the time of the speech by 50%. This is a lot. If someone has been allocated two minutes, they will now have three minutes. This is a big change.

 
  
 

We know very well, that if one has prepared to speak for two minutes, then three minutes is too long, because if one has been precise in the first two minutes, then it is not possible to speak for any longer.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Richard Seeber (PPE).(DE) Mr President, we know that you are a good President. Nevertheless, I would ask you to stick to the set timetable. I have a group of visitors, but I would like to speak during catch-the-eye. If you now allow Mr Posselt, Mr Brok and Mr van Nistelrooij to speak for five minutes then I will not be able to do that. Perhaps they could speak after the catch-the-eye procedure, as all MEPs have a particular timetable and we have to plan our day.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – That is correct, you are right, but in individual cases and at special request, we will extend the time somewhat. I would like to ask Commissioner Štefan Füle to begin our discussion. Mr Füle, please take the floor on behalf of the Commission.

 

2. Future allocation of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) for the cross-border cooperation programmes (CBC) budget (debate)
Video of the speeches
MPphoto
 

  President. – The next item is the statement by the Commission on the future allocation of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument for the cross-border cooperation programmes budget.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. Mr President, cross-border cooperation has been one of the main innovations under the Instrument for European neighbourhood policy. Back in 2006, we adopted a regulation which, for the first time, saw the full transposition of EU cross-border cooperation experience in an external relations environment.

We wanted the new programmes to be jointly designed and jointly managed by Member States and partner countries. We wanted to fully involve local actors and ensure that projects were jointly selected and implemented. We saw this as a way of empowering local authorities, promoting local development and ultimately strengthening local democracy.

We never said that this was going to be easy. We never said that this was going to be quick. Borders are basic elements of sovereignty.

The benefits of cross-border cooperation and the way it works had to be explained to partner countries and its implementation mechanisms adapted to take into account their administrative and legal constraints. A way around sensitive foreign policy issues had to be found, and this was not always possible.

It was not possible to persuade Morocco to participate in programmes for which Ceuta and Melilla were eligible. It was not possible to persuade Azerbaijan to participate in the Black Sea Programme alongside Armenia. It was not possible to find a way to overcome the political and technical obstacles which led Russia to decide not to participate in the Baltic Sea Programme.

This is regrettable, but as you can see we are confronted here with long-standing policy issues reflecting core national interests.

But the glass is more than half full. As we speak, we have 13 programmes operational. They cover the entire European Union land border, the sea crossing between Italy and Tunisia and the three big sea basins that the EU shares with its neighbours: the Black Sea, the Baltic Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. Russia has also agreed to co-finance the programmes in which it participates with over EUR 100 million.

Under all of these programmes we have now launched calls for proposals for an amount of EUR 275 million. The response to these calls for proposals has not been poor. On the contrary, it has been excellent. We are receiving hundreds of applications; almost six times more than we can finance. 598 proposals were submitted under the MEDA Programme alone.

We expect that the funds will start to flow to the beneficiaries soon and we foresee no absorption problems.

The Commission is now in the process of undertaking a mid-term review of the Cross-Border Cooperation Strategy Paper and the Indicative Programme. There are a number of adjustments we need to make, including to the budget.

Firstly, the two programmes between Spain and Morocco will be cancelled. The European regional development component of the budget will go back to Spain to be used by Spain in accordance with the Structural Funds Regulation. The ENPI component has been reallocated to other ENPI programmes in the Southern Neighbourhood.

Secondly, we are considering reducing the ENPI allocation to the Baltic Sea programme. This may provide some extra funds to increase the budget of other Sea Basin programmes. Given the small amount involved, we do not expect equivalent matching funds from the European Regional Development Fund.

I understand you have concerns about duplication of financing between cross-border cooperation and other ENPI programmes. We will also review that aspect, but I have to say that the risk is small because (a) the CBC programmes have a clear territorial focus and (b) we systematically screen all the selected projects to avoid that problem.

The Commission is about to start a reflection on the ENPI with a view to the legislative proposal for a revised regulation that it intends to table in late 2011. In this context, we will consult practitioners and stakeholders to see what shortcomings have been identified and how they can best be addressed.

In conclusion, implementing the ENPI cross-border cooperation component has been an enormous challenge. We have lived up to it and we are about to see the results. I am persuaded that it will be a success.

We have encountered difficulties that have caused delays, but we need to remember that these difficulties were mostly related to difficult foreign policy issues rather than implementation problems. We are about to review the way ENPI works, and there we share the same goal. The Commission, as much as the European Parliament, wants to have programmes that are easier to prepare and can be implemented faster.

The Commission is ready to work in close consultation with the practitioners, the stakeholders and the European Parliament to that effect.

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: Libor ROUČEK
Vice-President

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Lambert van Nistelrooij, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (NL) Mr President, Commissioner, in 2005 and 2006, within Parliament and with the Commission, we cooperated quickly and intensively on achieving the objectives of the European neighbourhood policy, including the objective of cross-border cooperation for citizens living in the regions concerned. To do so, we had to be very creative and remain very close to the people. We took the view that the position of the people living at the external borders had to be no worse than that of citizens living at the internal borders. In addition, we had years of relevant experience within the Interreg programmes, and our expectations were high.

Parliament’s engagement is still as great. Yet a few years are needed to get going, and that has been the case here too. Article 30 of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) Regulation lays down that the Commission is to present an evaluation and proposals for modification, and so on, by 31 December 2010. I should like to know whether you are on track with this. Do you mean to comply with the Regulation in this respect? When can we expect to receive this conscious evaluation, as we agreed together?

My second point concerns the answers to the questions on cross-border cooperation. These questions were intended to help us catch up – which, indeed, we are now doing. You have made a tremendous effort, and I am indeed satisfied with your answers regarding the cooperation around the Baltic Sea and that on the Spain-Morocco Programme.

What is the situation now, though? Our Committee on Regional Development presented an interim report back in mid-2009. This included a number of suggestions for striking a better balance that was closer to the people – more decentralised – between financial, planning and bureaucracy inputs on the one hand and the benefit to the people on the other. However, the report revealed that this balance had not quite been struck. We were mired in generalities for a long time and were slow to launch specific projects.

My question, therefore, is as follows: can we now discuss such improvements together in the context of that evaluation? My idea is to proceed along familiar lines in the work of this House – we are in possession of a study – and to hold a hearing in Parliament with the parties concerned from the border regions, perhaps an association of European border regions, the people living in the regions and their representatives. This will enable us to hold discussions with one other, not about outlines or objectives but about constituting a specific evaluation of how well the contacts, for example between universities, hospitals or schools, have got off the ground in the field of the environment, water and so on. That could lead to a real debate – to which we are giving only a small impetus today – on the new programming period and on the crucial issue of what resources are needed.

That is my objective, and I should like to invite my fellow Members to take part in today’s discussion, in order to improve the overall situation and also to make ourselves visible to people in the border regions. I am very grateful to the Commissioner for his answers.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Evgeni Kirilov, on behalf of the S&D Group. Mr President, ensuring a stable and prosperous neighbourhood is the first priority of European foreign policy. It is in its neighbourhood that the EU can best exercise its soft stabilising power. It is also there that it needs to assess strategies and possibly replace them with other more relevant forms of engagement.

According to the ENPI Regulation, the objective of the instrument is to provide Community assistance for the development of an area of prosperity and good neighbourliness. However, the ENPI should reflect better the needs and challenges. If the EU wants to be seen not just as a cash cow, but as a real regional power, it will also need to prove itself able to help resolve conflicts through this work and in the neighbourhood.

Stability and prosperity are periodically threatened by the resurgence of unresolved conflicts. These undermine to a great extent the EU’s multilateral initiatives, both in the east – for instance in the Caucasus – and in the south – the Middle East and Western Sahara, for example. The EU’s ambition to resolve and step up its role should be realised, and tailor-made assistance in these regions should be directed at confidence building and reconciliation as well.

The focus on bilateral relations has made it difficult for the Union to act as a mediator in conflicts. The EU should really focus more on multilateral cooperation, no matter how difficult it is, as Commissioner Füle stated. The regional approach should be stronger and more visible. It should be combined also with enhanced cooperation among the partner countries themselves, especially among the neighbouring ones. For example, the degree of cooperation integration in the EU eastern neighbourhood is quite low. There are reasons for this, there are difficulties with this, but we should act together to overcome them.

The CBC Black Sea initiative seems not to be enough to address all this. The definition of the cross-border cooperation aim is to promote economic and social development in border areas, address common challenges, ensure efficient and secure borders and promote people-to-people cooperation.

Better coordination should also be ensured between the ENPI and the cross-border cooperation programmes and the national ENPI action plan. There should be careful consideration about the real added value of every ENPI initiative, otherwise the EU risks getting involved, and even getting lost, in the obligation and overlapping, which currently happens often with a number of Community programmes.

Commissioner Füle has given us some reassurances in this respect. Consultation of stakeholders and closer work with the Committee on Regional Development in Parliament should help. We should work together for more effective and visible results.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Kristiina Ojuland, on behalf of the ALDE Group. Mr President, the Commissioner mentioned among other things his concern over the delays in presenting and launching the cross-border cooperation projects. I would like to point out that there are five land border programmes involving the Russian Federation as a partner country operating within the framework of the ENPI during the period 2007-2013.

I find it extremely commendable that the European Union and Russia have engaged in such an extensive cooperation in order to further develop their strategic partnership. Nevertheless, at the moment, there are serious and justified concerns over the timely use of budgets, since all defrayals must be executed by 2014 at the latest.

It should be noted that, in the case of Russia, there is an imminent threat that most of the available funds will remain unused since there are no ongoing projects and the first goal for proposals was launched as late as this year. I would like to ask the Commissioner to explain the situation of the CBC programmes with Russia specifically, and to give his view on whether the framework of the European Territorial Cooperation Programmes would not make a better basis for implementation of the external cross-border cooperation programmes.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Malika Benarab-Attou , on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group.(FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as part of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI), two out of thirteen cross-border cooperation programmes are dedicated to the Mediterranean Basin.

The first is the cooperation programme for the Mediterranean Basin. With the new generation of European funds for 2007-2013, the European Union has decided to resolutely develop cooperation actions between the north and south shores of the Mediterranean. To this end, the European Union has established the Mediterranean Sea Basin ENPI programme.

What territories exactly does this programme apply to? What projects could be co-financed, given that we know that the cooperation programme finances 80% of the total cost of the cooperation programmes in which partner programmes representing at least three eligible countries in a very wide range of fields participate?

The second part of the ENPI cross-border programme for Italy and Tunisia has a total allocation for 2007-2013 of EUR 25 191 million. The eligible regions are in Italy and Tunisia. The management authority is the region of Sicily, with Palermo.

The objective of the cross-border cooperation programme for Italy and Tunisia is to encourage economic, institutional and cultural integration of the Tunisian and Sicilian regions through a process of joint sustainable development in the context of cross-border cooperation.

The programme has three priorities. The first is regional development and regional integration. The second is to encourage sustainable development, through the management of agricultural and fisheries resources, to protect and enhance natural and cultural heritage and to encourage the development of renewable energy sources. My question is as follows: what measures have been put in place to monitor the trade in coral, a fisheries resource that is endangered and the subject of illegal trafficking?

The third priority is cultural and scientific cooperation, and support for networks, by strengthening cooperation at association level, training and exchanges between young people and students. My question is as follows: how, beyond the objective of funding, do we ensure that this programme of human exchanges takes place given the obstacles associated with the implementation of the Return Directive by European countries and the management of Schengen visas?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Konrad Szymański, on behalf of the ECR Group.(PL) After the experience of the past few years one thing is clear – cross-border cooperation within the context of the neighbourhood policy does not work. It has not been a success. Beyond a doubt, we must clarify the responsibilities of individual administrative institutions dealing with regional development, the neighbourhood policy and cross-border cooperation. Beyond a doubt, we must do something with our procedures as they are currently frightening off the regions, both European and neighbouring regions, from cooperation with the Directorate-General for External Relations. We must bring these institutions closer together.

There is also another problem. Apart from these procedural changes which are necessary, we must also do something about creating greater political transparency within the neighbourhood policy. We can clearly see that Morocco is not particularly overjoyed that it must function within the same political and financial framework as the countries of Eastern Europe. We can clearly see that Russia on the one hand wants neighbourhood privileges, but on the other treats its neighbours as European imperialists. Anyway, we certainly encourage her by constantly offering her an extremely privileged status, for example within the framework of the Partnership for Modernisation.

Therefore we have two problems to solve: firstly, procedural changes, secondly, political changes, so everyone will know what the idea of neighbourhood is based on. Is this a substitute for membership? Is this a step towards membership, or is it quite the opposite, a step towards weakening political relations between Europe and its neighbouring countries?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marie-Christine Vergiat, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group.(FR) Mr President, the evaluation of the implementation of the European neighbourhood policy is not surprising. The evaluation is quite positive in view of the concerns of those who are currently governing Europe. Everything is fine. Trade is developing, so the most important thing is being preserved.

Granted, this evaluation reveals some regrets from a social point of view and from the point of view of democracy and human rights, but only to say that the insufficiencies in this area hold back economic development and – I quote the evaluation by the Commission itself – that it is admitted that social cohesion creates a better climate for business.

I am sure that no-one here is shocked by this way of tackling the problems. I personally think that this reveals a great deal about the European integration that the European Union is seeking to impose on its close neighbours, this Europe of double standards in which our fellow citizens are finding it increasingly difficult to recognise themselves and which they are increasingly giving up on at each election, when they do not take refuge in voting for extremists.

Yes, the evaluation of the neighbourhood and partnership policy is at least mitigated once we look at how these policies have resulted in improvements for the populations concerned. The glass is not half empty or half full, Commissioner. The scales are tipped to the wrong side.

What real progress has been made in terms of democracy and human rights? Go and talk to the people who live in these areas and are fighting for democracy in these countries and are even risking their lives.

What progress has been made in Tunisia in this area? How can we envisage a stronger partnership with countries that openly ride roughshod over democracy and human rights?

The same goes for Israel. Why does the European Union not take advantage of this special relationship, this partnership, to use all its clout to make Israel respect its international commitments and put an end to its occupation of the Palestinian territories? This has gone on for 45 years. The European Union must make its voice heard.

Why does it not do the same thing with Morocco to resolve the issue of the Western Sahara? Also, how does the Commission dare to envisage a stronger partnership with Libya? I think I know the answer. It is so that they can play their role as the guardian of Europe. The fate of those who are sent back there is of little concern to them.

