Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 27 September 2011 - Strasbourg

1. Opening of the sitting

IN THE CHAIR: RODI KRATSA-TSAGAROPOULOU
Vice-President

(The sitting opened at 09.05)

2. Documents received: see Minutes

3. European disaster response: role of civil protection and humanitarian assistance (debate)

  President. – The first item is the report by Elisabetta Gardini, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on ‘Towards a stronger European disaster response: role of civil protection and humanitarian assistance’ (Α7-0283/2011).

  Elisabetta Gardini, rapporteur. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I really must thank everyone who, over recent weeks and months, has helped to produce the document on which we are voting in this Chamber today.

I have to say we worked very well and a really constructive debate was developed. The motion for a resolution that we are voting on today is the outcome of a truly joint effort, with contributions from all the political groups and from Parliament as a whole. I believe everyone has come to share very strong feelings on this subject, not least because we have to remember that we are living in a period marked by an exponential increase in disasters.

The figures in all their starkness speak for themselves: the number of disasters in the world has risen fivefold; just think that 78 catastrophic events were recorded in 1975, whereas today, we have nearly 400 disasters every year. Over the past 20 years, disasters have sadly killed 90 000 people and affected more than 29 million, while economic losses have amounted to EUR 211 billion.

We are clearly facing problems on such a scale that they require a more vigorous and effective response and a really strong commitment on our part. We all have images in our minds of the earthquake in Haiti, the floods in Pakistan and what happened in Japan. Europe itself witnesses flash floods and forest fires within its territory every year, and we all remember the ash cloud after the volcanic eruption in Iceland.

There is no need to go any further to demonstrate the importance of the work being done here in Parliament, based on two fundamental principles which are our guiding stars: the principle of solidarity, which is reinforced by the solidarity clause in the Treaty of Lisbon, and the principle of subsidiarity. We are working along these lines.

Past interventions by the European Union have always been generous and effective – I think the tireless work done by Commissioner Georgieva bears witness to that – but today, we need to make a qualitative leap. We must be prepared to make a qualitative leap from ad hoc responses to responses that are enhanced through the prior identification of the assets available in the Member States that can be placed at the disposal of the European Civil Protection Mechanism.

Moreover, it is also important to emphasise the crucial role that services such as the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security programme (GMES) can play in this qualitative leap and in moving on from information sharing and emergency response to the planning, monitoring and coordination role that we want. I also take this opportunity to mention the concern that exists at what is happening to the budget for these essential new technologies.

We have included the importance of communicating with the public, because the Japanese experience has clearly taught us that one can never do this enough. We are also asking the Commission to come up with a legislative proposal on civil protection as soon as possible.

  Kristalina Georgieva, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I am very grateful for the debate today and very grateful to Mrs Gardini for leading the preparation of the report. As she so clearly stated, we live in a world where the frequency and intensity of disasters is on the increase, and climate change, population growth and urbanisation, as well as terrorism, put us at a higher risk.

We have witnessed over the years the role that Parliament has played in creating a high level of ambition to make solidarity work for European citizens and for the citizens of the world. I would quote the initiatives taken on the EU Forest Fire Tactical Reserve, on creating multi-country pilot modules like the BaltFloodCombat module, as well as on bringing transportation capacity to bear. We saw how much it helped us during the Libya crisis.

Against that background of growing needs, the Commission has taken its responsibility very seriously, and has put forward the communication that is now to be turned into a legislative proposal, for which I very much count on Parliament’s help.

That communication is based on four very important principles. The first is to respect the primary role of Member States in securing the safety of their citizens. Therefore, what we have put forward is a ‘bottom-up’ approach where we bring the assets of Member States together for collective action when either a Member State or a third country is overwhelmed by a disaster.

Second, we recognise that we must be better in anticipating risks so that we can act decisively when they materialise. Therefore, we raise the role of the Commission in bringing Member States into scenario plannings.

Third, there is a very important move away from the ad hoc response we currently have to one that is pre-planned, pre-arranged and predictable.

Fourth, we are very mindful of the tough budgetary times in Europe, so we are looking at ways in which working together will create savings for Member States. In this sense, the proposal which we have designed is a very modest increase, at the level of the Commission, from EUR 25 million to EUR 65 million, but generates on that basis not only high impact but also savings for Member States.

Let me finish with one very crucial point. We are doing this for our citizens, and over 90% of them want us to act together in the face of disasters. We owe it to them to do exactly that.

  Michèle Striffler, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Development. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, given the proliferation of major natural disasters and current budgetary pressure, the European Union must substantially strengthen its disaster response capacity and make optimum use of its limited resources.

Following numerous calls from our House, the European Commission should clearly draw up ambitious legislative proposals as quickly as possible, but not later than by the end of 2011, to create at last a genuine EU civil protection force. This would entail some Member States committing to make pre-identified and immediately deployable civil protection assets available on a voluntary basis for EU disaster relief interventions in the event of major disasters. I welcome the recent communication from the Commission on the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 which has a budget of EUR 455 million for the Civil Protection Mechanism and which attaches great importance to disaster preparedness and prevention.

Finally, the Commission must make active efforts to ensure the visibility of the resources and capacities deployed in the field, particularly through the use of EU symbols in conjunction with national badges.

  Georgios Stavrakakis, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development. – (EL) Madam President, firstly, I should like to congratulate the rapporteur on the excellent work she has done and to express my satisfaction, both at the particular emphasis placed on forest fire prevention and management and at the fact that the main positions expressed in the Committee on Regional Development have been incorporated into the final text.

The Committee on Regional Development mainly wishes to emphasise the fact that the solidarity clause introduced in Article 222 of the Treaty of Lisbon can, and must, provide an important basis for further reinforcement and support, on the part of the European Union, of action by the Member States in the civil protection sector.

Moreover, we reiterate the role and the responsibility of regional and local authorities, the important role of the European Regional Development Fund, and the need to utilise the valuable experience gained at regional level under INTERREG programmes and, finally, that coastal, insular and mountainous areas are extremely vulnerable to disaster on account of their geography.

To close, I should like to ask the Commissioner to comment on point 7 of the report on the establishment of an EU civil protection force.

  Richard Seeber, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Madam President, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the rapporteur. She has done the right thing and kept the own-initiative report to a minimum, addressing only the essential issues that Parliament wants to include in the legislative proposal that the Commission will propose this autumn. It would not have been right to inflate the report. Instead, we must now debate just the basic principles.

It is clear to all of us that this could affect any Member State. A natural disaster or technical disaster could descend upon it, causing a great deal of human suffering and enormous economic damage. The scale of the damage has, of course, been mentioned many times. In recent years, we have noticed that this damage is increasing considerably and the degree of interconnectivity and complexity of our societies is increasing. A logical consequence of this is that greater action needs to be taken by Europe. In its proposal, therefore, the Commission ought to take into consideration – as the Commissioner has already mentioned – the fact that, first and foremost, the Member States must retain their responsibility – thus, a bottom-up approach – but that Europe must play a very strong coordinating role.

In this connection, I also have a question for you, Commissioner. It is your quintessential responsibility that we are discussing here, is it not? Nevertheless, the Committee on Foreign Affairs is calling for the High Representative to take a very strong role here. I am concerned that, with the disputes over competence in the Commission, we will not know who is actually responsible. This ought to be clarified right at the start in order to avoid duplication of work.

It is also important that we concentrate resources, plan in advance and improve our preparation so that we really are able to act quickly. I was actually rapporteur for the Floods Directive and, in this regard, we also saw that if we are well prepared, we can save lives and also prevent economic damage. I hope, Commissioner, that you will table a proposal along these lines as soon as possible.

  Jo Leinen, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, we, too, welcome your communication on improving civil protection in the European Union. Citizens in Europe expect us to respond quickly and efficiently in the event of a disaster and, above all, to help each other. In the past, we have sometimes sat helpless in front of the television watching forest fires in southern Europe and asked ourselves: why are the others not helping? Your communication now represents the next step towards European solidarity and the efficient use of the capacities that we have in Europe. We have everything that we need. We really do have all of the facilities we need to deal with disasters in Europe. In that respect, this is a positive step forward.

As a previous speaker said, national capacities should not be replaced by centralisation at EU level, but we do need to exploit synergies. We really do need everyone to act swiftly together. This is also urgently needed now. I also agree that we need to think more and more in terms of prevention. We need to deal in the right way with the information that we have and must not wait until a disaster has occurred. We can do a great deal with regard to flooding or potential droughts, where fires frequently break out. I am pleased that we will now organise civil protection, both in the EU and also outside the EU, in a coherent way. I agree with Mr Seeber: the areas of responsibility ought to be clear. You are responsible. You ought to accept that responsibility and not permit the areas of responsibility to be mixed up so that we no longer know who is responsible.

Finally, I believe that this 24/7 preparedness must always be ensured, including at Christmas, during New Year, on public holidays, and during the summer, too. That is very important. I would like to thank Ms Gardini for her excellent report.

  Giommaria Uggias, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (IT) Madam President, Commissioner Georgieva, ladies and gentlemen, we are pleased, and first of all, therefore, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Gardini, and the shadow rapporteurs for their fruitful collaboration on such a highly topical and extremely important dossier as this.

As I was saying, we are pleased with the balanced, rational approach adopted in the report, which perfectly takes account of the principle of subsidiarity and the idea of a solidarity clause, which should guide the Member States’ actions in their response to disasters and in their civil protection role. Specifically, I believe it is necessary to develop a predictable, pre-planned system within the European Union’s Civil Protection Mechanism that is in keeping with the principle of subsidiarity. In other words, it must not involve setting up a supranational body, which would be liable to duplicate costs and powers without any assurance that it would work efficiently.

I particularly welcome the attention devoted to extremely vulnerable areas such as islands, which is clearly expressed throughout the body of the report, as well as the emphasis on the link between disaster preparation, prevention and response, which make up an inseparable trio. Lastly, I am pleased to see how sensitively other Members have addressed the subject of major regional threats, which I believe deserves our attention; in particular, there have been many references to actions and strategies targeting forest fires.

  Ryszard Czarnecki , on behalf of the ECR Group. – (PL) Madam President, I am pleased that we are doing something about this matter, since the number of natural disasters has increased around the world by 500%. At the same time, I would like to emphasise that this problem applies not only to Pakistan or Haiti, but also to Europe, and to Europeans who lose their lives in natural disasters or who sustain significant material losses. This initiative on the part of the European institutions is much needed, as, to be frank, individual countries are not always able to cope with the problem. This is the case in my country, Poland, where the government let down the victims of the latest series of natural disasters, which included hurricanes – both the victims who lost their homes and those whose businesses were affected.

Therefore, this initiative at European Union level is unquestionably necessary. Ladies and gentlemen, we are talking about genuine assistance, since what the victims expect is not a physical display of European Union symbols in places where help is needed, as we have heard, but real support. Such assistance will serve as the best way of promoting the European institutions. It is very important that we are not only talking about post-disaster aid, but also about prevention and averting disasters such as forest fires or, as is significant in the case of my homeland, flood prevention.

  Bairbre de Brún, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (GA) Madam President, I wish to welcome Elisabetta Gardini’s report, and I thank Ms Gardini for her hard work. I thank her especially for her cooperation with us as she took our recommendations and amendments into consideration.

Disaster reduction is an important part of sustainable development. If we plan our development in a way that reduces the risk of disaster, we can save a large number of lives. We can reduce social, economic and environmental destruction as a result of natural hazards, and along with that we can gradually reduce the destruction connected to technological and environmental disaster.

Disaster response begins with prevention and preparedness. I urge the European Commission and the Member States to invest more in disaster reduction and to improve disaster response efficiency in a spirit of solidarity.

Clarity, consistency and coherence are the principal columns on which a strong, working European disaster response system is built.

It is important that there is proper coordination so that we can provide efficient humanitarian aid. However, important humanitarian principles must also be observed, including impartiality, neutrality and independence. We must ensure that international humanitarian law is implemented.

We must ensure that political and strategic affairs do not affect decisions in relation to the distribution of aid. We must ensure that disaster relief is never governed by the strategic trade or political interests of the EU.

We should provide the EU’s humanitarian aid regardless of any political consideration and, at the same time, adhere to agreed international humanitarian principles.

  Oreste Rossi, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I, too, would like to join in thanking Ms Gardini for doing such an excellent job.

As we all know, of course, the best thing would be to prevent natural and man-made disasters, but it is not always possible. In any case, when they occur, we need to be ready to intervene as effectively and as swiftly as possible.

The Treaty of Lisbon allows the European Union to act in matters of civil protection as well, and therefore, in the event of a disaster, we need to be able to set up emergency response centres that are operational 24/7. We need to avoid overlapping and duplication of efforts on both the political and the operational side, and it is therefore important to stress that all Member States need to contribute to this project in the spirit of European solidarity.

There must be no barriers when people are in need, but it is essential to intervene rapidly and as efficiently as possible. Of course, it would also do no harm if we managed to keep costs down at times of crisis.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). – (DE) Madam President, it will be important to increase the efficiency of our disaster response in the EU. We need to learn from the experience of the most recent disasters and abandon particularly risky technologies such as nuclear power or deep-sea drilling. In addition, directives relating to potential risks must be properly transposed. That did not happen, for example, in the case of the sludge spill in Kolontár in Hungary.

A permanent EU civil protection force is something that I think is appropriate to a limited extent only. In some areas, it is indeed appropriate, for example, shared aircraft for fighting fires, but I am essentially of the opinion that the principle that people should help themselves absolutely must be adhered to. In this regard, we absolutely must ensure that we have a risk prevention system in place in the Member States. In countries like Austria or Germany, or in South Tyrol in particular, this disaster prevention is exemplary and it is provided by voluntary components. This should also be upheld as an example in the EU. I say this as someone who has been a member of a voluntary fire service since the age of 14.

  Michail Tremopoulos, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (EL) Madam President, I should like to thank the rapporteur and all my colleagues who helped to draft this consensus report, a report which underlines both the need to upgrade European disaster response mechanisms, by improving the utilisation of resources, and to safeguard the European solidarity sorely needed at this juncture.

With more and more frequent and increasingly serious, natural and man-made disasters, there is an increased need for greater efficiency at all levels of European disaster management, including prevention, response readiness and restoration.

I should like to focus on the prevention aspect: we could save time and money by investing more in prevention than in response and restoration. The faster pace of climate change and of the rate at which natural resources are being depleted will further increase the probability of more frequent and more serious natural disasters. Action to combat climate change and rationally manage natural resources is a smart preventative investment that will save not only human lives, but also valuable resources at this time of economic crisis.

Within this framework, our amendments, which were adopted by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, stressed precisely this conclusion and the need for more effective emergency response planning for oil spills and nuclear and other dangerous materials. They also underline the need for the ‘polluter pays’ principle to be applied more effectively in terms of responsibility for environmental damage. The accidents in the Gulf of Mexico and Fukushima must remain forever in our minds.

  Horst Schnellhardt (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Gardini, who has produced a very concise and clear report that also consolidates our tasks. If you read the report and see that there are 16 references to the legal bases underpinning our work to date in disaster prevention and in the area of humanitarian aid, you would have to assume that that would be sufficient. The most recent disaster response results have also shown that we have responded well. However, we also have a new situation in Europe. We are experiencing more environmental disasters and we have terrorist attacks that require rapid responses. I therefore think that it is right for the Commission to table a legislative proposal in this regard.

However, there is one thing that we need to bear in mind, and it has been said many times already, and that is that the Member States must be at the centre of this. However, if we want to set up a disaster response unit, then, Commissioner, it can only be created from the resources of the Member States. When it comes to coordination, however – the important point is that you know where the units are, what they can do, and then coordinate this – the Commission is very well placed to do that and that should be our starting point. Although the financial resources have been increased, I think it is much more important to increase efficiency. That is necessary, and that is why we can actually do without financial resources.

I have another couple of comments regarding the disaster relief fund. There have been calls once again here for this to be extended. I am opposed to this, because we will then have so many variations and options for where the disaster relief fund should be deployed. We ought to leave it as it is. It is there to enable us to reduce the impact of unforeseen disasters, and that is the way it should stay.

  Edite Estrela (S&D). – (PT) Madam President, disasters are a recurring theme in our debates in Parliament, which is only natural given that they are becoming more frequent and devastating. I should therefore like to welcome Commissioner Georgieva’s initiative, because it seems very relevant to me, and to congratulate the rapporteur, Ms Gardini. We in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament agree with the analysis of the effects of climate change on the increasing number and seriousness of disasters, and would prioritise prevention policies.

The Treaty of Lisbon introduces provisions enabling us to strengthen our response to disasters, and to make it more comprehensive, coordinated and efficient. We therefore welcome the proposal to establish a European emergency response capacity, as well as the proposal to develop a European emergency response centre.

The objective of maintaining a permanent 24/7 operational centre working in conjunction with the Member States through focal points that are also permanent also seems to be of the greatest importance to us.

I should like to welcome the rapporteur’s proposals, notably as regards pilot projects. For example, I would stress the importance of the pilot project concerning a tactical reserve for aerial fire-fighting to combat forest fires, whose success justifies its continuation and consolidation.

The Treaty of Lisbon also introduced a solidarity clause, and I believe solidarity is an aspect of disaster response that had to be stressed in this report. As such, that is indeed why we tabled amendments to reinforce the solidarity aspect.

  Vladko Todorov Panayotov (ALDE). – Madam President, we know that if a catastrophe is well handled with a good reaction capacity, many lives can be saved and colossal damage can be avoided. Nevertheless, prevention is the best solution of all. In particular, with regard to man-made disasters such as Fukushima or the oil spill in Mexico, we have to enhance the benefits of ensuring our safety by anticipation. Paying particular attention to climate change and developing a greener economy will surely be a way to reduce considerably both man-made and natural disasters.

Finally, I would like to thank our rapporteur for the work done on a very important, but also an extremely complex, issue. As a matter of fact, it is difficult to find a common guideline to these phenomena, which are all different and which all need a very prompt and accurate reaction.

  Godfrey Bloom (EFD). – Madam President, I rise with some humility as representing a country which managed to elect a Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, a Scotsman, the only Scotsman in the world who actually does not care how much money he spends: it is an interesting phenomenon! So as I say, I rise with some humility. However, I look forward with the great British sense of humour which is one thing nobody can take away from us in this place which gave us an energy policy, an employment policy, a fisheries policy, an agricultural policy that have been – as almost everything that this place has done has been – a complete and total disaster. We are now contemplating a response to disasters, most of which of course we create for ourselves in this place. So I can say I look forward to seeing how this develops, how it goes forward in the future, and I am just interested to see what kind of pig’s breakfast you are going to make of this one!

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, Ms Gardini explained quite clearly in her preamble that this is about solidarity, subsidiarity and, I would add, effectiveness. It is true, as has been said, that the frequency of disasters in the European Union is on the increase, which is why it is important to be able to unite our efforts or, in other words, pool them.

In fact, this idea is entirely based on Michel Barnier’s excellent report of 2006, in which he called for the European Union to allow a number of the resources at its disposal to be pooled, so as to create a sort of European civil protection force that would enable these resources to be brought together and to provide a quicker and more effective response. This would allow us to make use of our most sophisticated technology. We have both the Galileo and the GMES programmes and we also have telecommunications, which enable us to access critical information quickly and, hence, always respond as promptly as possible.

With regard to telecommunications, I should like to take this opportunity to remind people of the benefit of the European emergency number that we sought to create, 112, which has the power to save the lives of thousands of Europeans every day. It is crucial that this number be communicated more effectively to our fellow citizens so that they can be aware of the resources which are available to them.

The report by Ms Gardini therefore proves we can make a radical difference without overhauling existing structures, but rather by pooling resources, paying careful attention, of course, that subsidiarity is respected, and that this can be done without creating inadequate and costly structures. We are calling for the European Commission to ensure the proper coordination of those resources. Commissioner, you said that you were expecting Parliament’s support on this and you can count on us to have it.

  Kriton Arsenis (S&D). – (EL) Madam President, firstly, I wish to congratulate my colleagues who worked so hard on this report. This report appears, from what my colleagues have said, to be a broad consensus report. My congratulations therefore to the rapporteur, Ms Gardini, and to Mr Stavrakakis from the Committee on Regional Development. This is the second report being put to the vote here in the European Parliament; it comes shortly after the report on forest protection, which calls on us to take measures to protect European forests.

European forests, which are necessary if we are to combat climate change, are also necessary if we are to adapt to and to prepare our communities to combat climate change. With the planet overheating, forests are at risk of fire, flood and numerous other disaster scenarios, just as the whole of Europe is at risk of such disasters, the cross-border consequences of which are such that we have no choice but to take action.

The Commission must act accordingly and we await its response as to whether or not it will proceed with the White Paper on forest protection and we shall finally have legislation to adapt our forests to climate change. In this report, Parliament is, for the second time, calling for legislation to prevent forest fires, a measure which will help save resources and which is necessary at this economic juncture. When fires and other disasters occur, we need a flexible solidarity mechanism adapted to local requirements which will provide a common European response.

  Charles Goerens (ALDE). – (FR) Madam President, there are only a few ways of improving the EU’s disaster response capacity. Prevention, coordination and mutualisation are the key policy words in this area. That means prevention though a policy with a greater focus on sustainable development, coordination and a constant exchange of information to avoid duplication, and the pooling of the resources available in EU Member States, in the interest of efficiency, on the one hand, and proper management of public funds, on the other.

Could Commissioner Georgieva tell me what main obstacles could still oppose the integration of these principles into EU policy? Could you, Ms Georgieva, tell us what main difficulties you are still encountering at Member-State level when it comes to compliance with these principles or the achievement of objectives which, incidentally, Member States are requested to meet by the Treaty of Lisbon?

  Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines (PPE). – (ES) Madam President, I think that Ms Gardini’s report is very good and a great effort has been made. However, I would have liked it to have looked not only at prevention, but also at what will happen next.

One of the extremely serious problems in Haiti, for example, in Lorca during the recent earthquake, and in L’Aquila, is precisely that, while lives have been saved and life has returned to normal, there is a need to rebuild cities, cities that took years and thousands of years to be built. They have to be rebuilt all of a sudden. They have to be built, and there is a science and technology to help with this.

It is not possible to build on just any ground after an earthquake. It is important to find out which ground is the most suitable. Where is the special European Union unit to coordinate all the knowledge within all the sections? We are told that the new cities must be energy efficient, that they have to be smart cities, but how does one make the transition from a destroyed city to a smart city?

In this area, Europe has abandoned its people. It has not put in place any coordination measures, and there is a need, Commissioner, to coordinate the reconstruction work and ensure true flood prevention. There is a need to look at how to control the rivers. Other countries, such as Spain, have achieved this to a large degree.

One cannot stop talking about a disaster the day after it has happened. This is why I am much more concerned about what happens next, and I believe that this is where Europe must start to act.

  Jolanta Emilia Hibner (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, on behalf of our group, I would like to thank Ms Gardini, who has drawn up a very comprehensive report containing all the salient points.

The establishment of a European emergency response capacity will help EU citizens to feel more secure. It will also play a major role internationally, from the perspective of rescue and humanitarian operations in countries which may be affected by disasters in the future. The proposal to establish a European emergency response capacity is crucially important. I do hope, however, that Member States will maintain full autonomy in managing relief resources and retain the right to use these resources at any time, and I also trust that such resources will be made available on a voluntary basis in keeping with the spirit of European solidarity. It is vital to create a 24/7 European emergency response centre, and given that many already exist in other countries, we can draw on the experience of such centres. These centres will coordinate international operations with our existing practices. It is also essential to draw up scenarios for particular types of disaster, both within and outside the EU.

It is essential to use the emergency response centre to improve the flow of information between the EU and other countries.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, as everyone has said, in recent years, the European Union has been struck by unprecedented disasters and to name them would take up the entire debate time. I do, however, wish to mention the AZF explosion whose ten-year anniversary we commemorated less than a week ago in Toulouse.

Establishing a stronger response at European level, as proposed in Ms Gardini’s report, would be a real opportunity to demonstrate the solidarity between our people. The Union has already been attempting to operationalise this pooling of our efforts for several years and it is now time to act together and stop waiting for a new disaster to strike the EU in order to learn lessons from it.

It is now a question of making our material, human and financial capacities available to each other, in order to prevent new tragedies from occurring. Commissioner Georgieva, just now, you said that it was necessary to anticipate risks. It is extremely regrettable in this regard, that the European Commission intends to withdraw its funding of the earth observation programme GMES, which is recognised by all as an essential instrument in the prevention and coordination of disaster responses. I urge the Commission to reconsider this position and to support flagship programmes which generate undeniable added-value for Europe.

I would like to thank Ms Gardini for her excellent report. I hope that we are going to adopt it as it will pave the way for European solidarity at the service of citizens.

  Marco Scurria (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in the minute I have to speak, I would certainly like to thank Ms Gardini for the excellent report she has drafted, not least because it comes out of discussions with the competent institutions and the associations working in this area.

However, we need more than that. We need a legislative resolution that can go a step further and organise civil protection across Europe with no more gaps and no more overlaps. At a time when the role of the European Union is being debated, this is an area in which there is a demand for more Europe in order to develop united, coordinated action by the whole EU, particularly because civil protection depends on solidarity and volunteering. That fits in nicely with the aims of the Treaty of Lisbon and the current European Year of Volunteering.

A financial instrument is needed as well, of course, and I thank the Commissioner for pointing this out and requesting an increased budget.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, the European Union’s Solidarity Fund operates well on the whole, but based on the experience acquired during the early years of its implementation, it is clear that there are still major constraints and weaknesses in the fund’s operation. These are linked to the fund’s lack of speed in providing funding, to the level of transparency of the criteria for mobilising the fund in the event of regional disasters, as well as to the restrictions to natural disasters.

I must remind you that several Member States received financial support from the European Union for the projects implemented in the areas affected by various disasters. However, the funds were released late in relation to the time when maximum effectiveness would have been achieved. With this in mind, I think that the possibility of assistance being granted in the form of an advance payment scheme, based on an initial estimate of the losses, to a country affected by a disaster, at its request, would be a facility greatly appreciated by the affected areas, immediately after a disaster has occurred.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Madam President, Commissioner, exactly one year ago, in September 2010, a report on a Community approach to the prevention of natural and man-made disasters, for which I was rapporteur, was adopted by a large majority in Parliament.

It stated that prevention, as the first and decisive stage in the disaster management cycle, should be ascribed more importance. Through prevention, the occurrence of many disasters could be avoided, whilst the effects of others could be significantly reduced.

Examples of the measures we proposed in that report include the creation of an appropriate financial framework for prevention; actions in the area of forest management and fire prevention, the protection and defence of coastlines, and the restoration and protection of river basins; the creation of an agricultural public insurance scheme and the establishment of a minimum compensation scheme for disaster-affected farmers; the enhancement of early warning systems; and the revision of the Solidarity Fund Regulation.

One year on, it is easy to see that almost all this remains to be done. It would be worth bearing that in mind when the other stages of the disaster management cycle – preparation, response and recovery – are being debated.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Madam President, there is a saying in my country that misfortune walks not over mountains, but over people. Earthquakes, major floods, fires and other disasters do not sidestep European countries, and the rescue teams of the states affected are often unable, especially in the initial phases of disasters, to provide the necessary assistance in major disasters, and international assistance often becomes a necessity.

We must therefore welcome the Commission’s decision to merge the monitoring and information centre with the Echo crisis centre, creating one independent centre for emergency responses operating on a continuous basis and which is ready at any time to coordinate the EU's emergency humanitarian aid operations. The development of this institution as a focal point for the rapid coordination of European material and financial aid would underline the good sense of the institution even more. I firmly believe that we can effectively protect the lives and health of our people in emergency situations through well-prepared mechanisms and crisis and humanitarian assistance teams.

  Iosif Matula (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, the European Union and its citizens are faced with an alarming rise in the number of disasters and in their level of severity. The disasters which have occurred in every state across the world prove the need to create a strong European rapid response force for dealing with emergencies. The events which cause disasters cannot be avoided. However, they can be managed and their impact mitigated. A series of measures and actions turned into policies aimed at disaster impact prevention are needed to reduce the risk associated with natural phenomena.

More than EUR 2 billion has been provided in financial aid by the Solidarity Fund between 2002 and 2010, confirming the key role played by the EU in supporting disaster-stricken countries. However, it is difficult for the money allocated to reach the people affected. What is needed is to create an efficient mechanism for mobilising immediately the sums allocated from the Solidarity Fund, with a corresponding mechanism being available in each Member State which is equally rapid. I would like to thank and congratulate Ms Gardini.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). – (HU) Madam President, it was a year ago that Hungary suffered through the tragedy of the red mud industrial disaster. We could see precisely just how valuable EU assistance can be, and I would once again like to express my thanks for that. Voluntary aid helped Hungary a great deal but, at the same time, revealed its own ad hoc nature. It is for this reason that I find the objective of the report to create a European emergency response centre excellent.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Commissioner Georgieva for her assistance and, at the same time, ask my fellow Members to please learn to pronounce the name of a Commissioner, who is doing such an excellent job, correctly: it is Georgieva.

I should also point out that after the disaster, the authorities obliged the company responsible to pay six times its own assets in damages, so it has to pay six times that amount. Liability insurance should be mandatory for industrial plants.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, a rapid and coordinated response, as well as the ability to engage fully all available resources, are vital in the face of increasingly frequent disasters and catastrophes. For only such measures will limit human tragedy and reduce material losses.

I am very pleased that the report has emphasised the role of local and regional authorities, which are at the frontline when disasters strike. We are all aware that they fulfil a crucial role, both in terms of the prevention of natural disasters as well as in terms of the relief they provide in the aftermath of such disasters. I am also glad that the issue of making the Solidarity Fund more flexible has been raised, ladies and gentlemen, for it is quite unacceptable for victims of tragedies to wait for months or years to receive financial assistance. I would like to congratulate and to thank the rapporteur, and I hope we will accomplish all the proposals contained in the report and that we will improve the coordination, communication and speed of response at all levels.

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (S&D). – Madam President, the multiplication of natural disasters and human-produced disasters is a fact. At the same time, there is more and more strain on the national means available for response, not least because the rest of the world expects the EU to respond to their disasters, too.

Until now, that response has been ad hoc and too bureaucratic. Therefore, a complete overhaul of the entire system is indispensable, and this very detailed report provides the necessary orientation. In essence, we have to eliminate redundancies and increase the efficiency of what we want to keep. In that respect, we need to shift the emphasis from reaction to prevention, stressing monitoring, scenario preparation and education. We need to create a permanent pool of the national means placed at our disposal for such purposes and increase the flexibility of our procedures to make the entire system more operative.

The main conditionality would be subsidiarity, then availability of means – both material and financial. Finally, let us not forget that civil protection is entirely in line with the EU philosophy of intervention, and let us stress the civilian element over the military which, even if not entirely eliminated, will not be central.

  Silvia Costa (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, as I congratulate the rapporteur, Ms Gardini, and the Commissioner, I must say that I agree with the calls for European legislation, a bottom-up approach and a coordinating centre that draws on the best experience and the models of civil protection intervention used in the various Member States, bringing together expertise and voluntary resources, national coordinators and local bodies.

I would like to refer to two points. Regarding the consolidation of 112 as the single emergency number in Europe, I would ask the Commission to carry out an active check, given that my country, for example, is moving towards further fragmentation of emergency numbers and the services that answer emergency calls. There are even two numbers for fires. Secondly, we should increase the part played by new technologies in the field of early warning and warning systems, for example, by supporting the roll-out of prototypes that the EU finances but which are not then taken up by the Member States.

Lastly, in terms of the organisation of civil protection, I think it is also important to highlight the social changes that have occurred in the European population, which, to an increasing extent, is elderly, of foreign origin and concentrated in outlying areas where there is little infrastructure. Hence, there is a need to safeguard access and the possibility for this most vulnerable section of the population to be supported.

  Kristalina Georgieva, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, thank you very much for the excellent comments and suggestions for the legislative proposal. I shall try to group my answers, starting with what this proposal would do in bringing together a true European capacity.

Madam Striffler brought up this question first. We also had a question from Madam Grossetête on how this relates to the Barnier report. What we are proposing is to integrate the capabilities of Member States and, in this sense, it is more lexis than substance: where the Barnier report was leading us on to and where we are going to be. In the Barnier report, from which we have adopted a total of 12 proposals, the idea is to integrate the capabilities of Member States but there the approach was more top-down, whereas what we are coming with is bottom-up. I can say with confidence that we have support from Member States for this proposal, especially from Member States where the national requirements are such that the delegation is not even at the level of federal or central government but goes down to regional authorities.

So we will have an integrated capacity, we can call it a force, of Member States’ assets. I want to stress that we are not waiting for the legislative proposal to advance. We have already made significant advancements in integrating the capabilities of Member States. When I took office, we had less than 40 modules registered at European level. I can report today that we have 124 modules registered at European level, plus eight coordination teams. The advancements we have taken are in response to the needs. Just for information, in 2010 alone, we activated our Civil Protection Mechanism 28 times. For reference: in previous years, it would be two, three, four or five times and this year, we already have activated it 11 times and the probability is that there may be more activations.

Let me take a second point that was brought up by many MEPs – Mr Arsenis, Mr Czarnecki and Madam de Brún and, I am sure, others – on the importance of preparedness and prevention. We know that a euro invested in prevention brings four to seven euros in return. Yet, moving ahead with prevention has proven to be difficult in Europe and elsewhere in the world.

We recognise how critically important prevention is. I have just come back from Washington where we in the Commission took the lead, together with the World Bank and the government of Japan, in making this question of preparedness and of prevention a high global priority, and we will continue with structured measures focusing on actions taken in prevention in order to boost this work.

We will come back with additional legislative proposals in this area as we advance in our operational thinking. Of course, forests are a big part in our prevention measures. They matter in floods, they matter in being ready for forest fires, they matter in the ecological system for cities and rural areas. So, Mr Arsenis, you will see forests becoming a big part of our preparedness and prevention work.

But preparedness is also training together, and this is where the Commission has already advanced our role. Just last Friday I was in Poland taking part in a five country preparedness exercise, Carpatex, and I can tell you that bringing our community of civil protection together is paramount in saving lives, and reducing property, and we in the Commission are dedicated to do more of it.

I was asked by Mr Leinen and Mr Seeber how we coordinate with the High Representative and I can give you a very positive report that, on the basis of activations and practice in dealing with crises, we have advanced significantly the institutional arrangements and we have much more clarity in who does what, when and where.

Clearly, inside Europe, the High Representative has no role. Two-thirds of activations of the civil protection last year were inside Europe and there it is a matter of internal EU action. Outside Europe, we act as a first responder bringing civil protection humanitarian aid, whereas the High Representative has a role in political and defence coordination. Of course, in complex crises, the High Representative takes the lead and there we bring our skills and capabilities – this is best practice in our Member States, where civil protection is coordinated. Member States have their own civil protection coordination centres and politics and defence are coordinated. Sometimes, civil protection steps in and sometimes they have no role, depending on the type of crisis. Those of you who watched President Obama of the United States responding to the floods recently will have seen that he did it from the civil protection centre of the United States, but when you watch him, in the case of Bin Laden, he was in the situation room of the United States, in the White House.

So, we do have separate roles, we do of course have to coordinate in complex emergencies and, depending on the emergencies, we define exactly how this coordination takes place.

What obstacles do we face from Member States? The critical issue we face is to assure Member States that we are mindful of their legislative conditions, in other words, that we respect how civil protection is organised in each and every one of our Member States, and recognise that in national disasters, where there is no role for the European Union and the country can cope on its own, of course we will not interfere in this response.