It will soon be 10 October, Commissioner. 10 October is the European Day Against the Death Penalty. I would like to make a symbolic statement here today: when will the European Union stop sending men, women and even children back to these countries, including those that still use the death penalty? When will it demand that these countries at least ratify the 1951 Refugee Convention? When will it demand that these countries have a moratorium on the death penalty?

Economic relations with these countries are important, but they are just as important for them as they are for us. They must serve the people and not their corrupt governments. What image are we projecting of Europe when we constantly prioritise Europe’s economic and security interests over the concept of democracy and human rights?

If the European Union does not have a change of heart in this area we should not be surprised if the universality of human rights is increasingly considered as a form of neo-colonialism, like the desire to impose a so-called Western model. We need a better image for Europe. The neighbourhood policy could be a tool for achieving this. This is not the case, which is something that I deeply regret.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Derek Roland Clark, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, what is the Commissioner thinking about? Has the Commission been asleep for the last two years? Here we are, at a time of economic stringency, despite what Mr Van Rompuy said this week. There are millions out of work, some newer Member States have still not got the promised financial package, and Germany has a billion-euro bill round its neck to underwrite the Greek economy.

In Britain, my government is raising taxes, freezing public sector pay and pensions and cutting back on welfare while finding GBP 45 million every day for this place. And now you want to spend EUR 1.1 billion of hard pressed European taxpayers’ money on a programme to help partner countries along the EU borders.

Is that what you mean by more Europe – or is it an attempt to draw these countries into the EU? It sounds like empire-building to me. After all, José Barroso himself called this an empire. We are told that the EU is to prevent further wars in Europe, but if you look at the record you will find that such wars were due to the empire-builders. Now you are doing it all over again. Do you never learn?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Andreas Mölzer (NI).(DE) Mr President, in my opinion, if doubts are now starting to be expressed more or less openly in many Balkan countries about their own accession perspective, it serves to demonstrate the weaknesses of the European neighbourhood policy, as the countries of the Western Balkans that have a European perspective and those countries with which accession negotiations are already underway are not, of course, included in this neighbourhood policy. The course of the accession negotiations is, naturally, heavily dependent on fulfilment of the accession criteria, as we know. This is crucial, in particular when we consider the rushed enlargement involving Bulgaria and Romania.

However, peace on Europe’s doorstep is, without doubt, more important for the EU than peace in far off Afghanistan. In my view, therefore, we ought once again to focus our own efforts on unresolved conflicts in Europe involving our neighbours and at our borders.

In addition to peace efforts in the Balkans, an improvement in relations with Russia is also important. This is another country that has not been included in the European neighbourhood strategy, although it is an important strategic partner for Europe, not only in terms of energy supply. We need to work on our relations with Russia now, before the next gas dispute or the competition between Nabucco and South Stream has a chance, in the worst case scenario, to lead to a deepening of divisions. Our dependency on Russian gas will remain for a long time yet. Nabucco and supplies from other countries will probably only be able to replace one dependency with other ones. That, in my opinion, would be a bad thing.

Under no circumstances must neighbourhood policy, with the creation of free trade zones as preparation for adoption of the aquis, degenerate into an automatic preparation for accession. That is why, in my view, we ought at last to put a stop to the accession negotiations with Turkey, which is not a European country and the Islamicisation of which will probably progress further following the most recent constitutional reform.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Elmar Brok (PPE). (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, this subject is a classic example of where regional policy and foreign policy coincide. In this regard, we need to show the necessary flexibility to enable us to implement regional policy – including with the experience of regional policy that we have within the European Union – but at the same time also to combine this with foreign policy ideas. This is not an aggressive act against anyone or a question of zones in which we want supremacy, but it is a classic example of an area where we can develop a strategy in which we recognise that border regions have always been zones of conflict, including within the European Union.

If we succeed in successfully tackling border regions so as to eliminate minority conflicts and social and economic divides and hence make the transitions smoother, it would bring about an enormous degree of stabilisation from a wider foreign policy perspective. If, as the European Union, we also achieve closer relations with these countries then this seems to me to be important.

Commissioner, I believe that with a lot of what we need to develop – namely to also incorporate neighbourhood policy better into a strategic concept and not get bogged down in technical details, and I have the impression that this is the aim of your work – the different opportunities we have to make progress here can be combined in one specific approach. I would therefore like to invite you to also view this in a wider context as a strategic concept and perhaps also to take it into account in your team. You will have our cooperation.

Implementation of the administrative flexibility that is needed for this – as what applies to one country does not have to apply to the next one, and if we have Russia on board in this, we will perhaps have to have a flexible solution here, too, that cannot be found using a catch-all method – is difficult for any administration. However, you can count on the fact that we are prepared to do this. If you bring us your assessment of this matter that is scheduled for the end of the year, we will happily add our insights in a hearing or by other means, to enable us to develop a common strategic concept for the Union for the benefit of the citizens on both sides of the borders.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). (HU) Commissioner Füle, I agree with my fellow Members, like Mr Brok who spoke before me, who say that cross-border cooperation has considerable potential. I was a member of the national Parliament from a constituency on the Hungarian-Serbian border for almost 15 years, or, to be exact, my work brought me close to this area. I know first-hand that cross-border cooperation has a great deal of potential. There is a basic contradiction, namely that despite Hungary’s EU membership, regional cooperation within the European Union provides very little opportunity for cooperation between Hungary and Vojvodina, this particular province of Serbia. There is a fundamental contradiction, Commissioner Füle, which has been discussed today: states such as Serbia, which would like to accede to the European Union, can no longer be part of this framework, while on the other hand, it is extremely important for us to bring the Western Balkans closer, to cooperate with Western Balkan countries, to facilitate cooperation between Romania and its Western Balkan neighbours and between Hungary and its Western Balkan neighbour, Serbia. Therefore there is a priority problem here, and I fully agree with Mr Brok that the strategy of the entire policy should be reviewed. As a Czech, you are very familiar with the central part of Europe, the Balkans and Eastern Europe, our eastern neighbours. This has a great deal of potential. This is very important for the issue of ethnic minorities, as Mr Brok pointed out. Cross-border cooperation is not only necessary because it is the only way to solve certain environmental pollution issues, and this applies to the Baltic states, the countries along the Danube and the Black Sea region. It is also important to interethnic relationships, for instance where ethnic minorities living in a different country are concerned. In the case of Hungary, this involves for instance the relationship of the 180 000 Hungarians living in Ukraine and Hungary, or the relationship between the Ukrainians living in Hungary and Ukraine. The same applies in the case of Vojvodina and the Serbs. Regional cooperation has a significant potential to stabilise the region, but we are not exploiting this opportunity yet. I would like to ask Mr Füle, and I have complete confidence in him, to review the earlier concept in this respect, and I trust we will have a much broader neighbourhood policy in the future, which will better promote the interests of the European Union.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Riikka Manner (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, cross­border cooperation programmes are and will be absolutely crucial to improved and closer cooperation in the EU border regions. Administering these programmes under the heading of external relations, however, has proven problematic, and the special features of cross­border cooperation are not always taken into account. It is probably worth considering whether their administration might, in the context of future financial frameworks, be transferred, for example, to the Commission’s Directorate General for Regional Policy, applying, say, the very effective programme principles of the European Parliament’s Committee on Regional Development.

Russia is visible in these ENPI programmes as an equal partner. At the moment Russia is, as far as I know, the only country which is not a member of the Development Assistance Committee, whose programmes are still being managed by DG EuropeAid. The question is: does it have sufficient experience of European regional cooperation?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR). – (PL) The European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, including its cross-border cooperation programme, is a very important Community initiative combining features of international and inter-regional cooperation. It deserves our continued support as it allows regions situated near the outermost borders of the European Union to draw closer. A prerequisite for this, however, is that the instrument’s procedures are streamlined, and that clear, intelligible rules for its functioning are set out.

It is a good thing that the majority of resources provided within the framework of the instrument are earmarked for cooperation with countries within Europe, that is, Ukraine and Belarus. In this context, we should exert further pressure on the Belarus authorities so that they finally take note of the citizens who are calling for pluralism and democracy. Positive signals from the regime concerning a readiness to implement reforms would allow the full exploitation of the EUR 228 million provided within the framework of the agreement, and would also permit Belarus to participate fully in all aspects of cooperation within the framework of the Eastern Partnership. However, should Mr Lukashenko’s regime not be ready for cooperation, we should consider the transfer of these resources to regional cooperation with Ukraine.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  László Surján (PPE). (HU) Mr President, Commissioner, the Commissioner said that fundamental national interests prevent the development of desirable cooperation with certain countries. I accept that there may be such interests, but I believe that governments in favour of confrontation rather than cooperation have misinterpreted their fundamental national interests. This interpretation of the state's role clearly contradicts the interests of citizens living on both sides of the borders, who are certainly in favour of cooperation.

We can recall Jean Monnet’s frequently cited saying, that we build a union between people, not states. This is the direction we must follow. Moreover, the situation is further complicated by the fact that there are relatively large numbers of European citizens living beyond our borders, that is, beyond the external borders of the European Union, such as in Moldova. There is no doubt that cooperation between Romania and Moldova is vital and will also improve the relationship between the two countries.

Commissioner, I am not convinced that only these misinterpreted government and political factors prevent the perfect and harmonised use of this measure. I believe the administrative side should also be reviewed in depth and progress should be made in this area, as well. We are looking forward to this review by the Commission, and it will be particularly important to see the effectiveness of the programme. We are spending European citizens’ money, and we can only spend it with a clear conscience if programmes are effective and bring results. This is a very important issue. Where cross-border cooperation is concerned, the message we are sending to those living beyond our borders is not that we want to integrate them into an empire. In fact, our message is that we belong together in one way or another, and that the border between us is not some kind of impassable Great Wall of China, and that their lives can also benefit from mutual cooperation.

Evidently, we have never fixed the external borders of the European Union, which means that in theory the door is open. Obviously, it is not open to the entire world, but in this case we are talking only about specific cases, people and families interconnected by history. Borders shifted a great deal in the 20th century. There is a village on Slovakia’s border with Ukraine which is cut in half, because that is where the border was drawn by Stalin's infantry troops. With such a difficult historical heritage, it is crucial for this programme of the European Union to promote citizens’ interests effectively and deliver results.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Carl Haglund (ALDE).(SV) Mr President, as mentioned earlier in this debate, Russia chose not to take part in the cooperation in the context of the European neighbourhood policy, presumably because it feels that it was not treated in a sufficiently respectful manner. Instead, we have developed this strategic partnership, which unfortunately is not working in quite the way that it ought to. Mr Füle mentioned earlier that he did not intend to cut back on the Baltic Sea Programme, and I assume that this is a direct consequence of our failure to get projects with Russia off the ground. This is extremely worrying.

Cooperating with Russia is not easy – coming from Finland I am well aware of that. It is possible, however, if we approach Russia in the right way, in other words with respect, and if we realise that Russian culture is a little different from ours. I would venture to suggest that there is scope for improvement in the Commission’s knowledge of and attitude towards Russia. It is absolutely essential that we get cooperation with Russia off the ground. We only need to look at the Baltic Sea Strategy, where the position adopted by Russia is absolutely crucial in various ways. I look forward to some good initiatives from the Commission in this regard.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jacek Olgierd Kurski (ECR). – (PL) Until now, the Eastern Partnership has been the first and only foreign-policy initiative from my country, Poland, which has been accepted by Brussels and the whole European Community. Its real political sense lies in attracting six post-Soviet states to the Union. In documents establishing the programme this is not mentioned, but it is well known that that is what it is about.

The plan has come at the right time. Two crises, first of all the Georgian crisis, then the gas crisis between Russia and Ukraine, clearly showed the EU leaders that it was worth taking an interest in that part of Europe to the east of the Union. In December, the Commission allocated EUR 600 million for that aim. Today, however, enthusiasm is waning and even in this Chamber there are questions being asked regarding the point of the Eastern Partnership. The German Socialist representative has stated that since the Germans are providing billions of euros for Greece, it makes no sense to have a programme of support for the post-Soviet states. This is as if we were to ask whether we should put on shoes or socks. It is a false alternative - we need both.

Europe is not only a business, an exchange of capital or inter-sectoral flows. It also stands for a love of freedom. Europe owes the post-Soviet countries, which remained behind the Iron Curtain for 50 years, a path forward to freedom and civilisation, and the development of the Eastern Partnership programme should achieve this. Therefore, seeing that difficulties and concrete doubts are emerging concerning a lack of procedural flexibility and problems implementing specific projects, we should seriously consider a revision of the instrument, so that the beautiful words written on paper will be reflected in real action, because it really is worth taking such action.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bernd Posselt (PPE).(DE) Thank you for your generosity, Mr President. Someone once said that borders are wounds that have been created by history. Nevertheless, borders are necessary. Everything has limits, and naturally the European Union must have limits, too. I was a leading advocate of enlargement, and I still am. South-Eastern Europe must be integrated into the European Union as quickly as possible. However, we must at some point put an end to this. We must shape the borders that are necessary in as tolerable and constructive a way as possible. Borders must not be abrupt and they must not divide people. They can instead connect people if they are structured in a graduated and sensible way. That is the task of neighbourhood policy, as I understand it, both in the Mediterranean and to the east.

However, I am very pleased that, since the Prague summit – which was one success of the Czech Presidency, which was otherwise very turbulent – a real distinction has been made between the policy relating to the Mediterranean and that relating to our eastern neighbours. This is an old request that we here in Parliament, and I, too, have repeatedly made. We believe that this is a step in the right direction, as different issues need to be dealt with in different ways.

Therefore, these three different forms of cooperation – cooperation with Russia, preferential cooperation with our eastern neighbours and special cooperation in the Mediterranean region – should be treated as separate instruments with one and the same objective. If the question were to be raised as to who should take care of these instruments, the answer is that the Commission and Parliament should take care of them, in other words the real Community institutions, and in particular Commissioner Füle, who, in my opinion, does an excellent job in this regard.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Charles Tannock (ECR). – Mr President, as the former rapporteur for the ENP in the last Parliament, I would say to Commissioner Füle that I remain sceptical as to whether one can really combine Morocco and Moldova under one policy umbrella. To an extent, the Eastern Partnership developments and the Euromed/Barcelona Process reflect my concerns.

Of course, I still hope that one day Ukraine, Moldova and a democratic Belarus might join the European Union. Nevertheless, I do agree that more cross-border ENPI funding needs to made affordable to solve questions such as the frozen conflicts from Transnistria to Nagorno-Karabakh, which is a region that particularly concerns me and which has never had any funding from the Commission. There is a real risk at the moment of an escalation of tensions, or even of hostilities breaking out again between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, particularly as Azerbaijan is now flush with petrodollars.

In the southern dimension, solving the Western Sahara question and fighting religious fundamentalism, particularly in secular countries like Egypt and Tunisia, could also be an area where cross-border cooperation could become a priority. Sadly, for most of the countries of the European neighbourhood policy, it is all about bilateral EU relations with Brussels, with little or no interest really in regional integration amongst themselves or in cross-border cooperation.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Good neighbourly relations form the basis of the decent coexistence of nations. Financial resources invested in improving relations between nations and neighbouring states result in improved co-existence, calm and peace in the regions, and – when put to good use - economic growth as well, stimulated by greater trust in neighbourly relations and greater cooperation on common projects.

The forms of support for cross-border cooperation or the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument must be flexible, in order to reflect European policy for the given area or region. It is important from the perspective of application to simplify as far as possible the process of preparing and implementing individual projects, and for us to be able to evaluate operationally the actual benefits from the use of the resources expended at any stage. We certainly cannot force onto a universal template a wide range of different projects from the Baltic Sea to the Mediterranean, so the system must be capable of a certain openness to the specific needs of concrete forms of cooperation in a given region.

Following the correct evaluation of experience to date, let us not be afraid, therefore, of also going on to modernise or improve existing mechanisms. We will all support you in this matter, Commissioner.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Elena Băsescu (PPE).(RO) I would like to take this opportunity to mention the 2007-2013 Joint Operational Programme Romania-Ukraine-Republic of Moldova. Funding for this programme is provided by the EU via the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument. Three projects submitted by Chişinău Municipal Council involving public lighting, the use of renewable energy resources and eco-remediation have passed the first stage in the selection process only after a year, which highlights a problem with excessive red tape.

Although progress has been made, additional measures need to be taken. I think what is required is to simplify the procedures for accessing European funds, extend the areas where the cross-border cooperation programme is applicable and restrict the time limits for considering projects. I therefore believe that, in future, the application of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument in the area of cross-border cooperation must be based on principles of efficiency and consistency.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR). – (PL) Commissioner, I believe that expanding the Union eastwards, for which I know you have an excellent sense and understanding, is one of the most important obligations on the part of the European Union. This is because it is linked not only with our moral obligation but also with our political interest, and because expanding the sphere of political stability, economic stability and political transparency eastwards is in our best interests, I mean in the interests of those who are already members of the European Union.

In fact, expanding the European Union to include countries such as a democratic Belarus, Ukraine and Moldova, as has already been discussed here, but also Georgia and other countries of the post-Soviet sphere is in the best interests of the whole European Union and in the best interests of those countries who are currently outside the European Union. I believe that all political parties in this Parliament will support you in ensuring integration is carried out as quickly as possible and as effectively as possible.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bastiaan Belder (EFD).(NL) Mr President, Commissioner, at the last change of government in Kiev, Ukraine, I noticed and closely observed an increasing reinforcement of the Russian and Ukrainian secret services, and even some interconnection.

Ukraine is situated between the European Union and Russia. Historically, the strong Russian influences in Ukraine are of course obvious, but noting such a development I wonder – and this is also my question to you – to what extent the European neighbourhood policy is perhaps running up against a major problem in the form of this reinforcement of Russian influence in Kiev and Ukraine. This applies in particular to the more pro-Western forces in Ukraine.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Iosif Matula (PPE).(RO) Cross-border cooperation is one of the most important means of creating a united, extended Europe, without any division lines. An important role is also played in this by the Joint Operational Programme, the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument and the 2007-2012 Cross-Border Cooperation Programme Romania-Ukraine-Moldova, which has more than EUR 126 million available.

As an EU Member State, Romania is helping to implement this programme in collaboration with two countries in the Eastern Partnership. This allows funding to be provided for concrete measures aimed at achieving the objectives of the European neighbourhood policy. The implementation of the programme, which is still a very difficult process, is facilitated by the entry into force this year of the local border traffic agreement between Romania and the Republic of Moldova. The same facilities could be established via a similar agreement between Romania and Ukraine.

In addition, the progress made in managing the eastern border is helping Romania prepare for its imminent accession to the Schengen area. Last but not least, the Danube Strategy currently being drafted by the EU may give new impetus to cross-border cooperation with the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine. This is an example of how regional policy and foreign policy can complement each other perfectly and always yield positive results.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Mr President, if you really want to know what somebody is up to, you must listen to him telling you what he is not intending to do.

The European Union’s description of its neighbourhood policy sounds like an old man of questionable character armed with a bag of sweets explaining how innocent his motives are. The European Neighbourhood policy is not about membership of the European Union, it says. However, we do have some sweets in the form of action plans on economic and social cooperation and development, which contribute to sustainable growth in partner countries.

It must be emphasised that the European Union’s motives are beyond reproach, as innocent as those of the old man of questionable character. It does not want to take possession of neighbouring states for improper purposes; it just wants to talk about shared values. There is a name for this in English law: it is called ‘grooming’.

I have some advice for neighbouring countries: do not talk to strangers bearing sweets. Keep the virtue of your sovereignty and avoid being suborned into betraying your country, even by people with the purest of motives.

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: Rainer WIELAND
Vice-President

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE). – (PL) To begin, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his factual presentation and to express my conviction that not only the analysis prepared by the Commission setting out the experience gained between 2007 and 2009 but also today’s discussion will contribute to the improved implementation of the strategic aims of cross-border cooperation within the framework of the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument. I will not touch on procedural changes and why it is vital to simplify them, as at least three previous speakers have already spoken on the issue. However, taking into consideration the fact that a significant factor for the correct exploitation of European resources is the creation of an appropriate administrative capability, at a regional as well as at a local level, I would like to ask how the Commission is planning to support cooperation of regional and local independent governing bodies in the European Union with their partners within the framework of the European Instrument, and particularly with Eastern Partnership countries.

Secondly, as the aims of cross-border cooperation as presented by the Commission are long-term aims, I would like to ask how this programme could help increase young people’s mobility. This is, as we know, one of the priorities of the draft budget for the coming years, and is an effective way of strengthening cooperation between the European Union and these neighbouring countries.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE).(RO) The European Parliament has constantly campaigned for an increase in the financial package for the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument. However, there are obstacles impeding its implementation due to complicated procedures and a lack of flexibility in the regulations for applying the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, which prevent requests for proposals being made. I call on the Commission to provide comprehensive assistance to those countries which have been unable to absorb the budget allocated via this instrument and to repeat this month’s initiative.

It is also absolutely imperative that budget resources earmarked for this instrument and not yet used are transferred to another border cooperation programme. Obviously, double funding will need to be avoided via the cross-border cooperation programmes and other programmes relating to the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument.

I would like to end by thanking the Commissioner for the efforts he is making in the EU’s relations with the Republic of Moldova.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Michael Gahler (PPE).(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I am sure that we would agree that, on account of its size and significance, Ukraine is the most important country in the area covered by our neighbourhood policy, and I am really dismayed to see the developments in the domestic political situation there in recent months – it is indeed a backwards step, a re-Sovietisation at an astonishing rate. Last week, when Mr Yanukovych was in Brussels, the considerable concern that we really ought to express with regard to developments there was not, at any rate, reflected in the public statements as far as I could see.

It is a question of local election laws that are being manipulated in such a way that political plurality is no longer ensured. Parties registering under the new law are not granted authorisation. The secret service is taking on its old, abominable roles. I am really very concerned, and I believe that the verbal statements made in relation to Europe by the current government there really are just words and do not reflect reality. What do you intend to do in order to make a clear statement to Ukraine?

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. Mr President, honourable Members, this is not the first time I have addressed you, but for the first time I have received many questions which actually go beyond the framework of the original question. I welcome that and hope that I will be able to explain.

Coming back to the original questions with which we started our discussions, I absolutely agree with those who consider cross-border cooperation to be a way of melting down borders as much as possible, particularly when we are talking people-to-people contacts. The time of the walls belongs to the past and the cross-border cooperation programmes make a significant contribution to that fact.

Let me start with the timing of various steps. I already mentioned in my statement that the Commission is now in the process of undertaking a mid-term review of CBC; that will be ready in December 2010. As regards the ENPI Regulation, that was reviewed in its mid-term review in 2009. All the financial allocations will, then, be clarified by the end of this year and we will table legislative proposals on the so-called ENPI II by the end of next year, though that is already looking into the future, beyond 2013.

On the issue related to this – and this is where we are, concerning the funds and Russia – I can say that everything is on time, taking into account the difficulties I have mentioned. Everything is on time concerning the EU funds. There are some small delays in adding the Russian money due to some technical issues on their side, but that should be clarified soon.

Mr Brok is absolutely right concerning how EU regional policy and territorial cooperation on EU external borders should be combined; I could not have put it better myself. Our instruments aim at making this cooperation as easy as possible, bringing together regions in the EU Member States and in our partner countries. Here I strongly believe that our discussion today should not be seen in isolation but as, hopefully, creating a momentum for closer interaction with many of you. I have heard from many representatives with wide experience in this area, so I shall be ready to use all the communications channels we have at our disposal – while also being creative to add some other informal channels – so as to make as much use as possible of that experience, because it is important that we pass the reality check on this particular issue of CBC.

However, it is important that we also pass a reality check on neighbourhood policy, and I welcome the fact that a number of you raised this issue. You know that in conjunction with the High Representative and Vice-President of the Commission, Cathy Ashton, we have indeed initiated a review process of our neighbourhood policy. The last neighbourhood package, which we presented in the spring, assessed not just last year’s achievements but the achievements of all five years.

With Cathy Ashton, we thought this to be an excellent basis from which to consider a number of questions: Is our policy right? Are we going in the right directions? Do our partners feel they have ownership of this policy? Have we got our instruments right? Do we have the necessary resources? And including the questions: Are we still talking about neighbourhood policy in terms of instruments and defining the goal of neighbourhood policy as ensuring peace, stability and prosperity on the borders of the European Union?

Should we not also be starting, at least, to discuss the questions: Is there an end game for this policy? Is there a goal we could define? Is there something which would make it more attractive for our partners to work and cooperate with us? These are the questions we have started to address with the Member States, with our partner countries, think-tanks and civil society organisations, but also, of course, with you. We are now working with the Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs to find suitable dates and times. Once again, on this particular issue I am looking to be creative about informal contacts with you, because this is a very important issue and I hope very much that by presenting a new neighbourhood package in the spring of next year we will be ready to share with our partners and the rest of the world the results of this review policy.

The review policy will not focus solely on the three pillars as we know them today: political association, economic integration and the mobility issue. We will also focus most definitely on how our values are to be reflected in this new policy, on how we can make our argument about human rights and fundamental freedoms stronger – not only in certain parts of our neighbourhood but across the board. In addition, we have some concrete issues to discuss with countries such as Ukraine and Tunisia, and with some others. But this is engagement, which will bring us to the negotiating table, and it is our assistance and our insistence on these roles which will help those countries reach a suitable level.

Turning to a specific question on Russia and Ukraine from the honourable Member Mr Belder, I just would like to add that I hope very much that our cooperation with partners, and specifically with Ukraine, will not be based on competition with any third country and that there will not be a zero-sum game approach but a win-win situation improving the situation in the region as a whole.

I am sure that I have not been able to address all your questions but I will look at them in the course of the CBC policy review, and I will also find a way to answer them in writing because I feel they are important and that we should address them again in the framework of this review process.

Let me give one more specific answer, concerning the idea of moving these programmes from DG RELEX to DG REGIO. I do not think that this will solve the challenges I mentioned at the beginning. On the contrary, it would mean the foreign policy issue – which does exist – would be ignored, and I am sure that we have a lot of will within the current framework to find a way of making the programmes work better.

So now, let me thank you very much for the discussion on this particular issue. Thank you very much for a number of good ideas which we will also tackle with you when we go through this neighbourhood policy review process.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. The debate is closed.

Written Statements (Rule 149)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Dominique Baudis (PPE), in writing.(FR) Cross-border cooperation is essential for our neighbouring countries. How is it possible to have a prosperous and sustainable economy if the borders are closed? It provides better border security and intelligent management of migratory flows. However, some of our neighbouring regions, such as the Maghreb, do not know how to work together. In the majority of cases where cross-border cooperation among our neighbours is at a standstill there is an unfinished conflict with a long history behind it. It is obviously crucial that we give our neighbours the resources to cooperate. However, in order for the budgets allocated to be really useful, we need the European Union, in other words, you, Mr Füle, and especially Baroness Ashton, to be present on the political stage. It needs to be in a position to have an influence, be heard and be respected. Otherwise the Union for the Mediterranean is doomed to failure. In addition, the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument creates a multitude of documents and suffers as a result of its complexity or even opacity. Parliament has almost no right to see the strategy documents and national indicative programmes. We must be consulted more often and be better informed, and the procedure must be simplified.

 

3. Import of Laogai-made goods into the EU (debate)
Video of the speeches
MPphoto
 

  President. The next item is the statement from the Commission on the import of Laogai-made goods into the EU.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. Mr President, honourable Members of Parliament, the issue raised in this question is indeed one that concerns fundamental human rights, which are core values of the European Union and which are also central to the Union’s external action.

I can assure you of the Commission’s fundamental attachment to human rights, as well as to the core Conventions of the International Labour Organisation, including the one on forced labour. At the same time, you are also aware of how delicate an issue this is in our relations with China.

The Commission fully agrees with the European Parliament that the laogai system is completely incompatible with universally-accepted concepts of human rights, as well as China’s ambitions to become a modern and developed society. The maintenance of this system is also wholly incompatible with China’s stated commitment to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which it signed twelve years ago.

The European Union is indeed faced with the problem that goods produced in laogai, under those very conditions which we condemned, may well be imported into the European Union. However, it is extremely difficult to accurately establish whether – and which – goods imported from China into the European Union have been produced in laogai.

In response to previous queries by the European Parliament – as well as civil society organisations – the European Union has consistently raised the matter with China in recent years, particularly in the context of the bi-annual Human Rights Dialogue.