Member States in current fiscal conditions and the budgetary environment want to be sure that we will be mindful of cost efficiency. I can give you my word that I am very fiscally prudent and that, yes, we will make sure that every euro of our taxpayers’ money is spent in the best possible and most effective manner. In other words, at Community level when it makes sense, and at the country level when it is more appropriate.

I was also asked about how we deal with post-disasters. It is a very critical question to link relief to rehabilitation and development and to make sure that development assistance, including technical capabilities from the European Union, is made available to countries affected by disasters. We have taken some measures in that respect to improve the post-disaster risk assessment that is carried out and then make sure that the European contribution is in this context of internationally coordinated efforts in developing countries. I do agree that this is an area where more work needs to be done, and we have made it a priority with Commissioner Piebalgs for our cooperation.

I very much agree with Ms de Brún that we must respect the principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence when we provide humanitarian assistance, including civil protection in-kind assistance in developing countries, especially in areas that are affected not only by disasters, but also by conflicts. This must always be respected and I am grateful to Baroness Ashton for very much supporting this principle of neutrality and independence in humanitarian work.

Speakers including Ms Dăncilă – I apologise if I mispronounced the name – made a point on the Solidarity Fund. We work together with Commissioner Hahn to make a proposal for redefining the Solidarity Fund so that it can act immediately through a pre-funding arrangement in case a country is affected by disasters. Last year, I faced a very uncomfortable situation when floods affected Moldova and Romania. In Moldova, we can provide humanitarian assistance overnight, in Romania we cannot. I am therefore a very strong proponent of making sure that solidarity is expressed right at the time when people need it when a disaster hits.

On the question of GMES, this is a pilot project that is very much on the priority list of the working programme for the Commission. The pilot project is now completed but the Commission intends to support GMES financially to the extent possible in the next multi-year financial framework and, of course, we count on Parliament to support our proposal so that it can be done.

Last but not least, on the forest fire-fighting reserve, this is a pilot project that unfortunately came to an end. We cannot extend it, but we are going to include it in the legislative proposal. Talking about where we have difficulty with Member States, some of our Member States are really not in favour of it so we would need your support in Parliament. It is the right thing to do, we have seen it in the years we have applied it, but we still have some work to do to convince Member States that this funding arrangement has to be continued once the legislative proposal is being done. I apologise for taking so long, but there were very many good questions and I did not want to skip any of them.

  Elisabetta Gardini, rapporteur. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you, I was already planning to give back the extra time I had unduly used at the beginning of the debate.

There is not much to add, in fact, because I feel the House has confirmed the great chance we have in this case to be really ambitious and to give the people more Europe, as Europe is all too often felt to be remote. This time, though, we have a wonderful tool to make people feel Europe is close to them even in minor matters, leaving aside the fundamental issues that it would be pointless to repeat. The 112 number might appear to be minor, although it has been mentioned several times, as might Article 23 of the Treaty – which needs to be brought to the public’s attention – which says that European citizens who are in a third country where their country of birth or nationality is not represented are entitled to protection by any diplomatic authority of any EU Member State.

This is the kind of Europe we need.

IN THE CHAIR: DAGMAR ROTH-BEHRENDT
Vice-President

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 12.30.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  János Áder (PPE), in writing. – (HU) The debate about strengthening EU disaster response gives us a good opportunity to examine the system of European disaster management in a broader context. Although I agree with the conclusions of the report, I believe that there are quite a number of questions that remain unanswered: Does the EU possess the appropriate financial means to protect not only against natural disasters, but also against industrial accidents with serious consequences? Do we have the means to allow rapid and effective damage control in the case of industrial disasters? If we have no answer to these questions – and I believe that we do not – then would this not be the right time to begin to develop a new set of effective financial instruments as soon as possible? I am convinced that the solution lies in a European disaster insurance system based on the principle of mandatory liability insurance, which would provide sufficient extra resources from the payments of potential industrial polluters to enable the EU to implement quick and efficient intervention. Injured parties would receive money immediately, while the risks deriving from potential non-payment by polluters could be spread out at EU level. Furthermore, payers could also become beneficiaries of the system by submitting applications for assistance for their safety and environmental investments from any unused funds. I believe that a substantive debate on this matter should begin as soon as possible, and we should not wait for another disaster to remind us of its necessity.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D), in writing. – The 2010 floods in Romania brought sudden disaster and tragic loss of life to many communities. Since then, we have seen many natural disasters unfold around the world, with significant human, environmental, and economic costs. The costs of both the immediate emergency response and long-term reconstruction are considerable. So I welcome this report’s emphasis on improving the flexibility and efficiency of the Solidarity Fund, which can provide valuable assistance to Member States and the assurance they need to release funds in the aftermath of a disaster. I also support the calls for a response capacity based on the European Civil Protection Mechanism, which pools capabilities and expertise from across the EU so as to provide the best and most efficient expert help during times of crises. Many disasters happen despite being entirely preventable. Last year, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling for a complete ban on the use of cyanide technology in mining projects because of the potential for cross-border environmental catastrophe in the event of an accident. Yet, despite this, the Romanian Government is about to approve such a mining project, which poses a grave threat to the environment and valuable cultural heritage of a whole region.

  Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) We are living in an interconnected world where an adverse change in one element can have unexpected repercussions elsewhere. The lesson learnt from the numerous disasters highlights the significant role played by information and the exchange of information between actors, not only with the aim of preventing disasters, but also of responding efficiently in critical situations.

This is why I regard as imperative and support the creation of a European emergency response centre. Since cooperation has allowed us to prosper as a continent and play a leading economic role for a long time, it is appropriate for us to create a pool of resources, capacities and assets for the European Union not only to intervene in crisis situations, but also to take united action globally.

We must bear in mind that our ecological footprint extends far beyond the EU’s borders. As a result, we need to show solidarity not only in sharing the benefits of our actions, but also in sharing the relevant costs.

4. New trade policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 strategy (debate)

  President. – The next item is the report by Daniel Caspary, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade, on a new trade policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 strategy [2010/2152(INI)] (A7-0255/2011).

  Daniel Caspary, rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the global economy has changed dramatically in the last 10 to 15 years. Alongside the traditional economic powers like the European Union and the United States, thriving regions like Asia, in the form of China and India, or South America are emerging more and more out of the economic shadows.

That also has to have an impact on our policies and our strategy. However, I am not convinced that the Commission’s new trade strategy will provide adequate answers to these changes. The challenges that the European Union is facing in the area of external trade can be illustrated very well with a few figures.

By 2015, 90% of global growth will be generated outside the Union, with 50 countries, including the 27 Member States of the EU, accounting for 80% of world trade. However, the European Union’s share in the world’s relative GDP is continually declining and is faced with a rapid increase in the performance of the emerging countries.

In 2000, at the launch of the Lisbon strategy, the European Union still accounted for 25% of world GDP. By 2020, this share will fall to just 18% of world GDP. While the two biggest developed economies, Europe and the United States, accounted for 48% of world GDP in the year 2000, this share will be down to a third by 2020. That is a relative decline of 27%.

China and India will account for around a quarter of world economic output by 2020. That is a relative increase of 150%. In this regard, we need to bear in mind that the European Union’s economy is highly dependent on participating in external growth. Even today, 18% of the Union’s labour force, in other words, almost 40 million jobs, is dependent on the Union’s trade performance.

The comparison between trade opening and employment over the past 10 years in almost all countries in the world shows that trade opening goes together with higher employment and job creation. Therefore, we must make use of these opportunities.

There is something that I believe to be particularly important. The Commission is called on to present a revised mid- and long-term trade strategy by the summer of 2013. This should be possible on the basis of a thorough analysis of the current trends in world trade and a forecast of developments within and outside the European Union over the next 10 to 15 years.

I would be very pleased, Commissioner De Gucht, if you could assure us of that already today. I think that we need a genuine future-oriented strategy in order to better deal with the changes that have occurred over the last 10 years.

I would also briefly like to mention one particular paragraph contained in the report, and that is paragraph 11, because many people still only associate bad news, such as job relocations and environmental and social dumping, with trade or globalisation. Yes, these things do exist too, and it is our job to work together to tackle them.

However, we all experience the good side of trade on a daily basis: affordable products in our shops, export opportunities and new jobs, for example, in mechanical engineering, vehicle manufacturing or with service providers. The positive contribution made by trade policy to the combating of poverty also gets far too brief a mention in the public debate. In this regard, I would like to see a balanced information campaign by the Commission highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of external trade, and I would be extremely grateful if we could uphold this demand contained in the report.

I would like to thank everyone who has worked on this report most sincerely – all of the many colleagues in various talks and with more than 200 amendments in committee. I would like to thank Parliament’s administration and various external partners in dialogue from numerous different spheres who have supported us all with their background knowledge and their convictions and provided both positive and negative comments. It is now up to the Commission to take up our proposals and to implement them. We will be keeping a very watchful eye on this, Mr De Gucht.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank Members for this opportunity to comment on the excellent report prepared by Daniel Caspary. I appreciate the frank and comprehensive analysis it makes of our communication on trade policy.

First of all, I would like to address one unwarranted criticism that this report raises, which is its lack of long-term vision. Parliament will also have seen the two detailed staff working documents which accompany our communication. One contains rigorous economic analysis as well as available long-term forecasts. The other presents an assessment of the Global Europe strategy adopted by the Commission in 2006.

One of the key priorities of our new trade strategy is to ensure stronger and sustainable growth in Europe by engaging with other strategic growth poles in the world: China, Russia, Japan, etc. I am sure that Members will agree with me that this is a legitimate long-term objective and not just a misguided short-term vision.

We also strive to uphold the value of multilateralism and project our European values in the rest of the world, in an ever-increasing complex world where global governance and strong leadership seem to be in short supply. Unless you believe that multilateralism and our strong engagement with strategic partners will not be objectives worth pursuing by 2030 or beyond, then I find it hard to accept the report’s criticism of a lack of long-term vision.

I would also like to stress that the objectives and priorities set in the communication will produce economic effects in the next five to ten years. Today, 36 million jobs in the EU depend on our external trade. These jobs are important today and they will be as important in decades to come. If we are successful in our strategy, and not least if Parliament lends its support, our new trade policy can generate EUR 150 billion every year, and more jobs at the same time. These gains are long-term gains, which can only be reaped if we set a strong foundation for our policy today.

Secondly, I notice that we both share the aim of higher growth and consider that we should harness all the growth potential of external trade. The growth potential of the various trade initiatives that we are considering or pursuing is therefore a major factor allowing us to set priorities among the many negotiations which the Commission can engage in.

Thirdly, the report considers that we are not ambitious enough and that our trade negotiations are too slow. Let us talk again when I return to this House to present concluded free trade agreements in the months and years to come. Of course, while it is important to be ambitious, it is equally important to understand that European trade policy does not solve all global issues and that global agreements are based on mutual obligations and commitments. Imposing obligations on our partners is only feasible if we ourselves are willing to make commitments which they consider equivalent. Otherwise, no deal is possible.

That is why I am pleased to see that we agree on many of the priorities for the EU’s trade policy: multilateralism remains our top trade priority. The EU has a deep commercial and systemic interest in a strong multilateral trading system, and the Commission has played a proactive role in the Doha negotiations throughout 2011, including by developing a solid compromise proposal in the key area of tariffs on industrial goods.

We also consistently called for deliverables for Least Developed Countries and we have an established, excellent track record already. In the coming period, ahead of the December Ministerial Conference, the Commission will continue its work in Geneva with the objective of finding a road map that can take the Doha negotiations out of the present impasse.

The report also states the importance of ensuring that trade works for poverty reduction. This is an issue that is also important for me and is why the Commission will submit to college a communication on trade, investment and development, by the end of November.

Another area of importance mentioned several times in the report is ensuring that we are open but not naive, which I fully agree with. One initiative the Commission is working on is a legislative proposal for an EU instrument that will help secure and increase symmetry in access to public procurement markets in developed countries and large emerging markets. Procurement markets represent a substantial part of national economies, but European businesses cannot always get equal or easy access. The Commission has just ended the public consultation, is reviewing different options and will put forward a proposal within the coming months.

I note that the report acknowledges the achievements of the market access strategy and the importance to continue to work towards keeping markets open. The Commission produced a trade and investment barriers report for the Spring European Council this year, which was shared with the Parliament as well. The report monitors barriers and protectionist measures and sets out a number of key priorities for market access action vis-à-vis our strategic partners, and should become the public reference document and benchmark for our enforcement action at political level. I welcome Parliament’s decision to also prepare a report on this matter.

We are actively pursuing our market access work, in particular, in relation to intellectual property rights in third countries, access to key raw materials for EU industry and securing reliable energy supplies. We will also continue to enforce EU rights and defend the interests of EU businesses of all sizes – anti-dumping or anti-subsidy cases, bilateral discussions on market access barriers, negotiating trade deals and bringing cases before WTO. One example is how we have actively and consistently – and so far successfully – addressed issues relating to access to raw materials in China through the WTO’s dispute settlement system. In keeping with our enlightened openness, we have no qualms about using all instruments to ensure that all countries and companies comply with WTO rules.

Finally, I welcome a reference to the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund in the report. The Commission is currently finalising a proposal to improve the fund and to extend it to the agricultural sector. This is scheduled for adoption on 5 October 2011.

I see much agreement between this report and the Commission’s own communication on trade policy and look forward to discussing it with Parliament. On the last question from Mr Caspary as to where I am going, I have only one answer: I am going forward.

  Birgit Schnieber-Jastram, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Development. – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express my sincere thanks to Mr Caspary for this report.

Commissioner De Gucht, you said to us here in March 2010: ‘viewed in the long term, trade is intended to help all inhabitants of this world to a better existence’. Unfortunately, in the Commission communication, this approach is not taken quite so clearly. For that reason, too, it was important for the report to deal expressly with the duty to provide a coherent policy. That is particularly important for the area of trade, as trade plays a very significant role in development cooperation. That makes it even harder to understand why it has not been included in the five key areas for policy coherence.

In my opinion, the Committee on International Trade has done a very good job on this report. Many of the suggestions from the Committee on Development have been included, for example, regarding the necessity and essential business friendliness of transparency initiatives, for example, in the raw materials sector. So thank you very much. The communication promised for the end of February will be important from the point of view of development policy.

  Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – (PL) Madam President, I am speaking today on behalf of Andrzej Grzyb, the rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy on the new trade policy for Europe. Mr Grzyb has drawn special attention to the need for equal access to new markets for enterprises both within and outside the EU, and has stressed, in particular, that EU enterprises should have access to foreign public procurement markets.

The opinion also emphasises the strategic importance of access to global raw materials and energy resources in order to sustain European security. This access should be guaranteed by appropriate international EU agreements. The opening up of markets should ensure that there is no adverse impact on the competitiveness of EU enterprises and should protect them against unfair competition. The solutions adopted should also eliminate pressure on these entities to move their business activities outside of the EU internal market. These issues are of specific importance to small and medium-sized enterprises, which are at particular risk of unfair practices and for which opportunities must be created to enable them to develop and compete in the global market. I am pleased that most of these proposals have been included in Mr Caspary’s report.

  Malcolm Harbour, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. – Madam President, I am speaking in this debate first of all as the rapporteur for the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, but also on behalf of my group as well.

I welcome this extremely comprehensive – and, I am pleased to say, very well-structured – report by Daniel Caspary, particularly as it incorporates many of the points that my committee made. In particular, I draw attention to the first clause of our report, which you incorporated in full and which in a way encapsulates our engagement with the issue.

The Single Market Act proposal on regulatory convergence is fully endorsed by this report. I think nothing could illustrate better the engagement of my committee with the trade process. We have had the pleasure of welcoming the Commissioner to come and talk to us because he knows our engagement with that. Non-tariff barriers are going to become more and more difficult to deal with and they will be the big areas of action, as the Commissioner already knows.

Our work in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection is dealing with non-tariff barriers within the single market all the time. We do not exist in isolation. That is why we have also recently visited both India and China to get an idea about how the impact of the internal market will work there.

I want to pick up two points in particular because I think they are important, forward-looking points. I would say to Mr Caspary that we welcome inclusion of these but I do not think they have had enough emphasis. The first one is the question of standardisation. We must collaborate more with our trading partners to avoid inventing the new barriers to trade in developing technology areas – things like nanotechnology, smart grids and electric cars. Why should we be inventing new barriers there?

Secondly, innovation, which is linked to that. There is hardly anything in here about the need for encouraging science technology collaboration in innovative products. That is a key imperative.

I conclude with this point: trade for growth – unlocking the benefits of trade – is indispensable to growth in the European economy. I hope that trade issues will be absolutely on the agenda of the forthcoming European Council where we start talking about growth in the future.

  Tokia Saïfi, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, I should like firstly to congratulate Daniel Caspary, not only for the excellent quality of his report, but also for the open and collaborative method which guided all of the work involved.

The text which we are going to adopt reflects the aspirations and doubts of MEPs, whatever their political group or nationality. In particular, it highlights one of our main concerns, which is the need for a genuine long-term trade strategy. Moreover, I think, Commissioner De Gucht, despite what you just said, that the Commission’s communication of November 2010 is insufficient in this respect.

Indeed, the communication fails to take account of the current context of crisis and not only that of economic crisis, but also that affecting international trade. I am referring here, for example, to the stalemate in the Doha Development Round negotiations and to the emergence of new non-tariff barriers which we are seeing even from our oldest trading partners. Moreover, this communication does not take account of changes in trade policy. The rapporteur states it clearly: ‘Trade policy is not an end in itself.’ Yet, we get the impression that the Commission has yet to integrate this new reality into its work.

I shall cite another example: members of your departments regularly come to the Committee on International Trade to inform us of progress in free trade agreement negotiations. In this context, we question them on the inclusion of social and environmental standards, the importance given to the agricultural chapter, or even on the reciprocity of market access. However, in the evasive answers we receive, these issues are often eluded in favour of purely trade-related chapters.

Today, this bias is no longer viable. Commissioner, I should like to declare my support for Mr Caspary’s request: the Commission must quickly present a clear, global and long-term vision for trade policy.

  David Martin, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, let me add my congratulations to Daniel Caspary for his report and for his cooperation. I welcome the report and the Commission’s communication on the future of EU trade policy. As the rapporteur points out, the harsh reality is that the EU share of global trade is declining, and without action it will continue to decline. Thirty-six million jobs in the European Union depend on external trade. Unless we boost our exports, there will be no economic recovery. Job creation and poverty alleviation at home and abroad must be at the core of our global trade strategy.

The report acknowledges, as Mrs Saïfi has just said, that trade is not an end in itself. It can, of course, be a driver for growth, which, in turn, fuels prosperity and rising living standards, but trade is also influenced by, and can influence, human rights standards, labour standards, environmental standards, and they must be key components of our trade policy, not as an alternative to trade liberalisation, but as a key component of it. We need policy coherence between our trade policy, our development policy, our environmental, social and labour policies. The promotion of fair trade is already benefiting around 7.5 million people across 58 developing countries. I hope the Commission will listen to Parliament and continue to promote fair-trade policies.

The key message I want to take out of this report, though, is that, across the groups, we have managed to create a good framework for Europe’s trade policy. The test, however, is not in creating such a framework, the test is in applying that framework to the individual free trade agreements that we are about to debate, the individual legislation such as the GSP legislation that is going to come before this Parliament. Unless we put the contents of this report into action in our individual free trade agreements, the individual pieces of trade legislation, it will end up being a meaningless piece of paper.

  Metin Kazak, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Madam President, I would like to commend Mr Caspary for his excellent report which addresses all aspects of the EU’s trade strategy from a truly liberal point of view. It is extremely important that the EU remains committed to this approach and avoids repeating the errors made in the 1930s, when the economic crisis marked the emergence of aggressive protectionism. The danger of this is even more flagrant considering the difficulties being encountered in concluding the Doha Development Round negotiations.

Ladies and gentlemen, I expect a more exhaustive strategy on trade from the Commission. I should like to know, for example, with which countries we are intending to launch negotiations for a free trade agreement between now and 2020. I would also like to know which non-tariff barriers we are aiming to eliminate between now and 2020 with Russia, the US and China. Furthermore, I would like to know how we are going to address the problems with countries with whom we are bound by a Customs Union.

I would like to see more ambition from the Commission, in order to ensure growth, and also that our principles on development, human rights and the environment are integrated into trade policies. Trade must be used to help poor developing countries and the Least Developed Countries achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

That is why we must provide the tools required to boost growth, which the European Union absolutely needs, while forging an ambitious and coherent trade policy.

  Carl Schlyter, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (SV) Madam President, I would like to thank Mr Caspary for addressing all of the issues that are important to us – human rights, labour law, social responsibility, the environment, the climate, consumer protection, in particular, protection of generics, and the right to take non-protectionist measures by way of protection against unfair competition and dumping.

However, both the Commission communication and the report still have an outdated focus on continued liberalisation. The demand for the elimination of export taxes is reminiscent of colonial raw materials policy.

What would we say if the Swedish steel industry was not permitted to work with high-grade steel, but was forced to export all raw materials? No, those countries that want to should be able to retain the added value in their country with the aid of export taxes, which are often also an important source of income.

The same applies with regard to the continued demand for procurement and the liberalisation of services. These countries must be able to decide for themselves whether to benefit from this or whether it is more important to promote certain local industry. Each country must be able to decide this for itself.

I then wonder how this policy – it is even referred to as ‘growth’ – could be compatible with our climate ambitions. Show me an analysis and demonstrate that there has been some decoupling between global trade, growth, emissions and the use of resources.

I would like the Commission to show me these studies before it presents the next outdated growth proposals. You need to have more green economy that is not dependent on growth.

Not all trade is necessary. Half of the world’s trade is in equivalent products. We should trade when it provides significant added value: we should buy those things that we are not good at producing ourselves and export those things that we are good at producing.

  Helmut Scholz, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, Mr Caspary, I acknowledge the fact that, as rapporteur, you have shown yourself within your own group to be thoroughly open to the demand for a modern trade policy with this report. Paragraph 5 of your report in particular emphasises the fact, at last, that trade policy requires coherence with a great many other policy areas as well as future viability, and I expressly support your call for a thorough revision of the trade strategy by Commissioner De Gucht.

Unfortunately, however, the vast majority of this report then falls back into the old way of thinking. You want to promote the interests of the EU instead of establishing partnerships. You support an aggressive market access strategy by the Commission, which would weaken the development potential of other countries. You want to use whatever means necessary to secure access to raw materials for European enterprises instead of finally offering fair prices and providing assistance for the development of manufacturing industries.

We will vote against this old way of thinking, because the consequence of continuing with this old strategy will, above all, be the extension of the spiral of poverty in most parts of the world. That is short-sighted, also because it will ultimately harm Europe.

How do you actually imagine it will end if we pursue competition for the raw materials of the world by aggressive means? Where will we be in 2050? Will all of the states in the world then have a raw materials management strategy like that of Norway? Will it have been possible to develop manufacturing industries? Will Europe have helped them to do this in an environmentally sound way and to create respectable jobs? Europe’s future lies in a smart trade policy that aims to strengthen its partners and which recognises that combating poverty is a prerequisite for its own survival.

  Matteo Salvini, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this is a snapshot of a disaster: it talks about a strategy for Europe, but we see no strategy. It is a snapshot of a hopeless disaster.

Thank you for the report, which offers no way out at all. Somebody will have to explain to me what the Commission’s farsightedness entails. The details put forward here actually portray a debacle of what Europe is not. The prevailing interests are those of certain Northern European countries that want to liberalise everything and trade, regardless of social dumping and the imbalances we have with our so-called partners, but without any interest or protection for our small and medium-sized enterprises. It is essentially British and German interests that are being defended both by the Commission and by the report.

I smile when I see in the report that the Member States and the Commission are being urged to communicate better, since the people of the European Union are sick to death of globalisation because of the loss of productivity. If, in your view, we can solve things by communicating better, then we really have not understood where to go.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – (FR) Madam President, the Caspary report rightly points out that free trade is not an end in itself, that there are economic, social, environmental and moral interests which must be defended, and that perhaps globalisation is not as wonderful as the Commission continues to believe.

The problem is that the Caspary report is founded on a belief that this globalisation is inescapable and, inevitably, in a belief in the virtues of global free trade, slightly improved at the fringes by some regulation or other. Yet, this system, as it has been operating for almost 60 years, has proven to be deeply unfair and destructive. It must therefore be changed. Widespread free movement of capital, goods, services and people has led to mass unemployment, relocalisation, deindustrialisation, pressure on wages, frenzied speculation and ultimately, whether you like it or not, to the unprecedented global crisis which we are experiencing today.

We will not, in the near future, be competitive in relation to countries which use and abuse their comparative advantages, which do not respect their international commitments, and which practise dumping and counterfeiting. The global trade war is inequitable; we must restore the necessary protection.

  Kader Arif (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, aside from the work which Mr Caspary has done, I find that the new trade strategy proposed by the Commission does not address the challenges which Europe has to face in light of the financial, economic, social, environmental and food crises we are experiencing, nor does it address the expectations of our fellow citizens who are calling for stronger regulation and for a new sustainable growth and development model for the planet. Unfortunately, however, this does not or no longer comes as a surprise. Faced with these calls for new regulation and new solidarity, the Union must establish a new doctrine for an alternative trade policy. If Europe does not advocate a fairer form of trade that is founded on the values of justice and that generates quality employment in both Europe and the rest of the world, who will?

Solely promoting services is not a policy. We need to preserve strong industrial and agricultural sectors through an employment-generating industrial policy and an updated CAP. The inclusion in all of our free trade agreements of social and environmental standards, and stringent human rights rules which guarantee decent working conditions, is fundamental.

Europe must lead the way in balancing trade openness with room for public intervention and the legitimate protection of various economic sectors both in Europe and in its partner countries – a fair trade policy for fair trade should be the aim.

  Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, we Greens deeply regret that the revised trade strategy marks a clear shift away from multilateral trade talks towards new bilateral trade agreements. We are concerned that the Commission is seeking liberalisation commitments from developing countries on services, intellectual property and the so-called ‘Singapore issues’ that go well beyond what they would agree to in multilateral fora such as the WTO.

The introduction of the reciprocity principle regarding public procurement can be extremely harmful for developing countries as it will, among other things, hamper the development of infant industries and processing. I therefore ask the Commission to define its trade strategy in full respect of the special and differential treatment granted to developing countries by the WTO. Governments and parliaments must be able to regulate investment, both to discriminate in favour of investors that support their country’s development, and to ensure that obligations and duties fall on all investors, including foreign investors.

  Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI) . – (NL) Madam President, when reading the list of objectives in this report, you could almost forget that it is supposed to be about trade policy. From climate policy to employment law, Europe is trying to push a socialist agenda from all sides. Such things have no place in a report on trade policy.

If Europe is going into the negotiations with this shopping list, then it will be putting paid to any chances of success from the outset. Do you really think that developing countries are crying out for European social standards and climate objectives? Surely, these countries have other things on their minds.

Do you know what would really help these countries? Being able to freely export their agricultural products to Europe. Europe has the audacity to impose all kinds of demands, whilst protecting its own agricultural sector with subsidies which cost billions. That is hypocritical and is costing us loads of money. If the European Union is attempting to conclude trade agreements on the basis of these conditions, it will fail.

  Gianluca Susta (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the future of our trade policy coincides with the future of European competitiveness itself.

For years, we have justifiably pursued a policy of opening up our market – and perhaps we have been more generous to others than to ourselves – but the slowdown in the Doha Round, the resurgence of protectionist measures by several partners, including strategic ones, and the enterprise shown by emerging countries must lead us to reconsider the way in which we Europeans want to relate to the world.

In this context, words like ‘reciprocity’ and ‘protecting European interests’ must become the litmus test to show whether what we are doing is right. We have to play a leading role and not a supporting one in seeking to conclude the Doha Round with a well-balanced global agreement, which is an essential condition for arriving at a free-trade agreement that really opens up the markets and, above all, creates equal opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises.

Trade policy and economic governance go hand in hand in this world, and we are therefore calling for a new financial system and a new monetary and exchange rate policy, as well as a redefinition of trade protection measures.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, the statistics quoted by Mr Caspary are rather frightening – from 25% of GDP in 2000, now the European Union will have only 18% by 2020, from 19% of world exports in 1999 to 17% of world exports in 2009, and yet the Union’s population is due to increase 5% by 2035 – all pointing to a poorer, and therefore less influential, European Union.

It is time for action, and aggressive action at that. I would note that two committees – the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the Committee on Development – both point to the need to reduce the existing trade deficit with China and have increased access to this expanding market. That is certainly an area we need to address and address fairly quickly. Our FTAs, such as the one we have with Korea, also need to be expanded.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, unstable prices for food products and goods have become a major issue, exacerbating the state of deprivation of millions of people, and jeopardise the operation of the global financial system. Trade imbalances and speculative activities are the source of this volatility, and climate change will continue to make it worse. A European strategy on trade policy must deal with the key role that the European Union needs to assume as part of the multilateral trade system. This long-term strategy must have precise goals, take into account the development of the international trade system and highlight aspects which are compatible with EU principles, such as the importance of making generic medicines available to the poorest or the need to include, as a matter of course, fair trade, human rights and social and environmental standards in every trade agreement.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Madam President, the fact that the European Union generated 25% of global GDP at the time when the Lisbon strategy was implemented in 2000, but is expected to have a share of just 18% in 2020, is clearly a cause for serious reflection. A sober assessment of the current situation, taking account of the reality of today’s global economy, is acutely necessary in order to draw up resolute short, medium and long-term strategies for the revival of the EU economy and its competitiveness.

I firmly believe that the concluding of trade agreements and the opening up of the European market should not take place at the expense of the safety of EU consumers and the values on which the EU is based. I would therefore like to say again that all free trade agreements should include provisions on respect for fundamental human rights and certain minimal environmental and social standards.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the recitals of this report quote data that clearly show that the European Union has lost a large share of world productivity over the last 10 years to the so-called emerging powers, China and India in particular.

Paragraph 11 in the report seems to suggest, however, that everything comes down to a mere problem of communication. On the contrary, the crisis in Europe is real and certainly not a problem of communication. It is due to the fact that the European Union has not taken the trouble to protect our businesses and workers, but has allowed other countries, especially those in Asia, to take advantage of our open markets without giving anything in exchange.

I do not want to resign myself to seeing our economic fabric disappear. If opportunities present themselves in international trade, it is only right to take them, but not if it means having to sell off our history and traditions.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Madam President, the Commission’s communication on trade is essentially a continuation of the Global Europe strategy of 2006. Unfortunately, the strategy also results from the frustration of European businesses over the dead-end street which the Doha Round of the World Trade Organisation negotiations ended up in.

Since things have gone wrong at the multilateral level, the EU is trying to engage in bilateral agreements, particularly with countries that have rapidly growing economies. This form of EU trade policy is ultra-liberal, however, focusing almost exclusively on economic development and economic motivations. All other non-trade aspects such as sustainable development, social cohesion, human rights and the like are sidelined. These aspects should be a priority, however, cutting across all EU policies, including trade policy. Unfortunately, it is not only outside the Union that this does not apply. An attempt to undermine social and environmental standards is also under way inside the Union.

I would therefore like to call on the Commission not to succumb to pressure, and to draw up a strategy that will genuinely respect our European values.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, unfortunately, I will have to be very brief. I would very much like to go into the arguments that have been put forward, but I will just give one overall reply, taking up the idea that was put forward by David Martin. You have to see in practice what all these big ideas mean.

Let me begin with development. Everybody is saying that a development strategy should be part of our trade strategy. Whatever you may think about human rights in China – that is quite a different chapter – it is very difficult to deny that their development over the last three decades has contributed largely to remedy the shortage of jobs and livelihoods in that country and has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.

On the non-tariff measures, in recent days, we have been discussing the last phase of Russia’s entry into the WTO. This concerns non-tariff free barriers. and the discussion on cars. I can assure you that this is a very tough discussion. It is not about principles but about money, cars, parts and components, jobs, and delocalisation.

You speak about sustainable development. I am very much in favour of that and we make sure that in every free trade agreement which we conclude, this sustainable development chapter is included. But I can assure you that when you discuss this with India, first of all, you have to spend quite a long time discussing whether or not they will agree that such a chapter is in the agreement and then you still have to start discussing the content of such a chapter. They have completely different ideas about this which can be explained by a lot of reasons, development, culture, etc.

Raw materials are a very important example, as has been said here, but we are doing something about it. We are on the case on raw materials with China and you can see that this is already influencing the quota on rare earth materials. It is also having an impact on the prices, as prices of rare-earth materials are going down. There are also a lot of initiatives in Europe and elsewhere in the developed world to use those materials less, thus also contributing to the protection of the environment.

They were just a couple of examples. Unfortunately, I cannot develop this further because I must keep to the time.

  Daniel Caspary, rapporteur. – (DE) Madam President, thank you very much for today’s debate. We have all once again obtained a few insights into the thoughts of our fellow Members. Today, I have learnt, for example, that not even the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance has escaped globalisation if even Ms Keller is speaking in English rather than German in plenary.

I thank the Non-attached Members for their fundamental opposition. Mr Gollnisch was fundamentally opposed to the report because it is too liberal, Ms Stassen was fundamentally opposed to it because we are too protectionist; however I have not seen a single amendment from either of them in committee. I think that is a shame, because all of us in Europe need less empty rhetoric in plenary and more constructive work in the committees. Our committee, in particular, is one of the most constructive and collegial committees that I know in the European Parliament.

I would like specifically to thank the advisory committees for their excellent input, and I would also like to offer my sincere thanks to my fellow Members for their contributions to the debate. I think that the report and today’s debate will have given the Commission a clear idea of the tasks it needs to do. I would be very grateful if we could continue the debate at another opportunity.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place today at 12.30.