In this context, the European Union has underlined that the laogai system violates several articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and in particular Article 8, which prohibits forced or compulsory labour, and Article 9, which states that no one should be imprisoned without a proper trial.

To date, the European Union has preferred to use an approach of positive engagement with China, rather than making use of an import ban. However, we have to acknowledge that there are limits to this approach which, so far, has not produced any notable change in Chinese policy as regards Laogai.

We also have to recognise that China is not the only country where the issue of prison labour is a matter of concern. The Commission is therefore open to revisiting the question of the most effective way to apply pressure on countries that make use of prison labour, in violation of fundamental human rights principles and of the Conventions of the International Labour Organisation. However, this will have to be done in a horizontal way and should not be limited to China only.

We would welcome Parliament’s further views on this issue and will keep you informed on further developments.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Michael Gahler, on behalf of the PPE Group. (DE) Mr President, it is fortuitous that we are holding this debate in the same part-session as the deliberations regarding the forthcoming EU-China summit. The issue of laogai camps has repercussions for both trade policy and human rights policy. I would like to focus on the human rights aspects here.

Prisoners in China’s laogai prisons are forced into slave labour under the cynical motto ‘Reform through labour’. This huge network of enforced labour camps violates fundamental human rights. Prison conditions are appalling and are unacceptable to China’s European partners. They flagrantly flout universal human rights, which the People’s Republic of China undertook to observe no later than 12 years ago when it ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The European Parliament has already condemned the laogai system several times in the past. However, there is something that we must note: laogai prisons bear the names of commercial enterprises just like normal businesses, seeking to conceal the true nature of their products, which are produced by enforced labour. The US has placed a legal ban on the import of prison-produced goods and has kept its market closed to these so-called ‘businesses’. We have not yet introduced such a ban. Commissioner, you have stated that it is difficult to determine where products originate. We know the names of these businesses, which are in fact prisons. The US already has specific experience in relation to how these products can be kept off the market. The question is whether you are prepared to take notice of these company lists and to enter into specific discussions with the US on how something can be achieved in this way?

Will the European Union now insist that China should move swiftly to permit the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture to visit the prisons of his choice, particularly in Xinjiang and Tibet?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Karin Kadenbach, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I would like to preface my remarks by saying that the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament is very interested in constructive relations with the People’s Republic of China. Your response today disappointed me a little, however, because it contained nothing concrete. In fact, all you have done is to draw attention to the current situation, trying to hide behind the fact that this is a difficult matter. This is not an acceptable excuse, when other countries, such as the US as we have just heard, have already managed to find very clear solutions.

A positive trade balance with China – which is something I would welcome for us all – cannot excuse us for turning a blind eye to serious violations of human rights. I am sure that China and its representatives are working hard to deal with the very difficult situation in China – a boom and growth in the economy on the coast and in the major cities and increasing poverty in the rural areas – leading to an absolute imbalance in the country’s social structures. However, this cannot excuse us from making every effort to prevent the import of these goods to Europe, whether intentionally or unintentionally. We have a wide range of measures open to us; we can make sure that businesses in Europe are made aware of the problematic products. The names of these cover companies who deal in goods from laogai camps are known. We also know who the suppliers are. It is not much use for us in Europe to have most of our companies providing an excellent example by making an undertaking that human rights are respected, if we do nothing to help them keep to this undertaking.

I also see myself as a representative of the consumer, who wants to be sure when buying products of Chinese origin that these products are not the result of enforced labour. We already have a heightened awareness in relation to products that result from child labour. A lot has been done in this regard. I expect the Commission to come up with some specific proposals, such as quality marks. I want to see a ban on products that can be proven to come from these sources and I also want to see continued constructive and effective dialogue with China. I believe that there is a willingness on the part of the Chinese government to continue with this dialogue. China is also interested in improving its human rights record. Let us try to achieve this through dialogue, but we should not turn a blind eye to human rights violations simply because trade relationships are so important.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Charles Goerens, on behalf of the ALDE Group.(FR) Mr President, there are more than a thousand camps, according to the estimates of the NGOs, 3 to 5 million people imprisoned, almost all of whom are accused of endangering the security of the State, and allegations of organ trafficking. Even if this list is not exhaustive, it is nonetheless very concerning. The forced labour camps in China are a real disgrace.

The reaction of the international community is nevertheless still quite a timid one. What we actually expect from the European Union is to tell us that it is taking measured steps, of course, but steps that are nevertheless capable of leading all of China’s trading partners to show a united front in order to obtain real concessions from it. Task forces have already been created for challenges of lesser importance.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marek Henryk Migalski, on behalf of the ECR Group.(PL) Commissioner, I would also like to join those who have said that your speech was rather disappointing, as this issue should be a key issue for us. There are approximately 7 million people in these camps. These people are very often subject to repression due to their religious or political views. Our moral and political responsibility should be to counteract this.

It really is difficult to avoid the feeling that this prison system recalls the Soviet gulags, and its name even brings vividly to mind the famous inscription over the German Nazi concentration camp, Auschwitz-Birkenau, ‘Arbeit macht frei’, as ‘laogai’ means ‘improvement through work’. Therefore we cannot just ignore this, and this issue should be absolutely key in any discussions between the European Union and China, and also, as I understand it, in any Member State discussions with China. This is a key issue and I would call on the Commissioner to place this issue on the agenda at every meeting with the Chinese authorities.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marie-Christine Vergiat, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group.(FR) Mr President, we all know what the democracy and human rights situation is in China. We have just been talking about the European neighbourhood policy. These two matters have something in common: economic realism prevails.

In the eyes of those who govern Europe, China is first and foremost a big market. We should not therefore upset the Chinese authorities as they could close their borders to us. It does not matter that there is still the same level of political repression. I for one have not forgotten the victims of Tiananmen Square. I have not forgotten all those who are rotting in prison, in labour camps or even paying with their lives for their fight for democracy and human rights.

The laogai system is indeed a terrible symbol of what is happening in China. You told us once again that human rights were important to the Commission. So, Commissioner, do not hide behind technical considerations. Do not content yourself any longer with talking to the Chinese Government. You are well aware of how the Chinese Government receives your words. For them, discussions on this issue are something that they have to endure.

Your initial speech did very little to answer the questions put by my fellow Members. You did not actually say anything specific and do not hide behind the fact that there are labour camps in other countries. You tell us that China is modernising. I would say this: it depends for whom.

I am not a pro-American, far from it. In this case, however, it seems to me that at the very least doing what the United States is doing would be a minimum. In the area of security and the so-called fight against terrorism we know how to cooperate with the United States, including to the detriment of Europeans. Why is the European Union not capable of doing the same thing when it comes to respecting human rights?

Commissioner, when will the European Union ban exports of products from laogai camps?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Lorenzo Fontana, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, your words are certainly not what we expected as we were waiting for a stronger reaction on this issue. We cannot allow human rights to be subordinated to the economy, otherwise the existence of the European Union no longer makes sense.

There are millions of people in the laogai, millions of people who see their human rights abused. Above all we must not forget that in any case this is also a problem for the European economy, because these products arriving on our market also create unfair competition which leads to economic crises in Europe, too, with loss of competitiveness and dumping as well. This makes it clear that despite what the Chinese Government has said and done over the years, unfortunately the results are nowhere to be seen.

The laogai continue to exist and unfortunately millions and millions of people, who represent minorities in these countries, see their rights trampled underfoot. We believe, and I hope, that diplomatic efforts and concertation will now give way to a strong reaction from Europe which entails a determined fight against the import of products from the laogai, perhaps following the example of the United States.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Daniel Caspary (PPE).(DE) Mr President, we are all aware that the laogai network is the front for an intolerable system of enforced labour camps in China. The very existence of these labour camps is intolerable, but I find it repellent that many of the products manufactured there find their way into our shops. These labour camps are not just used as part of the penal system for prisoners, but also enable the Chinese Government to reap profits and economic benefits. This again is an intolerable situation. How can we know that some of the products from these labour camps will not be served as part of the hospitality offered to the delegation from the European Union that is to visit China in 14 days’ time? I do not think I would be able to stomach this.

Mr Füle, I am very disappointed by what you have had to say. Instead of finally focusing on this issue and presenting us with solutions, you have announced that the Commission first intends to find out what other countries also use critical prisons to manufacture products that reach our markets. You should deal with one problem appropriately. When you have solved this problem, then we can move on to another one. We should avoid spreading ourselves too thinly, but should finally tackle this problem head-on.

I am calling on the Commission and the Council finally to ensure that the products from these camps will no longer be sold in a single European shop. We do not want products like this in Europe. As has already been mentioned several times, our friends in the US have found a way to ban these products from their shops. I call on the Commission to ensure that these bloodstained products no longer reach our markets. I am in favour of good partnership with China, but these camps and other issues will always be a thorn in the side of our relations.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gesine Meissner (ALDE).(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, you have stated that human rights are core values in the European Union. Last December, we proudly signed off on the Treaty of Lisbon and the legally binding Convention on Human Rights associated with it. What you have said is absolutely correct and of vital importance: we must defend these human rights at every turn and we must also allow these principles to guide our trade activities.

As you have pointed out, this is a difficult matter. However, as has already been stated, a list of camps producing laogai products already exists. I have a book here with all the relevant information. It shows which prison manufactures which products and under which trade name. Hence, it is possible to research this issue. That is why, for example, the Laogai Research Foundation, which is active both internationally and within Europe – I say this for the benefit of President Müller, who is with us here today – has written to Commissioner De Gucht to ask him to enable the UN Special Envoy to visit the camps of his choice and to examine the question of whether it is possible to halt tariff preferences for such products on a temporary basis, following the example of the US, which is somewhat more courageous on this issue than we are. I would like to know what progress has been made with the Commission’s promised investigation into this issue?

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Fiorello Provera (EFD). - (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to add a few figures to those cited by my fellow Members: there are more than 1 000 certified laogai camps, between 40 and 50 million prisoners have spent time in the laogai since 1949 and in particular there are 314 commercial companies linked to the laogai.

The laogai represent one of the most repressive prison systems in the world, created on the model of the Soviet gulags to punish opponents of the communist regime; for political motives, in other words. The European Union already has enormous difficulty competing with the production system of the People’s Republic of China, whose trade union, environmental and consumer protection standards are absolutely non-existent. If we accept the import of goods produced by political prisoners we then become accomplices, at least morally, to these crimes which we ought to be helping to eradicate.

Otherwise, Commissioner, we will confirm the impression that we are very critical towards small countries and very cautious in our dealings with large countries such as China. To conclude: the forthcoming October summit is an opportunity to deal with this problem as well. Commissioner, I hope that this opportunity is not missed and that you will return with more favourable news.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE).(RO) As you are aware, Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates the right to a fair trial. Obviously, laogai, which is re-education through labour, blatantly violates this right. As my fellow Members before me have stated, laogai camps do more than this. They subject prisoners to torture and degrading treatment, as well as to doing jobs, unpaid of course, in mines, on farms and in factories, which sometimes last the whole day. In laogai camps as well, according to investigations carried out by organisations for the protection of human rights, detainees are subjected to beatings, acts of sexual aggression, while also being deprived of medical care and an acceptable diet. The import of any such goods created in the laogai system into the EU must obviously be banned. I strongly believe this should happen. The Commission can monitor this ban. Mr Gallagher very clearly made this suggestion in his speech.

On the other hand, I too believe, as other fellow Members have also said, that every opportunity must be taken by EU representatives in high-level meetings with Chinese officials to request an outright ban on this degrading system.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Cristiana Muscardini (PPE).(IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, those who worship the god of money do not care if that money has blood on it. The Chinese Government uses the manpower of these people under inhumane working conditions and continues to export goods with blood on them to Europe.

I do not think that the moral issue will help the European Union resolve the problem because the European Union still does not have any measures in place to stop the import of such goods, and it continues its dealings with the People’s Republic of China despite being aware of what China is doing and of the origin of these goods.

I fear that the moral issue does not interest Europe enough, so Parliament is issuing a firm invitation to come back with greater determination, to tackle this problem unequivocally with China and in the meantime, since Europe has its own economic worries, we should at least move towards a regulation for naming the place of origin as soon as possible. In this way, it will be possible to tell the Chinese Government that if the manufacture and export of goods made by prisoners is not forbidden, then for us everything Chinese will be an instrument likely to be born from blood.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). – Mr President, Commissioner, we should not forget that a substantial part of China’s economic rise is due to the prison economy. The laogai system has been the most important tool of massive political oppression and has included since 1949 about 50 million inmates. Even today there are up to five million detainees. Most of them have been kept there under the guise of preventing a threat to state security. The large-scale exploitation of slave labour in Communist China’s prison camps has become an open secret. It has been proved that most laogai prisons operate under the titles of commercial companies.

On the eve of the EU-China summit, Commissioner, are you prepared to implement President Van Rompuy’s principle of reciprocity in further actions? I agree that you did not answer most of our questions. For example, is there any cooperation with US authorities on detecting laogai products? Have you taken a look at Parliament’s previous resolutions which have advocated a ban on sales of laogai products in Europe and have insisted that further progress on cooperation with China should depend on Beijing ratifying important UN and ILO Conventions? Also, are you prepared to suspend China’s status under the generalised system of preferences if the Chinese authorities refuse? These are questions to which we need answers.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Martin Kastler (PPE).(DE) Mr President, incarcerating people in labour camps because they do not share the same views as a governing regime is a crime against human dignity. Slave labour camps, re-education camps and internment camps – these are all anachronisms that have lost none of their repugnance in the 21st century, wherever in the world they may be. I am truly disappointed that the European Commission, against our better judgment, has failed to present any concrete measures to the Members of this House to deal with the Chinese case and has not explained how it envisages future cooperation between the EU and China.

If the US has lists of businesses and if books exist publishing the names of businesses that are known to be a front for internment camps, then why is it that you do not have them? Why are you taking this blinkered approach? You and the Commission are making yourselves share in the blame for the misery suffered by those who have been imprisoned, mostly without due legal process. No one could want this. The rule of law is one of our fundamental principles in Europe and in the European Union. As an MEP, I am ashamed to have had to listen to what was said here today. Nonetheless, I am pleased, on the other hand, that we have drawn attention here to this principle of the rule of law for liberty and for human dignity on a cross-party basis. I would like to thank the House for this.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Michael Theurer (ALDE).(DE) Mr President, Commissioner, my fellow Members have explained that it is an urgent human rights issue that the import of these products into the European Union should be halted. I am also of the opinion that, in the context of such inhuman conditions, the question arises as to whether these products are being sold at dumping prices. I believe that we should look at the need for anti-dumping measures.

In addition, we in the EU should make it quite clear that, irrespective of the commercial issues involved, the conditions in these labour camps are unacceptable to us. Naturally we should concern ourselves not just with the products themselves, but with improving conditions for the people interned in these camps who have no recourse to the principles of the rule of law. We should once again make this very clear to the People’s Republic of China.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Eva Lichtenberger (Verts/ALE).(DE) Thank you very much Mr President. Commissioner, you said: in the context of relations with China, this is a very delicate subject. That is clear. In my opinion, however, partners who do business together and who establish a partnership on a global level, must not only hammer home their own values in negotiations, but also draw the appropriate conclusions. Otherwise, as I think we all will agree, one of the negotiating partners could be accused of hypocrisy when it criticises the fact that these condemnable camps exist, while at the same time willingly allowing these products into its market. It is an issue for European credibility that we should not just talk the talk, but also walk the walk. I believe that this position would be met with respect in China, rather than being rejected. After all, a negotiating partner whose hypocrisy is so apparent will be taken far less seriously than one who is true to his values – even to the point of taking action.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Charles Tannock (ECR). Mr President, China is an economic capitalist wonder but it is essentially a brutal one-party Communist state. One of the more unpleasant facts is the forced ‘re-education’ through labour camps, or laogais, to which millions of dissenters or political opponents – from Uighurs to Falun Gong practitioners and, in the past of course, Tiananmen Square protesters and their relatives – are sent.

In these camps there are horrendous, albeit unproven, allegations of organ harvesting, for transplant purposes, among prisoners about to be executed. It is a fact, of course, that China does execute thousands of its citizens yearly for various reasons: from major capital crimes – something we might find understandable – to economic sabotage and even pimping.

There is another issue which I raised in the past with Commissioner Mandelson, which is the worry that forced labour camps may be producing goods. This is an allegation. One particular thing cited was rubber boots, which somehow find their way onto the EU markets. I have some sympathy with the Commission because identifying this, or proving it, has so far been impossible.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) The Laogai camps, named after the Chinese words ‘lao’ – meaning ‘re-education’ - and ‘gai’ – meaning ‘labour’ – began to be established in China shortly after the communist takeover in 1948.

Almost 50 million Chinese have been imprisoned in the camps since their inception, and only half of these ever returned home. According to the Laogai research institute in Washington, there are presently more than 1 700 such camps in China. Between 3 and 5 million people are being held in them. People are mostly sent to the camps without any judicial procedure, as a police decision is enough. In the camps, the Chinese regime deliberately strips the prisoners of their human dignity and individuality, and forces their relatives and friends to write letters in which they spurn and abandon the prisoners. These letters eventually break the prisoner, along with the inhumanely long interrogations, torture and 14 hours of hard labour every day. The prisoners have just 3 – 4 days off per year. There is no medical care or medicines in the camps. The prisoners who work outside supplement their poor diet by eating grass. The camps do not provide any privacy, and 5 – 15% of prisoners commit suicide in the camps.

We should therefore take effective measures to ensure that products from these slave factories do not soil the conscience of European civilisation.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nick Griffin (NI). Mr President, the prospect of being jailed for thought crimes is shocking. Unlike most of the people here, I can tell you that from personal experience. The British Government has tried to jail me three times under anti-free-speech laws that state that telling the truth is no defence. So I am very sympathetic to Chinese, and especially Tibetan, dissidents forced into slave labour in Communist prison camps.

Steps must be taken to prevent the goods they make being allowed to undercut manufacturing and workers in the West. But, if one accepts that items made by forced labour constitute unfair competition, it is impossible to avoid the same conclusion about goods made by sweated labour, by workers who are not allowed to organise into trade unions in a country where there are no environmental protection costs.

The truth is that all manufactured goods from China constitute unfair competition. Trade with China, far from being free, costs millions of jobs and destroys our manufacturing base. It is time to protect our workers from this unholy alliance of Communist tyranny and capitalist greed.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Mr President, whether or not it should be permissible to sell goods which prisoners have been compelled to make must depend on whether the prisoners have committed real offences, as distinct from political ones – of course in China we know exactly what the offences are – on whether the judicial system is fair and, certainly, on whether prisoners are being kept in humane conditions, which they are certainly not in the laogai.

However, whether or not other people should be permitted to buy them must depend on whether or not the importing country wishes to close down its own factories and put its own workers out of employment. That should apply not only to goods made by prisoners but to goods from any low-wage economy with which our workers cannot expect to compete.

Advocates of free trade in the classical economics books always say that free trade makes the world as a whole much richer. However, that does not mean that each country becomes richer. It certainly does not mean that British and other European workers who are thrown out of work will become richer. Their interests must come first.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, honourable Members, China’s economic development is unparalleled in modern economic history, and it is playing an increasingly important role on the world scene. This role also entails responsibilities, such as respect for fundamental rights and core labour rights. It is crucial for the Chinese leadership to live up to these challenges.

Even in these challenging times, China and Europe are natural partners. A policy of engagement and dialogue with China is the best way to move forward to resolve these issues, notably in the context of our Human Rights Dialogue or the EU-China High-Level Economic and Trade Dialogue.

This being said, we must also stand up for our values and principles, including with regard to prison labour in the laogai. In the light of this, the Commission – as I mentioned in my introduction – is open to considering an effective way of preventing imports of goods made using prison labour and will further pursue this in close dialogue with the European Parliament.

My colleague, Commissioner Karel De Gucht, made extensive reference to human rights in China in this House last Tuesday. I can reassure this House that human rights, including the European Union’s wish to see the laogai abolished, will be raised at the EU-China summit on 6 October.

Unlike the United States, the EU does not have a horizontal instrument in place banning the import of goods produced using prison labour. The Commission is ready to study the effectiveness of the United States law in preventing such imports, given the difficulty in identifying them. I will not miss the opportunity to inform my four colleagues the work of whose respective DGs is related to this issue that, according to this House, the time has come to establish an inter-DG taskforce to look into this matter more deeply.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – The debate is closed.

 

4. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes
Video of the speeches

5. Verification of credentials: see Minutes
Video of the speeches

6. Composition of committees and delegations: see Minutes
Video of the speeches

7. Documents received: see Minutes

8. Council positions at first reading: see Minutes

9. Decisions concerning certain documents: see Minutes

10. Written declarations included in the register (Rule 123): see Minutes

11. Forwarding of texts adopted during the sitting: see Minutes

12. Dates of forthcoming sittings: see Minutes

13. Adjournment of the session
Video of the speeches
MPphoto
 
 

  President. – I declare the session of the European Parliament adjourned.

(The sitting was closed at 11.55)

 

ANNEX (Written answers)
QUESTIONS TO THE COMMISSION
Question no 28 by Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė(H-0423/10)
 Subject: Financing of energy infrastructure projects
 

The Commission, in its Second Strategic Energy Review, highlighted the need to identify energy projects’ financing requirements and potential sources of financing for them. According to Mario Monti’s report on ‘A New Strategy for the Single Market’, targeted EU funding for energy infrastructure needs to be stepped up. On March 2009, the Council invited the Commission to present its proposal for a new EU Energy Security and Infrastructure Instrument in early 2010. The Commission’s working programme indicates that it plans to present this instrument by the end of November 2010. What will be the content of the forthcoming Commission proposal to ensure adequate financing for necessary energy projects, especially those related to the creation of the single energy market?

 
  
 

(EN) Further integration of energy grids is one of the major political priorities for Europe and will be so for the foreseeable future, be it within Member States, between Member States and even beyond the borders of the European Union. For without sufficient energy infrastructure, we will not reach our commonly agreed objectives in terms of market integration, security of supply and climate change.

The Commission is preparing a Communication, which will, based on the experiences of the current Trans-European Energy Networks (TEN-E) policy framework and against the background of a new regulatory and political context (Third Energy Internal Market Package(1), 20-20-20 targets, etc), define the key issues and priorities for the development of energy infrastructure for decades to come. This Communication should notably provide answers on what the EU can do to enable and facilitate the building of new energy grids in order to ease the achievement of the EU objectives on market integration, security of supply and climate change.

The Communication should further present a new method of strategic planning to identify and agree on concrete projects of European interest accompanied by a set of tools necessary to implement these projects.

The Communication will also address the question of the financing needs of future infrastructure investments. It should be followed, in 2011, by a legislative proposal for a new EU Energy Security and Infrastructure Instrument. The objective of the latter is to identify a means to fill the investment gap, based on further improving both infrastructure cost allocation, and the effectiveness of EU instruments and better leveraging of public and private funding. It should also cover the issue of financial support for projects. Such funding would concern projects, which would not be realised at all or not be delivered on time by the market alone.

 
 

(1) Directives 2009/72-73/EC, Regulations (EC) Nos 713 -714 - 715/2009.

 

Question no 29 by Georgios Papastamkos (H-0430/10)
 Subject: Advisability of encouraging investment in renewable sources of energy
 

The secure return on investments in solar panels resulting from the guaranteed price under Greek legislation for the production of electricity, in combination with the low financial yield of agricultural land, has aroused widespread interest among farmers' organisations. Does the Commission consider that the economic, social and technical impact of encouraging such investments has been sufficiently taken into account, given the cost entailed for public finances and consumers (through the imposition of a special levy) and the security of the country's energy supplies?

 
  
 

(EN) The Directive on renewable energy(1) sets legally binding targets for the share of renewable energy for Member States. Thus Greece is under the legal obligation to ensure that the consumption of renewable energy in Greece increases from approximately 8% today to 18% in 2020.

Feed-in tariffs that provide a guaranteed price for a fixed period are a very well known means of support creating a stable framework for developing renewables. It is thus a common tool that many Member States use. Whilst the Commission notes that the tariffs offered by Greece are amongst the highest in Europe, it remains the responsibility of the Greek Government to implement all the policies necessary to achieve the target, as set out in its National Renewable Energy Action Plan(2) and to do so in an economically efficient manner. In this respect, the Directive has created a "cooperation mechanism" to allow Member States to help each other achieve their targets cost effectively.

The Commission is sponsoring Member States' discussions on the most effective means of implementing the Directive, through a Concerted Action project of the Intelligent Energy Europe Programme. This Concerted Action will also reflect on Member States' support schemes and their relative efficacy. It will thus help Member States reform their schemes to ensure that they take full account of all relevant economic, social and technical factors and impacts. Such issues will also be addressed in the Commission's forthcoming Energy Strategy 2020 and subsequent report on the financing of renewable energy.

 
 

(1) Directive 2009/28/EC
(2) http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/transparency_platform/action_plan_en.htm

 

Question no 30 by Justas Vincas Paleckis(H-0441/10)
 Subject: Declared nuclear power project developments
 

The Baltic Sea region has recently become one of the most active zones for declared nuclear power projects under development. The safety status of those projects is very significant for the whole EU. It would be most regrettable if neighbouring countries in the close vicinity of the EU's Eastern external border (12 km in the case of Kaliningrad and 20 km in the case of Belarus, the latter project moreover being only 55 km from Vilnius, the capital of an EU Member State) chose to disregard their international obligations while implementing their nuclear energy projects. For the time being nuclear power plant project developers in Belarus and in the Kaliningrad region are failing to supply comprehensive information on the methods to be used to manage the BNPP nuclear waste, decommissioning strategies, any other potential risks associated with major accidents or population evacuation strategies should an accident occur - to name a few topics.

What are the Commission’s views on how to secure appropriate safety standards in the vicinity of the EU's external border (bearing in mind the above-mentioned nuclear projects)? What could be done at EU level in the context of the common European energy policy?

 
  
 

(EN) The Commission continues to closely monitor the energy situation in the Baltic region, and in particular the various plans for new nuclear power plants in Lithuania, Kaliningrad, Belarus (and Poland). Both bilateral contacts and cooperation at international level, i.e. under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are needed to ensure that nuclear power plants in the EU's neighbourhood fulfill high standards of safety and security.

Russia, Belarus, the Euratom Community and its Member States are Contracting Parties to the Convention on Nuclear Safety and to other relevant international conventions concluded under the IAEA, such as on early notification and assistance in case of a nuclear accident. Under the Nuclear Safety Convention, a Contracting Party is obliged to consult other Contracting Parties in the vicinity of a proposed nuclear installation, insofar as they are likely to be affected by that installation. This Convention also sets the framework of safety standards to be applied by the Contracting Parties.

Russia has communicated to the Commission the Environmental Impact Assessment report for the Kaliningrad nuclear power plant, has presented the project in the framework of the EU-Russia energy dialogue and has expressed its willingness to hold consultations with the EU. This issue has also been discussed with the Member States in the Council and the Commission will continue to raise it in its contacts with Russian authorities, highlighting the need for transparency.

The Commission will ensure that the issue of the Belarus nuclear power plant project is raised and thoroughly discussed in the framework of the EU-Belarus energy dialogue. The Commission has asked Belarus to keep the Commission informed with developments related to the ratification and implementation of the IAEA's Additional Protocol on Nuclear Safeguards. The Commission has also expressed its readiness to cooperate with the relevant Belarus authorities in order to establish an independent, transparent and efficient Regulator.

Effective interconnection of the Baltic Sea region was identified as one of the six priority energy infrastructure projects in the Second Strategic Energy Review adopted by the Commission in November 2008. The Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan (BEMIP) was launched in 2008 at the initiative of the President of the Commission. The two main goals of the BEMIP initiative, within the context of the EU's 20/20/20 objectives are the full integration of the three Baltic States into the European energy market, through the strengthening of interconnections with their EU neighboring countries.

 

Question no 31 by Laima Liucija Andrikienė(H-0443/10)
 Subject: Efforts to establish a common European energy policy
 

Could the Commission give its assessment as to whether the newly-negotiated deal between Poland and Russia regarding the operation of the Yamal-Europe gas pipeline and the intention to sign an operating contract valid until 2045 is consistent with the collective efforts in the EU to establish a coherent and viable common energy policy?

More generally, what is the state of play with regard to these common efforts, including the joint proposal by Jacques Delors and Jerzy Buzek to establish a European Energy Community? What progress has been made towards integrating the existing ‘energy islands’, such as the Baltic States, into the European energy network?