  Carl Schlyter (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, we tabled 41 amendments in committee, so it is a false claim that the Greens did not table any amendments and try to influence the outcome.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) First of all, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Caspary, on his excellent report. He covers the important areas that are essential for a revised trade strategy for the European Union and points out the approaches that need to be taken in order for Europe to remain competitive at international level in the future. I would like to address three issues in particular here. The first is the clear commitment of the European Parliament to a multilateral trading system that establishes uniform rules and standards. We need a common trading framework on which we also all need to continue to work and which we must also continue to develop together. Therefore, I would once again call for the Doha Development Agenda to be brought to a conclusion that is acceptable to everyone. Secondly, Europe is facing strong competition from new economic powers that, over the next few years, will continue to develop their position. Therefore, we must speed up the removal of unjustified barriers to trade, particularly where our most important partners, the US, China, Russia, Japan and India, are concerned. I would like to highlight the demand that I made, which received majority support in the European Parliament: a sustainability chapter must be included in any trade agreement between the EU and third countries, covering the production and processing of goods. In the event that this is not complied with, trade with these third countries should be stopped. Ensuring food quality as well as hormone-free food must have top priority in the interests of our citizens.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Although the European economy is the largest in the world, with the EU being the main exporter, as well as the main provider and beneficiary of direct foreign investments, it is estimated that 90% of global growth will be generated outside Europe by 2015. In the coming years, the European Union must capitalise, without fail, on the opportunities provided by high levels of growth outside the EU. In this regard, I would like to mention public procurement, as this is an area where foreign markets are largely closed to EU companies. Accounting, on average, for more than 10% of these countries’ GDP, public procurement contracts offer considerable commercial opportunities in the sectors where EU industry is highly competitive. Given that our market is already wide open, I think that the clear priority for establishing reciprocal access is not to close European markets, but to open up foreign public procurement markets. Therefore, I strongly urge the EU to step up its efforts to facilitate access for European companies to public procurement contracts outside the EU and to eliminate discriminatory practices.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Global trade brings benefits to all involved. It is my opinion, therefore, that we should proceed towards the elimination of barriers and restrictions. However, the necessity to retain a balance of benefits between participating parties is a limiting factor in such liberalisation. Trade policy has to fulfil certain criteria, particularly in terms of the requirement for imported goods to comply with European safety standards, as well as in terms of social issues, manufacturing conditions and the environmental impact of manufacturing, as these are the basis for maintaining competitiveness. It is especially important in the context of the costs that must be borne by European manufacturers to comply with environmental standards and maintain working conditions and levels of pay. Trade strategy is a significant element of a broader development strategy. It gains further importance in the context of the struggle to cope with the economic crisis. Therefore, trade conditions established by the World Trade Organisation need to promote equality in trade levels and capacity. I would also like to highlight the critical issue of unity and solidarity within the EU in terms of foreign trade. There are numerous examples of our partners dividing the Union by offering preferential conditions for selected Member States. The single market requires uniformity in foreign trade.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The EU 2020 strategy has ambitious and measurable objectives, and the new trade policy for Europe is an essential component of the strategy. A number of factors are important for trade, and have an effect on it. As an example, I could mention adequate protection for intellectual property, particularly trademarks. Counterfeiting and the importing of counterfeit products lead to job losses, undermine innovation and reduce the competitiveness of the EU, and also involve safety risks in relation to consumer products. Another important factor is support for job creation, according the same rights and tax advantages to domestic investors as to foreign investors, expanding free and fair trade in agricultural products, and the sharing of innovations and technologies not only between Member States, but also within the framework of trade relations with superpowers such as China, Russia, the US and Japan.

  Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I think that the proposed new trade policy for Europe under the 2020 strategy is good. Have we not noticed, however, that Russia will be governed for the next 12 years by President Putin, who will be ‘elected’ in 2012? And that is why I do not think that the recent decision by the French President to sell a Mistral-class warship to Russia was good; I believe that it is not wise to sell such a warship to Russia, which attacked Georgia under the premiership of Mr Putin. Ceterum censeo, this deal can still be recalled!

IN THE CHAIR: EDWARD McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

5. Question Time (Commission)

  President. – The next item is Question Time. This is the second new format Question Time, an experimental process, and I am going to read a brief instruction. The topic is EU trade and third country relations. I will interpret this topic as widely as possible, but I should warn you that if your question is off topic and deals, for example, with the common agricultural policy, you are liable to be cut off. I would also like to remind you of the ground rules which have been agreed for this new formula. Each Member has one minute to put his or her question, and 30 seconds for a supplementary after the Commissioner’s reply. The Commission has two minutes to reply if only one Commissioner is to be responsible for answering, and if more than one Commissioner is to reply, each Commissioner has one minute speaking time.

We welcome this morning Commissioner De Gucht, our former colleague, Mr Piebalgs, Mrs Georgieva and Mr Füle.

  Anna Ibrisagic (PPE). – (SV) Mr President, I have a question for Mr De Gucht. I would like to know how he intends to exploit relations between the countries, that is to say trade relations, in order to ensure that security will also be promoted.

We sometimes see trade being used both for the purposes of war and as a way of ensuring peace. We have seen this in certain parts of Europe and also in Eastern Europe. Do we have any plans for how we can use trade to promote democracy and ensure peace in troubled conflict areas?

  President. – Before Mr De Gucht answers, could I suggest to colleagues and to my colleagues here on the bench that, once a questioner has been identified, the staff acknowledge this so that you do not have to keep waving.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – I thought they were waving at me.

I believe that trade can contribute to peace but, of course, more trade does not automatically result in a more peaceful environment. We believe, for example, that trade could play a very important role in the next stages of the Arab Spring, and we will consider next month negotiating directives for free trade agreements with the four countries concerned: Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan, Egypt, so we will continue in that way.

You could say exactly the same about the African countries. For example, I firmly believe that the EPAs could contribute a great deal to regional integration in Africa; regional integration is probably one of the important factors also for more peace and stability in Africa.

  Anna Ibrisagic (PPE). – (SV) Mr President, I completely agree with the Commissioner.

That is precisely the answer that I was hoping to hear. You talked about promotion and how trade can promote a secure situation, but do you also have plans to introduce some form of penalty to deter trade with certain countries that pose a security risk for certain areas?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – We keep that in mind, of course, when we negotiate free trade agreements. Obviously, we would not continue negotiations with a country where there is, for example, a revolution. To give you a very recent example, we had negotiations with Libya on a cooperation agreement and, as soon as the problems occurred in Libya, we immediately stopped those negotiations. We are now considering how we can take up those negotiations again now that the situation in Libya has changed.

  Thijs Berman (S&D). – (NL) Mr President, I have two questions. My first question is for Commissioner De Gucht. There are still extremely disturbing reports coming from Colombia in relation to the human rights situation in the country’s regions. Human rights activists, lawyers and trade unionists are still being murdered in Colombia.

I would think that, before we move on to ratifying the free trade agreement with Colombia, we would first need to see real improvements in this regard. Despite the promises of President Santos, with whom we spoke last year – or at least some of us did – the situation has still not really improved significantly. I would like to hear a word from you on this – an undertaking might suffice.

My other question is for Commissioner Georgieva and concerns linking relief, rehabilitation and development. I would appreciate it if you could explain to us how you see the improvement in this essential linking up of emergency relief and development policy at this point. Perhaps Commissioner Piebalgs might also have something to say in this connection, you never know.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – (NL) Mr Berman, you will be aware that we have concluded an agreement with Colombia. I expect this agreement to be brought before the European Parliament at some point over the next year, at which point you should have your say.

I am convinced, personally, that this agreement can help to stabilise peace in Colombia. In other words, I believe that the economic progress that will surely result from the agreement can make a positive contribution. I know that there are problems with human rights. Indeed, it is stated explicitly in the agreement that the observance of human rights is one of the material elements of the agreement and that, if we –or you – determine that these human rights are being systematically violated, we will have the ability to immediately terminate the agreement without giving any further justification.

Overall, I believe that this agreement can make a positive contribution. I am convinced that the Colombian Government is acting in good faith in its efforts to curtail and eliminate violations of human rights. I am also convinced that, if problems should present themselves, we have included precisely the right tools in this agreement to do something about them.

  Kristalina Georgieva, Member of the Commission. – We have made linking relief, rehabilitation and development a priority for cooperation with Commissioner Piebalgs. The way we approach it is at three levels: a strategy level, an operational modalities level and then a country-specific level.

Strategically, we launched a high-level dialogue on humanitarian action in development in Washington just a couple of days ago, and made a commitment to link the work we do in protracted-crisis and in disaster-prone countries – some 30 countries in the world fall into this category – in order to make that a strategic area for collaboration.

In terms of instruments, we are looking at how we can better align the instruments we have on the humanitarian side, which work fast, with instruments on the development side, which sometimes require more time. We will be making appropriate proposals in this area.

I will give two examples at the country-specific level: Côte d’Ivoire, where, after the crisis, we committed EUR 60 million for relief and EUR 180 million for development, viewing those operations in synergy; and the Horn of Africa, where very clearly we need to do more to build resilience in the countries concerned.

  Thijs Berman (S&D). – (NL) Commissioner De Gucht, last week, I had a lady in my office who, 15 years ago, had set up an NGO in her home town with 60 other human rights activists in order to protect human rights. Out of those 60 people, 42 have been murdered in the course of those 15 years. She herself has suffered three gunshots to her body but survived. The remaining activists have fled and she is now the only one left in her home town. You cannot look someone like this lady in the eye and simply say that we need to just sign this agreement. You need to use the leverage that you have before the agreement is actually ratified.

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. – Actually, it was about linking relief and development. When we talk about Somalia, we should remember that Mali and Niger have also been affected. We have actually already used this cooperation between the humanitarian aid services and development services to anticipate that challenge. In Mali and Niger, because of our common work, we can manage or diminish considerably the risk of famine there.

As regards Colombia, I think the question Mr Berman has asked is very challenging because when you commit, you need to analyse all elements of the relations with the country and the processes of the country. For this reason, I think that, when we enter into relations of whatever kind in the future, all the aspects should be analysed before we go in. We are doing this in development policy with regard to which aid modality to use.

  Fiona Hall (ALDE). – Mr President, I understand that the Commission is currently challenging Canada at the WTO over Ontario Province’s use of local content requirements for renewable energy sources. I very much welcome that, because an open global market for green goods is vital for EU manufacturers, but I am concerned to hear that Ukraine recently ratified Law No 8231, which also introduces local content requirement of 50% for wind and for solar.

Will the Commission also be challenging this at the WTO and will it be raising it in the context of the deep and comprehensive free trade agreement? Surely this move by Ukraine contravenes the competition and regulatory convergence chapters which are in that agreement?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – It is a fact of life that Ukraine has been introducing legislation under which the local content for wind turbines would go down to 15% as of 1 January 2012 and then rise again to 30% in 2013, and to 50% in 2014.

Obviously, this is unacceptable to us. We are, as you know, in a negotiating round with Ukraine on a deep and comprehensive free trade agreement (DCFTA), and one of the main elements of that agreement is that policies would be modelled on EU directives. The EU directive concerned relates to public procurement and says very clearly that, unless justified by the subject matter of the contract, technical specifications shall not refer to a specific make or source or a specific origin or production with the effect of favouring or eliminating certain undertakings or certain products. This means that once the DCFTA is concluded – in any case as regards the European Union – Ukraine will not be in a position to uphold that legislation.

  Fiona Hall (ALDE). – Thank you for that helpful response. I wonder whether Commissioner Füle has anything to say on the Ukraine agreement, given his recent comments about the charges against Tymoshenko.

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. – I have nothing to add to what I have said already on that particular issue. Of course, the DCFTA negotiation is part of the association agreement. It is ongoing, not in a political vacuum, but very much based on the values that are at the centre of our relationship. In my recent discussions with the Ukraine authorities, I used the opportunity to make that link between the new contractual arrangement that we are ready to engage in, on the one side, and, on the other side, Ukrainians delivering on fundamental rights: freedom, the rule of law and justice.

  Sajjad Karim (ECR). – Mr President, Commissioners Georgieva and De Gucht will recall putting forward a very comprehensive package to assist Pakistan following the flooding which took place there some time ago. We are, of course, now witnessing a repetition of what happened previously, but the initial package that we put in place is still blocked at the WTO. I note that there is a trade delegation from Pakistan visiting India today for official negotiations and I understand that the Indians are due to put forward a proposal whereby they would withdraw their objections at WTO level.

Is that something that you would push for and congratulate the Indians on and welcome their support if that was to happen today?

Secondly, in the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday, the EU-India Free Trade Agreement was due to be raised. Was it raised and if it was, what was said?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – As you know, we have asked the WTO for a waiver with respect to the measures that we have proposed to alleviate the serious problems that Pakistan faced last year and is facing again. We also have ‘information’ whereby India would now be prepared to lift its veto. I hope this will come about. Then, of course, the discussion would have to be pursued here in this Parliament as to whether or not we vote on the proposals that we have put forward, because there will still need to be then a decision from Parliament.

On the FTA, yes, we discussed this yesterday in the Foreign Affairs Council. I mentioned that we are facing quite a lot of problems with these negotiations, be it with respect to wine and spirits, services or cars, but I also stressed that we are continuing to negotiate and that we will insist in our contacts with the Indian authorities at the highest level – this will, of course, be through Mr Barroso – that the negotiations are completed by the next summit.

I do not know whether Ms Georgieva wants to add anything.

  Kristalina Georgieva, Member of the Commission. – I would just like to confirm that the floods this year are very severe. We have increased humanitarian assistance from EUR 76 million to 86 million because of these floods. In my meeting with the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, she did bring up the question of alleviating constraints to free trade as another way to help people in a very difficult situation. I would, of course, welcome that from a humanitarian perspective.

  Sajjad Karim (ECR). – Mr President, I thank the Commissioners for the rather comprehensive answers that they have provided. The EU-India Free Trade Agreement has now been ongoing for some considerable time. Whilst we are extremely ambitious about what we are seeking to achieve, what sort of timeframe can this Parliament now start to expect? Is there a fuller role that we, as parliamentarians, can play to try and bring about a successful conclusion to those negotiations?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – At the last EU-India Summit, Prime Minister Singh declared that his vision was for an accord by the next summit, which will be next February. I hope that by then, we will be in a position to conclude the negotiations but, of course, it will be very important to achieve the necessary level of ambition.

  Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE). – Two weeks ago, the plenary held a vote on the Doha resolution, in which the amendments of the ALDE Group were rejected. Those ALDE amendments were the very reflection of the position of DG TRADE, namely, to regard any kind of LDC package delivery at the December WTO Ministerial as a mere down payment and to ask WTO members to agree on a road map for reaching agreement on all outstanding Doha issues. Instead, Parliament’s resolution gives a clear message to close up the Doha negotiations now in order to pave the way for WTO reform. Can you tell us how the Commission will adjust its Doha strategy in light of those Parliament positions on how you will take our position into account?

I have a second question on the FTA with India as well. Since it now seems it will continue for the next year, will you have any new strategy, or any change in strategy, in case a conclusion cannot be reached by February? Are you just going to continue or are you going to come up with an alternative package?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – Firstly, I will consider the latter question next February. I will then see what happens and what our next steps should be. It is very difficult to answer hypothetical questions. It is certainly very dangerous in politics.

With respect to Parliament’s resolution of last month, we tried to find a solution for Doha. We have repeatedly tried to make proposals so that we could have a final decision on the Doha package. We have made interim proposals with respect to the industrial sectors, chemicals, machinery and microelectronics, but you need two to tango. We simply could not reach an agreement. I have to come to the conclusion that, for the time being, the US are out of business with respect to the Doha negotiations.

Pascal Lamy has been putting forward an interim package for December. Unfortunately, I think that there again we will fail, not because we have not been making proposals – we have been making numerous proposals – but simply because we cannot reach an agreement on that. That is where we are. We tried to find a way out and it is extremely difficult.

  Franziska Keller (Verts/ALE). – Sorry, but you did not really answer my question. The question was: how will the Commission adjust its Doha strategy in the run up to the December Ministerial to take account of Parliament’s position as expressed in its recently adopted Doha resolution? How will you take account of our position in your new strategy, which you will now have to revise, because we did not apparently agree with your original strategy?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – That is what we have been doing ever since. We are trying to find a way out and have been putting proposals on the table for a package in December as a step up to a final conclusion on the Doha Round. We cannot find agreement around the table, although I think you would agree with the measures that we have been proposing such as, for example, multilateralising the ‘everything but arms’ legislation that we have already had for some time in the European Union. We have, of course, taken note of Parliament’s resolution, but we also have to adapt our strategy regarding the evolution on the international scene.

  Helmut Scholz (GUE/NGL). – I have a question for Commissioner De Gucht. I have just been appointed as a European Parliament standing rapporteur on trade relations with China, as well as on relations between the EU and Ecuador and Bolivia. I would like to ask you two questions regarding these two complexes.

Firstly, what is your projection for the development of trade relations between the EU and China by the year 2020, and what are the current issues, or even agreements, in EU-China trade talks?

Secondly, you informed yesterday’s Council on Foreign Affairs and Trade that the multiparty agreement with Colombia and Peru remains open for signature by Ecuador and Bolivia. Do you want those two countries to simply sign the negotiated text which is, as you well know, subject to well-founded criticism from trade unions and a number of economists?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – Members will understand that it is difficult to reply in two minutes on what our trade relations with China will be in 2020. Having said that, I believe that you will see a situation evolving between the European Union, China, the United States and the other emerging economies – and by 2020, there will also be other emerging economies – that is more and more multipolar, with everybody then having to take up their responsibilities. You cannot be one of the biggest economies in the world – and by 2020 we could very well be the biggest – and not take up responsibility for the global functioning of the world trading system. So I am not desperate about this, or even negative about it. I think we can find a way out.

Secondly, on the agreement with Colombia and Peru, it is true that the agreement is open for accession by Ecuador and Bolivia. We realised that if they were ready to do so – and at least for one of them, we have signs in that direction – some further discussions would, of course, be needed. However, I am sure that Mr Scholz will agree with me that we cannot change the structure of that agreement. We will have some specifications for the countries concerned, but we are certainly not going to restart the whole process.

  Helmut Scholz (GUE/NGL). – I can agree with your remark concerning the last issue, but that means that if Ecuador wants to have a chapter on trade and cooperation included, as is just now under discussion, and also the specific needs of the new raw materials and public services policy pursued by Bolivia are to be included, then I think we have to come to the point where we have to add this point to the negotiations as well; so not just to simply sign or not sign, but to reopen the understanding of the agreement itself.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, we will consider that once we have a concrete request from one of those two countries.

  Niki Tzavela (EFD). – (EL) Mr President, I should like to put a question to Commissioner Georgieva. The report refers, in point 7, to the establishment of an EU civil protection force. I do not understand exactly what force this is, Commissioner.

  Kristalina Georgieva, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, my apologies but I did not understand the question. I mentioned a clash between civil protection and ... what? I apologise, may I just ask for clarification?

  Niki Tzavela (EFD). – Point 7 of the report mentions the establishment of a civil protection force. What will this force look like? I would like to have some details on this.

  Kristalina Georgieva, Member of the Commission. − The proposal for building the civil protection system of Europe in a more predictable manner in order to act when a country is overwhelmed by disaster either inside Europe or outside Europe requires countries to identify modules, civil protection modules, which they are willing to deploy in a disaster outside of their borders.

As of today, we have 124 such modules registered at European level, plus eight coordination modules, and the proposal means that we will be able predictably to match the needs of a country in a disaster, whether this be floods, forest fires or summer or winter storms or an earthquake, and then bring help from those pre-identified and pre-committed modules to the affected population. We already have examples of how this can be achieved.

The proposal will take one step forward by having Member States commit these modules to be available, provided they are not needed at home, for immediate deployment inside the European Union or at the request of a third country outside of the European Union.

That brings the capacity of the European Union together, to respond to disasters with a stronger force than we could provide for our citizens and the citizens of the world without this pre-commitment.

  Niki Tzavela (EFD). – (EL) Mr President, may I remind everyone that, with the new strategic concept and competences of NATO, much of what is contained in the report will come under the responsibility of NATO, as decided by the members of the North Atlantic Alliance themselves. There is no mention of coordinated action or cooperation with NATO. What is the relationship between this EU unit and NATO which, according to the new strategic concept, has competences in this sector?

  Kristalina Georgieva, Member of the Commission. – The civil protection systems of our Member States are organised somewhat differently, but they have one thing in common, namely, that they bring together fire-fighters and first responders for action inside or outside – primarily for action inside, but with coordination with the Union, it could be action outside.

The way in which we cooperate with NATO is through the EU military staff. In other words, we make our capabilities known and available, and then the EU military staff are our link to NATO. The defence policy of the Union is the responsibility of the High Representative. If there is a complex emergency – as we had with Libya – in which NATO takes a role, our contribution is as a building block bringing our assets to bear as needed.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – (HU) Mr President, I have two questions for the attending Members of the European Commission. First, have you ever entertained the thought that food and agriculture should be excluded from the scope of global free trade, and should instead be governed by food sovereignty – based on local production, local sale and local processing – as its fundamental principle?

My second question is that if I were to organise it, would you be willing to sit down to negotiate with representatives of the most important stakeholders, that is, farmers, not only from Europe, including my home country, Hungary, and other EU Member States, but also from the third world, from so-called developing countries, poverty-stricken countries, from where I would similarly invite representatives of small producers? Would you be interested in hearing their own experience in how global free trade, which continues to be glorified by the European Union, is making small producers and smallholders ever more impoverished and vulnerable?

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. – I think that trade plays a very fundamental role on the markets, because markets provide price signals and the need for investment. Having said this, in development policy, we have clearly seen the need to go towards more sustainable agricultural investment.

In many parts of the world, there is not sufficient infrastructure to access the market. Farmers in developing countries do not have sufficient means or knowledge to produce more food. In Africa, we will need to nearly triple yields over the next 40 years. That is why development policy will, in particular, be focusing on supporting farmers.

I would definitely discourage a sub-culture of working towards self-sufficiency methods. There have been such attempts in the world. They always failed.

We should also take a very important factor into account. There are good and bad years in agriculture. If a region has a bad year, what should we do? Humanitarian aid can give the chance of surviving for a certain period, but basically, we very much need to have global trade systems in agricultural commodities.

I believe that the right answer is that one of the pillars of EU development policy should be to support sustainable agriculture, with a special focus on smallholder farmers, who are, in the majority, women.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – (HU) Mr President, I am still waiting for an answer to my question whether you would be willing to engage in constructive consultations with representatives of farmers from Europe and from so-called developing countries and let them share with you their own experience in this matter.

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. – We are in contact all the time, but it is definitely a very important point to consider when we design the next step for our next financial framework – how to achieve this goal in the best possible way.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). – My question is to Commissioner De Gucht. I would like to raise an issue that has caused significant controversy in this House, namely that of ACAA, an agreement on conformity assessment and acceptance of industrial products between the EU and Israel.

This agreement has already been kept on hold in this House for more than a year, even though it is purely technical in nature and concerns mutually accepted standards that will facilitate trade in pharmaceutical products. We have seen the swift acceptance of trade agreements with some third countries that are not always the most democratic or respectful of human rights. At the same time, Parliament – or at least some political groups in this House – have been effectively boycotting our relations with Israel. I would like to ask what political consequences such behaviour in one of the institutions – namely the European Parliament – will have on EU-Israel relations and the EU’s influence in the wider region?

Secondly, is the Commission monitoring and assessing the damage to European pharmaceutical companies, and the additional costs European consumers of pharmaceutical products are experiencing, owing to the deliberations on this agreement in the European Parliament?

My supplementary question will be that I would appreciate the comments of Commissioner Füle on this issue.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – As the honourable Member rightly mentioned, this agreement was initialled, I would think, a little more than a year ago and you have not yet come to a decision. But once an agreement is in your hands, we are also in your hands and it is up to you to ratify or not to ratify this agreement. It is not for me to pronounce on what Parliament should have done, does or does not do. Yours are the powers to ratify or not to ratify.

Secondly, regarding the impact, we consider this to be limited at this moment in time, but obviously when we conclude an agreement with a third country, the idea is that it should also be ratified. So we will continue asking you to do so, but finally it is up to you.

I give the floor to Mr Füle.

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. – This House has a very important role in monitoring that human rights are observed and Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories are no exception to that. This House also plays a very important role in helping the Commission and Council to uphold a balanced sectoral cooperation with our partners. It is within that context that I plea for the early adoption and consent of this House to the respective agreement as mentioned earlier.

Let me add that we decided some time ago not to upgrade the relationship between the European Union and Israel because of the current state of the Middle East peace process – or rather the lack of that peace process – but let me make absolutely clear that this agreement and proposal to adopt it is very much within the current action plan we signed with Israel six years ago.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – Mr President, on a point of order: you mentioned that 49 people had submitted questions and that approximately eight would be taken. I think it would be helpful if you could read out the names of those likely to be taken. There is no point in 30 people sitting around if their turn will not come.

  President. – Mr Higgins, I am glad that you made that suggestion. I am sure that all colleagues would agree and after this next question, I will read out those who have been put on the list.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). – (RO) Commissioner De Gucht, one of the international trade dossiers for which I was appointed rapporteur relates to the extension of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and Uzbekistan on textiles. However, the use of forced child labour for harvesting cotton makes it difficult to adopt a strictly technical approach to the protocol. In actual fact, at the beginning of October, hundreds of children will be forced to harvest cotton by hand in order to supplement the shortage of adult labour. This is an extreme form of labour for children who, according to NGOs, are punished by those in charge if they fail to meet the quotas they have been set. Uzbekistan’s ratification of the International Labour Organisation conventions on the minimum employment age and the elimination of the most severe forms of forced child labour are a positive sign, but these actions actually fall short in terms of their implementation.

My question is: How does the European Commission see that this situation can be resolved, given that Parliament cannot ignore Uzbekistan’s failure to respect children’s fundamental rights?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – The honourable Member did not really put a question but I imagine that he does not agree with the practice, just as I do. He is probably trying to mention the case of Uzbekistan as he is known to be somebody who follows it very attentively.

We are of the opinion that, at the present moment, we should not launch a special investigation on Uzbekistan because we are in the ‘extra time’ of the current GSP regulation. Obviously, we are going to address this in the new regulation and it is also clear to me that the situation in Uzbekistan is one that has to be followed attentively. We continue to insist that the authorities should take the necessary measures, but we have no intention of launching a separate investigation now because, by the end of next year, the GSP will also be over.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). – (RO) Thank you very much for your reply, which I appreciate. However, I believe that it needs to be understood, at least by Uzbekistan, that a first step to resolving this situation is to agree to a monitoring mission from the International Labour Organisation, because I do not see any other solution to resolving this dossier.

  President. – We are now half way through and I am going to read out the names I have on the list in front of me here: Theocharous, Guerrero Salom, Aylward, Kelly, Leichtfried, Schmidt, Albrecht, Deva, Murphy, Morganti, Brons, Kukan and Flašíková. It is highly unlikely that we will get to the bottom of that list but that is the situation.

  Eleni Theocharous (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Cyprus is a small country which relies on trade, shipping and tourism. I trust you realise that, at present, Cyprus is basically isolated by the Turkish war machine, by Turkish warships patrolling very close to our shores and by the Turkish air force which overflies Cyprus and its seas. Do you think that this promotes international trade, trade with third countries? Do you consider that is conduct becoming of a candidate Member State? Will you include this conduct on the part of Turkey in your reports Mr Füle? How much longer will this conduct towards a small, weak country be tolerated? Does the whole of Cyprus need to be occupied in order for the European Union to react?

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. – Needless to say, we are following the developments in and around Cyprus very closely. As far as I know, later today in this plenary, there is going to be a discussion on the issue specifically relating to the drilling and hydrocarbon project in Cyprus, which has an exclusive economic zone around it.

The first point I would like to make is that the very first priority there is to reach a comprehensive settlement. Both parties, both leaders, made a commitment to the Secretary-General of the United Nations – if I am not mistaken – on 7 July not to be distracted and to focus solemnly on reaching a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus issue.

It was in that regard that we made a very clear statement on behalf of the Commission. We also made it absolutely clear, on behalf of the Commission, that it is the right of Cyprus to delimit its exclusive economic zone and to conclude treaties with third countries if that is in accordance with the acquis and international treaties. That commitment to Cyprus was repeated in the Council declaration last year.

Following on from this, we have taken a number of steps to calm the situation around the drilling, which started just a couple of days ago. Because of that, we have not seen some of the threats by Turkey actually being delivered. Needless to say, our line is very clear. All the problems need to be solved through peaceful means and, if necessary, through arbitration before the International Court of Justice. Any threats of the use of force need to be rejected. We are continuing to monitor the situation.

  Eleni Theocharous (PPE). – (EL) Of course, Commissioner. I should like to cite the statements by the Turkish Prime Minister reported just yesterday by the Turkish news agency Anatolou, in which he referred to the entire Mediterranean as a Turkish lake and said that Turkey will do whatever it pleases there. I mention this simply as a warning to the European Union of what is to come, because at the moment, the principles, values and interests of the European Union are being undermined.

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. – I would just add that what really matters is action. I do not want to speculate on this, and would just refer Members to the statement.

  Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, I would like to ask what efforts are being made to integrate the principles and objectives of European Union development policy into the reform of the generalised system of preferences, primarily to ensure that development policy coherence is compatible with this reform of the system of preferences, as required under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – We have recently been proposing a new scheme for the GSP that should come to fruition, and for decision in this Parliament, by the end of next year. Obviously, in drafting the GSP proposal, we have duly taken into account the development aspects of this specific tool.

The idea is that we would limit the number of countries so we can concentrate much more on those which are more in need of these unilateral deductions. However, there are also a lot of other schemes which are sometimes, by the way, much more advantageous – for example, the ‘Everything But Arms’ scheme for LDCs.

We also believe that at a certain moment in time, it is very important to have reciprocal arrangements and obligations so that you can really develop trade. We certainly bear this in mind, and already did so when drafting the proposal. We will certainly do so when discussing it with you further.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE). – My question relates to the Mercosur trade deal. According to the Commission’s preliminary assessment, it is estimated that European Union beef prices will fall by 8% and that meat production in the European Union will fall by EUR 3 billion in value if this deal goes ahead, with an estimated loss of 33 000 agricultural jobs in the European Union. How does the Commission respond to claims that European agriculture, farmers and the agrifood sector are to be sacrificed in order to secure the Mercosur trade agreement? Can the Commission clearly outline what specific benefits this trade deal will bring to European farmers, particularly beef farmers?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – We are not sacrificing anything. What we are trying to do is to negotiate a balanced deal with Mercosur, taking into account the interests of the farming community, as well as our very important export of industrial products to Mercosur, the markets with respect to services, and European investments in the Mercosur countries.

We are by far the most important investor in those countries and we will try to get to a balanced deal. We cannot make much progress at the present time because, as a result of – let us say – internal political agendas in Mercosur, we have decided to wait for the exchange of offers. This will take some time but, in the meantime, we are already addressing the problems that you have raised. For example, there is the Commission proposal that the Globalisation Adjustment Fund would also be eligible for farmers.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE). – Another supplementary. Our competitors are outstripping us in agricultural trade in the growing and new markets of China, South Korea and Japan, amongst others. What action is the Commission taking to instigate and develop trade deals with third countries that will be advantageous to European farmers, and what framework is being developed to put in place trade deals which would suit agriculture in European farming for greater access to the growing markets of China, South Korea and Japan, where European agricultural produce is in high demand?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – This is not really a supplementary question but a completely new topic. We are doing this, for example, in any trade deal that we are pursuing. We try to introduce the protection of geographical indications, indications that are very important for European agricultural exports.

For example, we have been opening new markets for farmers with respect to South Korea. We are not yet negotiating with Japan but we are in the scoping exercise. With China, this is part of an overall trading relationship that is not governed by any specific arrangement or by a specific treaty.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Like my colleague, Mr Aylward, I want to ask a question about the proposed Mercosur trade deal, but from a different angle.

The Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden published a report this year which showed that beef coming from Brazil has carbon emissions of 700 kilograms per kilogram of beef, taking into account deforestation, etc. The corresponding figure for grass-based production in Europe, especially in my own country and others, is 20 kilograms of CO2 per kilogram of beef. That is 35 times higher for Brazilian beef.

Bearing in mind this fact, and our commitment to reduce CO2 emissions in the 2020 strategy, how can we even countenance a proposal to have agriculture included in a Mercosur deal, especially beef products?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – Honourable Member, we do, of course, keep in mind the environment when we negotiate trade deals. I understand why this kind of remark is made.

I am not aware of the specific study carried out by the Swedish University. However, when you compare farming in Mercosur and in Europe, there are, of course, huge differences. What we have to look at, and what is also our limit, is what is enforceable within the WTO. For instance, the example that you gave – provided that it is completely correct, which I do not doubt but cannot confirm either – does certainly not come within the scope of the WTO.

We should also look at the global balance with respect to climate change. The Commission and Ms Hedegaard are taking a leading role in this respect and are making the most advanced proposals by far at international conferences about climate change, for example, at the Club 17 in a couple of months.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – I have a supplementary. Is the Commissioner aware of the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth in Paraguay? Would this not also cause us to rethink a proposed deal, including agriculture, given the laxity of controls across borders, etc., and the difficulty of monitoring those? Or would this not cause us, at the very least, in terms of the Latin phrase festina lente, to hasten slowly?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – I was in Paraguay some months ago, but the disease had not yet broken out then. Having said that, you know very well what the framework is. If there is a connection with health, then we can enforce against first countries. That is part of WTO case-law. If that is the case, we will certainly do so.

  Jörg Leichtfried (S&D). – As everybody is speaking English here, maybe in honour of the President, I will try to do so as well, so I hope it works. Mr De Gucht, I have a question regarding the WTO case concerning China and the rare earth problem. I think nobody would say that China is right in this case. I think what the WTO did in this case is the right step, but I have one concern. If the tendency in general is to make countries export rare materials, as the WTO is doing now, do you not think, if a very small country or a developing country or a very weak country is involved, this tendency of the WTO might allow big companies to force these countries to do as they want them to do? Or do you think that will not be a problem?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – The case before the WTO was about dual pricing, namely, that China obtained prices for local consumption and production that were different from the prices for exports, by imposing export duties and enforcing a quota. What the WTO panel has been deciding – the matter is now before the Appellate Body, so we will have to wait for the final decision – is that the justification that China was giving was not correct. The justification was for environmental reasons. The panel said that, if the environmental reasons were valid for export, they were also valid locally, so this was not a valid answer to the questions put by the European Union, the United States and Mexico.

That is what we have been enforcing. I hope this will have an impact on the rare earth materials. We already see that: quotas are not going down and prices are going down.

Regarding your specific question with respect to weaker countries, first of all, we have launched this case against China because the trade with China in raw materials is of paramount importance. I do not think we would immediately start such a case against whatever small country you might have in mind because what we are worried about is, of course, the global balance in the trade in raw materials.

  Jörg Leichtfried (S&D). – Commissioner, I do not want to be misunderstood, I completely support the action of the European Union and yourself in this question. What I am just a little bit fearful of is that there might be a tendency, if the direction taken in this case continues as it is now, that maybe we will go further, from rare earth to raw materials. Ultimately, states will not be able to fulfil their obligations towards their own people with their own raw materials.

Do you think that this is a possibility or not? I personally think it will not happen but I would like to hear you say this as well.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – Mr Leichtfried, I do not think that will happen. I explained what the judgment by the panel was about. It was about abusing the environmental elements in it – the environmental explanation.

However, if a country were to say, for example, that it could not export because it only had that kind of production and had a traditional industry which was using it, I see no reason why, if ever there were a case before the WTO, then the WTO would take the same kind of decision. You have to look at the specific case of course.

Let me assure you that this is not on our minds, and is not what we are going to pursue. What we want to secure is that China treats on an equal basis their internal production and world production. That is all.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE). – My question is for Commissioner Piebalgs and it concerns Eritrea and Dawit Isaak. As of Friday last week, this Swedish/Eritrean citizen has been imprisoned for ten years, ten years in these prison holes in Eritrea. Is it not time to act now, Commissioner, to link development aid to the constant suppression of human rights in Eritrea? Last week in the UN General Assembly, President Isaias Afewerki was there; I saw him on television. Did anyone from the EU delegation try to contact Mr Afewerki, to have some contact and get some reactions? And what have you been doing in the last year, Commissioner?

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. – It is a very serious case and the Commission is definitely doing everything possible. I have written letters and I am trying to get an official visit at which I could meet the President and raise this issue.

As concerns our development cooperation, at this stage, practically nothing is moving. There is no positive response to our initiatives from the Eritrean side. We will continue to pursue the case because it is very clear that the Eritrean people are our target for development aid. We should not let them down, but political issues also need to be handled with the Eritrean Government.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE). – This is now 10 years and probably Dawit Isaak is dying in prison. I have a proposal: could you and I go together to Asmara and try to get in contact with the leadership, with President Afewerki? At least try to make it possible to visit the prisoners, Dawit Isaak and the other prisoners of conscience. He is the only prisoner of conscience from the European Union. We have to do something, Commissioner. I am willing to go, are you willing to go?

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I have always said that I officially wanted to go to Eritrea, but at that stage, none of the leadership was ready to meet me, stating continually that they were out of the country. We are continuing to pursue these attempts to visit the country and I will be going as soon as I have a definite guarantee of access to the leadership of the country. That is an absolute precondition so that my visit could have some type of result. I have not stopped activities, but you need two to tango. I would first need a positive response that President Isaias will agree to meet me before arranging to visit Eritrea.

  Jan Philipp Albrecht (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, members of the Commission, Commissioner De Gucht, more and more trade agreements in the European Union lay down rules on matters that are nothing to do with trade policy. One example of this is the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Instead of restricting itself to the key issue of anti-counterfeiting and setting the appropriate boundaries in connection with trade, this agreement is used as a way of harmonising comprehensive rules for enforcing intellectual property rights in the contracting states. However, that is definitely not your job as Commissioner for Trade – in my view, it would instead be Ms Reding’s job – nor is the content formulated in line with EU contract law or the legal bases in the Treaty.

My question to you, therefore, is: how do you actually intend to ensure that issues relating to fundamental rights in particular are debated in a democratic way at international level in connection with enforcement of the law and are also given a mandatory influence in the legal bases?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – We have repeatedly discussed the ACTA agreement and the ACTA negotiations over the last year. We will, of course, continue to do so. Within a reasonable time, the agreement will come to you for ratification. Let me repeat what I have already said a dozen times before this Parliament. This is not about changing the material law on intellectual property rights in Europe. It is about enforcement. It is about creating the possibility, on a wider scale, to enforce intellectual property rights. Intellectual property rights are important, especially for a very mature economy like ours. I know that there is opposition. I know that we will have to face that opposition, but I trust that, in the end, you will agree.

  Jan Philipp Albrecht (Verts/ALE). – (DE) It is certainly the case that, especially with regard to the revolutions in North Africa for example, we can see that an open Internet and access to the Internet are essential – the question therefore is how you, as Commissioner for Trade, intend to protect fundamental rights, for example, access to the Internet, in a positive way in such trade agreements. If you say that violations do not occur, well that is disputable. However, it is also possible to take preventive action to ensure that these violations do not occur as things progress. I would be grateful for an answer to this question.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – We can build all kinds of things into trade agreements and we do so, provided that both sides agree. We are presently discussing trade agreements with a number of African countries – the so-called economic partnership agreements – and one of the general reservations – if I may say – is that most African countries ask that services not be discussed because the first one to put their act together ... and if they do not want to do so, we do not discuss services with them. If they want to do so, we discuss services with them. We do this with a view to the development of those societies.

By the way, there is no direct link with ACTA because ACTA is a plurilateral agreement which is only binding upon the signatories and there are no developing countries that are signatories to this agreement.

  Nirj Deva (ECR). – I was wondering whom to address this question to because my question has development implications but it has also got financial implications. Are the Commissioners aware that EUR 800 billion worth of funds come from the developing countries to European banks and European offshore banks every year? It was recently reported that USD 1.3 trillion, which is the entire debt of Italy, has come from India into Swiss and European banks as black money.

These are staggering figures that we are talking about and they have huge development implications for developing countries, because if that money were to work and remain in those countries, and were a part of those countries’ economies rather than sitting around outside them in our banks, that would have huge implications for development. What are we doing in our trade relationships to prevent corruption from being a part of our trade interaction and our bilateral relations?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – This is a very general question indeed. I believe that, when you make trade agreements, you make trade relations more transparent and, to the extent that trade relations become more transparent, the playing field for corruption shrinks. I believe that well drafted and balanced free trade agreements help to eradicate this very difficult topic of corruption that is very widespread throughout the world. We try to contribute to that.

I cannot answer the specific question that you are posing because I am not aware of the figures that you have mentioned. By the way, not all money that is wired into a bank account is necessarily the result of corruption; it could also, for example, be the result of making a profit.

  Nirj Deva (ECR). – Quite so, but could we in future start the process of negotiating with our interlocutor partners on the basis of their being corruption-free? After all, India is in flames at the moment over corruption.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – Just one sentence: if we can only negotiate with those countries that are corruption-free, then from tomorrow, I will have a part-time job. I pass the floor to Mrs Georgieva.

(Interjection from Mr Deva: ‘I said “Start!”’)

  Kristalina Georgieva, Member of the Commission. – I would like to add that the European Union and our Member States have been very active in supporting the stolen assets recovery initiative. These are initiatives that bring this issue to the forefront. They enforce more transparency in developing countries. We will continue to support actions and initiatives of this nature.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). – Commissioner De Gucht, earlier on, you said that the Colombian Government was acting in good faith in the human rights field. You also said the same about the former Colombian Government of Uribe. However, the Colombian High Court of Justice has now established definitively that that government was working hand in hand with the death squads responsible for killing hundreds of trade unionists, including by directly fingering trade unionists to be murdered.

I would like to ask you: how many more trade unionists and how many more human rights offenders have to be killed before your attitude is changed and before the FTA is halted?

Secondly, I would ask you for a response to the decision by the British Trades Union Congress to campaign against the EU-India FTA and Mode 4. It decided to oppose it on the grounds that it will be almost impossible to enforce employment rights for Indian workers. In effect, it leads to a race to the bottom in terms of wages and conditions, and will act to undermine collective agreements and trade union organisation.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – I think it is very important, when you want the rule of law to be respected, that you have an independent judiciary. That is why I think, as a politician, that we should not comment on decisions by the judiciary. We should take note of them and we should put them into practice. Obviously, there, the Supreme Court has rendered a judgment that we will keep in mind in further discussions with Colombia. On the other hand, I must say – and of course I may be mistaken, I am only a human being – that, from what I have seen with the Uribe Government and now again with the Santos Government, they are making real efforts to advance the cause of human rights. I can only say that and I think I have enough arguments to defend that case.

But of course, Mr President, I would then need a little more time on Mode 4. Mode 4 is about exchanging personnel within an organisation and it really means that a number of Indian workers could be active in the European Union. These are not enormous figures and, as it is within the organisation of a company or within the organisation of a multinational, I cannot see why this would infringe on workers’ rights in Europe.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). – I find it hard to see how you can say that real efforts are being made in Colombia when the killings of trade unionists continue at the same pace that they have continued. Between 2000 and 2010, over 60% of all trade unionists killed in the world were killed in Colombia, yet we are supposed to believe that real efforts are being made somehow. Yes, we should take note of the decision that has been made by the Colombian court. The key people surrounding Uribe are now in jail because of this collaboration. Does this not have any impact in terms of your assessment that these people are operating in good faith when it comes to the question of human rights?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – Let me give you just one example: under the Uribe Presidency, a brother of the Minister of Foreign Affairs was suspected of having links with the death squads. The following day, he and his sister also – although she had nothing to do with this – were no longer in the government. This is one example of the action that has been taken, and I could give you many more.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to ask Mr De Gucht a question.

You recently gave me an answer to a question I asked about the difficulties in obtaining supplies of raw materials in the tanning industry. Many countries in fact place severe restrictions on the export of raw hides, and it is becoming increasingly difficult for our companies to work with the product. An agreement is currently being drawn up with Ukraine which seems to provide for a 10-year transitional period before the sector is fully liberalised. Do you not think that 10 years is too long? Maybe just three or five years would be enough.

In Tuscany (Italy), the historical home of tanning, a large number of firms are in difficulty and need help as quickly as possible. Ten years is too long and may even set a negative precedent for other agreements in future.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – I imagine that you are talking about the export duties on some raw materials. The export duties are on a very limited number of products and they will disappear within a period of 10 years, which means that it is going steadily down and will be zero at the end. I think that we will probably be able to make quite a good agreement in this respect because the safeguard clause too, with respect to those materials, will disappear and will go down to zero over a period of 15 years. This is creating quite an additional amount of space for trading in these materials with Ukraine.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, I have another question, as a point of interest. I would like to know what the Commission is doing about the problem of counterfeiting.

There are increasing numbers of counterfeit goods circulating in Europe, especially in Prato, due to unfair competition from China. These products are constantly arriving at customs and getting onto our markets, where they are really creating difficulties and, worst of all, causing health problems.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – We are taking measures on the demand side within the European Union and, of course, there is also the supply side. As you know, China is responsible for the most part. About 60% of all counterfeited goods that are halted at borders are of Chinese origin so we are taking the necessary measures at our borders. We are also discussing with China that they should do much more to combat counterfeiting and to implement intellectual property rights. We are having an intellectual property rights dialogue with them, but I must say that up to now, the results have not really been convincing.

  Eduard Kukan (PPE). – My question is for Commissioner De Gucht and it concerns EU trade with the Western Balkan countries, I mean those countries which are waiting either for a date to start accession negotiations or to get the status of a candidate country. My question is: does the Commission have any plans – because strategy would be too strong a word – to increase or to strengthen trade with those countries in order to emphasise the positive aspects of European integration or the European perspective for those countries?

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. – As regards the Western Balkans, the Commission has a very useful instrument. The overall enlargement policy is giving us an opportunity, through a number of the chapters, not only Chapter 30 which relates to trade, but also other chapters, rules of law and so on, which also benefit the more appropriate business and investment climate in those countries, to work quite efficiently. I think the results prove that too.

As regards the Western Balkans and the European Union, you can see that trade exchange between those countries and the European Union has actually increased every year by 10%. We are not only keen to develop bilateral relations between the EU and those countries – although our first priority is to bring those countries closer and closer to the European Union and make sure that there are no flaws in the approximation to the EU’s rules – but we also support the regional aspect of trade. The Commission supports CEFTA financially and through various projects, which include the Western Balkans and also Moldova. Very recently, it supported Cathy Ashton’s efforts to find a solution to the remaining issues between Serbia and Kosovo over custom stamps.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Whilst free trade might be shown in economic textbooks to make the world as a whole richer, would you not agree that trading with countries like China, with an artificially low exchange rate, deliberately depressed wage rates and a brazen disregard for patent rights, leads to unfair competition, job losses and destruction of industry in the developed world, particularly Europe? Indeed, the conditions and pay rates in China’s factories are inhumane and allow China and its collaborators and multinational companies to use Chinese goods to compete unfairly with goods produced in the developed world. Has the Commission raised the question of working conditions in China with that country and with multinationals?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, of course our relations and our trade relations with China are a very vast topic. Let me just say that, as far as we can see, the biggest problem with China is more with subsidisation than it is with wages. Subsidisation in all kinds of ways: cheap loans, cheap land for plants and so on. What we do see is a very rapid wage rise in the coastal area, which is the developed area of China.

So the idea that it is merely because of low wages that the Chinese can compete on the world market is certainly not correct. There are many elements in play and what we should do instead is look at how we can integrate the Chinese development into the world economy and there we have obligations on both sides. We have them on our side. They should also realise that they have their obligations and that they should live up to the WTO obligations. When they do not do so, we question that, and once we have a decision, we also want to see this implemented, but it is a very complex matter and it certainly cannot be reduced to a discussion on wages.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – I did not, of course, attribute it just to depressed wage rates. I mentioned the artificially low exchange rate, also the brazen disregard for patent rights and working conditions generally.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – On the currency issue, it is true that the currency of China is undervalued and it is not good that a currency does not reflect the strength of an economy, so they should adapt. But on the other hand, there are always two sides to every coin. You should realise that two thirds of what we import from China we re-export, to the extent that if the Renminbi were to suddenly rise, a surge would also certainly harm our economy. So, let us try to look at it from both sides.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, I will try to be brief, so that we can let the Commissioners go. In the previous debate on trade policy, we discussed and perhaps agreed that every EU policy, including trade policy, should be coherent with our European values and should have global objectives.

Trade policy in particular could, and should, be an effective instrument for supporting fair trade, taking account of social, employment and environmental standards, as well as economic benefits. We agreed in Parliament a year ago that the future common trade policy of the Union would be friendlier to people and to the environment. In concrete terms, every international agreement should include clauses on transparency, corporate responsibility and the like.

I have just one question for Commissioner De Gucht: Has the Commission set a concrete measurable objective within the framework of the 2020 strategy for assessing progress in terms of the impact of EU trade policy on human rights and social and employment standards, and on the environment?

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – Between now and 2020, you will have numerous occasions to ask questions about the progress we have been making. We have no specific statistic tool, but we have a Parliament that is very anxious to get all the information. I will do everything possible to get you that information.

  President. – That concludes Question Time to the Commission. We have had this morning questions to all the External Affairs Commissioners. Thank you Mr De Gucht, Mr Füle, Mrs Georgieva, Mr Piebalgs. The other Member of the Commission responsible for external affairs will be answering Question Time in Brussels.

IN THE CHAIR: GIANNI PITTELLA
Vice-President

6. Establishment of Euro-Mediterranean Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci programmes (written declaration)

  President. – Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I have two announcements to make. The first concerns the written declaration submitted by Ms Castex, Ms Brantner, Mr Peillon, Mr Preda and Mr Vajgl regarding the establishment of the Euro-Mediterranean Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci programmes.

This written declaration has been signed by a good majority of Parliament’s component Members and therefore, pursuant to Rule 123 of the Rules of Procedure, it will be transmitted to its addressees and published as a text adopted in this part-session, and the signatories’ names will be recorded in the Minutes. I would like to congratulate the signatories and the authors. I believe Mr Peillon is asking to take the floor briefly.

  Vincent Peillon (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, on behalf of my four colleagues, I should like firstly to extend my warmest thanks to the MEPs who enabled the adoption of this initiative, and secondly to say that the European Parliament, in my view, is sending a very strong message today to our southern partners and, especially, to their young people, and that Parliament now expects the Commission to make proposals promptly so that the Erasmus and Leonardo programmes actually become a reality for these countries.

7. Corrigendum (Rule 216): see Minutes

8. Voting time

  President. – The next item is the vote.

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

- Before the vote:

  Antonello Antinoro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to take up just 20 seconds of this House’s time.

We are lucky to have to come to Strasbourg every month, and it is a pleasure for us to do so, but I would like to appeal to the President to speak on our behalf, together with the Commission President, with a view to simplifying our travel arrangements.

We in the Italian delegation – and I believe other fellow Members feel the same – cannot get direct flights from our capital city, Rome, to Strasbourg, and we have to undergo a tiring journey that takes a whole day. Yesterday, it took me from 10.00 to 22.00 to get to Strasbourg.

We would like to see a proactive stand taken once and for all with both Air France and the French Government to enable us to get to Strasbourg with as little discomfort as possible.

  Sonia Alfano (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, I would like to say something about the botched attempt at evacuation that took place in Parliament in Brussels last week.

I think what happened was totally against the rules, because nobody came round to our rooms to warn us and tell us that we had to leave and evacuate the building, and then outside Parliament we were all free to do whatever we liked. I would therefore like to know how much this Parliament spends every year on evacuation procedures and Parliament’s safety. I would expect an institution of this kind to have somewhat stricter rules, at the very least.

  President. – Thank you, Ms Alfano. The department in charge took steps to warn the Members present and everyone in the offices through the security guards, which was the only way possible at that time. Anyway, please let us now concentrate on the vote and not start debating other matters.

8.1. Trade in agricultural and fishery products between the EU and Palestine (A7-0300/2011 - Maria Eleni Koppa) (vote)

8.2. EU-Mexico agreement on certain aspects of air services (A7-0298/2011 - Silvia-Adriana Ţicău) (vote)

8.3. EU-Cape Verde Fisheries Partnership Agreement (A7-0299/2011 - Pat the Cope Gallagher) (vote)

8.4. EU-US Memorandum of Cooperation in civil aviation research and development (A7-0301/2011 - Herbert Reul) (vote)

8.5. Extension of scope of regulation on the professional cross-border transportation of euro cash by road between euro area Member States (A7-0077/2011 - Sophie Auconie) (vote)

8.6. EU research and innovation funding (A7-0302/2011 - Marisa Matias) (vote)

8.7. European Schools system (A7-0293/2011 - Jean-Marie Cavada) (vote)

8.8. Future EU cohesion policy (A7-0287/2011 - Michael Theurer) (vote)

8.9. European disaster response: role of civil protection and humanitarian assistance (A7-0283/2011 - Elisabetta Gardini) (vote)

8.10. Professional cross-border transportation of euro cash by road between euro area Member States (A7-0076/2011 - Sophie Auconie) (vote)

8.11. Dual-use items and technology (A7-0028/2011 - Jörg Leichtfried) (vote)

- Before the vote:

  Jörg Leichtfried, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there is something that I need to mention very briefly.

Up to now, this House has always been on the side of the democrats, not on the side of the dictators; it has been on the side of those who stand up in support of human rights. That is demonstrated in resolutions, which are certainly very important. However, I am even more pleased that this is now being demonstrated in a report, which also concerns economic interests. Nevertheless, many people have often expressed doubts as to whether we should support this, and this time we have done so for the first time.

We are preventing surveillance software, which could be used to monitor Twitter and Facebook conversations and to create movement profiles, from being supplied unchecked to dictators in the future. These are European products that, up until now, have also been supplied to North Africa. That will change in future.

The only fly in the ointment is that we currently only check after delivery. Perhaps in our next report on dual-use items, we will succeed in establishing these checks prior to delivery. That would be my request for next time.

8.12. Tourism in Europe (A7-0265/2011 - Carlo Fidanza) (vote)

8.13. European road safety (A7-0264/2011 - Dieter-Lebrecht Koch) (vote)

- Before the vote:

  Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, I just have a brief comment to make. At the last minute, a spurious voting list for the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) has been distributed. I just wanted to say that the one that was given to you in your files is the correct one.

8.14. Dam infrastructure in developing countries (A7-0213/2011 - Nirj Deva) (vote)

8.15. Assisting developing countries in addressing food security challenges (A7-0284/2011 - Gabriele Zimmer) (vote)

8.16. Unilateral statements entered in the minutes of Council meetings (A7-0269/2011 - Rafał Trzaskowski) (vote)

8.17. New trade policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 strategy (A7-0255/2011 - Daniel Caspary) (vote)

  President. – That concludes the vote.

9. Explanations of vote

Oral explanations of vote

Recommendation: Maria Eleni Koppa (A7-0300/2011)

  Guido Milana (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Ms Koppa’s report is exceptionally current in what it really implies, and it comes at a time when the debate on Palestine is particularly important.

Initiating this trade highlights the fact that we can no longer use this country just as a potential market, since until now, our exports to Palestine have been worth EUR 50 million and our imports from there only EUR 6 million. Instead, away from Israeli control, the country is preparing itself to play a role as an exporter to Europe, which we hope can truly help to change the fortunes of the Palestinian people in particular.

I therefore voted wholeheartedly in favour of this report.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). – I welcome this agreement which, if implemented, could provide a level of assistance for the Palestinian people. However, we have to recognise reality here and the reality is that its impact will be extremely limited because the problem is not simply goods entering the European markets but goods exiting the occupied territories in the first place.

The collective punishment of the blockade of Gaza has inflicted a humanitarian catastrophe on the people of Gaza. Eighty per cent of people now are reliant on food aid. Unemployment is at 45% and 300 000 people are forced to try and survive on less than one dollar a day.

Also, the economy has been deliberately destroyed by Israeli actions. Before the blockade, over 700 trucks used to leave Gaza with exports on a daily basis; today, less than 2% of the pre-blockade level of exports exist and simply tonnes and tonnes of fruit and flour are rotting and so, if the EU is serious about assisting the Palestinian people, gestures like this are simply not enough. It must end its complicity with the Israeli occupation.

  Ashley Fox (ECR). – I strongly support the revision of the EU-Palestine Association Agreement regarding agricultural and fisheries products. The liberalisation of trade is extremely welcome, bringing opportunities and wealth to both the EU and the Palestinian territories on the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Palestine is one of our smallest trading partners and granting them duty-free and mostly quota-free access will go some way to improving the lives of their citizens whilst having little or no impact on our own agricultural market.

I believe this agreement is a good example of how the EU can do a little bit of good in the world and make a small difference to the condition of the Palestinian people. I would urge the Israeli Government to do rather more to improve the condition of the Palestinian people as well, and encourage them to allow freer trade with the territories.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, having read this recommendation, I am happy to support the liberalisation of trade in general. In the current context, of course, the eyes of the world are focused on the Palestinian territories. However, I do believe that this House should have the issue of balance, fairness and equality uppermost in its mind.

At present, the ACCA agreement between the European Union and Israel, signed in May 2010, has come to a standstill as a result of this institution’s reluctance to approve it. It is common knowledge that Israel is one of the most advanced countries in the fields of medicine and technology. In postponing approval for this agreement, we are denying European consumers access to a wider range of high-quality medication, and blocking the possibility of lower prices for these products as well as the introduction of innovative technology into the European market.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, like others, I am very happy to support this report on trade in agriculture and fishery products between the European Union and Palestine. It is a very timely report, given that Palestine is very much on the global agenda.

When we look at the problems that Palestinian farmers face, we know there are problems for many farmers around the globe, but in Palestine, there are particular difficulties – simple but huge difficulties – in accessing water, land and, of course, accessing markets, which is why this agreement is hugely significant. It means that we can help development through trade and – as others have said – it will not have any negative impacts for European Union agriculture.

There is also the issue of standards. While the Palestinians are very keen to meet our standards, they also have to meet Israeli standards that are not the same as European Union ones. We need to see some progress in this area.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). – (FI) Mr President, I gave the report my support. The proposed agreement will allow Palestinian agricultural products, fish and fish products to access the EU market.

The agreement, however, has a more profound objective than commercial interests, as Europe will benefit very little from trade with Palestine. With this agreement, we will help the economic development of the Palestinian territories; we will reduce poverty in the area and be instrumental in promoting its political stability. Trade can help facilitate the development of the economy and social issues in the Palestinian territories in Gaza and on the West Bank.

In future, the European Union must have a strong role to play in foreign policy, and particularly with regard to its neighbouring states. Trade is our strongest political tool. The European Union always needs to consider its trade policies as a whole, in conjunction with European values and democratic principles.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, if you were badly in debt, if you were overdrawn on your credit card, if you were struggling to meet your mortgage payments, what would you do: spend more, or spend less? The European Union has not hesitated to answer that question collectively. It has responded to the debt crisis by a massive increase in debt, forcing additional liabilities on to countries that could not meet their existing liabilities.

Rather than correcting the malinvestments of the decade of cheap credit, we have rewarded those malinvestments, bailing out, first, banks and then entire countries. And now, that ‘bailout-and-borrow’ policy has reached is apogee. If reports are to be believed, the European Stabilisation Fund is going to be quadrupled – with yet more borrowing – into a EUR 2 million fund: a sum that our minds are not designed to comprehend.

That is the logical end of the policy we began on when we started borrowing. And who, ultimately, is going to stand behind this fund? Why, the taxpayers of the eurozone: in other words, the taxpayers of, among other places, Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy. ‘My masters, are you mad?’

Report: Marisa Matias (A7-0302/2011)

  Clemente Mastella (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we welcome the adoption of this report because it has the great merit of combining European programmes for research, competitiveness and technological innovation with the structural and cohesion funding allocated for these sectors.

It is a necessary step in the right direction in its attempt to reorganise the existing schemes and programmes, with a view to producing a new long-term strategic policy. Strengthening convergence, consolidation and the EU’s global competitiveness – the last of which should be based on a cooperation model – are among the ways to achieve economic recovery and bring about a development model based on sustainable growth and job creation.

Proposing a common framework, notwithstanding the obvious differences that exist in the European context, offers an opportunity to strengthen the European Research Area and devise a clear-cut convergence strategy. The outcome of all that will be to restore a proper balance in terms of access and participation.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have fully endorsed the Matias report because it combines the multiple factors that should promote and implement innovative processes in future.

Scientific research must play the strategic role of finding cures and solutions to the problems experienced by Europeans, and innovation must transform those results into more accessible operational reality. That is particularly true for agriculture.

In fact, as rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I sought to highlight the role that research should play in the farming sector, where it should aim not only at achieving results in the laboratory, but, in particular, at transferring their effects to the field as well, to the benefit of farmers and all farming stakeholders.

We must also invest in human resources, since distribution, training and consultancy services are crucial for promoting the knowledge-based growth of agricultural and agri-food businesses.

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). – In Europe, we are actually great at research. The problem is that we are lousy at innovation. US companies obtain more than twice as many patents per year as European companies. We cannot afford to spend millions of euro and not get full use from them. Therefore, we need a much more focused and result-driven research programme. We need a direct route from research to retail. We need industry to participate, especially SMEs. Finally, we need the Commission to dramatically simplify its grant procedures. The ideas and talents are out there; it is time for Europe to move.

  Francesco De Angelis (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report is an important step in the right direction.

Research and innovation are both vital for development and economic growth. It is therefore urgent to propose a common framework for reorganising the existing schemes and programmes. Although Europe is the richest macro-region in the world, it has not actually invested properly in research, development and innovation. Suffice it to say that investment in these areas has been appreciably higher in the United States and Japan.

We therefore have to act quickly to remove the inequalities that remain between the various countries of Europe. That will be the only possible way to prevent the scientifically or technologically more advanced countries from continuing to benefit more from existing European programmes. I therefore reiterate the need to reorganise the existing schemes and programmes and provide for new schemes with a view to producing a sustainable and inclusive growth strategy, while bearing in mind the objectives of stability, economic convergence and employment.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, I am very happy with this report but wish to bring to the attention of this House an event that I was involved in recently in the Commission on food safety research and innovation spending, a conference that was not just telling us the results but seeing how it could be put into practice.

While we are often very critical of ourselves, and indeed the Commission, it was noteworthy that the Chinese delegation that spoke at this event put on screen its plans for food safety legislation and it looked like a mirror of what the European Union has already in place. So we do sometimes lead very much from the front and therefore what we do is positive.

My last comment is to pick up on my colleague, Mr La Via, in relation to agriculture research. We need to refocus on productivity because the world has to start being able to produce more from less and, in particular around food security, that must be a priority in our future research.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). – Mr President, having supported this report, I would like to draw attention to the need to create top-level scientific centres in the less developed and disadvantaged regions of Europe on the basis of competition. It is competition that provides the best incentives for the creativity and dynamism that will result in early future-oriented jobs, even in structurally weaker regions of Europe.

At the same time, the key element of the framework programme has to be its scientific quality. Only scientific excellence provides for credibility, which should become the main criterion for scientific funding.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I was pleased to vote for this report, which contains many good suggestions. I would like to focus on one aspect, that is, the health of our people.

Now Mr Rohde made a very interesting point. He said that Europe was good at research but not in innovation. This came home very clearly to me recently when I chaired here in Parliament a hearing on IT and the future of medicine, where many billions have been spent on research and medicine but the prevalence of the major disease continues to rise. Therefore, there is a need for a change of tactics and, hopefully, with this programme, which will be coming before the Commission in due course, research and innovation will produce a different approach where we can deal with the patient as the virtual patient with specific diagnosis and specific remedies as opposed to the generic which we have at present.

  Patrizia Toia (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the preparation of the common strategic framework for research and innovation funding represents a huge opportunity for the development and economy of Europe.

It is a matter of pulling the lever that can truly usher in a period of growth and also of new skilled employment, such as that done by researchers and young people who devote themselves precisely to the new opportunities in innovation and technology and associated professions.

One observation in particular emerges from this work, which is that we in Europe must put increasing emphasis on the kinds of research and innovation that find practical application, originate new companies, result in new patents and do not remain pure basic research or pure knowledge, which is certainly important, but not to the extent that it actually triggers development.

The second observation is the relationship with local bodies, regions and territories, which are an important tool for territorial planning and for bringing together research, universities, centres of excellence and businesses.

Report: Jean-Marie Cavada (A7-0293/2011)

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express my appreciation for Mr Cavada’s report, and I think it tackles a highly important and highly topical subject: the ability to make selective decisions when faced with the need to reduce budget expenditure.

At times of crisis, unfortunately, there is always a tendency to cut spending almost across the board on culture, education and social matters, and there is especially a tendency to take a conservative approach, something that should certainly not be supported. This report highlights a concern expressed by a large group of representatives of parents whose children attend European Schools, who also turned to the Committee on Petitions because they had the feeling that the budgetary changes would not include a commitment to the new programme for European Schools.

This report certainly presents an intelligent plan to try to respond positively to the concerns expressed by the people in question and, at the same time, to give some substance to the European institutions’ policy. The European Schools are a new frontier that this Parliament and the European institutions have provided for everyone. The policy that has been adopted, however, is liable to put an end to the prospect of a European education for all.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I, too, have with great pleasure voted in favour of this report on the problems relating to the European Schools’ system, also because, as the previous speaker, Ms Mazzoni, has already mentioned, we are also dealing with this problem in the Committee on Petitions in the context of an urgent petition. In committee we found that, firstly, the European Schools’ system exists, secondly, it is a success story and, thirdly, we obviously need to carry out structural adjustments, but these must not be at the expense of the European Schools or the concept of European Schools.

I am therefore particularly pleased that the essence of the debate in the Committee on Petitions has also been expressed in this report. I was therefore able to vote in favour of it, and I would be very pleased if what is stated in this report were to be implemented immediately and – to put it nicely – promptly.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE) . – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Schools were set up with the aim of ensuring that the children of the European institutions’ staff who are required to live and work abroad in a different cultural environment from their own have access to education in their mother tongue.

The first European School was founded in Luxembourg as long ago as 1953 at the instigation of a group of officials. As this form of teaching was considered successful, 14 European Schools were founded in various Member States over the years. Although I recognise that the European Schools system is a necessity rather than a luxury, it is clear that, more than 50 years on from the founding of the first European School, the system may include some obsolete aspects and, in any case, needs to be brought into line with and adapted to the economic and social requirements of today.

I have therefore voted in favour of Mr Cavada’s report, which calls for greater involvement by the European Union to support and coordinate the actions of the Member States, which are expected to work towards developing and improving the European Schools system. As we know, investing in education means investing in the future of our young Europeans.

Report: Michael Theurer (A7-0287/2011)

  Ramona Nicole Mănescu (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, … the report on the absorption of EU funds because we need to have an objective analysis of both the problems and the definite successes from the current programming period. The lessons learnt from this will therefore play a key role in drawing up a more effective cohesion policy in the future. The problems facing Member States at the moment with regard to regulation, eligibility, public procurement, and incompatibility between EU and national requirements, compounded by excessive, inefficient control and a severe lack of the necessary technical assistance, especially in new Member States, have the immediate effect of putting beneficiaries off.

In order to increase the absorption rate, cut down on the errors, encourage private sector involvement and boost efficiency, we need, first and foremost, to simplify current regulations and procedures. We need a common set of rules for using EU funds which are applicable to all Member States, so as to remove the excessive red tape imposed at national level. We must also ensure that local and regional authorities will be actively involved in the decision-making process.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, what clearly emerges from this report is that many European regions find it difficult to administer the Structural Funds made available by the Union through its cohesion policies.

They often find themselves caught in a maze in which, if the regions succeed in organising the administration of these funds, it is often the national governments that then find it difficult to activate the cofinancing funds. Sometimes it is like a dog chasing its own tail: the money that we consider fundamental for growth and cohesion in Europe cannot then be spent, as it now appears is happening in my own country, Italy, as well.

I have therefore voted in favour of this report, but I believe that, on the one hand, we should speed up the adoption of the new economic programming period 2014-2020 to enable the individual Member States and regions of Europe to prepare themselves in time and, on the other, that the cofinancing mechanism should perhaps be reviewed. That could be a way forward and so I have voted in favour, but I think a lot more needs to be done to ensure that European funds can actually be spent to benefit the people.

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE). – (SK) Mr President, as far as the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund are concerned, in the first programming period 2004-2006, disbursements reached a level of 99% in Slovakia, amounting in total to EUR 1.2 billion.

In the second programming period from 2007-2013, disbursement had reached the level of 18.5% by the end of June, which, in absolute terms, represents EUR 2.1 billion. At the same time, it is assumed that there will be full disbursement of the revised commitment for 2008, i.e. of the resources that can be disbursed up to the end of this year.

I agree that the problems with disbursement are mainly caused by the Member States, especially in the excessively bureaucratic procedures for approving projects, and in changes to national strategies related to changes of government.

  Markus Pieper (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I voted in favour of the Theurer report, but I would nevertheless like to emphasise a couple of points. Many EU States do not absorb the European structural policy funds. They cannot absorb them because they lack the expertise needed to use them and because they themselves are unable to pay the small cofinancing amounts. Of course, the European response must now be to send European teams of experts to Greece, and perhaps to Romania, too. However, I also believe that in future, we must tailor the programmes more closely to the most important needs of the weaker countries. Furthermore, large parts of the Europe 2020 strategy simply fail to meet the needs of the less development regions. They are too ambitious and too complex. Therefore, we must, in future, take more action to improve the expertise in these regions and we should not treat them like developing countries.

Furthermore, it needs to be much easier to use private funds for the cofinancing of projects. That is also something for which we need greater flexibility in the next programming period.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, I, too, voted in favour of the report. I would like to make three additional comments. I, too, am of the opinion that we must, of course, monitor the programmes according to the objective criteria, but that when setting out the objective criteria, we must ensure that the criteria are not too ambitious, that they, quite simply, are possible for the countries to implement, and that the bureaucracy associated with the monitoring is also tolerable and feasible.

I also believe that cohesion funding should always be provided according to the principle of ‘helping people to help themselves’; that is to say, we should not forget to carry out an evaluation of the objective criteria and to check whether the objectives that were intended to be achieved with the money have actually been achieved. After all, cohesion is intended to have a beginning and an end.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, cohesion and structural funds are very much a sign of European solidarity, so it is important that this funding is properly used and used in the best possible way. But, as this report points out, there are huge problems in relation to Member States accessing this funding and coming up with the necessary cofinancing that is required.

One of the problems this creates is in the public mindset. When we hear announcements of major funding being made available from the European Union budget and the public read these stories, later to read that some of this funding has not been accessed, there is a delay in getting access to it, or they themselves have problems in trying to access funding, that creates a negative attitude towards the European Union. We do need to make these funds work for the betterment of citizens and therefore, the recommendations of this report should be implemented.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have voted for this report because I believe it is an excellent piece of work. What Mr Theurer has produced is an assessment that will certainly also be useful for the imminent legislative work that the Committee on Regional Development is about to tackle in relation to the new funding regulations.

The problems that have been revealed are many and varied, just as the individual Member States’ absorption capacities are varied – as the rapporteur points out – because each one performs differently regarding the volume of spending and, hence, its efficiency and effectiveness. Out of all the problems highlighted in this report, I think the two that we ought to focus our attention on most are, first, the programming periods, as Mr Antoniozzi has already mentioned, and secondly, the issue of control, insofar as control requirements lead the Member States to focus more on the procedures than on the objectives.

We should, however, concentrate on the objectives in order to perform effectively and efficiently. To that end, I reiterate the proposal that I make to this House on every possible occasion, which concerns the possibility of replacing contributions with taxation. I believe that tax exemptions could help to reduce the number of control regulations without going against the Treaty requirements, and could focus attention more on fulfilling the objectives and achieving results.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). – (LT) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report because it mentions specific problems that are faced when implementing projects financed by the Cohesion Fund, and indicates means of addressing those problems.

First of all, we have the complicated rules surrounding the application of financial instruments and the need to simplify them, taking into account the specific characteristics of each Member State. Secondly, there is a need for greater synergy and complementarity between all the funds (the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Social Fund and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development) and flexibility. This is required to facilitate the financing of integrated projects. For example, the potential of cross-financing, which is not yet being fully exploited. Thirdly, the Commission and the Member States must give priority to the integrated approach for local and regional development projects, encouraging the development of bottom-up local initiatives, and must also ensure that there is an opportunity to finance as many small and individual projects as possible.