 
  
 

(EN) The Commission has communicated to the Polish authorities its concerns regarding the Polish-Russian Intergovernmental Agreement's compliance with the provisions of the EU law. The Commission's concerns relate, amongst other issues, to the management of the Yamal pipeline against the background of the unbundling provisions in the third liberalisation package.

The third liberalisation package is one of the cornerstones of the EU's energy policy. One of its main principles is that all companies willing to sell gas in any Member State are able to do so by using an infrastructure that is managed independently and for fair fees. Open and competitive markets for gas with pipelines accessible to all suppliers increase security of supply because gas can be supplied where demand emerges. Intergovernmental Agreements which do not respect the rules of this package clearly undermine common energy policy.

The internal market rules apply to actors in the EU market from the EU and third countries alike. Defending the functioning of the EU market is therefore a natural aspect of a coherent and viable external energy policy.

The Member of the Commission responsible for Energy communicated this in his talks with the Polish authorities and also raised these issues with the Russian side. The Commission will continue to support Poland in these negotiations. Member States cannot be exposed to a choice between implementing EU law on their territory and supplies of gas.

As regards infrastructure interconnecting industrial Member States and regions in the European Union, in November 2010 the Commission will issue a Communication on Energy Infrastructure outlining the necessary developments in this area. Several infrastructure projects have also received support from the European Energy Programme for Recovery, including in the Baltic States.

Furthermore, next year the Commission expects results from the Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan (BEMIP) gas working group, which meets regularly to identify projects of common interest and identify and overcome barriers to such projects. Clear political support for the Poland-Lithuania pipeline is a positive signal as this is a crucial project to end the isolation of the Baltic region.

The Commission shares much of the analysis and the objectives of Mr Buzek and Mr Delors included in the proposal to strengthen European energy policy. Nevertheless, at least for the time being, the Commission prefers to set up such a European energy policy on the basis of the existing treaties and legal instruments, as referred to above, instead of launching a new institutional debate. The Commission is convinced that the potential of the Lisbon Treaty and in particular its Article 194, if exploited to the full, would make it possible to make far-reaching progress in this direction.

 

Question no 32 by Kathleen Van Brempt(H-0452/10)
 Subject: Radioactive waste
 

On 29 April 2010 the Commission published a Eurobarometer report showing that 82 % of Europeans want legislation on the management of radioactive waste.

Is the Commission preparing a directive on this? Will this directive also require the operators of nuclear plants to take preparatory measures for the dismantling of nuclear plants and the storage and management of highly radioactive waste?

Does the Commission take the view that these safeguards must be provided not only for newly planned plants but also for plants in operation, and that responsibility for this lies in the first instance with the operators, not the Member States?

What is the Commission’s timescale?

 
  
 

(EN) A legislative Commission initiative with regard to spent fuel and radioactive waste management in the EU is under preparation.

The Commission approach is based on the fundamental principle that the ultimate responsibility for the safety of nuclear installations and for the safety of spent fuel and radioactive waste management rests with the Member State (all Member States produce such waste: nuclear power, medical radioisotope applications, etc.), as well as on the principle of prime responsibility of the licence holder (operator) for safety under the supervision of the national competent regulatory authority.

The draft directive is prepared on the base of the assumption that it would cover the management of all types of spent fuel and radioactive waste, including the existing waste and future prospects, such as waste resulting from the decommissioning of nuclear installations and from future nuclear power plants.

The adoption by the Commission of a legislative proposal with regard to spent fuel and radioactive waste management is foreseen before the end of 2010.

 

Question no 36 by Seán Kelly(H-0422/10)
 Subject: Fostering private sector research and innovation
 

A considerable amount of time has been devoted to discussing how best to mobilise EU funds to foster research and development and ultimately innovation in the EU. However, public monies will only ever form a small proportion of total funds devoted to such an important area.

How does the Commission plan to foster an increase in private sector research and development and innovation up to the levels that we see in the US and Japan, amongst others? I refer particularly to examining best practice in specific EU Member States - what, in the Commission’s opinion, is the most effective measure/s using the available toolkit to spread best practice in this area across the EU?

 
  
 

(EN) Levels of business investment in research and innovation in the EU are clearly unsatisfactory. Take the percentage of Research and Development (R&D) funded by the private sector, which is 55% in the EU compared to 67% in the United States, 70% in China and 78% in Japan — and the EU figure has been decreasing in recent years. Looking at this in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is equally disturbing. Research expenditures by firms have stagnated at around 1.2% of EU GDP, compared to 2.1% in the US. In China, the figure is quickly approaching the EU level.

To address these problems, the Commission is working on a set of actions related to access to finance, which is a key bottleneck for, in particular, innovative start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

The Commission is looking into attracting more private funding for innovative enterprises by considerably strengthening EU-level financial instruments to address market gaps in loans and venture capital, notably in cooperation with the European Investment Fund and the European Investment Bank. It is also considering actions to improve the use of cohesion funds to support research and innovation capacities. Also the State aid framework needs to be reviewed to ensure that all forms of innovation can be adequately supported.

A further set of actions under development will aim to create a single innovation market.

The EU patent should be quickly agreed on, and the Commission is looking into all options to ensure that this is achieved at last. As regards markets for innovative goods and services, the Commission will propose screening and adapting the regulatory frameworks concerned. Europe's standardisation system needs to be reviewed with the aim of closing the gap between research and standardisation in order to better support innovation. And the Commission is planning actions to enhance the public procurement of innovative products and services.

Beyond actions that can be taken or coordinated at EU level, national research and innovation systems are essential for establishing a single innovation market. These will be more effective if they share some broad characteristics that are recognised as common to well-performing systems and represent best practice. Therefore, the Commision proposes to develop, with Member States, a limited number of policy features for national research and innovation systems. Constructive discussions are already underway.

This development of such a set of policy features builds on the activities conducted for many years under CREST, to support mutual learning and exchange of best practice between the Member States. This has been very effective. It can be seen from the Commission's contacts and monitoring activities that national research and innovation policies have evolved considerably in recent years towards more effective policy mixes covering a wider range of objectives and measures.

The Commissioner responsible for Industry and Entrepreneurship and the Commissioner responsible for Research and Innovation are leading work on an "Innovation Union" flagship initiative that will propose bold actions to tackle these issues in a comprehensive manner. This initiative is scheduled for adoption by the Commission soon, and the President of the Commission intends to present it to the European Council in December 2010. The Innovation Union initiative will put forward a full set of proposals to unblock the path from ideas to markets.

 

Question no 37 by Jim Higgins(H-0428/10)
 Subject: Role of research and innovation in the area of climate change
 

Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn has previously stated that climate change is one of her top priorities. Following her recent announcement that EUR 6.8 billion will be invested in research and development, can the Commission state what measures will be taken on research level and how the innovation will meet the challenges posed by climate change and its economic implications, with particular reference to Ireland and the recent flooding events that have taken place?

 
  
 

(EN) Climate change is indeed a top priority. Over recent years climate change has been increasingly incorporated into Framework Programme components. It comprises research contributing to 1) the understanding of the past, present and future climate system and its processes, 2) the quantification of climate impacts on humans and nature, 3) the identification and assessment of mitigation and adaptation options, and 4) the development of technologies and practices leading to a low-carbon and climate resilient society. During the first three years of the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7), climate change related research contracts have exceeded EUR 1.5 billion in EU contribution.

The positive trend of investing in climate change research is continuing with the calls for proposals published in July 2010. For the most concerned themes in the specific programmes "Cooperation" and "Capacities" of FP7, namely Environment (including climate change), Transport (including Aeronautics), Energy, Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, and Biotechnology and Research Infrastructures, the allocated overall budget in the calls concerned amount to about EUR 1.2 billion. Within the calls published in July 2010 approximately 55% of all topics announced under these themes are directly addressing climate change issues or have a climate change related component. Approximately two thirds of all these climate change topics call for innovation in approaches, methods, products, materials, equipments, models, etc. that will enhance the EU's capacity to tackle major societal challenges whilst raising its competitiveness. The final amount to be committed for climate change related research grants will only be possible to calculate after the end of the evaluation process.

This shows clearly the Commission's proactivity with regard to innovation related to climate change issues. Climate change and research on the development of a low-carbon society constitute an important part of the "Innovation Union Flagship Initiative" initially set out in the Europe 2020 Strategy on which the Commission will communicate further details shortly.

The Commission is convinced that the implementation of the Innovation Union initiative can strenghten the efforts that are already undertaken and planned in developing a low-carbon and climate resilient society;

As regards flooding events, climate change may increase the frequency and intensity of climate related hazards such as floods, and consequently will increase the vulnerability of natural and human systems. Research and technological development is essential to assess preventive approaches that could reduce flooding risks and prevent loss of human lives. Within the current call, research will contribute to building societal resilience to disasters in Europe and will complement running projects on flash floods risk management, on flood early warning and on flood management in cities.

 

Question no 38 by Liam Aylward(H-0434/10)
 Subject: Security of food supply and population trends
 

The global birth-rate now stands at 75 million births per year. Considering this growth in population, and since the security of food supply is an increasing international problem, can the Commission provide information on its policies in the areas of research, science and technology that are designed to address the issue of the security of food supply? Is the Commission currently cooperating with third countries on this important political issue?

 
  
 

(EN) Regarding EU policies on food security, the Commission firstly refers to its Communication on food security adopted on 31 March 2010(1).

While proposing that the EU should address the four pillars of food security (availability of food, access to food, nutritional adequacy, crisis prevention and management), the Communication specifically proposes as a priority to "increase the support to demand-led agricultural research for development, extension and innovation, aiming to reach +50% by 2015".

The Food Security Thematic Programme has been successfully supporting research-related activities in its first phase (2007-2010). This goal will be pursued by the Commission in the second phase of the Food Security Thematic Programme (2011-2013).

This funding mainly comprises support for programmes of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), which are implemented by the CGIAR's 15 centres and their implementing partners, and support to regional networks such as the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern, Southern and Central Africa (ASARECA) and the Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la recherche et la Développement Agricole (CORAF). The regional networks work closely with the national agricultural research systems in their member states to implement regional research on crops, livestock, fisheries, biotechnologies and natural resources management in support of food security objectives.

Regarding international research cooperation with third countries, it should be noted that such cooperation is actively supported and encouraged in all the research areas of the EU Research Framework Programmes, with all topics being potentially open to cooperation with third countries.

In fact, since the beginning of the Seventh Research Framework Programme (FP7), several topics in each annual call addressing food production have targeted international cooperation with third countries, both industrialised and developing, with mandatory participation of third countries.

At a summit in Lisbon in 2007, high representatives from the EU and the African Union Commission (AUC) launched a Joint Cooperation Strategy. Subsequently, "Water and Food security" was selected as one of the "early deliverables" to be implemented in the 2010 Work Programme of FP7.

Following this, in 2010 the Commission published a cross-thematic call for Africa covering collaborative research in food and agriculture, environment and health, with a total budget of EUR 63 million.

The call was a major success and mobilised scientific communities in Africa and Europe. Participation went beyond expectations: 190 proposals were submitted (90 above the selection threshold) and 23 were retained for funding (currently under negotiation).

More specifically, 11 proposals were retained for funding in the area of food, agriculture and environment. All research activities involve African partners with the aim of strengthening Africa's research capacities. Selected projects will cover, amongst other issues, better drought warning, better water and soil management, sustainable nutrition research for Africa, conservation agriculture and the adoption of farmer led innovations.

 
 

(1) COM(2010) 127 final: “An EU policy framework to assist developing countries in addressing food security challenges.”

 

Question no 39 by Sarah Ludford(H-0435/10)
 Subject: Diabetes research
 

Diabetes is a devastating chronic disease affecting more than 30 million people in EU Member States. Alarmingly, diabetes is on the increase in all age groups, including most tragically the young. An intense and coordinated research effort is needed to contain this epidemic and find a cure for diabetes and effective means to prevent it.

Could the Commissioner inform parliament how DG Research will ensure that Europe plays a prominent part in this global diabetes research effort? Specifically, what steps does the Commission intend to take to allow for improved coordination and sustained funding for diabetes research in accordance with the road map strategy outlined in the recently completed FP7 DIAMAP project?

 
  
 

(EN) The Commission is fully aware of the increase of diabetes in the European population, and the major issue this represents for Europe, in terms of human suffering and economic costs and losses.

For this reason, diabetes ranks among the priority subjects for medical research at European level. The EU is currently investing EUR 170 million (32 projects) on diabetes research through the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7, 2007 – 2013). Furthermore, as part of its current call for proposals(1), the Commission has published four research topics on diabetes with the prospect of about a further EUR 63 million EU funding for diabetes research. This translates to about another ten EU-funded projects in diabetes research. Another major effort includes an EU partnership with the European Pharmaceutical Industry Association (EFPIA): through the Innovative Medicine Initiative (IMI), EUR 54 million are being devoted to address the faster and safer development of therapeutic approaches in diabetes as a result of the first IMI Call for proposals. Furthermore, the IMI scientific priorities for 2010 include the development of personalized medicine approaches in diabetes.

This research investment addresses issues such as genetics and epidemiology, physiopathology, metabolism and integrative physiology, clinical trials, and micro-and macro-vascular complications. Further research on diabetes might become available in future calls for proposals.

The Commission welcomes the recommendations provided in the DIAMAP(2) report which by identifying current advances in the field, as well as further needs and gaps, will contribute to strengthening European research on diabetes and to developing a coherent European policy in this area.

The report highlights, amongst other issues, the need to reinforce coordination of research activities at national and European level. Member States involvement and support is essential to achieving this aim.

As a step in this direction and with a view to help overcoming the fragmentation of research activities, programmes and policies across Europe in this field, the Commission has published as part of its FP7-ERA-NET-2011-RTD(3) call for proposals in the health area, an ERA-NET on diabetes prevention and treatment. This ERA-NET should bring together national research funding agencies involved in diabetes research and create synergies by uniting vast amounts of data, resources and know-how.

The Commission will of course continue to explore further possibilities for dissemination and uptake of the DIAMAP report.