I hope that this time, the European Parliament’s opinion will be heard, and that its proposals will be taken into account, thus promoting more rapid absorption of Cohesion Funds.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, I supported this report, but there are two issues I would like to draw attention to. First of all, there are the over-complicated and over-strict procedures that are often involved. I have community and voluntary groups coming to me all the time, talking about the complexity and also the inconsistency of the rules – then the changes in the rules and, furthermore, the interpretation of the changes in the rules. People are tearing their hair out with frustration.

Another issue that a lot of community groups have a problem with is late payments. I know many community groups that are going to the wall because they are awaiting payments from European funds.

There is another very important issue that we need to look at, and that is the issue of intermediate regions. When we are determining eligibility, it is important that we use the most up-to-date figures. It looks as if we might end up using 2008 GDP figures to determine eligibility for cohesion funding post 2013. That is simply not acceptable in the current situation. Up to now, a lot of regions’ GDP was increasing but, of course, now, because of the economic crisis, a number of regions’ GDP is decreasing and we will find that in 2010 and 2011, it will be lower than it was in 2007 and 2008. So, it is crucial that we use the most up-to-date figures to ensure that the regions that need cohesion funding are those that get it.

Report: Elisabetta Gardini (A7-0283/2011)

  Clemente Mastella (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in view of the dramatic increase in natural disasters both inside and outside the European Union, we increasingly often have to intervene and guarantee a rapid and effective response, as provided for by the new legal basis introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon.

We should, however, be able to concentrate on pre-identification of the assets available in the Member States that are placed at the disposal of the European Civil Protection Mechanism on a voluntary basis. This would be a significant move away from the current ad hoc response to disasters towards advance planning through the development of reference scenarios, mapping of Member States’ assets and contingency planning.

We therefore advocate greater simplification of the European Civil Protection Mechanism, which so far has proved to be too bureaucratic, and support the creation of a 24/7 European emergency response centre which, in agreement with the Member States, would make decisions on the assets to be deployed in the event of a disaster in order to ensure immediate and effective assistance to the victims.

  Guido Milana (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, many thousands of people die every year due to natural disasters and tens of billions of euro are lost. These are dramatic figures, and disasters are not always avoidable.

Ms Gardini’s report is right on the mark in this respect, because it essentially identifies the two fundamental points in the new European civil protection strategy. The first is a thorough prevention plan, which can no longer be just the sum of the national prevention plans, and proper rules concerning prevention procedures. The second is the real, concrete idea of European civil protection, which cannot result from mere coordination but must be based on a genuine network.

We have to move on from an emergency response requested by a country in relation to a disaster and the subsequent intervention, seen almost as a concession by another country, to a genuine strategy. With this hope in mind, I think the resolution adopted today is a useful one for the people of Europe.

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, the earthquake in Haiti, the floods in Pakistan and, in particular, the events in Japan last spring, have shown us that we need to have a common European approach and strategy for dealing with disasters.

It is no good us sending multiple, uncoordinated civil protection teams from the different Member States which then arrive in the disaster zones at completely different times. As Mr Mastella said a moment ago, the Treaty of Lisbon provides us with a new legal basis on which to take the right decisions and on which to coordinate our response. However, let us use this new instrument in an active way.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Ms Gardini¸ and our colleagues in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, in which we adopted this report almost unanimously.

That shows how our different political ideologies have been overcome on important issues, such as this one of humanitarian aid. The principle of European solidarity among Member States in the event of a disaster is the central pillar of this report, supported by liaison and interaction initiatives within the European Union. The merging of the humanitarian aid crisis rooms is a step in that direction.

The 24/7 European emergency response centre will act as a planning and operational coordination platform and will become the central hub for requests for assistance relating to all types of disasters.

  Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, over recent years, we have seen an increase in the number and intensity of natural disasters, which have become increasingly global in scale, with disastrous consequences.

A genuinely European response to such disasters that involves, and is binding on, all the various levels of government in which the European Union is structured is crucial to address this scenario. Ms Gardini’s valuable report, which I voted for, highlights the importance of a simplified and rationalised Civil Protection Mechanism that is more extensively and effectively coordinated at a political and operational level and is not encumbered by red tape. It must allow for the pooling of resources and skills and the optimisation of existing assets without increasing the financial burden in times of austerity.

Greater attention to cross-border and geographically vulnerable areas and implementation of a culture of prevention will complement this new approach to ensure a rapid, speedy and effective response to any future needs.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, today is a great day since the European Parliament has just expressed its desire to create a European civil protection force.

Obviously, this European force will enable EU Member States to be more effective in the event of major disasters occurring inside or outside of the EU, and we must welcome that. However, in reality, I do not think that this is the most important thing. The most important thing is that if we want to build Europe, we must do great things together. We must make Europeans proud of their Union. The fact that Europeans have done great things together in the present or the past will mean that they will be prepared to do even greater things together in the future.

Let us not be mistaken, Europe cannot only be seen by our fellow citizens as an accumulation of legislation, no matter how useful that legislation may be. Europe must have a soul. This European Civil Protection Mechanism that we are going to create will be a part of this soul. It is one of the tools which can create this European soul. If we give Europeans a sense of pride from knowing they are acting together, this will make the usefulness of legislation seem weak in comparison. That is why we must build this European civil protection force together.

  Christa Klaß (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, every disaster, irrespective of whether it is caused by a storm, fire or an accident, poses new challenges for us. We are currently living in a highly mechanised, highly sensitive and specialised world, and we are increasingly reliant on experts.

Within Europe, it must now be a foregone conclusion that we should help each other across our borders and that the Member States should support one another. Cross-border drills by the fire service and civil protection force must be in the utmost interests of the Member States and must also be well funded. We need to make effective logistics arrangements in advance.

The common 112 emergency number within Europe is a positive step towards simplification. However, this number must be communicated repeatedly so that it becomes fixed in people’s minds.

With all the good equipment and the good organisation, however, the most important thing we need is the people who, with considerable personal commitment, get involved in dealing with the disasters. I would also like to take this opportunity to say a very big thank you to them.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE) . – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the exponential rise in the number of natural disasters in recent decades has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people in various parts of the world.

Last year, in the Committee on Development, I followed the work on the report on the European Union’s disaster response capacity, which revealed just how much still needed to be done to guarantee a coordinated EU response in view of the increase in earthquakes, floods and tsunamis. The EU’s response to the earthquake in Haiti, for example, clearly illustrated the complexity of the existing instruments and procedures.

Even though the Member States and EU institutions acted promptly in terms of sending humanitarian aid, the management of the crisis raised a series of issues regarding efficiency, coordination and transparency. That is why I voted in favour of Ms Gardini’s report, which calls for greater efficiency in all stages of disaster management, better coordination among all actors and simplification aimed at avoiding pointless overlaps and wasted time, which impede the rapid and effective provision of help.

  Oldřich Vlasák (ECR). – (CS) Mr President, I voted in favour of Ms Gardini’s report because it strengthens coordination in the area of preparation, capacity planning and implementation, in respect of both civil protection and humanitarian assistance. In the case of humanitarian assistance in particular, this means even closer cooperation with the non-governmental organisations that are often present in a disaster location. In the rapid and common response to a crisis, logistics are a particularly acute problem where I would welcome concrete proposals for improvement. I also see a solution in the interlinking of existing monitoring centres and the mapping of Member State capacities for individual types of crisis.

At the same time, I firmly believe that greater coordination on the part of the EU does not have to ‘compete’ with the global coordinating role of the UN, but, on the contrary, should support it. The responsibility of the Member States should also be emphasised, particularly in external humanitarian assistance. I therefore consider it important for European emergency response capacities to be led exclusively by the contributing Member State or the affected state for now, and not by a European emergency response centre.

Regarding the visibility of EU symbols when providing assistance, I just want this to be kept within sensible limits, and not to use up a significant portion of the allocated resources.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). – Mr President, this is a really comprehensive and important report. I have two observations.

Firstly, the prevention of disasters has to be seen as being equally important as the response to them. Therefore, enhancing the EU emergency reaction capacity has to be linked with the Commission preparing an efficient EU strategy to reduce the risk of disasters and ensure their early identification.

Secondly, I support the European Parliament’s call for the Commission to come forward with proposals for an EU civil protection force based on the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. That would better combine the resources necessary to provide both civilian protection and immediate emergency aid to the victims.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, it seems to me that it is in times of calm that we should prepare for the next crisis. We are doing this with regret on the economy. We need to do it equally when there are disasters, which this report deals with. Yes, prevention is our priority – as it should be – in order to minimise problems in all Member States.

Just a word in relation to voluntary effort: very often, when there is a disaster in a Member State, it is the local community itself which responds most rapidly. We need to better coordinate the national and EU response, working on the ground with local communities.

Finally, we need to make the emergency response number 112 more widely known to our citizens, so that it is used.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, the EU’s readiness to respond to natural disasters is not presently at the level that the public has the right to expect.

The European Parliament has proposed that an EU civil protection force be set up. It would deliver emergency assistance within 24 hours in response to any disaster taking place at that time. It would require coordination and cooperation between the Member States. This would be just the sort of cooperation that would bring added value to the European partnership.

I shall await a proposal from the Commission concerning the establishment of the civil protection force, and particularly at the civilian level. This is not a military matter: it is a civilian one.

Report: Carlo Fidanza (A7-0265/2011)

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I voted for this report as it seems to me that the industry is so important for the economy in the European Union. On account of Article 195 of the Treaty of Lisbon, this matter is a new development and I welcome this.

I am certain that this report is a good start to ensuring the future of this industry. This industry has a central role in creating jobs locally, and in helping with economic growth. In Ireland, for example, the industry is worth ten per cent of our gross national product, and more than twelve per cent of the workforce are employed in the tourism industry, or in a dependent industry.

An integrated approach is needed in relation to the industry in the European Union. The European Union is not doing enough in my opinion about the problem of red tape in relation to visa applications and there is a great need for a simplified system of getting tourist visas throughout the European Union.

  Guido Milana (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this is just a good initiative, but I think we will later have to develop a European policy on tourism.

The European framework is a good idea, but I would like to focus on two issues. There is no sea or coastal tourism, we might say, but a coastal planning policy. I think the time has come for Europe to protect this important sector by producing an initiative in which ideas about the sea and coastline are not limited to a kind of town planning that ends at the foreshore and does not involve the sea as a whole.

I think it will be useful to have an integrated policy on this, just as there will be a need to develop everything that lies behind the claims about rural tourism: rural tourism can be an excellent source of income for disadvantaged areas and areas where there is no work any more, where it is important to stop depopulation and instead encourage people to settle.

For that, it is not enough just to make claims. We would need to suggest that Europe and the Member States take action on taxation. Perhaps developing tourism in rural areas could mean paying less tax; maybe that would create a real opportunity for tourism as a resource and for the people living in those areas.

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank Mr Fidanza for the excellent report he has drafted. Parliament has today voted in favour of setting up a new common framework for European tourism in line with the new powers introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon.

Emphasising the importance of the quality of the tourist services offered as a decisive variable in the choices made by tourists was an appropriate decision to increase the competitiveness of Europe’s tourism industry. Niche tourism – religious, spa, mountain, rural, etc. – should be encouraged through measures to improve it in terms of quality and quantity.

Lastly, I hope that the harmonisation of the hospitality industry classification systems will continue so as to define unequivocal quality standards for all Member States.

  Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to congratulate Mr Fidanza on the report he has drafted, which fits logically into the framework of actions undertaken and promoted at Union level relating to tourism, now that the Treaty of Lisbon has given the European Union new powers in this field.

I must stress the fact that I endorse the statement about the importance of Europe as a single destination for certified, quality tourism, as well as the intention to promote this idea by turning it into actions in terms of structures, allocation of resources, funding, and coordination of actions among the various levels of government in the countries of the Union. This is an approach to be valued and rewarded, given that the sector in question – with its implications in terms of the percentage of GDP produced, employment and new opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises, and emphasis on environmental protection and enhancement – is in a position to develop and thus to respond to the major challenges of today.

For all these reasons, I believe this report is positive, as it sends out an important signal for the promotion of a European tourism policy.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, the Treaty of Lisbon now gives us a chance to establish a policy for the benefit of the tourism industry and we see in this report a strategy for doing so. The European Union is the world’s primary tourist destination and we must keep it this way. Tourists come to certain places naturally. In the South, they have the sun, they have the sea and so forth. I, myself, was in Rome during the summer and it was clear why tourists were coming there on holiday. In other parts of Europe, however, especially in the North, they do not have the same advantages. They do not have much sun and they do not have the sea. Therefore, we must help those countries especially to extend the season and we must emphasise events that are based around sport. We have a great chance to do this in future.

Report: Dieter-Lebrecht Koch (A7-0264/2011)

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, we must understand that 38 000 people are killed annually as a result of road accidents in the European Union. This figure is terrible and it appears to me that it is extremely important to reduce the incidence of fatal and serious injuries and to improve safety on our roads.

We, as Europeans, must work together to reduce the number of deaths on our roads. We must admit that we have a huge problem in relation to the amount of drivers that use text messaging while driving on the roads of the European Union.

The possibility of an accident increases twenty-three times when the driver watches the screen of his mobile phone. I am extremely grateful to my colleague, Mr Dieter-Lebrecht Koch, for the great work he has done and for presenting this report to us.

We want to protect road users, if there is the political will to do so, and I firmly believe that there is, because this report shows, for example, that we will be able to improve road safety.

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have voted overall in favour of Mr Koch’s report because I agree with its targeted approach inasmuch as it asks the Commission for a concrete, circumstantiated commitment to road safety, including the development of the proposed models into a fully-fledged new action plan.

The plan must incorporate a set of detailed measures, with clear timetables and monitoring instruments to assess the progress made, as well as a mid-term review. Conversely, I did not wish to support the idea of appointing an EU road safety coordinator, which, in my view, would be likely to duplicate powers and generate an excessively bureaucratic mechanism.

Of course, it seems obvious that achieving the target of halving road accident victims by 2020 would also require a financial commitment that currently appears to be difficult to achieve. In conclusion, however, I regret the fact that the Committee on Transport and Tourism was not bold or ambitious enough to accept a complete harmonisation of important road safety rules, such as standardising the EU direction of travel in the United Kingdom and Malta as well, as I proposed in an amendment which the committee chose not to accept.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the report shows that the social cost of road accidents is enormous, standing at an estimated EUR 130 billion per year. Mr Koch’s proposals are along the right lines and I particularly support the idea of creating the role of EU road safety coordinator.

However, I think that we do need to come up with targets and measures that are far more ambitious than those put forward by the Commission thus far; above all, I think that Parliament ought to make its presence felt to the Commission. We cannot accept the fact that in recent years, the European Union’s budget for road safety measures has been slashed. We are therefore duty-bound to ensure that this trend is reversed as soon as possible and that road safety receives greater funding.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, all the measures we have just approved will help to reduce the number of injuries and deaths, two in particular: zero tolerance in drink-driving checks and the use of alcolock devices.

However, I am sorry that the first of these will only apply on a permanent basis to professional drivers, and the second only to industrial passenger and goods vehicles, and additionally with a small margin of tolerance.

We must work in future to extend both these measures to all drivers and all circumstances, because we can all cause accidents, and we should work to achieve coherence too and eliminate the margin of tolerance with the alcolocks.

We are all capable of causing accidents, and this is why we should not criminalise people in the transport sector.

  Christa Klaß (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, every year, there are 35 000 deaths and serious injuries and economic damage amounting to EUR 130 billion on our roads. These figures are a call to action for us. The Member States, but also the responsible parties at regional and municipal level, businesses and every individual road user are involved in many individual activities and measures. In order to recognise both positive and negative synergies, we need coordination of the activities of the Directorates-General for Transport, Economic and Financial Affairs, the Environment, Health and Consumers, Communication and the Internal Market and Services. Coordination of this kind helps to spread knowledge, and bring about the application, of the best experience, the latest technology and innovative approaches. The Member States will evaluate the experiences gained and then draw the best conclusions. This applies to speed limits just as it does to alcolocks, sight tests, tests on fitness to drive and to the transport of infants. Such decisions should be left to the Member States.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, this is a very positive report. It is interesting that we are debating it following the protests over the weekend by European Union motorcyclists. Many came out in protest – certainly in Ireland and in other Member States – over what we would describe as positive initiatives regarding road safety for that particular sector of the commuting community.

It is interesting to note that, in Ireland, a motorcyclist is 12 times more likely to be killed than any other road user. There is clearly a problem in relation to the safety of this section of road users. I think we should try to work better with stakeholders, so that we do not have protests over something which we believe is important for overall road safety. Some of the issues that were raised by the protestors may not be true, but we can address others when we move forward. Let us involve those that we are trying to legislate for.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, this is a very important matter and it is terrible the amount of people that are killed and injured on European roads, not only every year but every day. It is appropriate to do something about it.

Mr President, regarding the support, there are just two points I just want to make.

One is that right across the European Union, when it comes to speed limits, there is a complete variance from country to country. There should be coordination whereby the same quality of road, on the same motorway, would have the same speed limit right across Europe.

Secondly, I find it very difficult to understand how there is no tapering system. I have seen places where you are expected to go from a 120 mile limit or a 120 kilometre limit to 60 automatically. I have seen people pulled over for going over the speed limit just inside the 60 sign. I think there should be a tapering system where you go from 100 to 90, to 80, to 70, to 60.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D). – (CS) Mr President, I voted in favour of Mr Koch’s report on a European strategy for road safety during the period 2011-2020 because the situation in the area of safety on Europe’s roads is still critical, requiring a solution that is rapid and, in particular, thorough. More than 35 000 people die every year on Europe’s roads, and 1.5 million are seriously injured. I therefore support this own-initiative report, and I call on the Commission to submit specific legislative proposals in this area as soon as possible. We should aim to improve safety on Europe's secondary roads, where, on average, more than 70% of accidents take place every year. I also support the rapporteur’s so-called Vision Zero objective, or an end to fatal accidents on Europe’s roads. If we cannot prevent accidents from happening, we should at least prevent them from being fatal. Vision Zero applies in both air and rail transport, and I therefore fully support implementing this target in road transport as well.

  Guido Milana (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have just three small points I should like to make, all centred on the fact that we need ‘more Europe’ in this area. I think it is an inescapable fact that on certain issues, we must not merely hope for more Europe, but actually set about building it.

For example, more Europe means starting to really think about common traffic police and uniform safety rules. More Europe means having a European policy on training, not simply delegating it to the individual Member States, but instead putting together a proper training policy for schools, for young people and for slightly more at-risk categories, among whom motorcyclists were mentioned a moment ago, but we could talk about lorry drivers as well.

More Europe means everyone having the same devices in their cars to improve safety conditions, such as alcolocks and anti-tiredness devices. This, in my view, would be a strategy well worth pursuing with businesses in the sector and European carmakers. Indeed, if all this was incorporated in a common policy, then I really think that conditions would, perhaps, improve.

Report: Gabriele Zimmer (A7-0284/2011)

  Patrizia Toia (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report looks at global food security. This means that what is at stake here is not only hunger in the world or in the very poorest countries, but that the subject of food supply affects all communities, including those in the most developed countries.

I would like to pick out a few key points of consistency between European policies and this target of global food security, because we in Parliament are quite accomplished at preaching, but often we are not consistent in our decisions. I only wish to highlight three innovative areas, which I think we ought to develop further.

Firstly: food supply is currently jeopardised by price volatility, caused by speculation in food markets – through derivatives and so forth – that must be contained, if not banned outright.

Secondly: the subject of land grabbing, which I think needs to be addressed in some form of treaty or negotiation, because democracy and the survival of many populations are at risk.

Thirdly: consistency between food supply and energy policies. In our efforts to produce new energy, we must not make it impossible to produce food for the people of the world.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). – The Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates that there were 925 million hungry people in the world in 2010. This is a terrible figure. While this represents a reduction of 1 023 million on the 2009 figure, there is strong evidence that food price increases during the last few months have already augmented that number for this year. Meanwhile, in Europe, about 89 million tonnes of food is wasted every year. That is 179 kg per person. Without any prevention measures, it is expected that the total amount of wasted food will reach 126 million tonnes by the end of this decade. Our colossal wastage of food represents an inefficient use and management of our food resources. Successful commitments to fight poverty and hunger worldwide must begin by addressing our terrible wastage of food. Our right to food must be accompanied by a duty not to waste food.

In conclusion, I would say that I disagree totally with paragraph 63 of the report which calls for a complete phasing out of export subsidies. This flies in the face of the rapporteur’s arguments that she wants local production for local use.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, I support a lot of what is in this report on global food security. I think it is very important to remember that, as technology and innovation leap forward, we sometimes lose sight of the basics. Of course, one of the basics that we need to remember is our need for food or food security, not just in developing countries but in the EU as well.

One of the issues that we face at a global level is the financial speculation and trade in agricultural commodities. This simply worsens volatility; it means, at the end of the day, that many people go hungry. We also need to ensure greater transparency in the food chain to ensure a fair revenue for farmers. The primary producers are being squeezed; their share of the cake is getting smaller, and that cannot continue.

My final comment – and, I think, a very important one – is that the right to food must always take precedence over energy security. In many countries, but particularly in Africa, food security is being jeopardised by the development of agrofuels. We in the EU often clap ourselves on the back about our alternative energy targets, but we must recognise the price that others may pay for the targets that we set.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, as someone who has authored a report on food security and the common agricultural policy and worked hard on this issue for seven years, I very much welcome the renewed emphasis on food security. Those of us who can afford to buy food have taken for granted that there will always be a supply of food. Of course we are targeting those parts of the world where there is real hunger, but there is also hunger within the European Union. We have to tackle it at every significant level.

I want to repeat a point I made in another explanation of vote. We are in a very serious situation, where agricultural productivity is declining because of a lack of focus on research and innovation and on transferring the knowledge gained to farmers on the ground. This is a problem within Europe, but it is a particular problem for the developing world. We need to target research there, and we need to make sure that people get the knowledge gained by research and put it into practice in food production.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, today’s vote on food security was very important. I think that political institutions in the developed world that ignore the problems in less-developed regions do so in grave error and show a lack of compassion.

However, sometimes I think we in this House miss the point completely. It is important that we assist in food security in developing countries, but it is also important that we actually provide food security for the people that we represent. The National Farmers Union in the United Kingdom has indicated that the United Kingdom will be less than 50% self-sufficient in staple food types by 2026 unless production is increased. We in this House talk endlessly about the increase in world population, the effects of climate change, increase in biofuel demand and the increasing demand for western eating habits, yet we have decreased agricultural output and, due to decoupling, provide no incentive to produce food.

I urge the Commission and Parliament to look at these issues, but I am not hopeful. The recent leak from the Commission in relation to a 7% regulation for set-aside in the new CAP proposals will only restrict food production further.

  Salvatore Caronna (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I had no hesitation in voting in favour of the report by Ms Zimmer, above all, for one purely political reason: I think we need to bring this major issue of food security right back to the core of all European Union initiatives.

It is not only a matter of helping developing countries to tackle this issue more effectively. Rather, since the demand for agricultural products is set to increase by more than 70% between now and 2050, the food crisis is a key issue that must be dealt with quickly and decisively. Otherwise, it may become one of the main threats – if not the main threat - to stability, peace and, as we have seen, even democracy.

I think it is therefore incumbent upon the European Union and the Member States to take the required steps to properly tackle this important issue, beginning with adequate investment, as the report proposes.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, hunger and malnutrition are the main causes of human mortality in developing countries. According to the latest estimates of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the number of people suffering from hunger reached 925 million last year.

The global food crisis is becoming not only a pressing humanitarian issue, but is also exacerbating poverty and posing a threat to world peace and security. The effective interlinking of humanitarian and development assistance is beginning to look essential, in the interests of a long-term solution to food security. The international community and all interested parties must show genuine political will to ensure food security and stability, and adopt additional steps aimed at fulfilling their international obligations. In addressing these issues, we must clearly take care that there is no repeat of the disproportionate increase in food prices caused by speculation in food commodities, as happened in 2008. It is also necessary to take measures to limit the competitive threat to food production from so-called agri-foods and agrofuels.

Report: Daniel Caspary (A7-0255/2011)

  Clemente Mastella (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, global trade has genuinely increased over recent years thanks to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and numerous multilateral and bilateral initiatives.

However, although the European Union accounted for 25% of global GDP when the Lisbon strategy was adopted in the year 2000, it is now estimated that it will account for no more than 18% in 2020. At the same time, an ever increasing number of developing countries and emerging economies have become involved in world trade and developed into the new engines of the world economy. This was particularly evident during the 2008-2009 crisis, when it was, above all, the emerging economies that played a stabilising role at a time of widespread financial turmoil.

The European Union cannot ignore the fact that the pattern of population growth is being reversed in the EU. The population of developing countries continues to increase rapidly and this will also have repercussions for their economies.

We therefore urge the Commission to carry out a more careful analysis and to develop forecasts that incorporate both the current situation in the global and EU economy, as well as probable future changes.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the forecasts in Mr Caspary’s report on gross domestic product and export growth in the European Union are truly disheartening. We cannot continue to plan our commercial strategy on the premise that the current situation in international trade will remain.

The Global Europe strategy has been a failure and I think that the Commission ought to investigate the reasons behind this. We need critical and detailed analysis, but especially an overview of how to deal with future economic challenges. The commercial policy must be coordinated with the European Union’s other economic policies, but, above all, it needs to be accompanied by a parallel policy to combat the phenomenon of population decline.

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE). – (SK) Mr President, the new involvement of third countries is dramatically changing world trade. The share of EU and US exporters in world exports in 1999 was 37%. In 2009, it was just 29%. The share of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) has risen from 9% to 20%. In 2015, 90% of worldwide economic growth will take place outside the EU.

The importance of drawing up and promoting a long-term EU foreign trade strategy is clear from this. In the EU, 36 million jobs, or 18% of the total, depend on foreign trade. In my opinion, however, the further development of the internal market and the strengthening of its parameters are also important, because this can form the basis for further economic growth in the EU.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, it may well be a coincidence that we are speaking on our trade policy following our explanation of vote on the Zimmer report on food security, but there is a link, and those of us who have concerns about agriculture and food security would equally be concerned about the direction of Europe’s trade policy.

The inclusion of agriculture in the WTO is of concern, and some of us are battling to have that looked at again in the light of our concerns over how the world will provide security of food supply to its citizens. We now have the emergence of bilateral trade agreements. They are second best to a global trade agreement and we must, in each and every one of the bilateral trade agreements, look beforehand at the likely impacts it will have, particularly on Europe’s food security concerns. That is why, while we do look to the future and the issues around this report, I want to stress, in particular, my concerns around food security and trade.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, over the past number of months, the Commission has been negotiating with the Mercosur bloc to agree a trade policy which would apparently benefit both regions. DG AGRI has put forward its impact assessments to Member States.

In the toughest scenario, the EU’s beef sector could see production levels drop by over 150 000 tonnes, with the producer price for beef falling by over 8%. EU meat production value could fall by almost 3 billion, whilst overall EU agricultural income could drop by 3.2%. The best case scenario is also damaging. There is, unfortunately, no good news story from these impact assessments.

I have voiced this opinion since the very beginning of this process, along with other MEPs and farming organisations. I have spoken to the Commission and highlighted the impact that these decisions would have on Northern Ireland. Now that the Commission has carried out this impact assessment, it is important that this is taken on board during the negotiations. However, my fear is that the Commission will look at other possible gains. While these are impressive and good for the EU in a time of global recession, EU agriculture must not be sacrificed in this way.

Written explanations of vote

Recommendation: Maria Eleni Koppa (A7-0300/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this recommendation, as I agree with the rapporteur’s view that the April 2011 agreement, providing for the duty-free access of Palestinian imports of agricultural products to the European market and of EU exports of processed agricultural products to Palestine, will help strengthen the poverty- and crisis-scarred Palestinian economy. However, I also agree with the rapporteur that we need to know the exact origin of products, so it is necessary to ban products from any settlement in the territory occupied by Israel, as there is still no solution to the control imposed by Israel on exports from the Palestinian Territories.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this important recommendation on trade in agricultural and fishery products between the EU and Palestine. This agreement comes at a very important and highly symbolic moment, when we are dealing with the issue of Palestinian statehood. Currently, the level of trade between the EU and the Palestinian territories is extremely low. The EU imports are worth around EUR 7 million of Palestinian goods, of which 72% consists of agricultural products. We, Members of the European Parliament, can therefore expect that the agreement will have a substantial impact on the Palestinian economy. However, we should also think about other ways to increase our bilateral trade, especially by improving the conditions for market access of Palestinian exports to the EU, which would certainly be beneficial to all parties concerned. Regardless of whether the Palestinian people obtain their legitimate statehood in the coming months or some years later, the state of their economy will be a crucial factor which will determine whether there can be sustainable peace between Palestine and Israel.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I voted against this document on liberalising access to the European Union for Palestinian agricultural products.

Firstly, the document specifies that the primary aim of the agreement between the EU and the Palestinian Authority is to support the development of the Palestinian economy. Since, in recent years, the Palestinian territories have become a place of increasing discrimination and violence against Palestinian Christians, I think that any EU aid for the Palestinian economy could only be acceptable if it was tied to an unbending conditionality mechanism that makes the aid subject to proper protection for the rights of the Christian minority.

Furthermore, trade in Palestinian agricultural products would also probably lead to health risks, given the difficulties in establishing what methods were used to produce them. I therefore decided to vote against this document.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) By giving its green light to a trade agreement with Palestine, the European Parliament has sought to send a strong political message of support and cooperation to the people and authorities of these territories. At present, trade between our two entities is non-existent. By abolishing customs duty on numerous imports, the EU is helping to boost the Palestinian economy as, aside from diplomatic negotiations, the consolidation of peace also hinges on the raising of local people’s living standards.

  Robert Dušek (S&D), in writing. – (CS) The recommendation on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement between the EU and the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip on liberalisation in the area of trade in agricultural products, processed agricultural products, and fish and fishery products, will introduce customs-free and quota-free access of these products imported from the territory of the Palestinian Authority to the European market. In return, some products from the EU will have customs-free access to the Palestinian market, but an upper limit will be set on imports of these products. I understand that the main aim of this agreement is to support the development of the Palestinian economy and facilitate the export of Palestinian products to the EU, and thus to help boost the economic development of the region. I therefore accept the unequal terms.

Since European citizens want to know the origin of the products they consume, it is essential to ensure in this context that the application of the agreement does not lead to abuse of the rules on product country of origin. The European Court of Justice, in its decisions, considers the Gaza Strip and the West Bank to be Palestinian territory; in other words, Israel cannot market the products of Israeli settlements in this area as Israeli goods. We surely cannot hope to solve the Palestinian-Israeli issue in this report, as its main aim is to help farmers and fishermen to export and sell products within the law. The report is, on the whole, beneficial, and I will therefore vote for its adoption.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this recommendation because I argue that increasing Palestinian exports of its products to the EU constitutes crucial support for the development of the Palestinian economy, whilst not harming the European markets in these sectors. The implementation of this agreement could be the first step in building a Palestinian state, in line with the two-state solution, given the beneficial impact it will have on the political stability of the region.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Irrespective of the political considerations surrounding the current state of relations between Israel and Palestine and their future development, I consider it undeniable that the populations of both states should be deserving of European support, particularly those worst off. I believe this latter group will be the greatest beneficiaries of the agreement under consideration, and I am voting for its conclusion with their needs in mind. Greater liberalisation of trade could be an effective means of promoting the normalisation of life in the Palestinian Territories, the strengthening of the local economy and the improvement of the inhabitants’ living conditions. I hope that our partner in this agreement will make good use of it, and that this use will be of sufficient benefit to the Palestinian people.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This recommendation concerns an agreement in the form of an exchange of letters between the European Union and the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and aims to provide further liberalisation of agricultural products, processed agricultural products, and fish and fishery products, so amending the Euro-Mediterranean Interim Association Agreement on trade and cooperation between the European Community and the Palestine Liberation Organisation for the benefit of the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The purpose of this agreement, concluded in April 2011, is to support the development of the Palestinian economy, which is undergoing a very serious crisis due to poverty and unemployment, through the duty-free export of agricultural and fishery products to the EU. Although the Palestinian Authority is the EU’s smallest trade partner, I am voting for this recommendation aiming to free exports from the Palestinian Territories from the control of Israeli customs, and I hope it will be the first step in building a Palestinian state, whose right to self-determination must be respected by Israel.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The end of the blockade imposed by Israel on Palestine and its people is indispensable to the development of the Palestinian economy. By proposing increased exports of Palestinian products to the EU and facilitating imports to Palestine, this agreement represents, in the current context, a contribution to the achievement of this aim. Nevertheless, the scope of this agreement is severely limited by the specific situation facing those living in the occupied territories today, which is characterised by violent and persistent attacks on the Palestinian people’s most basic rights. Amongst numerous other things, this brutal and illegal occupation leads to countless obstacles for Palestinian exports and imports, not to mention the day-to-day barriers and constraints on the movement of people and goods. This problem urgently needs to be solved, most immediately by supporting the request made to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly by the Palestinian National Authority for recognition of Palestine as a full member of the UN.

The problem of the EU’s economic relations with the State of Israel still persists. In other words, the EU’s unacceptable complacency and connivance with regard to the clear and repeated human rights violations perpetrated by Israel in the occupied territories: these are an insult to the Association Agreement’s own human rights provisions, which we have always said are almost worthless.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) We voted for this report because we believe the adoption of this agreement could aid the development of the Palestinian economy and facilitate the possibility of exports of Palestinian products to the EU. However, it is important to stress the urgent need to bring an end to Israel’s blockade of Palestine. The Commission cannot, with the conclusion of this report, ignore the slow torment of the Palestinian people as a result of the Israeli occupation of its territory. This brutal and illegal occupation leads to countless obstacles for Palestinian exports and imports, not to mention the day-to-day barriers and constraints on the movement of people and goods.

Although the Commission decreed in 1998 that ‘no settlement in the occupied territories should be regarded as Israeli territory’, it has washed its hands of its obligations, leaving the duty of monitoring any irregularities regarding the origin of products up to the Member States. We therefore support the Palestinian people’s demand for, and right to, recognition of a sovereign and independent state of Palestine, on the pre-1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. –?? (SK)? In 2005, in accordance with the Rabat Road Map, the Council authorised the Commission to conduct negotiations with several Mediterranean countries in order to establish the conditions for the liberalisation of trade in agricultural and fishery products. The Palestinian Authority was also included on the list. Negotiations were initiated in May 2010 and were concluded in December 2010. The agreement, in the form of an exchange of letters, was signed in April 2011. It provides for duty-free (and mostly also quota-free) access to the European market of Palestinian imports of agricultural products, processed agricultural products, and fish and fishery products. The ultimate aim of the agreement is to help the development of the Palestinian economy and to facilitate the possibility of exports of Palestinian products into the EU.

I believe that this agreement will help, to a certain degree, to strengthen the Palestinian economy, which is currently in crisis, and will help to deal with the situation in the Palestinian territories, which is dire because of severe poverty and unemployment. The future of the region depends on improving economic development and trade can also serve as a development mechanism that contributes to the reduction of poverty and the establishment of political stability.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because this agreement provides for duty-free (and mostly also quota-free) access for Palestinian imports to the European market of agricultural products, processed agricultural products, and fish and fishery products. Several products of the same nature originating in the EU will have duty-free (but not quota-free) access to Palestine, with some exceptions. The ultimate aim of the agreement, however, is to help the development of the Palestinian economy and thus to facilitate the possibility of exports of Palestinian products into the EU.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) The EU has given itself the task of improving the economic situation in Palestine and, hence, the living conditions of the Palestinians living there. Trade has an important part to play in this regard. With this agreement, the EU is ensuring that Palestine can have tariff-free access to the European market in agricultural and fishery products and is thus sending an important signal for the sustainable development of the region. In this connection, it is important, however, that the preferential customs treatment should only benefit those concerned and that it is not abused. Safeguard clauses are supposed to guarantee this. In 2010, the import of goods into the EU from Palestine amounted to a trade value of just EUR 9.3 million. That thus precludes any major impact on the EU market.

  Vladimir Maňka (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The situation in the Palestinian territories is dire because of severe poverty and unemployment. The aim of the agreement is to help the development of the Palestinian economy and to facilitate exports of Palestinian products into the EU. The agreement provides for duty-free (and mostly also quota-free) access to the European market of Palestinian imports of agricultural products, processed agricultural products, and fish and fishery products. Several products of the same nature originating in the EU will have duty-free (but not quota-free) access to Palestine, with some exceptions. Opening the European market directly to Palestinian products is only the first stage in the construction of a Palestinian state, in line with the two-state solution and Palestine’s economic development. It then needs to be ensured that all stakeholders in the process of Palestine’s economic development are provided with the necessary resources. In other words, farmers must have access to water, the Palestinians must have the right to obtain a building permit in the Jordan Valley, etc. Matters are not made any easier by the fact that it is very complicated for foreign investors to obtain visas. The Commission should submit a detailed report on all these factors to try and prevent this kind of risk in future.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this report. It is an economic opportunity for the region that may bring prosperity and growth. Easier access to our market will help to cut poverty. I hope it will bring confidence for the future and more political stability to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In 2005, in accordance with the Rabat Road Map, the Council authorised the Commission to conduct negotiations with several Mediterranean countries, including the Palestinian Authority, in order to establish conditions for the liberalisation of trade in agricultural and fishery products. More specifically, the agreement provides for duty-free – and mostly also quota-free – access to the European market of Palestinian imports of agricultural products, processed agricultural products, and fish and fishery products. Several products of the same nature originating in the EU will have duty-free, but not quota-free, access to Palestine, with some exceptions. However, the ultimate aim of the agreement is to support the development of the Palestinian economy and, hence, to facilitate the possibility of exports of Palestinian products into the EU. The future of the region depends on improved economic development. Trade can also serve as a development mechanism contributing to the reduction of poverty and the establishment of political stability.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) European consumers have a right to know the provenance of the products they buy. Equally, Palestinian products must be recognised as such in order to facilitate Palestine’s economic development as, while there cannot be sustainable development without peace and security, there cannot be lasting peace without economic development and without the eradication of poverty. A comprehensive approach based on economic development, governance, security and respect for human rights is the only way to help Palestine progress towards political stability. Liberalising trade between the EU and Palestine is a vital ‘step’ which will contribute to Palestine’s economic development. By opening the doors of the European market to Palestinian products, we are making progress towards the creation of a Palestinian state.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The Palestinian Authority is the EU’s smallest trading partner: exports from the two territories to the EU totalled EUR 6.1 million in 2009. The proposed agreement would allow Palestinian agricultural products, processed agricultural products, as well as fish and other fisheries products, duty-free access to the European market. The proposed agreement is more of a political nature than a trade deal per se. The rapporteur believes that it should help the region to develop economically, reduce its poverty and contribute to some political stability. I voted against, because I am not confident that profit from the trade will not be used for financing terrorist objectives. I am ‘against’.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I support the draft agreement with Palestine to liberalise trade in agricultural products and fish. Ever since the initial establishment of the European Union, we have tried to create open markets without barriers to movement so that everyone – or nearly everyone – could enjoy different products. This exemption from customs duties is designed to support the development of the Palestinian economy and will lead us ever closer towards a state of interconnection, which will surely have beneficial outcomes. I hope this agreement can contribute to the peace process. Peaceful cohabitation in the area is essential and I hope that the revenues that the Palestinians will gain thanks to this agreement will be used to support the local economy and to benefit the people through the construction of social facilities that will favour the peace and democratisation process.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The basis of this report is the agreement with the Palestinian Authority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip providing further liberalisation of agricultural products, processed agricultural products, and fish and fishery products. Negotiations were initiated in May 2010 and concluded in December 2010. The agreement, in the form of an exchange of letters, was concluded in April 2011. The agreement provides for duty-free – and mostly also quota-free – access to the European market of Palestinian imports of agricultural products, processed agricultural products, and fish and fishery products. Several products of the same nature originating in the EU will have duty-free, but not quota-free, access to Palestine, with some exceptions. I voted in favour because I agree with the ultimate aim of this agreement of supporting the development of the Palestinian economy.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. – I support this resolution and the recognition of Palestine as a formal trade partner and a distinct entity to our trade relations with Israel. The Palestinian economy is currently in crisis, something we in the EU understand all too well, and we must do all we can to assist them. By recognising Palestine as a trading partner and opening our markets to its products, we will be helping to ensure the economic future of the region and will boost the Palestinian economy. Allowing Palestinian imports duty-free access to our markets will provide much needed support to producers and may help to tackle the widespread poverty and unemployment levels in the territory.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The ultimate goal of this report, whose immediate purpose is the liberalisation of trade between the EU and the Palestinian Territory, is supporting the economic development of Palestine. Indeed, as well as offering a new avenue for trade, the creation of economic bridges between the EU and Palestine aids the development of local production and strengthens the ties between their peoples. Despite the political issues always raised by an approach of this nature, I voted in favour.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I should like to offer my congratulations on the excellent work carried out by Ms Koppa.

The trade agreements between the European Union and the Palestinian Authority will help to strengthen the Palestinian economy, allowing the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to export agricultural products and fish to the EU from 2012 onwards. In fact, this agreement guarantees direct, duty-free and largely quota-free access to the European market for agricultural and fishery products from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as well as access to Palestinian markets for some European products.

The agreement represents an opportunity for the Palestinian people and the first step towards the development of a nation. Giving Palestinian products direct access to European markets, which, until now, took place under the direct control of the Israeli authorities, will contribute to the development of Palestinian trade and the expansion of their economy.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The present revision of the existing EU-Palestinian Association Agreement from 2005 provides for the removal of essentially all duties and quotas for Palestinian agricultural and fisheries products originating in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The revision was negotiated between May and December 2010. The result was signed in April 2011, in the form of an exchange of letters. The EP had to give its consent. The trade volume of products from Palestine entering the EU is rather limited (in 2009, the amount of imports was EUR 6.1 million, with an increase of 32.6% in 2010). The elimination of tariffs and quotas would not significantly change the EU import landscape. Accordingly, the INTA battle was around the political approach.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In 2005, in accordance with the Rabat Road Map, the Council authorised the Commission to conduct negotiations with several Mediterranean countries in order to establish the conditions for the liberalisation of trade in agricultural and fishery products. The Palestinian Authority was included on the list.

Negotiations were initiated in May 2010 and were concluded in December 2010, while the final agreement was signed in April 2011. The agreement will certainly help to strengthen the Palestinian economy, which is currently in crisis. The future of the region depends on improvements in economic growth and trade can serve as a development mechanism to help reduce poverty and build political stability.

Opening the European market directly to Palestinian products is only the first stage in the construction of a Palestinian state, in line with the two-state solution and Palestine’s economic development.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I should like to explain why I voted against this report, highlighting the fact that our delegation has always opposed the use of trade policy for humanitarian purposes and has a marked preference for tangible aid involving a number of economic sectors and all Member States. Our reservations on liberalising trade in agricultural products and fish from Palestine has nothing to do with a possible reduction in trade flows in economic terms. Rather, it is borne from concern over plant health requirements and the procedures for producing and selecting traditional products from the area.

  Søren Bo Søndergaard (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (DA) I voted in favour of this report on the basis of my general support for Palestinian autonomy and the opportunity for Palestine to trade with the Member States of the EU. This should not be taken to mean that I support the liberalisation of trade in general in the forms and on the conditions mapped out by the EU. In this case, however, I consider support that will enable the Palestinians to sell their products and thereby strengthen their own independent economy to be more important than the criticisms that I have in general of the EU’s trade policy.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I voted in favour of this report as it will mean a further improvement in the quality of life in the Palestinian territories. All in all, it represents a further step on the road to normalising relations between the EU and Palestine, while at the same time guaranteeing the existence of Israel.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) At a time when the Palestinian issue has been greatly debated, including in the European Parliament, this legislative resolution has been somewhat overlooked. It represents, however, a new and positive chapter in EU-Palestine relations. It will indeed strengthen economic cooperation with Palestine for whom access to the European market is vital owing to the obstacles which the Israeli Government imposes on any Palestinian economic activity.

Through this resolution, the European Parliament is agreeing to give a number of Palestinian imports, mainly agricultural products, free access to the European market.

Ms Koppa, the rapporteur, also took the opportunity to point out that the Union and Parliament are committed to ensuring stringent compliance with the rules of origin, or, in other words, to the fact that products originating from Israeli settlements in occupied territories cannot be considered as Israeli products. I wholeheartedly endorse that.

Member States must therefore, as the Court of Justice of the European Union highlighted in February 2010, do everything within their means to check the origin of imports so that European consumers can genuinely exercise choice. Member States’ tax and customs authorities must not be bound by Israel’s position on this matter.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) An agreement between the European Union and the Palestinian Authorities providing liberalisation of agricultural and fishery products was signed in April 2011 in the form of an exchange of letters. According to the case-law of the European Court of Justice, the Palestinian Territories are legally not regarded as Israeli territories – and that means that such products cannot be granted tariff preferences under the EU-Israeli agreement. At the same time, this report also calls on the EU to observe the rules of origin. I voted in favour.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) At a time of huge historical and political significance for the Middle East, with the United Nations engaged in discussions over the possible recognition of the Palestinian state, I welcomed the report by Ms Koppa on trade in agricultural products and fish between the European Union and Palestine.

The agreement excludes some products, such as fruit and flowers, and is designed to facilitate greater trade in European markets of agricultural and fisheries products from the Palestinian territories. It should also enable the development of these economic sectors, which are so important for this troubled geopolitical area.

Report: Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (A7-0298/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this recommendation, since agreements in the field of civil aviation that have been regulated by bilateral agreements have to be replaced with a general agreement between the European Union – which includes all the Member States – and third countries, so as to prevent discrimination as regards free competition. This agreement is also particularly important because it relates to Mexico, which is an important partner in the market for European carriers, with approximately 2.5 million passengers and 90 000 tonnes of cargo in 2009.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this document. International aviation relations between Member States and third countries have traditionally been governed by bilateral air services agreements. In 2002, the EU Court of Justice ruled that traditional designation clauses in Member States’ bilateral air services agreements infringe EU law because they allow a third country to reject, withdraw or suspend the permissions or authorisations of an air carrier that has been designated by a Member State but that is not substantially owned and effectively controlled by that Member State or its nationals. This is contrary to Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which guarantees nationals of Member States who have exercised their freedom of establishment the same treatment in the host Member State as that accorded to nationals of that Member State. Mexico is an important market for EU carriers with approximately 2.5 million passengers and 90 000 tonnes of cargo in 2009. In view of the size and importance of the EU-Mexico aviation market, the new agreement aims to guarantee all EU air carriers non-discriminatory access to routes between EU Member States and Mexico.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU Court of Justice ruled in 2002 that traditional designation clauses included in Member States’ bilateral air services agreements infringe EU law. Following this judgment, the Commission has negotiated an agreement which replaces certain provisions of the 13 existing bilateral air services agreements between the Member States and the United Mexican States. The horizontal agreement with Mexico will restore a sound legal basis for the EU’s aviation relations with Mexico. Mexico, which registered approximately 2.5 million passengers and 90 000 tonnes of cargo in 2009, is an important market for EU carriers. In view of the size and importance of the EU-Mexico aviation market, this report, for which I voted, advocates the conclusion of a more comprehensive air transport agreement, thereby contributing to the enhancement of EU-Mexico cooperation on aviation matters, and to the fostering of opportunities and benefits for industry and consumers, in both the EU and Mexico.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because, in order improve and consolidate aviation relations between the European Union and the United Mexican States, certain provisions on air services agreements must be amended. The Mexican market is very important for European Union carriers, and more agreements relating to air transport must therefore be concluded in order to expand benefits for consumers in Mexico and the European Union. The new agreements and amendments must provide better access to the market and help to strengthen trade links with Mexico. At present, the European Commission has set out 13 existing bilateral air services agreements concluded between EU Member States and the United Mexican States. According to several of the key points of the agreement, anti-competitive practices are strictly prohibited, and all consumers who wish to travel from the European Union and Mexico must not face discrimination. However, as I mentioned, Mexico is an important market for European Union carriers, and more aviation agreements therefore need to be concluded in order to further improve cooperation between these parties.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – International aviation relations between Member States and third countries have traditionally been governed by bilateral air services agreements, yet the Court of Justice ruled in 2002 that many bilateral air services agreements infringe EU law as they allow a third country to reject or suspend permissions of an air carrier designated by a Member State but that is not substantially owned and controlled by that Member State. I have voted against the implementation of this agreement as an unnecessary infringement into another area of domestic sovereignty.

The air space over a country, operation of its airports and, thus, bilateral air services agreements should be the provision of the Member State and related third country alone. Creeping jurisdiction in this area of legislation will lead to the Commission assuming judicial priority in air services as a whole and open up the floodgates to a raft of laws which may dissuade foreign carriers from utilising UK airports as principal departure hubs.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that the traditional designation clauses included in bilateral air services agreements concluded by Member States infringe Union law because they allow a third country to reject, withdraw or suspend the permissions or authorisations of an air carrier that has been designated by a Member State but that is not substantially owned and effectively controlled by that Member State or its nationals. This has been found to constitute obvious discrimination, violating Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which guarantees the nationals of Member States who have exercised their freedom of establishment the same treatment in the host Member State as that accorded to nationals of that Member State.

This new agreement negotiated by the Commission, in addition to correcting a discriminatory situation, brings obvious benefits in that it replaces provisions in the existing 13 bilateral agreements with a horizontal agreement that restores a solid legal basis for EU-Mexico relations.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this recommendation because, as a member of the Delegation to the EU-Mexico Joint Parliamentary Committee, I am delighted that the economic ties between the two economies are becoming ever tighter. The roughly 2.5 million people and 90 000 tonnes of cargo that travel each year between these two areas are a sign of a significant economic relationship, which is now also expressed through a number of sectors where problems existed previously. I am referring, in particular, to the parts of the recommendation that extend the agreements which formerly related only to the individual Member State, such as on safety and designations, to the whole of the EU. I therefore offer my congratulations to Ms Ţicău.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report, which will help to enhance EU-Mexico cooperation on aviation matters while also eliminating anti-competitive practices. With the signing of this agreement, both parties will be able to trade freely on a sound legal basis and I welcome that.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Ensuring aviation safety and harmonised rules for the various market players is the main objective of this agreement between the European Union and the United Mexican States on civil aviation safety. This agreement will prevent the duplication of procedures, including tests, evaluations and certifications. It should also be noted that the rule of mutual acceptance and joint inspections, investigations and exchange of safety data allow improved efficiency for all stakeholders. Moreover, the agreement guarantees all EU carriers non-discriminatory access to routes between any EU Member State that is party to a bilateral agreement and Mexico. Last but not least, the agreement will ensure not only significant savings for the aviation industry, but also improved efficiency for the airlines themselves.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Ms Ţicău, concerns the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement on certain aspects of air services between the European Union and the United Mexican States. The Mexican market, which recorded approximately 2.5 million passengers and 90 000 tonnes of cargo in 2009, is important for EU air carriers. International relations in the field of aviation between the Member States and third countries were regulated by bilateral agreements until the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009, which makes it necessary for Parliament to give its consent to agreements on air services. Although this agreement was signed on 15 December 2010, Parliament needs to adopt it before it can be concluded. I welcome the establishment of another agreement whose purpose is to give all EU air carriers non-discriminatory access to routes with Mexico as their destination, which represents an important step in strengthening EU-Mexico relations in the aviation sector.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) As we mentioned with regard to previous agreements covering the same area, in the specific context in which civil aviation operates, this draft agreement raises serious concerns about its scope and possible consequences. Moves to ‘avoid discrimination between EU air carriers’ with the supposed creation of a level playing field for the various European companies could contribute to facilitating the monopolistic concentration within the sector, which is already under way.

The reference to the primacy of free competition in Article 4 comes under this heading, seeking to reduce the Member States’ ability to defend their flag carriers, in a sector that is strategic in terms of safeguarding national interests for a number of reasons. Although the possible implications for Portugal are comparatively less than in those of previous agreements already concluded with Brazil, the United States and Canada, we voted against this report for the sake of consistency with the reasons that we have put forward previously.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) As we mentioned with regard to previous agreements covering the same area, in the specific context in which civil aviation operates, this draft agreement raises serious concerns about its scope and possible consequences. As the report says, moves to ‘avoid discrimination between EU air carriers’ with the supposed creation of a level playing field for the various European companies could contribute to facilitating the monopolistic concentration within the sector, which is already under way.

The reference to the primacy of free competition in Article 4 comes under this heading, seeking to reduce the Member States’ ability to defend their flag carriers, in a sector that is strategic in terms of safeguarding national interests for a number of reasons. It is true that the possible implications for Portugal are comparatively less than in those of previous agreements already concluded with Brazil, the United States and Canada. However, we voted against this report for the sake of consistency with the reasons that we have put forward previously.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) International aviation relations between Member States and third countries have traditionally been governed by bilateral air services agreements. The EU Court of Justice ruled in 2002 that traditional designation clauses in Member States’ bilateral air services agreements infringe EU law. They allow a third country to reject, withdraw or suspend the permissions or authorisations of an air carrier that has been designated by a Member State but that is not substantially owned and effectively controlled by that Member State or its nationals. The Commission has negotiated an agreement that replaces certain provisions in the existing 13 bilateral air services agreements concluded between EU Member States and the United Mexican States. Mexico is an important market for EU carriers with approximately 2.5 million passengers and 90 000 tonnes of cargo in 2009.

In view of the size and importance of the EU-Mexico aviation market, the potential for a more comprehensive EU-Mexico air transport agreement should be explored. Such an agreement could enhance EU-Mexico cooperation on aviation matters and expand the opportunities and benefits for industry and consumers both in Mexico and the EU. On the basis of the above, I therefore support the conclusion of this agreement.

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. – I very much welcome this latest in a series of agreements as a result of the Lisbon Treaty. This should hopefully make air services more efficient, thus improving the environment and, at the same time, lowering the cost of air services for consumers.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I supported this report and welcome the restoration of a sound legal basis for EU-Mexican aviation links. Mexico is an important market for the EU and this is a welcome addition to the existing agreements with Canada, the US and Brazil.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because I believe that certain aspects of this agreement are important. For instance, to avoid discrimination between EU air carriers, the traditional designation clauses, referring to air carriers of the Member State party to the bilateral agreement, are replaced by an EU designation clause, referring to all EU carriers. The aim is to guarantee all EU air carriers non-discriminatory access to routes between European Union Member States and Mexico. Safety provisions in bilateral agreements would be applicable to situations in which regulatory control over an air carrier is exercised by a Member State other than the Member State that designated that air carrier. Anti-competitive practices are also prohibited.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Ms Ţicău on the agreement on certain aspects of air transport between the European Union and Mexico. Mexico represents a significant economic and future investment opportunity for the Member States. In 2009, nearly 2.5 million European passengers chose to travel to Mexico. That is why an agreement on air transport is particularly important, including in view of the conclusion of the agreements with other countries in the Americas. This agreement represents an important first step ahead of the strengthening of trade policies designed to increase exchanges between the Member States and Mexico.

  Vladimir Maňka (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Mexico is an important market for EU carriers with approximately 2.5 million passengers and 90 000 tonnes of cargo annually. In view of the size and importance of the EU-Mexico aviation market, the potential for a more comprehensive EU-Mexico air transport agreement should be explored. Such an agreement could enhance EU-Mexico cooperation on aviation matters and expand the opportunities and benefits for industry and consumers both in Mexico and the EU. Moreover, it would complete the EU-Americas open aviation area following the comprehensive agreements already reached with the US, Canada and, most recently, with Brazil. The objective is to give all EU air carriers non-discriminatory access to routes between the EU Member State which is party to the bilateral agreement and Mexico. Safety provisions in bilateral agreements are applicable to situations when regulatory control over an air carrier is exercised by an EU Member State other than the Member State that designated that air carrier. Anti-competitive practices are prohibited. The agreement with Mexico will restore a sound legal basis for the EU’s aviation relations with the country. This is an important first step in strengthening EU-Mexico aviation relations.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report. The horizontal agreement with Mexico will restore a sound legal basis for the EU’s aviation relations with Mexico. This is an important first step in strengthening EU-Mexico aviation relations. Mexico is an important market for EU carriers with approximately 2.5 million passengers and 90 000 tonnes of cargo in 2009. In view of the size and importance of the EU-Mexico aviation market, the potential for a more comprehensive EU-Mexico air transport agreement should be explored. Such an agreement could enhance EU-Mexico cooperation on aviation matters and expand the opportunities and benefits for industry and consumers both in Mexico and the EU. Moreover, it would complete the EU-Americas open aviation area after the comprehensive agreements already reached with the US, Canada and, most recently, with Brazil.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) It seems to me that the text of the recommendation on the draft Council decision on the Agreement on certain aspects of air services between the European Union and the United Mexican States is certainly an important way to strengthen EU-Mexico relations in this sector.

I therefore voted in favour of the report by Ms Ţicău.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU-Mexico air agreement is very important for the future of relations between both sides. As such, and following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament needs to be fully informed and consulted about the work carried out by the joint committee and all the entities involved. Any agreement that is to be concluded must be adopted by Parliament, which will therefore need to be kept up to date with all negotiations, and it will even be important, in the future, for regular meetings to be held between Members of this House and members of the US Congress in order to debate all issues relating to aviation policy between the EU and Mexico. This agreement is therefore an important step towards opening up the market to airlines from the EU and Mexico, without any discrimination. This opening up of the market will contribute to improving the services provided to passengers.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – I know that Mexico is an important trade partner and aviation market for EU carriers, with approximately 2.5 million passengers per year. The committee unanimously recommended concluding the agreement. I voted in favour.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Given what we have just voted on, I think it is quite right to re-examine the relationships between airlines from the European Union and those from the United Mexican States. I say this because Mexico is an important market for EU air carriers and, given time, I would not bet against a further, more binding agreement being signed on this issue. The fact that previously there was no clause binding the bilateral agreements between Member States and Mexico caused blockages and breaches of European regulations, specifically Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Hence, I think this decision is both right and necessary.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Under the terms presented in this report, the horizontal agreement with Mexico will restore a sound legal basis for the EU’s aviation relations with the country. This is an important first step in strengthening EU-Mexico relations in the aviation sector. Mexico, which recorded approximately 2.5 million passengers and 90 000 tonnes of cargo in 2009, is an important market for EU carriers. In view of the size and importance of the EU-Mexico aviation market, a comprehensive agreement should be explored, like those already reached with other countries in the Americas, specifically, the US, Canada and, most recently, Brazil. I voted in favour of this report because it represents a positive step in that direction.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Following the conclusion of agreements with the United States, Canada and Brazil, the EU-Mexico agreement represents another open door to relations between the Union and the Americas. In this case, it is an agreement concluded with an important trade partner – around 2.5 million passengers and 90 000 tonnes of cargo in 2009 – which will most probably lead to closer relations. I voted in favour because I agree with this course of action.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. International aviation relations between Member States and third countries have traditionally been governed by bilateral air services agreements. The EU Court of Justice ruled in 2002 that traditional designation clauses in Member States’ bilateral air services agreements infringe EU law. They allow a third country to reject, withdraw or suspend the permissions or authorisations of an air carrier that has been designated by a Member State but that is not substantially owned and effectively controlled by that Member State or its nationals. This has been found to constitute discrimination against EU carriers established in the territory of a Member State but owned and controlled by nationals of other Member States.

This is contrary to Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which guarantees nationals of Member States who have exercised their freedom of establishment the same treatment in the host Member State as that accorded to nationals of that Member State. There are also further issues, such as competition, where compliance with EU law should be ensured through amending or complementing existing provisions in bilateral air services agreements between Member States and third countries.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this text because I think that, in order to avoid discrimination between the various European air carriers, it is essential for there to be a single designation clause, replacing the traditional clauses of each individual Member State.

Indeed, the aim is to grant all European airlines equal access to routes between the Member State that signed the bilateral agreement and Mexico, which is a strategic market for the EU in this sense. This horizontal agreement will make it possible to establish a sound legal basis for aviation relations with Mexico.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Commission has negotiated an agreement that will replace the 13 existing bilateral agreements between EU Member States and the United Mexican States. This agreement, known as the horizontal agreement, like the many others in the area of civil aviation that the European Union has negotiated and concluded with various international partners, will serve as a common legal framework for the relationships of the various Member States of the European Union with the United Mexican States, and constitutes a first step in strengthening their relations in this area. The scale and importance of the Mexican aviation market for the European Union justify moving towards an agreement that is more comprehensive and able to benefit the civil aviation industry and both EU and Mexican consumers. Furthermore, the agreement is the last in a series of agreements concluded with other countries of the Americas, such as those recently reached with the United States, Canada and Brazil.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The Agreement on certain aspects of air services between the European Union and the United Mexican States marks an important first step in strengthening EU-Mexico aviation relations. This replaces certain provisions in the existing 13 bilateral agreements with an EU agreement on air services concluded between EU Member States and the United Mexican States. The purpose of the agreement is to provide non-discriminatory access to air routes between EU Member States and the United Mexican States, with a ban on anti-competitive practices.

Mexico is an important market for EU carriers with a total of 2.5 million passengers and 90 000 tonnes of cargo in 2009. In view of the size and importance of the EU-Mexico aviation market, the potential for a more comprehensive EU-Mexico air transport agreement must be explored. Such an agreement would enhance EU-Mexico cooperation on aviation matters and generate more opportunities and benefits for this sector and for Mexican and EU citizens. Moreover, it would allow the EU-Americas open aviation area to be expanded, supplementing the comprehensive agreements already reached with the US, Canada and Brazil.

  Niki Tzavela (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the Ţicău report on the strengthening of air services between the EU and Mexico. This will safeguard non-discriminatory access to flights between the EU and Mexico and will also improve the level of flight safety.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The bilateral air service agreement with Mexico has been brought into line with the case-law of the European Court of Justice in respect of the designation clause (Article 2), safety (Article 3) and compatibility with EU competition rules (Article 4). I voted in favour of this report.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Following the ruling of the EU Court of Justice in 2002 that traditional designation clauses in Member States’ bilateral agreements in the international air transport sector infringe EU law, the Commission has negotiated a series of agreements in order to restore a valid legal basis for relations on air services between the EU and third countries.

Mexico is an important market for EU air carriers, with around 2.5 million passengers travelling from Europe to this central American country. I have therefore voted in favour of this agreement which, following those already signed with the United States, Canada and Brazil, among other things, helps towards the completion of the series of agreements on the EU-Americas open aviation area.

Report: Pat the Cope Gallagher (A7-0299/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this recommendation, since I consider it very advantageous to the EU. The new protocol permits 5 000 tonnes per year and an EU contribution to Cape Verde of EUR 435 000, thereby presenting new fishing opportunities for Portuguese, Spanish and French ships. This agreement is of the greatest importance, given that fishing represents 2% of Cape Verde’s gross domestic product, that this is an African country that has been achieving good results in political, social and economic development, and that Cape Verde has a special partnership with the outermost regions of the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands. This agreement will enhance these relations.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed the conclusion of this agreement. Based on a mandate from the Council, the European Commission has negotiated with the Republic of Cape Verde to renew the Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Cape Verde, dated 19 December 2006. The aim of this protocol is to continue the cooperation between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde, thereby creating a partnership framework within which to develop a sustainable fisheries policy and sound exploitation of fishery resources in the Cape Verde fishing zone, in the interests of both parties.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), in writing. – (ES) I voted in favour of the report on the fishing agreement with Cape Verde because it is an improvement on the previous one, for various reasons. To start with, it maintains the levies imposed on ship owners for each tonne caught (these do not increase), reduces advances and improves the fishing capacity of tuna seiners, although this is offset by the reduction in surface longliners, calculated in line with the observed use in the previous agreement. The clauses maintaining the agreement on respect for human rights in the region are also more stringent. Lastly, it increases support for the Cape Verde sector and insists on responsible fishing by obliging the local authorities to install a satellite tracking system to monitor boats.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I decided to vote in favour of this document on the renewal of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde, which allows EU vessels to carry out fishing activities in Cape Verdean waters.

The document underlines the need to maintain transparency and clarity on the implementation of the agreement, particularly through controls on the management of financial contributions to the Republic of Cape Verde and by periodically updating Parliament on relevant developments. Accordingly, I think this document is worthy of support and hence, decided to vote in favour.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because a new protocol must be concluded in order to improve and reinforce the fight against illegal, undeclared and unregulated fishing in Cape Verde. Cape Verde is a small island state with 465 000 inhabitants located in the Atlantic Ocean, approximately 500 km west of Senegal in West Africa. Cape Verde is considered one of the African countries that has achieved the best results in terms of political, economic and social development. The conclusion of the new protocol will have a significant impact on the political and financial stability of Cape Verde because the annual financial compensation is EUR 435 000, of which EUR 110 000 will be earmarked to support the fisheries sector of Cape Verde (EUR 50 000 more than in the previous protocol). In order to contribute to the viability of European enterprises, the new protocol must maintain access for the European Union to the fishing zones in the West African region and improve the partnership between both parties.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Gallagher because I am a strong believer in partnership agreements in the fisheries sector. One of their advantages is that they ensure the sustainability of fish stocks and guarantee jobs.

In the particular case of the text voted upon today, Cape Verde is among those African countries with which the best results have been seen in terms of political, economic and social development. Even if its fishery resources are not considerable, they do include commercially important species of migratory fish such as tunas, small pelagic fish and lobsters. In particular, catches of tuna no longer account for more than 0.2% of all catches from the fish stocks concerned and the impact of the tuna fishing opportunities on sustainability is therefore minimal.

The agreement has had a positive impact on building Cape Verdean institutional capacity, providing facilities for fishing and 113 jobs. I therefore agree with the rapporteur, Mr Gallagher, that it is well worth renewing it. Furthermore, for Europe, the conclusion of the new protocol will help maintain continuity in the fishing zones covered by agreements and contribute to the vitality of European industries.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted against the conclusion of a new protocol governing a Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde. Imports of foreign fish undermine domestic markets but also usurp vital industries in third countries upon which whole communities depend. European waters have been grossly mismanaged by the Commission so I morally cannot support the EU now seeking to fish in foreign waters. It is extremely important that if third countries wish to trade with European nations, it is done on a Member State basis and with competitive freedoms to ensure the best deals are secured for both parties. In the UK, it should be up to the government to decide, with respect to British freedom of choice, how to create and develop fisheries and with whom negotiations on fisheries agreements should take place.

  Ole Christensen, Dan Jørgensen, Christel Schaldemose and Britta Thomsen (S&D), in writing. – (DA) We voted against the recommendation. The proposed new Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement with the Republic of Cape Verde contains a reference quota of 5 000 tonnes of fish. However, this reference quota can be increased against a payment of EUR 65 for each additional tonne of fish caught, thus precluding a definite ceiling on the catch quantity. In light of the relatively low cost of each additional tonne of fish caught – in relation to the value of the fish – a financial incentive for EU fishermen to catch more than the reference quota could easily arise, thus contributing to the over-exploitation of fish stocks in Cape Verde’s waters.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This legislative resolution concerns the draft decision regarding a new protocol for the EU-Cape Verde Fisheries Partnership Agreement. The goal is to promote cooperation between the EU and the Republic of Cape Verde, so as to develop a policy of sustainable fishing and ensure rational exploitation of the resources in Cape Verde’s fishing zone. This partnership ensures the sustainability of resources, and clearly benefits both parties. I am voting for this report, as I believe the agreement promotes a privileged relationship between the EU and an important region, thereby promoting the Atlantic dimension of the EU’s integrated maritime policy. I also believe this report to be consistent with EU fisheries, maritime and development policy. By way of example, I should like to highlight the case of Portugal, which is guaranteed an increase in the number of its longliner licences from seven to nine with this protocol. In a wider context, I also await a strengthening of the EU-Cape Verde special partnership agreement, which has made significant progress over recent years, and has undeniably contributed to the desirable process of EU-Cape Verde dialogue and convergence.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I believe that the agreement promotes the development of a sustainable fishing policy and the responsible exploitation of fishery resources in the Republic of Cape Verde’s fishing zone. It should be stressed that the new protocol now authorises 35 EU surface longliners to fish in Cape Verde waters, including nine Portuguese vessels, which is two more than under the previous protocol.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) With particularly close ties in terms of population, history and culture to the European Union, Cape Verde has embarked upon a process of moving increasingly closer to Europe, which has culminated in the conclusion of the special partnership, in which the country’s specific characteristics have been clearly acknowledged, as well as the notable progress it has made, which constitutes a positive example for developing countries. I hope the partnership established in the fishing sector will complement the other areas of privileged cooperation with the Union, and that they will all be fruitful for both parties. I hope that, in the area of fisheries too, Cape Verde will again set an example and demonstrate that, even with scant resources, it is possible to make progress and construct a stable, democratic country. Like the rapporteur, I believe that, in the future, the agreement could complement a future Atlantic dimension to the EU’s integrated maritime policy.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This recommendation on a draft Council decision concerns the conclusion of a new fisheries partnership agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde, which sets out the fishing possibilities and financial contribution. The fisheries protocol concluded between the European Community and Cape Verde came to an end on 31 August, after having been in force for five years. Last December, a new protocol was negotiated, which will be in force between 1 September 2011 and 31 August 2014. However, pursuant to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, conclusion of the new protocol requires the consent of Parliament. Given that this is a country with very privileged relations with the EU, and with which the EU even concluded a special partnership in 2007, and taking account of the fact that it also has very close ties with the European outermost regions of the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands, I welcome the conclusion of this protocol. It will not only enable the fishing fleets of Portugal, Spain and France to continue fishing in Cape Verde waters, but will also contribute to the sustainable economic development of a country lacking abundant financial resources.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This fisheries protocol guarantees fishing opportunities off Cape Verde for the Member States’ fleets until 31 August 2014. The islands’ volcanic origins mean that the continental shelves around Cape Verde are generally narrow, thus limiting the productivity of fisheries. Cape Verde fishery resources are not considerable, but they do include commercially important migratory species such as tunas, along with small pelagic fish, and some demersal fish and lobsters. Overall employment in the fisheries sub-sectors and related public administrative activities accounted for around 10 400 jobs in 2008, about 5% of the total workforce.