 
 

(1) FP7-HEALTH-2011-two-stage (Closing date of the fist stage is 10 November 2010),
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/index.cfm?fuseaction=UserSite.CooperationDetailsCallPage&call_id=324
(2) DIAMAP, A road map for diabetes research in Europe; http://www.diamap.eu/
(3) FP7-ERA-NET-2011-RTD; ERA-NET on diabetes prevention and treatment (deadline 22 February 2011, http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/dc/index.cfm?fuseaction=UserSite.CooperationDetailsCallPage&call_id=312

 

Question no 40 by Judith A. Merkies(H-0437/10)
 Subject: Future EU research and innovative action on healthy ageing and raw materials
 

The EU recognises the urgent need to rapidly solve major societal challenges such as climate change, finding sustainable energy sources, demographic changes such as ageing and the demand for resources which are becoming ever scarcer. To make sure that we practise what we preach, we need broadly supported policies with appropriate financing. Although these matters are becoming increasingly urgent, the budgets allocated are diminishing and, in light of the Europe 2020 strategy, the preparations for the 8th Framework Programme and the upcoming Communication on building an Innovation Union, I have the following two questions for Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn: Given that healthy ageing has been defined a key priority by the Commission, when can a detailed and specific policy proposal be expected and how will this be backed up by European, national or regional executive policy steps and funding? On a completely different matter, how will resource efficiency and the substitution of high-tech scarce materials be included in the field of research and innovation?

 
  
 

(EN) Health and ageing are identified as challenges to be addressed by the flagship initiative “Innovation union” in the “Europe 2020” Communication(1). The Commission’s proposal for the implementation of this Innovation union is scheduled for adoption shortly. It will include a set of policy reforms and focused initiatives to address major challenges for society, which also correspond to major market opportunities for European companies.

It is planned that the strategy will define “Innovation Partnerships” aiming to address societal challenges. Innovation Partnerships will provide a framework for pooling resources and bringing together all key actors (public authorities, researchers and industry, both large companies and high tech innovative SMEs) as well as relevant policies and instruments, on both the supply as well as on the demand side, covering procurement, standardisation and regulation issues. Healthy and active ageing as well as raw materials are both candidate Innovation Partnerships.

Ageing, as well as healthy and active ageing and independent living of the elderly, is the subject of a set of EU policies, in particular public health, research, industry, information society and employment. For example, the Commission has recently proposed that 2012 be designated "European Year for Active Ageing". An Innovation Partnership on active and healthy ageing would strengthen all of these efforts and could contribute to ensuring their coherent implementation, while optimally exploiting the resources and activities at national and regional level.

The Commission has already launched some initiatives in the field of research and innovation to support current EU policies related to raw materials (namely, the Raw Materials Initiative) in line with the future Europe 2020 flagship initiatives on "Innovation Union", "Resource efficient Europe" and "An industrial policy for the globalisation era". A safe, economical and ecologically sound supply of raw materials is vital for society. This includes supply of primary as well as from recycling sources and the pursuit of alternative materials or processes. Hence, the current call for proposals under the Seventh Research Framework Programme (FP7) is a first set of actions in this direction. However, in addition to this research, innovative solutions are also needed, in particular on the demand side to promote recycling and on better cross-boarder cooperation (e.g. between geological surveys).

Under the Nanotechnologies, Materials and Production theme within FP7, calls for proposals addressing the resource efficiency and substitution of critical raw materials have already been launched, specifically with regard to:

networking at Member States' level on the industrial handling of raw materials;

developing new technologies for clean intelligent mining activities;

eco-design for new products and eco-efficient and cost-effective method of production, and finding substitutes for some high-tech critical raw materials.

Future actions within FP7 in the area could be decided when drafting the next years' annual work programme.

With regard to the next Framework Programme, the preliminary preparation work has not yet addressed individual areas for research. These issues will be considered in due course.

Raw materials is also an area where a proposal for an Innovation Partnership can be developed in future.

 
 

(1) COM(2010) 2010 final

 

Question no 41 by Alan Kelly(H-0440/10)
 Subject: Simplifying the EU Research Framework Programme
 

Could the Commission outline what steps it will be taking in both the short and the long term to simplify the application process for the FP7 research programme?

Furthermore, has the Commission instituted any targets for the number of commercial enterprises it hopes will emerge from the multi-billion-euro programme?

 
  
 

(EN) In April 2010, the Commission adopted a Communication on simplifying the implementation of the research framework programmes(1) proposing a whole set of measures, including gradual improvements but also profound changes requiring a revision of the legal basis of EU research and a re-balancing between trust and control and between risk-taking and risk-avoidance.

In the Communication, the elements of simplification are presented in three main strands. The first strand contains measures that can be implemented now, under the current legal framework, and for which many elements are already underway as part of a continuous process started with the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7, 2007-2013). These measures include the improvement of the guidance documents and support services for applicants, the development of user-friendly IT tools for submission of proposals and management of projects and a harmonisation of the interpretation and implementation of the rules across all Commission services. The second strand deals with changes to the rules but without leaving the current cost and input based system. This comprises e.g. a broader acceptance of average cost methods, lump sum options for owner-managers of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) and a simpler treatment of interest on pre-financing. The third strand presents novel options for profound changes of the funding model towards an output-based approach using individual lump sums at the level of whole projects. These options are currently subject to discussions with the stakeholders, the Council and Parliament.

Simplification will be a key element for the preparation of the next Research Framework Programme. The Commission proposal for the next Research Framework Programme will also tackle the reduction of the general complexity of the EU research funding landscape with its multiplicity of intervention mechanisms, funding schemes and implementing bodies. The Innovation Union flagship initiative will require clarity of objectives and instruments, consistency and stability of rules and lightness and speed of administrative procedures and processes.

The Commission proposal for the future Framework Programme will also tackle the reduction of the general complexity of the EU research funding landscape with its multiplicity of intervention mechanisms, funding schemes and implementing bodies. The European plan for research and innovation and the Innovation Union flagship initiative will require clarity of objectives and instruments, consistency and stability of rules and lightness and speed of administrative procedures and processes. In this context, simplification will be a key element for the preparation of the future Framework Programme.

A significant number of commercial organisations are meanwhile engaged in FP7 projects. In March 2010, over 7,000 distinct enterprises were participating, of which 4,350 are SMEs. In terms of percentage of the FP7 funding at the same date, 24% of the FP7 funding was allocated to these 7,000 enterprises.

As regards the creation of new companies, this is an essential element of the continuous societal and economic innovation process, driven by entrepreneurial spirit and market forces. While the Research Framework Programmes aim at supporting this process throughout Europe, the creation of new enterprises is not a dedicated objective of the programme and as such is not monitored. Useful indications have however been obtained through dedicated impact analysis studies. An example of such study is an analysis of the impact of FP5 projects (1998-2002) in the ICT area(2). The study found that about 137 out of 1,000 respondents to a survey declared that participation in the Programme had "directly led to or however facilitated the creation of a spin-off company". Half of those were considered to be directly attributable to a particular project.

The Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) facilitates the emergence and growth of new enterprises, in particular through financial instruments, business and innovation support services through the Enterprise Europe Network and the fostering of a business and innovation friendly environment through policy learning and cooperation on clusters and other themes. By the end of March 2010 about 68,000 SMEs had benefited from the CIP financial instruments.

 
 

(1) COM(2010)187
(2) WING ICT Impact Analysis Study, 1st Aggregate Study, February 2008

 

Question no 45 by Mairead McGuinness(H-0403/10)
 Subject: Cabotage rules
 

On 14 May 2010, new rules came into force in relation to cabotage under EU Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009(1). A number of road hauliers in Ireland have expressed concern about how the rules are being interpreted in other Member States. Can the Commission clarify if the new rules are being implemented equally across all Member States? Is the Commission aware of the problem which some hauliers are encountering whereby they have faced fines and the seizure of trucks carrying out operations which were, up to the implementation of EU Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009, completely legal? Is the Commission aware that the 'combined transport' concept is also unworkable for trade between Ireland and the UK due to the minimum 100 km water journey and maximum 150 km road journey? Is the Commission concerned about the impact of the Regulation on the single market and the free movement of goods and services?

 
  
 

(EN) Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009(2) indeed modified the regime for the provision of road freight cabotage operations. As from 14 May 2010, the provision of cabotage, i.e. of national carriage for hire or reward carried out on a temporary basis in a host Member State, must be linked to a previous international road transport of goods. Furthermore, the new regime contains clear and simple rules as regards the timeframe for the provision of cabotage operations. These new rules are set down in a regulation meaning that they are directly applicable in all Member States.

As far as the Commission is aware, the new cabotage rules as defined by Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 are generally appreciated by the haulage industry as they provide legal certainty, with lesser risk of being sanctioned for infringing the rules. They allow transport operators to better plan their international operations and offer them the opportunity to reduce the number of empty return runs. The Commission is not aware of differences in their implementation across Member States, but will of course monitor the situation and take whatever initiatives are appropriate if problems arise.

The Honourable Member also refers in her question to multi-modal transport. The conditions under which a multi-modal transport operation can be considered as combined transport are laid down in Directive 92/106/EEC(3). According to this Directive, for liberalised combined transport methods to result in a real reduction in road congestion, they should involve road journeys of limited distance. The liberalization of the initial and final sections of a combined transport operation applies to combined transport operations using sea routes provided that the sea journey represents a substantial part of the combined transport operation. Therefore, Directive 92/106/EEC provides that in order for a road transport operation to be considered as an initial or final leg of a combined road-sea transport operation, the maritime section of the combined transport needs to exceed 100 km and the distance between the port where the trailer is picked up and the final destination of the goods by road must not exceed 150 km. In this case, the initial or final road leg does not fall under the definition of "cabotage", and is therefore not subject to Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009.

 
 

(1) OJ L 300, 14.11.2009, p.72
(2) Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 of Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international road haulage market Text with EEA relevance, OJ L 300, 14.11.2009.
(3) Council Directive 92/106/EEC of 7 December 1992 on the establishment of common rules for certain types of combined transport of goods between Member States, OJ L 368, 17.12.1992.

 

Question no 46 by Tadeusz Zwiefka(H-0416/10)
 Subject: Al-Aqsa TV station
 

On 24 June 2010, the French satellite provider Eutelsat ceased to relay the Hamas Al-Aqsa TV station on its satellite Atlantic Bird 4A. This follows a decision by the French Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel (CSA) on 8 June 2010 which found Al-Aqsa TV to be in violation of French and European audiovisual legislation and requested that Eutelsat cease to relay Al-Aqsa TV. According to media reports, Al-Aqsa TV has circumvented this measure by renaming its channel on Eutelsat 'Seraj Al-Aqsa' (sometimes also written as 'Siraj Al-Aqsa'). Seraj Al-Aqsa is currently being relayed by Eutelsat on its satellites Atlantic Bird 4A, Atlantic Bird 2 and Eurobird 2.

What immediate steps will the Commission take in order to prevent Al-Aqsa TV from circumventing the decision by the CSA? Are the French Government and the CSA aware of this situation, which is a direct violation of the decision by the CSA?

 
  
 

(EN) The Commission shares the Honourable Member's concern with regard to programmes containing incitement to hatred falling under the jurisdiction of a Member State. It actively cooperates closely with, and promotes cooperation between, the Member States in order to ensure the full application of Union law in this particularly sensitive area.

After Al Aqsa TV stopped its distribution via Eutelsat, it is still available via satellites beyond EU jurisdiction, such as Nilesat and Arabsat. At the same time, a new channel called "Seraj Al Aqsa" appeared on different Eutelsat satellites. The actual signal differs from Al Aqsa TV. Hence, it does not appear to be the same (i.e. identical) channel.

The Commission is aware of the allegations that Seraj Al Aqsa and Al Aqsa TV distribute the same content. So far, these allegations go all back to only one source and could not be verified by other sources. Nevertheless, the Commission has passed this information on to the Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel (CSA). It is up to the French authorities, first and foremost the CSA, to assess whether these allegations are true.

The French government has informed the Commission that the CSA monitors Seraj Al Aqsa in order to verify that the content of this channel does not infringe French or EU laws, especially the ban on incitement to hatred. The result of the assessment of this footage is not yet known to the Commission.

 

Question no 47 by Anne E. Jensen(H-0424/10)
 Subject: Questions to the Commission
 

What does it cost the Commission to answer a question?

 
  
 

(FR) The Commission should like first of all to reiterate that it attaches great importance to answering parliamentary questions, an important element of the democratic control exercised by Parliament. Nevertheless, the exponential increase in the number of parliamentary questions makes it very difficult to provide answers in good time, and requires a growing number of resources.

The human resources and the time needed to prepare, translate, and obtain the College’s approval of, draft answers depend on a large number of factors, including the need for different Commission services to work together, the immediate availability of information and the need for in-depth research of data. For these reasons, it is difficult to try to determine an average cost per question.

In general, one can say the following. At least one coordinator of parliamentary questions is appointed in every cabinet of the Members of the Commission. The Secretariat-General, which oversees the smooth functioning of the procedure and forwards the answer to Parliament, has an entire department, as well as a small number of IT officers responsible for developing and maintaining the computing tool used to manage parliamentary questions, at its disposal. Each Directorate-General comprises one or more officials who coordinate and help draft answers to parliamentary questions. In addition to these full-time members of staff, one should add the officials who draft or contribute on an ad hoc basis to the preparation of draft answers in each service and cabinet of the Commission, the officials of the Legal Service who revise each draft answer, and the translators assigned the task of translating the answer.

 

Question no 48 by Charalampos Angourakis(H-0426/10)
 Subject: Palm forest of Preveli victim of corporate greed
 

Arsonists in Greece have trained their sights on the rare palm forest of Preveli at Rethymnon in Crete, 70% of which has burned to the ground. The area was the property of the monastery of Preveli, under the responsibility of government and the competent authorities. As again demonstrated in the Preveli case, protective and fire-fighting measures proved totally inadequate, resulting in widespread destruction. The laws enacted by the present PASOK government and the previous New Democracy government and the total inadequacy of forest fire-fighting resources make it easy for land-grabbers, and the big construction and real estate companies to change the use to which the land is put. The consequences for workers, residents and the natural environment in the area are disastrous. The pursuit of profit rides roughshod over the needs of the people and wreaks havoc on the environment.

Does the Commission consider that the laws of the market, corporate interests and drastic cuts in fire-fighting measures are capable of protecting the forest resources of Crete?

 
  
 

(EN) In the absence of provisions for forestry in the EU Treaty, forest policy is the competence of the Member States. The Commission supports them through a range of instruments.

On the response side, Greece can benefit from support through the EU Civil Protection Mechanism established in 2001 to support and coordinate the deployment of Member States' in-kind assistance to disaster-stricken countries. In the past years Greece did request international assistance of heavy aerial means for forest fire-fighting through the Monitoring and Information Centre of the Commission and received immediate support from other Member States.

The Commission has also repeatedly emphasised the importance of prevention. In February 2009, the Commission presented a Communication on the prevention of natural and man-made disasters, which proposes further work on a number of issues.

First, as requested by the Council Conclusions on a Community framework on disaster prevention within the EU, the Commission will before the end of 2010 develop EU guidelines taking into account work at national level on methods of hazard and risk mapping, assessment and analyses. Forest fires risk assessment approaches in a number of Member States will be studied specifically in this context.

Second, the Commission is launching a disaster prevention good practice programme which will lead to the adoption of EU guidelines on minimum standards for disaster prevention. Forest fires as well as other types of disasters related to extreme weather events will be important priorities of this work.

The EU rural development programmes can support forest fire prevention and forest restoration. For the period of 2007-2013, the Greek Rural Development Programme allocated approximately EUR 180 million (of which EUR 135 million come from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) to measures aimed at forest fire prevention, prevention of soil erosion and flooding following fires, and also reforestation. The total geographical coverage of these measures is some 190,000 hectares.

The Commission runs the European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS)(1), which is used, inter alia, for forecasting fire risks and assessing damages caused by forest fires. It publishes a yearly report on forest fires in the Southern Member States which also serves as a basis for extensive exchanges between national authorities competent for forest fire management.

With regard to financial aid through the EU Solidarity Fund, there is only one eligibility criterion – damage must exceed a certain threshold established for each country based on its economic strength. Greece needs to present an application within 10 weeks of the first damage.

Looking to the longer term, the Commission's White Paper on climate change adaptation committed it to updating the EU forestry strategy on climate related aspects. Moreover, the Commission Green Paper on forest protection and forest information systems of 1 March 2010 launched a debate on options for an EU approach. The Council has already reached conclusions on this paper and Parliament's conclusions are eagerly awaited.

The Commission underlines the need for all Member States exposed to forest fire risks to put in place effective prevention and preparedness measures. The risk of forest fires can never be eliminated completely. But by working together we can do more to prevent, prepare and respond. The Commission is ready to support the Member States through all instruments at its disposal.

 
 

(1) http://effis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

 

Question no 49 by David Martin(H-0436/10)
 Subject: Transparency and the Stabilisation Fund in Turkmenistan
 

The Commission is looking to further economic relations with Turkmenistan through the signing of a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA). In October 2008, the Turkmen President announced the creation of a Stabilisation Fund into which revenues from the country’s oil and gas exports would be paid. However, in the nearly two years since the announcement no information has been released about the Fund’s governance and it is highly probable, given Turkmenistan’s track record in this regard, that there will be no formal oversight arrangements. There is therefore a serious risk that future payments made by the EU into the Fund could be used for corrupt purposes. The Commission has stated that it aims to use the provision of technical assistance to Turkmenistan to promote good governance, including better and transparent hydrocarbon revenue management. Can the Commission state whether this assistance will address the governance problem concerning the Stabilisation Fund, and if so in what way, and will the Commission agree not to sign the PCA with Turkmenistan unless the international community sees a marked improvement in Turkmenistan’s management of its hydrocarbon revenues, including through the Stabilisation Fund?

 
  
 

The Commission would like to thank the Honourable Member for his question concerning the EU's relations with Turkmenistan and the Stabilisation Fund in Turkmenistan.

As the Honourable Member is no doubt aware, the EU has gradually re-established relations with Turkmenistan following the election of the President Berdymukhammedov in 2007. The EU-Turkmenistan Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters came into force on 1 August 2010. The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, which was signed in May 1998, is now awaiting ratification (including by the Parliament). Once the ratification process is completed, the EU will have a stronger framework in place for promoting its values and interests, including on sensitive matters.

While EU assistance for 2007-2010 was approximately EUR 30 million, it will grow to EUR 39 million for 2011-2013, the main focus being on education and legal reform, promotion of human rights, capacity building, sustainable development, rural development, and socio-economic reforms.

The Commission would like to assure the Honourable Member that one of the issues to be promoted through technical assistance is good governance, including better and transparent hydrocarbon revenue management in the country. However, the Commission is well aware that this is a long-term goal. Turkmenistan is undergoing a fragile process of economic diversification and political openness; certain key conditions are necessary for the country to meet the requirements of a fully transparent hydrocarbon revenue management such as good standards of corporate and public governance, as well as the existence of the civil society. Issue of transparency is indeed a governance issue of broader regional and international concern and it needs to be addressed as part of the reform and modernisation process. The Commission hopes that – with the more intensive EU-Turkmenistan dialogue and cooperation in the future – EU assistance in the field of good governance will bring desirable results in order to help Turkmenistan to meet international standards. Even though the EU does not contribute to the stabilisation fund, it will promote, through its technical assistance and political dialogue, to the principles of better and transparent hydrocarbon revenue management in the country, as it was mentioned above.

As regards the EU's cooperation with Turkmenistan in the field of energy, the Commission should clarify that this cooperation is at the very early stage. The EU signed a Memorandum of Understanding in the field of Energy with Turkmenistan in May 2008. This co-operation is broad in scope and ranges from promoting the diversification of energy supply routes, sustainable development of energy resources, exchange of policy, regulatory and technical know-how to the deployment and advancement of new energy sources, especially renewable energies.

It is clear that Turkmenistan can play an important role in helping the EU to diversify its energy supplies by contributing to the development of a southern energy corridor (including the Nabucco project). Dealing with these issues, the EU must keep a careful balance between securing the its interest in the energy field and pressing for political and democratic reforms in Turkmenistan.

In conclusion, the Commission would like to assure the Honourable Member that its approach in relations with Turkmenistan is comprehensive and aims to establish a long-term, broad-based partnership, to the benefit of that country and Europe, and to all our citizens.

 

Question no 50 by Takis Hadjigeorgiou(H-0438/10)
 Subject: EU fields of action
 

According to the Albanian authorities, an ethnic Greek resident in Himara, Albania, was murdered there on 12 August 2010. This occurrence, together with evidence that the perpetrators were acting from motives of an ethnic nature, has caused turmoil among members of the Greek minority.

Has the EU been following the subsequent judicial proceedings?

Have measures been taken to ensure that the matter will be fully elucidated?

What measures will the EU take to ensure that those seeking to incite racial hatred are condemned and isolated?

 
  
 

(EN) The Commission is aware of the incident mentioned by the Honourable Member and follows closely all developments. The alleged main perpetrator has turned himself in to the police and is now under investigation by the Albanian judicial authorities. The Commission will be monitoring the processing of the case in conformity with the principles of human rights and the rule of law.

The Commission is currently preparing its Opinion on Albania's application for membership of the European Union. In this Opinion, which is due to be issued in November 2010 as part of the annual Enlargement package, the country's readiness for membership will be analysed, bearing in mind the "Copenhagen Criteria", in which respect for human rights and, specifically, the protection of the rights of persons belonging to minorities is of primary importance. All applicant countries are aware of the importance of fulfilling these criteria for progress towards the EU.

Consolidation of human rights and the rule of law is an important component of the ongoing political dialogue with the Albanian authorities. Furthermore, the EU, through its Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance, is providing development and technical assistance for strengthening institutions in this area.

 

Question no 51 by Konrad Szymański(H-0446/10)
 Subject: Animal testing and research
 

The regulation on animal testing and research does not rule out alternative methods of testing and research using embryonic stem cells. This has caused great moral controversy in many EU Member States, both at official level and among the general public.

Can the Commission explain the reasons why that decision was taken and give an assurance that the individual choices of Member States on this issue will be respected in line with the principle of subsidiarity.

 
  
 

(EN) The use of human embryonic stem cells raises ethical questions, and there is no consensus in the EU whether the use of human embryonic stem cells should be permitted or not. Therefore, the Commission believes their use is best regulated at national level and that EU legislation should remain neutral in this regard.

Directive 86/609/EEC on the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes(1) was revised on 8th September 2010(2). The use of alternative, non-animal methods including the question on human embryonic stem cells was discussed at length during the negotiations leading to the adoption, and a solution to address these concerns was found and included in the new legislation. The new revised text respects fully the principle of subsidiarity.

The revised Directive specifically leaves the decision on whether to allow their use for each individual Member State through Article 13(1) which states that: "Without prejudice to national legislation prohibiting certain types of methods, Member States shall ensure that a procedure is not carried out if another method or testing strategy for obtaining the result sought, not entailing the use of a live animal, is recognised under the legislation of the Union".

Furthermore, in this context it is important to note that there are currently no methods making use of human embryonic stem cells recognised by the legislation of the Union. Should such methods be developed and validated in the future, the decision on whether to include them in EU legislation rests with the Member States.

 
 

(1) OJ L 358, 18.12.1986
(2) EP Plenary adoption on the basis of early second reading agreement.

 

Question no 52 by Georgios Toussas(H-0449/10)
 Subject: Increase in cancer mortality rates for the region of Oinofyta
 

An epidemiological study by the University of Athens showing that cancer mortality rates for the inhabitants of Oinofyta for the period 1999-2009 are 14% higher than for elsewhere in the province of Viotia confirms the results of earlier studies and bears out complaints made by local inhabitants. The rise in the incidence of cancer (25% of deaths during the period concerned) is due to the strong presence of hexavalent chromium in the water in Oinofyta, with deaths from liver cancer, kidney cancer, bladder cancer in women and lung cancer all on the increase. Despite extensive and continuing protests on the part of local inhabitants and workers, Greek governments have taken no substantive measures to force industries to stop polluting the waters and the bed of the river Asopos, to repair the environmental damage and to clean up the region's water.

Will the Commission introduce more stringent limits on the presence of hexavalent chromium in drinking water? Does it continue to maintain that the risk posed by hexavalent chromium is similar to that from trivalent chromium, whereas it has been scientifically proven that hexavalent chromium compounds are among the most dangerous, causing three times as much damage because they are mutagenic, carcinogenic and teratogenic?

 
  
 

(EN) The question of the Honourable Member refers to industrial pollution by the substance hexavalent chromium in the municipality of Oinofyta (Boeotia prefecture, Greece), affecting the Asopos river and the quality of drinking water in the municipality. The Commission can provide the following information.

Relevant elements of EU environmental legislation are:

the Directive on Hazardous Waste(1), setting out obligations for adequate planning and management of hazardous waste;

the Water Framework Directive(2), setting out the environmental objective of 'good status' for all waters (rivers, lakes, groundwaters and coastal waters) as a rule by 2015, and to establish by 22 December 2009 the necessary plans and programmes to achieve the environmental objective, and; the Drinking Water Directive(3), setting quality standards for drinking water.

As for the management of hazardous waste, the Commission brought Greece before the European Court of Justice for improper implementation of waste legislation(4). In its judgment of 10 October 2009, the Court found that Greece has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 91/689/EEC, read in conjunction with Directives 2006/12/EC(5) and 1999/31/EC(6). The Commission is currently scrutinising implementation of that judgment. According to the latest monitoring results, there are now no exceedances of the chromium limit values in drinking water within the municipality of Oinofyta; two borehole abstractions with values exceeding the limit values have been closed down, and a contract has been concluded with the Attiki Water Company, which now ensures the water supply of the municipality.

As for the Water Framework Directive, Greece has so far failed to establish the necessary plans and programmes to achieve good status for all water, and to notify these to the Commission by 22 March 2010. Consequently, the Commission has commenced an infringement procedure against Greece.

The Drinking Water Directive:

defines binding quality standards to be adhered to at the tap of the consumer;

sets out an obligation to regularly monitor drinking water quality; and

sets out an obligation to make available to consumers adequate and up-to-date information on the quality of their drinking water.

For a range of parameters, values are set at European level (Articles 4 and 5, annex I)(7). At the same time, the Directive in its Article 5(3) obliges Member States to set values for additional parameters not included in Annex I (e.g. hexavalent chromium) where the protection of human health within its national territory or part of it so requires.

The Greek authorities have, within their reporting obligations on water supply systems serving more than 5 000 persons for 2005-2007, so far not revealed a non-compliance with the quality standard for chromium (50 µg per litre), neither in the Boeotia prefecture nor in any other Greek prefecture. Smaller supplies serving less than 5 000 persons are not to be reported to the Commission; however the information of consumers is a binding obligation for these supply systems as well.

As regards a possible amendment of parameters and values, the Commission is currently considering a revision of the Drinking Water Directive, and will base its assessment on the latest scientific evidence, in particular the findings of the World Health Organisation(8).

 
 

(1) Directive 91/689/EEC, OJ L377 of 31.12.1991
(2) Directive 2000/60/EC, OJ L327 of 22.12.2000
(3) Directive 98/83/EC, OJ L330 of 5.12.1998
(4) Case C-286/08
(5) Directive 2006/12/EC (Waste Framework Directive), OJ L 114 of 27.4.2006
(6) Directive 1999/31/EC (Landfill Directive), OJ L 182 of 16.7.1999
(7) Total of 48 parameters, including one for chromium of 50 µg per litre in all its forms (trivalent chromium, hexavalent chromium).
(8) World Health Organisation, Geneva 2008:http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/gdwq3rev/en/index.html

 

Question no 53 by Ryszard Czarnecki (H-0451/10)
 Subject: Religious institutions in Europe and terrorist activities
 

There are groups in Europe that, using religion as a cover, abuse religious institutions in order to collect money for terrorist activities and raise support for controversial programmes such as the Khalistani International, which operates under the auspices of the Punjabi Pakistani Army.

Does the Commission not agree that the activities of religious or quasi-religious institutions operating in Europe should be placed under greater scrutiny in order to choke off funding to projects that are at odds with European human rights standards?

 
  
 

(EN) The Commission is aware of the danger of an abuse of non-profit or charitable organisations for terrorist financing purposes. As announced in the Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme(1), the Commission envisages to present in the course of 2011 a Communication on anti-terrorist financing guidelines for EU-based non profit organisations. The Communication should assist Member States in complying with international standards in this context such as Special Recommendation VIII of the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (FATF) which requests States to review the adequacy of laws and regulations that relate to entities that can be abused for the financing of terrorism. Like the FATF the Commission is particularly concerned that non-profit organisations may be vulnerable to abuse in this context.

The Commission has established a close dialogue with the non-profit sector to discuss guidelines for the sector to prevent an abuse by terrorist financers. It is envisaged that the Communication referred to above will have a set of such guidelines annexed to it.

 
 

(1) COM(2010) 171 final

 
Legal notice - Privacy policy