We share the concerns expressed by the rapporteur when he calls on the Commission to provide Parliament with all the relevant documentation and information relating to the conclusions of the meetings of the joint committee, as well as the multiannual sectoral programme and the outcome of the corresponding annual evaluations; to facilitate the participation of Parliament’s representatives as observers in the meetings of the joint committee; and to submit to Parliament, within the final year of application of the new protocol and before the opening of negotiations for its renewal, a full evaluation report on its implementation, without imposing unnecessary restrictions on access to this document.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns the fisheries protocol, which guarantees fishing opportunities off Cape Verde for the Member States’ fleets until 31 August 2014. It is an important agreement for tuna fishing, where Portugal’s licences for surface longliners have increased from seven to nine. As is the case with other fishing agreements with third countries, this agreement raises important issues with regard to the economic viability of EU countries’ long-distance fishing fleets and the actual fishing opportunities granted under them, to the development of third countries, and to the support for development actually granted.

These agreements remain commercial in nature, although their partnership and development aspect has been stepped up: this agreement is an example of that, with the annual financial contribution having increased to EUR 435 000, with EUR 110 000 earmarked for supporting the development of the sectoral fisheries policy of the Republic of Cape Verde. Let us hope it will be enough to support the fishers and people of Cape Verde.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) On 19 December 2006, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2027/2006 on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Cape Verde. This agreement, which is applicable for a period of five years and automatically renewable unless terminated by one of the parties, repeals and replaces the first agreement between the EC and the Republic of Cape Verde, which was concluded in 1990. The current protocol expired on 31 August 2011. In order to allow EU vessels to carry out fishing activities pending the completion of the procedures for the conclusion of the protocol, Article 15 of the new protocol provides for it to be applied on a provisional basis as from 1 September 2011. Cape Verde is an archipelagic island state situated in the Eastern Atlantic, 375 miles to the west of Senegal and Mauritania, with around 465 000 inhabitants. It has limited natural resources and fresh water and ranks 121 out of 182 countries in the UN Human Development Index.

Cape Verde is considered as one of the best performing countries in Africa in terms of political, economic and social development. I therefore express my belief that the new protocol will contribute to the strengthening of the capacity of the Republic of Cape Verde to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, will help to maintain continuity in the fishing zones in the western African region, and will bring an additional dimension to the special partnership between the EU and the Republic of Cape Verde.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – The current protocol expires after 4½ years. The European Commission started negotiations in December 2010 on a new protocol to cover a period of another 3 years. The conclusion of the protocol by the Council is subject to the prior consent of the European Parliament. Cape Verde can be considered as one of the best performing countries in Africa in terms of political, economic and social development. The fishery resources are not considerable, but they do include commercially important species of migratory fish such as tunas, small pelagic fish, and some demersal fish and lobsters. According to the evaluation report, the impact of the tuna fishing opportunities on sustainability is minimal. As the rapporteur, I recommend to give consent to the conclusion of the new protocol to the agreement.

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of this report, and I want to congratulate my constituency colleague Pat the Cope Gallagher. Some of the main elements of the new protocol which I am pleased with include specific payments for support for the development of the sectoral fisheries policy of the Republic of Cape Verde. This is something I welcome. This new agreement also provides for fishing opportunities for 28 tuna seiners, 35 surface longliners and 11 pole-and-line vessels and advances and fees payable by shipowners are also set out.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I voted against this report. As we begin our work on the vital reform of the CFP, it is apparent that certain Member States have fleets which exceed their national waters’ fishing capacity. We should not resolve that issue by exporting this over-capacity to other countries.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because 28 tuna seiners, 35 surface longliners and 11 pole-and-line vessels will be authorised to fish, with an annual reference tonnage of 5 000 tonnes. On the basis of the annual assessments of the state of stocks, these fishing opportunities could be revised upwards or downwards, which would lead to a corresponding review of the financial contribution. Annual financial compensation: EUR 435 000 (a total of EUR 1 305 000 over the whole period), on the basis of: a) an annual payment for access to the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of Cape Verde of EUR 325 000; b) a specific payment of EUR 110 000 per year in support for the development of the sectoral fisheries policy of the Republic of Cape Verde. The allocation of these fishing opportunities among the Member States concerned will be the subject of a proposal for a specific Council Regulation.

  Vladimir Maňka (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The validity of the Protocol to the Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Cape Verde in the fishing sector expired on 31 August 2011. A new protocol was negotiated and initialled on 22 December 2010, covering a period of 3 years starting from 1 September 2011. Its conclusion by the Council was subject to the prior consent of the EP.

When voting, I therefore supported the financial compensation for support for the development of the sectoral fisheries policy of the Republic of Cape Verde, as well as fishing opportunities and advances and fees payable by shipowners which correspond to the annual reference catches.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this proposal and applaud the fact that this protocol introduces new provisions whereby the payment of the financial contribution or even the implementation of the protocol can be suspended in cases of violation of human rights and democratic principles.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of renewing the Protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde starting from 1 September 2011 for a duration of three years. The partnership seeks to ensure EU access to Cape Verde’s fertile waters and that this access is carried out in the most sustainable manner. As its fishery resources account for 2% of Cape Verde’s economy, it is reasonable to suggest that EU access to its waters does not encroach on the nation’s means of development. The fact that a 13% increase in funding will be given to Cape Verde attests to the EU’s desire to fuel its partner’s economy in return for the use of its waters.

I would like to draw attention to a problem which has arisen in my own country. Romania receives funding from the EU to enhance regional development, and fisheries is one sector that benefits from this funding. However, due to the regulations upholding sustainable fishing practices, a large decrease in employment has resulted. It is likewise my recommendation that the jobs of Cape Verdean nationals employed in the fishing industry be protected under this new agreement.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am in favour of the recommendation on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a new protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde.

The protocol intensifies the partnership with an important peripheral region nation and fully meets the European Union’s fishing needs and the need to maintain the activities of our industries whose ships cross the region of West Africa.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I am convinced that this new protocol will help strengthen Cape Verde’s capacity for combating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, in particular, by improving its infrastructure for monitoring and controlling fishing activities in its exclusive economic zone. It will also have a major impact on the country’s budgetary and political stability. For the European Union, the conclusion of the new protocol will help maintain continuity in the fishing zones covered by agreements in the western Africa region, and contribute to the viability of European industries by offering EU vessels and the industries that depend on them a stable legal environment and medium-term predictability. Moreover, the agreement provides an additional dimension to the special partnership between the EU and an important peripheral region nation, and could complement a future Atlantic dimension to the EU’s integrated maritime policy.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – As is known, the new protocol, which will cover the period of November 2011-August 2014, leaves the reference tonnage of 5 000 t/year unchanged, and increases the financial contribution to EUR 435 000 (of which EUR 110 000 will be earmarked for sectoral support). The new protocol provides fishing opportunities for Spanish, French and Portuguese vessels. But where are Latvian, British, Netherlands vessels? I am against the report.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the agreement on the fishing sector and the relations between the EU and Cape Verde since I believe that the agreement we have ended up with is a beneficial one that could have positive results for both parties. The renewal of the old agreement, which expired in August 2011, can only confirm the theory that it creates favourable and profitable conditions that benefit both parties, including in the area of illegal fishing, through the improvement of surveillance infrastructure to ensure responsible and sustainable fishing activities.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The conclusion of this agreement is of great importance to the European Union, as it is a key means of pursuing the foreign policy objectives of the common fisheries policy, specifically in the western Africa region. In addition to providing the EU fleet, including the Portuguese fleet, with interesting fishing opportunities, this agreement will help strengthen Cape Verde’s capacity for combating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, in particular, by improving its infrastructure for monitoring and controlling fishing activities in its exclusive economic zone. It will also have a major impact on the country’s budgetary and political stability. Moreover, the agreement provides an additional dimension to the special partnership between the EU and an important peripheral region nation, whilst strengthening important aspects of the EU’s integrated maritime policy.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Regulation (EC) No 2027/2006 on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Cape Verde was accompanied by a protocol setting out the fishing possibilities and financial contribution. This protocol expired on 31 August 2011, and the intention is to adopt a new protocol, which was signed on 27 July 2011. From the point of view of the Republic of Cape Verde, the agreement with the EU is the closest that it has concluded with any trade partner as regards fisheries as, besides the financial compensation aspect, it has already led to an increase in the instruments available to local fishers. On the other hand, this is a fishing area of great importance for the sustainability of EU operators. I voted in favour because I agree with the balance achieved.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Against. On 19 December 2006, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 2027/2006 on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement (FPA) between the European Community and the Republic of Cape Verde. This FPA, which is applicable for periods of 5 years, tacitly renewable unless either party terminates it, entailed the repeal and replacement of the first agreement between the EC and Cape Verde, concluded in 1990. The FPA was accompanied by a protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and the financial compensation originally for a 5 year period (from 1 September 2006 to 31 August 2011).

However, the agreement and the protocol only entered into force on 30 March 2007. The current protocol expires on 31 August 2011, after a duration of 4 years and 5 months. A new protocol was meanwhile negotiated and initialled on 22 December 2010, covering a period of 3 years starting from 1 September 2011. Its conclusion by the Council is subject to the prior consent of the EP under Articles 43(2) and 218(6) (a) of the TFEU.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this agreement because it updates guidelines on fishing and Member States’ financial compensation in the national waters of Cape Verde.

I am also pleased to see that the new protocol includes specific clauses that could also lead to the suspension of any form of financial compensation in the event of violations of fundamental human rights.

This document will also bolster Cape Verde’s ability to fight illegal fishing, in particular, by improving infrastructure for monitoring and controlling fishing activities, which will have an important impact on the financial and political stability of the country.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The new protocol to the EU-Cape Verde Fisheries Partnership Agreement contributes to maintaining the continuity of fishing opportunities, in the interests of both parties. The special partnership was concluded in 2007, taking into account Cape Verde’s status as a peripheral region nation and how much it has in common with the EU’s outermost regions of Madeira and the Azores. Their proximity in terms of geography and challenges faced contribute to an increasingly close relationship, complementing a future Atlantic dimension to the EU’s integrated maritime policy. With a view to creating a framework of partnership for the development of a sustainable fisheries policy, the protocol provides for an annual contribution of EUR 1 305 000. In addition, it will be desirable to foster synergies with various regional development programmes, and for the agreement to have been developed in line with the EU’s common fisheries policy (CFP) and development policies. I voted for the document for the reasons that I have given.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Cape Verde is classified as important for the EU’s fishing activities, yet at the same time, the fishing activities of the EU in Cape Verde’s waters – according to the evaluation report – will have a minimum impact on sustainability in those waters. The new protocol contains explicit clauses concerning the suspension and revision of the financial compensation in the event of the breach of fundamental human rights or democratic principles. Furthermore, the new protocol is expected to make a significant contribution to Cape Verde’s fight against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. I voted in favour.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the text presented by Mr Gallagher on the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Union and Cape Verde.

In addition to being Vice-Chair of the Committee on Development, I am a member of the Delegation for Relations with African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries, and therefore am aware of the significance that signing such agreements has for developing countries. In the specific case in question, the European Union undertakes, with immediate effect, to pay annual financial compensation of EUR 1 305 000 over three years, in exchange for the right to fish tuna, of which there are abundant stocks in the waters of Cape Verde.

Report: Herbert Reul (A7-0301/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this recommendation as I see no reason not to.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this document. On 30 March 2009, the Council asked the Commission to take all necessary action to achieve the highest level of interoperability between the European air traffic management (ATM) modernisation programme, SESAR, and the corresponding programme in the USA, NextGen, as well as other regional projects in ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) regions. Based on the Commission’s recommendation, on 9 October 2009, the Council adopted a decision that mandated the Commission to open negotiations on behalf of the EU with the FAA for a memorandum of cooperation for research and development in the field of civil aviation. The Council also asked the Commission to develop, in parallel, an Annex addressing SESAR-NextGen interoperability. The proposed draft memorandum defines the terms and conditions for mutual cooperation between the EU and the USA for the promotion and development of civil aviation research and development. It constitutes an important instrument that will allow the parties to jointly pursue their common objective of ensuring greener and more efficient air transport systems. The draft memorandum will allow the two parties to establish cooperative research and development activities in relation to any civil aviation issue.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for this recommendation because I am in favour of greater integration on a practical level between the economies of Europe and the United States. We are talking about two of the world’s largest markets, which have very high trading levels and share several fundamental values. These values mean that it is both convenient and useful to share policies underlying a further increase in trade and direct investment between the two. In an industry like that of civil aviation, in which the United States and the EU account for a significant proportion of global traffic, and international cooperation is a crucial requirement for maintaining services, it does not make sense to erect barriers. On the contrary, the Council is to be commended for focusing on cooperation, especially in an area like that of research and development, which benefits from spillovers.

  Mário David (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The memorandum of cooperation before us today proposes terms and conditions for collaboration between the EU and the United States to encourage research and development in the field of civil aviation. This cooperation could take place through exchanges of information on programmes and projects, research results or publications, and of specific equipment, software, and systems for research activities and compatibility studies. It could also include the coordination of research and development projects, as well as their implementation. I voted for this report, since I believe it promotes solidarity and transatlantic cooperation, thereby establishing new opportunities for future cooperation in other areas. This memorandum removes technical barriers, by enabling shared research structures and so creating synergies with a view to achieving scientific results that are faster and more rigorous. The conclusion of this agreement strengthens mutual trust, shared research, and economic and scientific growth and development. I am, therefore, fairly pleased at the increasing closeness of the two sides, and would stress the importance of this continuing, not just in the field of civil aviation, but also in any other areas where there are synergies to be achieved.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Cooperation between the EU and the United States on civil aviation research and development is all the more important because of the significance of the aviation industries of these two areas, since the adoption of common rules secures efficiency gains for all concerned.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The issue of international air traffic management is extremely important, not just because of its exponential growth, but also owing to the security problems that have become more acute than could have been expected since the attacks of 11 September 2001. This recommendation, drafted by Mr Reul, concerns Memorandum of Cooperation NAT-I-9406 between the European Union and the United States of America on research and development in the field of civil aviation. The memorandum in question is a result of the Council’s 2009 request to the Commission to obtain the greatest possible degree of interoperability between the Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research programme and the equivalent programme in the United States, known as NextGen, as well as other regional programmes of the International Civil Aviation Organisation. I am voting for this memorandum, since, as well as promoting technological innovation and increasing research in the field of civil aviation, it constitutes an instrument that will enable the parties to secure air transport systems that are more environmentally friendly and more efficient, whilst boosting the global competitiveness of European industry.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The memorandum of cooperation in question establishes the terms and conditions for mutual cooperation on promoting and increasing research and development in the field of civil aviation. To that end, the parties – the United States and the EU – can, provided that adequate funding and the other necessary resources are available, provide related personnel, resources and services, with a view to cooperation to the extent provided for in its annexes and appendices. This cooperation could take place through exchanges of information on programmes and projects, research results or publications; of scientific and technical personnel; and of specific equipment, software, and systems for research activities and compatibility studies. It could also include the coordination of research and development projects and their implementation on the basis of a division of labour.

Unless otherwise indicated in an annex or appendix to this memorandum, the parties will share any intellectual property rights that they develop jointly in the context of this memorandum and its annexes or appendices. With respect to this issue, it will be important to monitor its developments and consistency with the stated objectives in the future, and to evaluate its implementation.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This memorandum of cooperation, including its annexes and appendices, establishes the terms and conditions for mutual cooperation on promoting and increasing research and development in the field of civil aviation. To that end, the parties can, provided that adequate funding and the other necessary resources are available, provide related personnel, resources and services, with a view to cooperation to the extent provided for in its annexes and appendices. Cooperation could take place through exchanges of information on programmes and projects, research results or publications; of scientific and technical personnel; and of specific equipment, software, and systems for research activities and compatibility studies. It could also include the coordination of research and development projects and their implementation on the basis of a division of labour. Unless otherwise indicated in an annex or appendix of this memorandum, the parties will share any intellectual property rights that they develop jointly in the context of this memorandum and its annexes or appendices. We will see how well it is implemented.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) European civil aviation industry expects that through the implementation of reciprocity principles underlying the memorandum, it will be able to take advantage of comparable opportunities to engage in cooperative activities with the USA on the basis of transparency, mutual benefits, and equitable and fair treatment. The memorandum of cooperation between the EU and the USA provides a sound legal basis that allows for an in-depth technical and operational cooperation, leading to the early development of common standards in civil aviation. It is an efficient binding legal instrument that fosters technical cooperation between the two parties.

It establishes a general framework that allows setting up cooperative activities ensuring both parties comparable opportunities for participation in their research and development activities in any field of civil aviation. The proposed memorandum of cooperation with the USA also provides a sound and legally binding basis for establishing cooperative research and development activities. In addition, it has the potential to set the international standards in aviation, providing the European civil aviation industry with wider market opportunities.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because it defines the terms and conditions for mutual cooperation between the EU and the USA for the promotion and development of civil aviation research and development. It constitutes an important instrument that, through a legally binding framework and respecting commonly agreed reciprocity principles, will allow the parties to jointly pursue their common objective of ensuring greener and more efficient air transport systems. The draft memorandum will allow the two parties to establish cooperative research and development activities in relation to any civil aviation issue. The memorandum of cooperation with the USA provides a sound and legally binding basis for establishing cooperative research and development activities, while duly addressing sensitive issues such as liability, intellectual property rights and reciprocity. In addition, the memorandum has the potential to set international standards in aviation providing worldwide interoperability in response to aviation stakeholders’ expectations, and providing the European industry with wider market opportunities.

  Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I voted in favour, since in my opinion, the EU-US Memorandum of Cooperation on civil aviation research and development creates an opportunity for stronger cooperation and exchange of experience in this field. It is my belief that it will have a direct impact on the establishment of a more efficient and environmentally-friendly air transport system, and will assist in the standardisation of the industry at international level.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the draft Council decision on the conclusion of the Memorandum of Cooperation NAT-I-9406 between the United States of America and the European Union.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The adoption of this memorandum of cooperation, with all its annexes and appendices, establishes the terms and conditions for mutual cooperation on promoting and increasing research and development in the field of civil aviation between the EU and the United States.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) We have a string of cooperation agreements with the United States. Within the oft-cited trans-European partnership, and given the fiasco of the air passenger data agreement, you cannot help but get the impression that the EU regularly allows itself to be outmuscled at the negotiating table. As experienced Europeans, it is only natural for us to be cautious about each agreement that has been negotiated with the United States. I decided to abstain from the vote, as there are no clear advantages for the EU or signs of equality of treatment like true partners.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Research and development are the cornerstones of the future, and in the civil aviation industry, too, ensuring greater passenger safety, comfort and rapid transport links with countries outside Europe. In this case, the memorandum of cooperation between the United States and the European Union, which I voted in favour of, allows designs, research and innovative projects to be shared and exchanged. In addition to these, coordinated research also produces new technical instrumentation and qualified personnel.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This memorandum of cooperation, for which I voted, on the basis of the detailed opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, establishes the terms and conditions for mutual cooperation on promoting and increasing research and development in the field of civil aviation. The envisaged cooperation could take place through exchanges of information on programmes and projects, research results or publications; of scientific and technical personnel; and of specific equipment, software, and systems for research activities and compatibility studies. Cooperation could also include the coordination of research and development projects and their implementation on the basis of a division of labour. Everything indicates that the foundations are being laid for better and more productive cooperation.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The EU-US Memorandum of Cooperation concerns cooperation on civil aviation research and development between the two areas. As set out in the text, it is a model that aids EU-US cooperation, whether in the form of knowledge sharing, of exchanges of researchers, of launching joint research programmes, or of reciprocal enquiries with a view to harmonising the positions of the relevant international authorities. I voted in favour because I agree with the aim of this agreement.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The European Parliament, – having regard to the draft Council decision (09390/2011), – having regard to the draft Memorandum of Cooperation Nat-I-9406 between the United States of America and the European Union (06458/2011), – having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Articles 100(2) and 218(7) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0141/2011), – having regard to Rules 81, 90(8) and 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure, – having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A7-0301/2011), 1. Consents to conclusion of the agreement; 2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the United States of America.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Article 216 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) states that ‘the Union may conclude an agreement with one or more third countries or international organisations where the Treaties so provide or where the conclusion of an agreement is necessary in order to achieve, within the framework of the Union’s policies, one of the objectives referred to in the Treaties’. Pursuant to Article 100(2) and Article 218(6a) of the TFEU, the Council has asked the Commission to take the necessary measures to establish a framework for cooperation with the US Federal Aviation Administration on civil aviation research and development. I am voting for this recommendation, because I believe it is positive for both regions to pursue common goals as regards designing new systems of air transport that are more environmentally friendly and efficient. I also consider it crucial to implement this agreement quickly, since the European industry will be able to cooperate on new activities with the United States on the basis of transparency, mutual benefit, and equal and fair treatment. I would also stress the need for European civil aviation companies to have access to new markets, which will enable them to increase their productive capacity and create new jobs.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the European Parliament recommendation on the Council decision on the conclusion of the memorandum of cooperation between the US and the EU in the area of civil aviation research and development (R&D). The memorandum sets out the terms and conditions for cooperation between the parties, with the aim of ensuring global interoperability between their programmes for modernising air traffic management (ATM), NextGen and SESAR, taking into account the interests of civilian and military air space users.

The memorandum’s objectives can be achieved through cooperation in the following areas: exchanging information on programmes and projects, research results or publications; conducting joint analyses; coordinating R&D projects and programmes, based on joint efforts; exchanging scientific and technical personnel; exchanging hardware, software and specific research systems for research activities and compatibility studies; jointly organising symposiums or conferences, and mutual consultation with a view to defining concerted action by the relevant international bodies.

Producing joint aviation R&D programmes will promote and develop cooperation in this sphere, as well as help enhance civil aviation safety in the United States and the European Union.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Reul’s report on the memorandum of cooperation between the United States and the European Union which, after lengthy negotiations, sets out the conditions for mutual cooperation in the promotion of research and development in civil aviation.

Coordinating research programmes and projects, exchanging technical and scientific personnel (and information useful to both sides, such as the results of research and publications), and carrying out shared analysis work are the tools that will ensure fruitful cooperation and deliver the memorandum’s underlying objectives.

Recommendation: Sophie Auconie (A7-0077/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this recommendation, since its simplification of regulatory constraints will be of benefit, by enabling euro cash to move more freely between euro area Member States, whilst ensuring a high level of professionalism and security. Moreover, this regulation facilitates transport to Member States about to introduce the euro, since the change in currency normally increases the need to transport euro cash. However, it is regrettable that the Commission wanted to unilaterally amend the text, without taking into account the opinion of social partners, as the European Parliament requested.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The measure is the logical complement to the regulation on the cross-border transport of euro cash.

It is right to ensure that countries about to join the euro area, not only those which are already part of it, include in their laws regulatory measures and specific provisions governing the professional qualities of personnel responsible for the cross-border transportation of euro cash, the security of euro cash transportation, and deterrents against raids and robberies during all stages of transportation.

The period before a Member State joins the euro is a particularly vulnerable time for euro cash transportation security, given the large quantity of cash that needs to be transported in the country about to adopt the euro as its national currency, and the measures proposed seem both necessary and appropriate. I therefore voted in favour of Parliament’s recommendation.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I am against extending the scope of the proposal for a regulation on the cross-border transportation of euro cash by road between euro area Member States (the main proposal) to the territory of Member States that are about to introduce the euro. Maybe in certain eurozone countries, there is an increased need for euro cash transportation in the run-up to the changeover, but, bearing in mind the potential of a future collapse of the common currency and the eurozone, this report is ill timed when focus needs to be on whether or not to maintain the currency and, if so, how to keep it afloat.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I agree with the rapporteur as regards the extension of the provisions in her initial report on the professional cross-border transport of euro cash to the territory of Member States that are about to introduce the euro.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The recommendation tabled by Ms Auconie relates to a draft Council regulation on the extension of the scope of the EU Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between euro area Member States. The proposal, which falls within the framework of Article 352 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, was unanimously adopted by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, so it just requires Parliament’s consent. There is nothing to prevent this proposal’s adoption, given that it will facilitate the circulation of euro cash within the European Union; in other words, its transport between euro area Member States and those that are about to introduce the euro.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The introduction of the euro has considerably increased the need for cross-border transportation of cash by road. Within the euro area, banks, the large retail sector and other professional cash handlers should be able to enter into a contract with the cash-in-transit (‘CIT’) company and to take advantage of the cash services of the nearest national central bank (NCB) branch or CIT cash centre, even if it is located in another Member State.

The purpose of the present proposal is to extend the scope of the proposal for a regulation on the cross-border transportation of euro cash by road between euro area Member States to the territory of a Member State that is about to introduce the euro, since there will normally be an increased need for cross-border euro cash transportation in the run-up to the changeover. The extension of the regulation should be automatic and take effect as from the date when the Council decides to lift the derogation of a Member State from its participation in the euro area.

The applied measures are appropriate and are necessary in order to facilitate a smooth changeover to the euro. The Regulation (EU) of the European Parliament and of the Council applies to the territory of those Member States which have adopted the euro as their single currency. There is a need for transportation of euro cash in the run-up to the euro changeover since the euro banknotes needed for the changeover are usually transported from existing euro area stocks and since euro coins are often fully or partly minted abroad.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this regulation because the purpose of this document is to extend the scope of the proposal for a regulation on the cross-border transportation of euro cash by road between euro area Member States (the main proposal) to the territory of Member States that are about to introduce the euro, since there is normally an increased need for euro cash transportation in the run-up to the changeover.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this proposal, the purpose of which is to extend the scope of the proposal for a regulation on the cross-border transportation of euro cash by road between euro area Member States (the main proposal) to the territory of Member States that are about to introduce the euro, since there is normally an increased need for euro cash transportation in the run-up to the changeover.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The aim of this report is to simplify the circulation of coins and banknotes between Member States in the euro area.

We believe the proposal is quite evenly balanced, because it underlines the fact that Member States are directly responsible for implementing the security regulations review. However, we will all have to work to make sure that levels of transportation security and the experience of cross-border transporters improve in Europe.

We also support the adoption of an intelligent banknote neutralisation system. Finally, we ask the Commission to consult the social parties once again.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) It is evident that expansion of the euro area requires an extension of the scope of this regulation in order to meet the greater euro transportation requirements in the period before expansion takes place. I voted in favour.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) It makes complete sense to extend the scope of the regulation on the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between euro area Member States and those about to introduce the euro.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The purpose of this regulation is to simplify the regulatory constraints so that euro notes and coins can circulate more easily among the Member States of the euro area, ensuring a high level of professionalism and safety. The amendments adopted in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs concern the involvement of EU institutions and social partners, reference periods and professional training. I voted in favour.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the text on extending the scope of the regulation on the professional cross-border transport of euro cash by road between Member States because it encourages monetary exchange. It is also a hope that countries that are members of the European Union but have not joined the single currency will do so in the future. The single currency has shown that it is strong, and that in the current crisis, it is the only weapon against further speculation.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The purpose of this regulation is to extend the scope of the proposal for a regulation on the cross-border transport of euro cash by road between euro area Member States – the main proposal – to Member States that are about to introduce the euro. There is an increased need for euro cash transport in the run-up to the changeover. The report was adopted in committee and I welcome the extension of its scope. I voted in favour of the report for these reasons.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The scope of the regulation on the professional cross-border transport of euro cash is limited to Member States that have adopted the euro as their currency. However, its subjective scope of application needs to be extended to countries in the process of joining the single currency for the same reasons, since there is already a need for the cross-border transfer of cash in these cases. I therefore voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The purpose of the present proposal is to extend the scope of the proposal for a regulation on the cross-border transportation of euro cash by road between euro area Member States (the main proposal) to the territory of Member States that are about to introduce the euro, since there is normally an increased need for euro cash transportation in the run-up to the changeover.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The scope of the draft regulation concerning the cross-border transport of euro cash by road between euro area Member States should be extended to those Member States that are on the verge of introducing the euro. That would ensure continuity while also taking account of the fact that, in the run-up to a currency changeover, there is, as a rule, a greater need for euro cash to be transported. I therefore voted in favour.

Report: Marisa Matias (A7-0302/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report on the Commission’s initiative to create a common strategic framework for research and innovation funding after 2013, combining the European programmes – namely, the Research Framework Programme, the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, and the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – with the structural and cohesion funding allocated to research and innovation. However, I would make specific demands, namely, regarding the need to separate research funding from the Structural Funds, which is crucial to the implementation of the 2020 strategy and of new means of assisting regions that are performing poorly in this area.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the motion for a resolution on EU research and innovation funding since it deals with crucial sectors that need investment for sustainable development and the growth of our European economy. Europe is among the richest regions in the world, but despite increased investment in research, development and innovation over recent years, this has not led to an actual increase in cohesion between the Member States. Inequalities persist and are at their sharpest between the most scientifically and technologically advanced countries and those countries that recently joined the EU and the peripheral economies, which currently benefit less from the existing European programmes. We therefore need to activate a reorganisation of the existing programmes and financing in order to create a strategy that works effectively at all levels, without forgetting the fundamental importance that research and innovation have for our small and medium-sized enterprises, for reducing poverty, and for promoting our image in the world.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) The Seventh Framework Programme is the largest funded research programme in the world with more than EUR 53 million of funding available for the period 2007-2013. Ireland has gained greatly from the programme, with EUR 300 million allocated to researchers, universities and the Irish private sector up to now, and that amount is likely to be EUR 600 million by the end of the programme. That investment is of great assistance in terms of job creation and encouraging viable growth, and with the help of that same funding, Ireland and the EU will remain at the forefront in terms of research and innovation. The good work of this framework programme must be continued and a common strategic framework must be established to provide funding for research and innovation after 2013.

I support what is in the report in terms of small and medium-sized enterprises, and that it should be easier for them to obtain funding. A European Bank for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises, as is proposed in the report, would greatly help with this. Measures must be taken according to the words of the report to develop the research and innovation system and to improve access to the programme.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. In February 2011, the European Commission approved a Green Paper that seeks to lay down a strategic framework for research and innovation funding after 2013. The EU has set itself the objective of increasing spending on research and development (R&D) to 3% of EU GDP by 2020. Given that many countries are still a long way from achieving this goal, increased public and private investment in R&D is particularly important. The EU is currently experiencing an economic, social and environmental crisis, and research, education and innovation are crucial instruments for both economic recovery and job creation. I agree that Europe must make better use of its huge potential in research, technology and innovation and help address global challenges such as demographic changes, the sustainable management of resources and the creation of a stable and strong economic base.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) As has been stated on several occasions, research and innovation should be considered a sine qua non for consolidating any growth strategy seeking to be sustainable and inclusive. This statement is particularly important in view of the present prolonged economic and social crisis.

Europe’s aggregate investment in research, development, and innovation has not been commensurate with its status as the richest region in the world. The United States, Japan, and, for that matter, the BRIC countries, have been investing on a much larger scale. The Commission has published a Green Paper defining a common strategic framework for research and innovation funding for the post-2013 period, which integrates EU programmes and the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme with the Structural Funds for research and innovation.

Proposing a common framework encompassing all of the funding schemes and programmes, notwithstanding the inequalities in terms of financing and the firmness of their position within the European context is, to my mind, an opportunity to strengthen the European Research Area. However, I believe that progress towards excellence of research will be impossible unless the necessary resources are earmarked and resolute steps are taken to simplify the procedures and cut the cost of the related red tape and administrative overheads.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the European Commission plans to adopt a Green Paper aimed at strengthening the European Research Area and investing more in research, encouraging industrial investment and development, improving overall EU competitive capacity and promoting innovations. The Commission plans to launch a strategic framework after 2013. These strategies will try to address many existing problems in Europe relating to unsuitable programmes. The aim is to establish new instruments for various stakeholders that would guarantee a favourable programme. In order to take action relating to research and innovation systems, the European Union must ensure better conditions and opportunities for obtaining funding for small and medium-sized enterprises. It is also important to encourage and involve more citizens in this process, so that they are more active, and it is crucial to acquaint them with the new programme rules.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The European Union has failed to confirm its status as the richest region in the world, based on funds allocated to research and innovation. This state of affairs is also attributable to the states which have recently joined the EU, which find themselves in the position of making significant efforts to manage revenues restricted by the economic crisis in areas with a short-term social impact.

Research and innovation produce results which are not seen immediately, but which make an impact on the future when they are carried out in an efficient environment. The total volume of European investments in research and innovation has actually grown in recent years, but has not made Europe more cohesive.

The level of investment varies hugely between countries. Only six countries currently invest more than 2% of GDP in research and innovation, 10 countries invest less than 1% of GDP, and the figure varies between 1% and 2% in the other 11 countries. Unfortunately, Romania features among the states which allocate less than 1% of GDP to research. I hope that the initiative of publishing a Green Paper on establishing a common EU strategic framework for research and innovation will boost this sector.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) I firmly believe that the common strategic framework should not be limited to focusing on research-driven or technology-based innovation alone, but that it should support different sources of innovation. Many companies – especially small and medium-sized enterprises – use other sources of innovation such as clients, markets, users and, not least, employees, and that this form of innovation is often of a more practical nature and is focused on solving specific problematic issues related to processes, services or products. Proposed solutions are often found by the employees that are closest to the production process, markets and clients. The EU should therefore strengthen practise-oriented, employee-driven innovation. The funding of collaborative research should have greater thematic flexibility (broader calls) and user-friendly funding arrangements in order to attract outstanding scientists and to respond to the needs of both large consortia and smaller groups. The whole innovation chain from exploratory research to large-scale pilot projects and demonstrations should be covered. I would like, at the same time, to voice scepticism about the effectiveness of utilising the funds for creating research networks of excellence and organising conferences and events, and to call for a strengthening of electronic networking measures for research and innovation and the dissemination of research results via the Internet.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) Lack of research and innovation is one of the principal reasons for the gap between the EU and other advanced economies, like the US, in terms of economic growth. This is why we need a coherent strategy for streamlining research and innovation and facilitating market access for innovative products, in order to ensure strong, sustainable growth.

I think that a partnership is needed between research centres, universities, businesses, civil society and public authorities so that research and innovation address the needs of society to the maximum possible extent and to ensure the coherence and convergence of the actions taken by those involved in this process. Furthermore, it would also be desirable for the objectives of research and innovation to be consistent, as far as possible, with industrial policy.

Last but not least, I believe that efforts need to be made to make the rules for participating in the various research projects simpler, as universities and SMEs do not have the staff and time available to deal with excessively complicated administrative procedures. Consequently, a balance must be struck between the need to control expenditure and the administrative burden which the control process generates. This simplification would make it easier for SMEs to get involved in research projects, which is imperative, given the potential for innovation they offer.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for Ms Matias’ report on research and innovation funding because I am profoundly convinced that these two aspects are essential and fundamental objectives for the European Union if we wish to remain competitive on the international scene. I believe it is important that Parliament has been able to express itself in such a coordinated manner on a document responding to the Green Paper, and I hope that the European Commission will take serious note of this input in the legislative proposal that it will present before the end of the year.

I think that the reference to simplifying bureaucratic procedures is important as it is necessary to make the measures we wish to adopt truly effective and efficient, and it is only in this way that they will be truly useful for citizens.

I also appreciate the reference to the importance of involving the industrial sector, in particular, small and medium-sized enterprises, perhaps by developing public-private partnerships, promoting funding for research projects which will then have concrete repercussions in terms of their usefulness. Finally, I agree with the recognition of the role of local authorities, particularly regional governments, as a focal point and stimulus for the various parties involved in research and innovation.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I welcome Parliament’s main proposals in this report: • increasing the research and innovation budget in the next Framework Programme; • coordinating the budget with the Structural Funds; • including the ‘stairways to excellence’ concept; • creating conditions for substantial involvement on the part of industry, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises; • promoting young researchers’ participation; • administrative and financial simplification. Research and innovation are the two key pillars of economic development and job creation in Europe. It is crucial to increase the funding allocated to research and innovation within the overall EU budget. The first objective of the Framework Programme is to promote excellence. However, it is also important to create conditions for the participation of small research groups and innovative businesses. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) is proposing the ‘stairways to excellence’ concept with a view to this goal. Finally, there is an urgent need to simplify access to funds for research, developing a culture of trust between all those involved, so as to strengthen research and innovation in Europe.

  Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament today adopted the Matias report which aims to establish a new strategy for research and innovation. As someone committed to the idea of progress, I believe that investment in research and innovation is fundamental to improving each of our lives. While I am delighted that there are several European programmes in this area, I, like my socialist colleagues, am convinced that numerous aspects could be improved upon: excessive bureaucracy, barriers to risk-taking by researchers, complexity, etc. All of this makes participating in these programmes difficult, particularly for SMEs.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I fully support the objectives of the report. It is important to consider the coordination of research and innovation programmes, strengthening the role of regional and local governments, along with simplification of the procedures for updating policy priorities, allocation of part of the budget to small and medium-sized enterprises run by young people and businesswomen, and the link to the system for creating standards. Personally, I would like to focus in particular on the vouchers for innovation (and look at testing based on the credit/voucher principle) because they bring companies closer to the issues of technological development and innovation, creating a system in which the various parties – companies, universities, research centres and institutions – actively participate in the creation and implementation of innovative processes. This mechanism could provide innovative businesses with vouchers to spend at research centres or accredited public or private bodies, supporting the development of innovation. The vouchers would not be subject to cost reporting by the beneficiaries because their use would be certified by the centres using them. This would simplify procedures, supporting small and innovative enterprises. The centres could be accredited on a national or regional basis, and validated by a European body (such as the Joint Research Centre) which would strengthen their role, functions and cooperation with the industrial world.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) As a member of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I think that the European Commission should adopt an approach that maximises the relevant synergies from the Common Strategic Framework for research and innovation, the European Fund for Agriculture and Rural Development, and the Structural Funds. A strategy must be adopted based on as many additional funds as possible which is aimed at research and innovation at regional level and which supports the development of the institutional capacity of the regions targeted by policies promoting research and innovation in agriculture.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The report calls for the Common Strategic Framework (CSF) budget to be doubled and for large-scale projects (such as ITER, Galileo and GMES) to be financed outside the CSF from autonomous budget lines. The report also highlights the need for greater involvement by SMEs as well as young and female researchers.

Finally, it reminds us of the role of innovation and encourages broader cooperation between universities, businesses and research institutes. The report fully endorses a set of priorities which include increasing the next budget for research and development, building ‘stairways to excellence’, establishing synergies between research and development and Structural Funds and enhancing EU competitiveness through greater involvement on the part of industry and SMEs. It was important to vote in favour of it.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on EU research and innovation funding because I support the creation of the Common Strategic Framework for research and innovation funding after 2013. This can strengthen the European research area and may contribute to the development of an effective convergence strategy. However, there are currently numerous disparities in Europe in terms of research and development capacity and the industrial structure of the various Member States.

This is why we need to step up cooperation at EU level, and cohesion funding must supplement the future framework programme so that the countries lagging behind have increased access to the funds available and can develop effective projects. Improving convergence and regional balance at EU level will strengthen Europe’s global competitiveness, generate economic growth and create numerous jobs and sustainability from a research perspective.

I support the rapporteur’s position in emphasising the need to simplify procedures and increase transparency in order to reduce the costs incurred by red tape and facilitate wider access to the funding programmes.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the ‘Green Paper: From challenges to opportunities: towards a common strategic framework for EU research and innovation funding’, because investment in research, education and innovation, specifically through the flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 strategy, are key to economic recovery and job creation, as well as to setting out a model for sustainable and inclusive growth.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Commission has published a Green Paper on a common strategic framework for EU research and innovation funding after 2013. The purpose of this common strategic framework is to group together the already existing funding schemes and programmes for the development of research and innovation. I believe commitment to research and innovation will be key to the Union’s future, to economic recovery, and to competitiveness. I am pleased to see that the rapporteur, my colleague Ms Matias, whom I should like to congratulate on her work, is proposing project bonds here as a means of promoting research and innovation in Europe; it is an idea that I have been advocating and one I believe should be taken forward.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Ms Matias, concerns the Green Paper ‘From challenges to opportunities: towards a common strategic framework for EU research and innovation funding’, for the post-2013 period. Although the European Commission has proposed the merger of all research-related funds – specifically, the Structural Funds – the rapporteur believes they should remain separate, so as to prevent the exacerbation of inequalities between the various Member States. It would also be desirable to double the sum allocated to EU research and innovation programmes from 2014. I voted for this report, since I agree with the rapporteur that keeping the Structural Funds separate enables them to be put to better use, and prevents resources from being diverted into areas with greater capacity for absorption – like cohesion funding – to the detriment of the innovation and technological development that could create sustained employment, and the training that fosters competitiveness by giving workers new skills.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report includes positive aspects, which we value. Some of these are ideas that are relatively consensual, but which need to be put into practice, such as making research and development (R&D) funding more efficient at regional, national and European level. In the face of the clear failure to meet the R&D investment targets of 10 years ago, a new deadline is now being set for us to achieve 3% of gross domestic product invested in R&D: 2020, or rather two decades after this target was set. However, it is easy to see that it will be hard to hit this target, even in 2020, without a profound change in the overall political and macro-economic framework. Many Member States are frankly a long way off that goal and, even worse, are moving further away from it rather than closer to it.

In the crisis situation we are experiencing, research, education and innovation are key instruments of economic recovery and job creation, as well as of setting out a model for sustainable and inclusive growth – commonplace in speeches but necessary in practice, having been trampled on by existing policies. The rapporteur gives a timely warning of the extremely precarious situation faced by many science workers. However, the report does contain some contradictions, which reflect the majority in this House, such as the importance it gives to the market.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Europe’s aggregate investment in research, development and innovation has not been commensurate with its status as the richest region in the world. The total volume of European investment has admittedly risen in recent years, but that fact has not made Europe more cohesive. There are still very substantial inequalities among the Member States, and I therefore believe that the aim must be to move closer to those in a stronger position and intensify cooperation. To that end, cohesion funding must play a complementary role within the common framework while still being treated as a separate entity. The social dimension and impacts of research and innovation also need to be taken into account, and studied, given that we cannot bring effective action to bear when we are not familiar with the societies at which it is aimed.

This report is attempting to reorganise the existing schemes and programmes and provide for new schemes with a view to producing a strategy to benefit stakeholders in overall terms. An appropriate level of commitment is particularly important in view of the present economic and social crisis. In today’s Europe, there are many differences. For this reason, I believe that it is important to provide a basis on which to link together the resources available with a view to producing a framework making for coherence in the relationships established between the sources of financing and the nature and scale of the projects.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) I voted in favour of this important report because it asks Member States to encourage research and innovation for the purposes of developing an up-to-date competitive sustainable fishing sector. It is an incentive for small and medium-sized enterprises to take part in the EU’s research programmes, too, because there is a proposal in it in relation to simplifying the system as it is and to reducing bureaucracy.

  Françoise Grossetête (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I support this report because, without confidence in scientific and technological progress, there will be no future for industry. In Europe, the low level of direct investment during the very early stages in the development of innovative businesses is limiting the pool of high-potential projects. Furthermore, I recently met some managers of SMEs who told me that they would need a research grant just to understand how European documents are put together! The red tape involved in answering calls for projects is discouraging them.

There will be no more innovation unless the European Union converts the quality of its research into growth. It is no longer possible to innovate by oneself; the Framework Programmes for Research and Development must offer more effective financing solutions to networks and partnerships.

We should be ‘champions of innovation’, not ‘followers of innovation’. We should look at the United States, which is launching a ‘Made in USA’ federal programme relating to energy efficiency, robotics, advanced materials, and so on. Europe must identify the ‘Ariane’ and the ‘Airbus’ of 2050 and adapt outdated regulations to reflect the current economic climate. Finally, Europe is suffering from technology transfer. Let us not create a gap between know-how and the act of actually bringing that know-how to market. Our innovations will not create new jobs if we outsource them to Asia!

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – It is important that Europe takes a lead role in research and innovation. In this regard, the Scottish Government is playing its part – and initiatives such as the Saltire Prize should be commended to this House.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this proposal because it aims to promote the reorganisation of existing schemes and programmes, coordinating them with new schemes in order to establish a strategy to benefit various stakeholders. Research and innovation should be considered a sine qua non for consolidating any growth strategy which aims to be sustainable and inclusive. This is all the more important given the present economic and social crisis.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I support the Matias report because it sets out clearly the objectives which we need to have in this area, with pride of place given to researchers. European institutions must work together to achieve common objectives. This will enable them to help us offer opportunities to those who want to focus on research so that the results of this activity generates added value. We must also recognise that local authorities have an important role to play in revitalising research. I think that this report marks an important step in strengthening research and innovation and can give Europe the chance to take on the United States in this area.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Research, development and innovation require enormous financial expenditure. The European Union is perceived as a land of prosperity, a place where people live in affluence, with EU funds ensuring sustainable economic, social and scientific development. Nonetheless, as is emphasised by the rapporteur, the total funds that we allocate to scientific research and innovation are less than the amount allocated by countries in Asia or even South America. Are we not heirs to an impressive cultural legacy? Do we not count our education systems as amongst the best in the world?

Has Europe not been the home of many outstanding inventors, a pioneer in the development of solutions which benefit us all and improve the quality of our lives? In order to support the growth of our continent, we should consolidate all our efforts in the field of innovation, intensify cooperation between Member States, and standardise the procedures which regulate scientific research. In this way, we will guarantee permanent and sustainable growth in Europe.

  Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I am in favour of adopting the report of our Portuguese colleague, Marisa Matias. The report discusses a crucial issue, as scientific research and innovation represent our future and we are obliged to provide the necessary funding for this. Adopting an appropriate strategy and setting specific objectives will enable the EU to maintain its role as a major global player. We should pay particular attention to the need to establish and intensify cooperation between Member States. This will allow us to benefit from the effects of scale and achieve synergies in the field of scientific research and development. We should remember that the defence sector also has to focus on achieving these objectives, and it is my hope that this goal will be achieved within a reasonable timeframe.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Echoing the view we have expressed so far about the role played by SMEs in promoting economic development and increasing the European Union’s competitiveness, I think that the funding allocated to research and innovation must go to private companies, in particular, SMEs. They need funds, new products and services to create new jobs. This is why the cohesion policy and research and innovation policy in the forthcoming programming period must be accompanied by common objectives and activities.

I think that SMEs need access to research and innovation services, especially when the services provided to public sector customers include added value. Health care is one of the areas in need of new solutions to enable the elderly and other sections of the population to face the problems caused by any illness.

Furthermore, the infrastructures which can be created at local and regional level using cohesion policy funding will need state-of-the-art technological equipment to be able, for instance, to continue anti-cancer research, an area which you are already aware that I support.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) In shaping the future of Europe, we have to focus on developing scientific research and investing in innovation, since these two fields contribute to increased employment, on the one hand, and to improved quality of life for its citizens, on the other. The advanced technologies and innovative solutions available to small and medium-sized enterprises increase their global competitiveness and also allow additional jobs to be created. It was for these reasons that I voted in favour of adopting the Matias report on EU research and innovation funding.

  Vladimir Maňka (S&D), in writing. – (SK) No joint strategy will stand a chance of succeeding if we keep on ‘moving the goalposts’ at every turn. Investment in research, development and innovation cannot be considered a certainty for as long as access to the European funding available remains beset by inequalities and intrinsically skewed.

Europe’s aggregate investment in research, development and innovation has not been commensurate with its status as the richest region in the world. There are very substantial inequalities among the Member States Scientifically and technologically more advanced countries are continuing to derive greatest benefit from the Europe-wide programmes. The new Member States and outlying economies again rank near the bottom.

We must attempt to reorganise the existing schemes and programmes and provide for new schemes with a view to producing a strategy to benefit stakeholders in overall terms. Research and innovation should be considered a sine qua non for consolidating any growth strategy seeking to be sustainable and inclusive. A commitment along those lines is particularly important in view of the present economic and social crisis.

We need the coherence and comprehensiveness of the European research and innovation system, covering every sphere from universities to the market, while making for the more effective involvement of citizens and those who have traditionally remained outside the process, transparency, and defining clear rules.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – Coherence and comprehensiveness of the European research and innovation system, covering every sphere from universities to the market, while making for the more effective involvement of citizens and those who have traditionally remained outside the process, transparency, and defining clear rules: those are the words that could sum up the proposals contained in this report.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the resolution on the Green Paper on EU research and innovation funding. It opens the debate on the forthcoming ‘Common Strategic Framework’ (CSF), which will replace the current Framework Programme for Research and Development (FP7). The European Union must plan for the future and invest in fundamental research right up to the point at which innovative products and services are placed on the market. In order to improve the functioning of this programme, the rules must be simplified so as to facilitate participation by a greater number of Member States and under-represented regions. The report draws attention to the role played by innovation and underlines the need to establish more cooperation between universities, businesses and research institutes.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) A common framework encompassing all of the funding schemes and programmes, notwithstanding the inequalities in terms of financing and the firmness of their position within the European context, offers, to my mind, an opportunity to strengthen the European Research Area and devise an approach enabling this consolidation to be effectively dovetailed into a clear-cut convergence strategy. This report proposes that the existing schemes and programmes be reorganised with a view to tackling the challenges that Europe is facing. Moreover, to deal with specific cases, I believe that a new agency should be set up – a European Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise Investment Bank – and that project bonds should be used to complement the framework put forward by the Commission. The approach set out here is aimed, first and foremost, at stability and convergence. No joint strategy will stand a chance of succeeding if we keep on ‘moving the goalposts’ at every turn, and investment in research, development and innovation cannot be considered a certainty for any strategy for as long as access to the European funding available remains beset by inequalities and intrinsically skewed.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Europe is among the wealthiest regions in the world, and yet this is not reflected in terms of investment in research, development and innovation. Although, without doubt, there has been an overall increase in investments in recent years, this did not result in greater cohesion between individual countries; there are still considerable differences. One of the goals of the European Union is that its total investments in research and development reach 3% of GDP by 2020. We must ensure that other Member States can catch up with those better off, and that we follow a path of increasingly strong cooperation. In order for this to actually happen, it is crucial for the Cohesion Funds to supplement the common framework while retaining their independence. Research and innovation are fundamental means of solidifying a sustainable and inclusive growth strategy. I believe it is very important that in the course of preparing for the post-2013 financial period, we should try to establish the next package by collecting proposals from sectoral stakeholders in innovation and research. Existing means and programmes will therefore need to be reorganised in line with new means so as to allow for the creation of a strategy that is favourable overall for individual stakeholders.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – This report encompasses all areas related to the successor of the Seventh R&D Framework Programme: the need to keep separate EU research funds and programmes and the Structural and Cohesion Funds; demanding new approaches to assist underperforming regions and Member States to achieve excellence and smart regional specialisation; asking Member States to consider funding ERC, Marie Curie or collaborative projects proposals that have met the criteria of excellence, but which cannot be funded owing to a lack of European funds; in the light of the future gearing of cohesion policy to the Europe 2020 strategy, calling for the ‘innovation’ priority to be binding and for that priority to be reflected in the funding allocated at all levels; recommending that the Commission analyse the possibility of setting up an all-European common fund financed by the Structural Funds to promote collaborative European research. I voted in favour.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) Research and development (R&D) is a very important issue for European growth and progress, and efforts to facilitate participation in R&D programmes and to ensure that money is used more efficiently are therefore essential. The Common Strategic Framework (CSF) proposed by the European Commission and set out in the Green Paper is a very important instrument for achieving the goals of the European Research Area (ERA). We should welcome the fact that the Green Paper underlines the complexity of financing R&D and innovations and compatibility with the financial instruments of the cohesion policy, but this programme must also be more focused on the important challenges facing the EU, such as climate change, energy efficiency and the development of green technologies. It is also important for the programme to underline and strengthen regional cooperation, and as for human resources, more attention should be paid to young researchers, involving them more actively, both in calls for proposals and in the project assessment process, as well as finding means of establishing separate instruments aimed at young researchers or groups of them. This would not only increase the competence of young researchers and the attractiveness of EU research programmes, but would also help rejuvenate the human potential of R&D throughout the entire EU. Having studied the Commission’s vision published in the Green Paper, I must draw attention to the fact that there is insufficient emphasis on certain issues. One such issue is that of a ‘two-speed Europe’, because it is clear that the EU-12 lag far behind the older Member States. The new framework should find means of closing the gap and ending the new Member States’ isolation from the most important EU research processes.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because it sets out a long-term strategy for research and innovation in the European Union for the years 2014-2020. Over this period, the EU plans to invest EUR 80 billion in research. On the initiative of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, money has been earmarked to remedy certain injustices. Currently, 60% of young graduates in the EU are women, but most university professors are men. Some universities have more funds so they can attract top lecturers and researchers, while others cannot even provide their lecturers with computers. I welcome the rapporteur’s proposal for the EU to set up ‘Regions of Knowledge’ and establish a better system for distributing EU money to universities. There is also a significant proposal to cancel debts for those researchers who are able to achieve particularly important results. I believe that this comprehensive document will help the EU, including Lithuania, to implement the 2020 objectives: to increase the importance of research in Europe and reduce the concentration of researchers in just a few regions.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Ms Matias on research and innovation funding because the need for a common strategic framework for funding research and development is one of the Europe 2020 strategy objectives. The report makes specific proposals for increasing funding levels and improving the systems for allocating funding. A practical example is the creation of specific accreditations, which, depending on the research project, would offer different levels of funding for allocation and completion in specific research centres. Public or private bodies with a valid project would be able to access such funding.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) Despite the economic crisis which it faces, Europe is the wealthiest region on the planet. However, overall spending on research, development and innovation (less than 2% of EU GDP at present) is much lower than the level of investment in other developed countries, such as the US and Japan. Consequently, development prospects and, of course, our leading position in terms of high living standards, are not safeguarded. On the contrary, given the circumstances, we need a common and bold strategic framework for funding research and technology in the EU that will encourage entrepreneurship, innovation and growth sectors. We need to strengthen the European Research Area and reorganise existing bodies and programmes and we need bold policies, such as funding via the European Investment Bank for small and medium-sized enterprises that promote innovation. The own-initiative report contains such proposals, which is why I voted in favour of it.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Commission has taken the initiative to publish a Green Paper that seeks to lay down a common strategic framework for research and innovation funding after 2013. This common strategic framework combines the European programmes – in this case, the Research Framework Programme, the European Institute of Technology, and the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme – with the structural/cohesion funding allocated for research and innovation. In this report, the rapporteur – whom I would congratulate – is attempting to reorganise the existing schemes and programmes, and provide for new instruments, with a view to producing a strategy to benefit stakeholders in overall terms. Indeed, this report’s starting point is the supposition that research and innovation are important for economic growth, which is essentially to be expected, so I voted in favour.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this Green Paper on the challenges and opportunities in moving towards a common strategic framework for EU research and innovation funding. In particular, I welcome the three-layered approach which this paper adopts. The first layer, which is infrastructural in nature, establishes a credible formula for building a capacity to research and innovate. The second layer provides a broad framework for the types of research in which we should invest. The final layer attempts to create a link between research undertaken, and the potential market for that research. Furthermore, I welcome this paper’s focus on including SMEs in research and innovation programmes. As the backbone of our economy, it is important that this sector is adequately represented in all relevant research projects. The advocacy for soft loans and comprehensive financing models for research and development in the SME sector is also to be welcomed.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Union’s sustainability depends, to a large extent, on its capacity for research and innovation. However, the figures show differences in the incentives awarded for undertaking these activities in the various Member States, which prevent them from developing evenly throughout the EU. Moreover, funding for supporting these activities indeed ends up being channelled into entities with higher levels of development, exacerbating the gap in relation to smaller-scale organisations, such as small and medium-sized enterprises. As such, Union action should seek to ensure a solution that enables robust incentives for research and innovation throughout the EU by seeking to distribute resources as well as possible. I therefore voted for this report.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Only six Member States – Germany, France, Austria, Denmark, Finland and Sweden – currently invest more than 2% of their GDP in research and innovation. We are clearly a long way from fulfilling the Europe 2020 strategy objective of investing 3% of European GDP in research and development. This is also the conclusion reached in the Matias report adopted this lunchtime.

I would like to draw special attention to our desire, as clearly expressed in our resolution, to support innovation by creating a European Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise (SME) Investment Bank and financing arrangements for innovative projects – even though, in many cases, European funding is actually in place, but scientific projects are not completed. As the Head of the Aalto Centre for Entrepreneurship quite rightly said, too often, European universities adhere to the traditional, but outdated, distinction between scientific research, on the one side, and management training on the other. As he also said, we need a new model; our researchers and students must become entrepreneurs. This represents a genuine plea for a change in attitude and for a coming together of universities and businesses throughout the European Union which I support and which will enable us to get the Europe of research truly up and running.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Abstention. Some of the points were very good; others were a bit dubious or confusing.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In recent months, the European Commission published a Green Paper defining a common strategic framework for research and innovation funding for the post-2013 period.

The document integrates EU programmes with the structural and cohesion funds for research and innovation. Proposing a common framework encompassing all of the funding schemes and programmes is an opportunity to strengthen the European Research Area and devise an approach allowing this consolidation to be effectively dovetailed into a clear-cut convergence strategy.

Whatever strategy we adopt in response to our current economic and social situation, investment in research, development and innovation cannot be considered a certainty for as long as access to the European funding available remains beset by inequalities and intrinsically skewed. The text adopted today aims to stimulate an effort to reorganise existing instruments and programmes, and create new instruments, and aims to define a positive strategy for the various stakeholders involved.

Research and innovation should be considered a sine qua non for consolidating any growth strategy seeking to be sustainable and inclusive.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD) , in writing. – (IT) I am in favour of the report as it recognises that research, education and innovation are crucial instruments for both economic recovery and job creation.

In order to tackle the challenges of the future, Europe must be committed to reorganising existing financial schemes and programmes in order to make them more effective on a regional, national and European level. Simplification of research and innovation funding management and a reduction in procedural bureaucracy are a necessary condition for increasing the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises, which are a driving force of the European economy.

We need to have the courage to channel unused funds from some regions to other virtuous regions which have requested more funds than those available.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) While the priority is to find ways of containing the current crisis in Europe, we must also think of the future and the vital tools that will ensure the return of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Thus, the European Commission has proposed, in the Europe 2020 strategy, that 3% of EU GDP be invested in research and innovation. I can only support this objective, particularly in view of the fact that only six countries, including France, currently dedicate more than 2% of their GDP to these areas. Europe must provide itself with the means to meet the 3% target. I am delighted to see that the Commission has put forward ambitious proposals to that end. The news that EUR 80 billion will be dedicated to research in the next multiannual financial framework is particularly welcome.

However, it is essential that the forthcoming Common Strategic Framework for Research simplifies its procedures and speeds up the decision-making process in comparison with the current Framework Programme for Research and Development, and that it enables SMEs to participate more. It must also be more consistent with other instruments for investing in innovation, in particular, the Structural Funds, which devote more than EUR 86 billion to innovation.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I voted in favour of the report on EU research and innovation funding. As a member of the Committee on Women’s Rights and Gender Equality, I would like to focus on two issues. Firstly, the need to increase the number of women in leading positions in research institutes and in research projects. The format here is always the same: the higher the position in the scientific hierarchy, the lower the number of women involved. I, therefore, support the initiative for universities to appoint at least one female professor to their decision-making bodies, especially the staff appointments committees. Moreover, I am in favour of increased support for female scientists returning to work after maternity leave, as well as those who have to combine work with family life.

I propose that a share of all grants, scholarships and research programmes be offered exclusively to women. Furthermore, I appeal to the Commission to increase the number of female entrepreneurs within the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme. I also support the Commission’s initiative aimed at promoting women’s entrepreneurship and the creation of an environment that is conducive to the development of female-led enterprises – the European Network of Female Entrepreneurship Ambassadors.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) In my view, the use of multidimensional efforts is vitally important to the development of industry and research. In a time of increasing globalisation, and faced with the current economic crisis, maintaining competitiveness is a great challenge in which scientific research and innovation play a key role.

The funding of scientific research and innovation at national level leads to duplication of procedures. The management of funding at a higher level, the Union level, would result in increased efficiency. The integration and provision of a common financing framework are essential to ensuring the effectiveness of decisions aimed at safeguarding our common future. Ensuring equal opportunities is a major factor in the consolidation of Europe, but is not the only factor. Increased investment, particularly in the case of new Member States, should be one of our fundamental objectives. These States, as mentioned in the report, require significant assistance in order to increase their level of investment to the required 3% of GDP, including investment in both short-term and long-term objectives. It is essential to engage the regions and countries which are not benefiting from the relevant European programmes, and to provide support to small and medium-sized enterprises.

We should also take note of the social aspect of scientific research and innovation. There is an emerging need for direct communication with the general public through education or the promotion of science in order to encourage and, if you like, awaken European potential. Moreover, the simplification of procedures is essential, for this will not only facilitate participation in programmes, but will also provide further financial opportunities.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Commission has published the Green Paper entitled ‘From challenges to opportunities: towards a common strategic framework for EU research and innovation funding’, with the objective of launching a public debate on defining innovation funding in the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020. I agree with this report when it argues that EU research funding should not be directly related to the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund, and that it is the responsibility of the Commission to develop a multi-fund approach that fosters the creation of synergies among all existing programmes. I am voting for this report, since I consider the doubling of the EU research and innovation programmes’ budget extremely positive, along with the guarantee of greater equality, transparency in the management of funds, increased administrative simplification, and the adoption of the ‘stairways to excellence’ idea. I believe that only the involvement of all actors in creating regional poles of excellence will enable us to achieve a culture of innovation and make the EU more competitive internationally. Finally, I should also like to raise the Commission’s awareness of the need to pay particular attention to the outermost regions, since they have to bear location-related costs that make it hard to perform well in this field.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The Greek Communist Party voted against the report because it harmonises scientific research within the framework of the anti-grassroots EU 2020 strategy, which views scientific research as a basic pillar subjugated to capital. The report proposes greater funding for ‘centres of excellence’ and funding for the industrial sector. It urges researchers to set up in business and to seek funding, so that scientific research can be used to generate profit for capital. It calls on the EU to create supervision and financing cells for research activities at local and European level. In the capitalist crisis, the research sector is important, on the ground, as part of the strategy of euro-unifying capital to increase its profits and compete with major and emerging imperialist states.

The aim of these euro-unifying cells is to invest large amounts in research based solely on the criterion of producing ‘competitive products, technologies and services’ (such as the Galileo satellite programme), via researcher mobility programmes (Marie Curie programme), centres of ‘excellence’ of researchers and institutes, public-private partnerships and grants for undertakings, so that research by universities and research centres can adapt more organically to the strategy of capital. It is now more urgent and necessary than ever before that research should be uncoupled from the laws of personal property and monopoly profit.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) Research and innovations are important for ensuring sustainable and inclusive growth in Lithuania. Unfortunately, according to data from the European Innovation Scoreboard, Lithuania is well below the EU-27 average – Lithuania’s Summary Innovation Index is 0.23%, whereas the EU-27 average is 0.52%. This is partly down to inadequate funding for research and development and the lack of an innovation-friendly environment in Lithuania. As the rapporteur observes, we urgently need better coordination of research projects and cofinancing within the Union. In my country, corporate funding of research and development is less than a quarter of the EU norm, and public funding for research and development is 15% less than the EU figure. Other data from the European Innovation Scoreboard is also worrying: in Lithuania, for example, 39% fewer people work in jobs requiring intensive knowledge than in other EU Member States. Lithuania needs a more attractive and more dynamic research environment. Lithuanian scientists who have obtained their academic degrees at foreign universities rarely return to Lithuanian institutions due to a lack of competitive funding, poor career prospects, complicated administrative procedures and closed hierarchical structures. It should not be this way. A new report by the World Bank notes that Lithuania has great potential to become a vibrant knowledge-based economy if it improves its level of governance, regulation and management.

  Inese Vaidere (PPE), in writing. – (LV) When considering the current situation in the EU Member States, and especially in the euro area, special attention must be paid to sustainable economic development and increasing productivity and global competitiveness. Increasing the practical contribution of innovation and research forms the platform for achieving this goal. This is precisely why the EU must secure a much larger budget for research projects and a strategically better thought-out and simplified mechanism for delivering it. We must also look after small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the leading players in the EU’s industry and business environment, by ensuring that they can play a more active and better-informed role in innovation projects.

The Matias report on the Green Paper ‘From challenges to opportunities: towards a common strategic framework for EU research and innovation funding’ quite rightly supports the Commission’s proposals to create a Common Strategic Framework for funding in research and innovation after 2013, combining the existing European programmes – namely, the Research Framework Programme, the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme and the European Institute of Technology – with the structural/cohesion funding allocated for research and innovation.

In addition to the Commission’s proposals, the report recommends the creation of a European Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise Investment Bank and the issue of project bonds, stresses the need to fund large-scale projects (such as Galileo) outside the budget for other innovation projects (FP), suggests an appropriately new organisational model based on three different layers of funding corresponding to the already defined innovation goals, and calls for the EU research and innovation programmes budget to be doubled as of 2014 (with funding that is available from Structural Funds, loans of over EUR 50 million from the European Investment Bank, etc.).

I fully support the proposals set out in the report.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Today, the Members of the European Parliament have shown themselves to be more demanding than the Commission by defining the priorities of the future Common Strategic Framework for Research and Innovation in view of the alarming state of the sector within the EU.

The principal objective of this report, presented by my colleague and friend, Marisa Matias, is to increase the funding dedicated to scientific research and development to 3% of EU GDP by 2020. Doing so would allow for considerable improvements in financing capacity and infrastructure in the sector. It would help to combat the precarious situation faced by researchers and to replace the competition between regions or establishments with enhanced collaborative structures.

When questioned about the pursuit of excellence as a principal criterion of research funding, as repeated ad nauseam by the Commission, Ms Matias responded that, since the nature of excellence is as varied as the nature of the projects and the establishments or businesses that carry them out, other criteria, such as technological improvements and the contribution made to society, must be placed on an equal footing, so that we end up not with the pursuit of excellence but with excellence in research.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) Introducing a common strategic framework and enhanced coordination of the existing financial instruments cuts a new path towards achieving the current target of an overall investment volume of 3% of GDP for research and innovation by 2020. In this connection, particular attention should be given to small and medium-sized enterprises. Ultimately, they make up the largest share of the economy and the highest number of employees in every single Member State. I voted in favour of this report.

  Anna Záborská (PPE), in writing. – (SK) The Commission has initiated the publishing of a Green Paper that seeks to lay down a common strategic framework for research funding after 2013. This framework combines European programmes – namely, the Research Framework Programme (FP), the European Institute of Technology (EIT), and the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) – with the structural funding allocated for research and innovation. It is an opportunity to strengthen the European Research Area and, at the same time, to dovetail it into a clear-cut convergence strategy for the Member States. The report proposes that the existing schemes and programmes be reorganised with a view to tackling the challenges that Europe has to face. It also creates a plan for a long-term stable model for the funding of research and innovation. This should consist of a new European Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise Bank, support for which will be accompanied by a new financial instrument – project bonds. I supported the report. However, I am anticipating that, in the near future, there will be a clarification on whether or not the project bonds are in the form of EU borrowing, which is expressly prohibited under the Lisbon Treaty.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the report presented by Ms Matias, which aims to reorganise the existing schemes and programmes with a view to tackling the challenges, new and old, that Europe is having to face.

Improving the efficiency of research and innovation funding, simplifying procedures for access to funding, reducing administrative costs, and evaluating the use of innovative financial instruments: these are the main proposals for improving the current research and innovation funding system and for guaranteeing greater stability and convergence. No strategy can be a rapid and effective response to our current economic and social situation for as long as access to the European funding available remains beset by inequalities and intrinsically skewed.

Report: Jean-Marie Cavada (A7-0293/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) This own-initiative report, which serves as a response to the 2010 Commission report to Parliament on the European Schools system in 2009, attempts to stress certain fundamental problems that they are currently encountering and set out a route to follow. It is important to stress the amendments proposed by the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, which demand that any student having completed a European baccalaureate have equal access to European universities under the same conditions as nationals of the education systems of each Member State, which call for adequate funding to be ensured for children with learning difficulties, and which request more attention for students who are held back a year or drop out of school.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution on the European Schools system. As we know, the European Schools were set up in 1953. Their purpose is to ensure that the children of the European institutions’ staff who are required to live abroad have access to education in their mother tongue. The children must be guaranteed this opportunity so that they can be reintegrated into a school in their country of origin at any time. I agree with the rapporteur’s position that these schools are a necessity and not a luxury. In the face of the financial crisis, the question of budget cuts is becoming increasingly relevant, but when discussing the European Schools, we must analyse the situation by thinking more about the future of young Europeans than costs. Savings should not weaken the fundamental principles on which the European Schools system is based, i.e. that teachers in these schools should continue to provide education in their mother tongue. I agree with the rapporteur that, if it is difficult for schools to find native speakers, the recruitment policy should be reformed, not that we should limit or abandon the European Schools.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the report by Mr Cavada on the European Schools’ system because, ever since the first European School was founded in Luxembourg, they have represented an excellent educational and training system.

They are the only way to allow the children of European officials to study in their own language and to learn about other EU languages and culture in a multilingual, multicultural environment. However, the system needs to be reformed to make it more compatible with national education systems and, at the same time, there needs to be greater commitment from Member States to fulfil their obligations in terms of financial support and the recruitment of mother-tongue teachers. With regard to the latter, many states are partly failing to meet their obligations, which consequently adds to the financial burden on the Commission and on some Member States.

I believe it is important that these schools take on children with special educational needs and improve their capacity for educating students with disabilities to ensure their full integration.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The European Union contributes to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting Member States’ responsibility for teaching content, the organisation of the education system, and their cultural and linguistic diversity.

The statute states that the European Schools system is sui generis and provides a form of cooperation between Member States and between them and the European Union, while fully acknowledging Member States’ responsibility for teaching content, the organisation of their education system and their cultural and linguistic diversity.

The European Schools were set up to provide an education for the children of staff from European institutions who live and work abroad in a different cultural environment. They give pupils the chance to affirm their cultural identity and attain a high level of knowledge in at least two languages, including their mother tongue, which they are encouraged to learn from an extremely early age, highlighting the importance of cultural diversity and fostering mutual understanding and respect.

The way in which the European Schools are run is assessed positively. This concept is clearly a model of inspiration for national school systems and for raising the profile of European citizenship.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this important report. The aim of the European Schools is to provide mother-tongue education for students whose parents may be required to change their place of work or return to their country of origin, as well as to develop the European dimension in education. The economic crisis has had repercussions on the financing of the European Schools, and the Commission has therefore called for reforms to rationalise the costs associated with them, but this should not be allowed to affect the education of vulnerable children with learning difficulties and special needs, and should not affect teaching in the mother tongue or bring about a reduction in the teaching of languages other than French, German and English. I believe that the proposed cuts to the budgets of the European Schools constitute a serious threat to the quality of education and the Schools’ proper functioning, and I therefore oppose such cuts.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because we must bring together within the same educational system – geared solely towards the European baccalaureate examination – students from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds, who may have very different talents and capabilities.

The task of the European Schools is to provide mother-tongue education for students whose parents may be required to change their place of work or return to their country of origin, as well as to develop the European dimension in education. Multiculturalism and multilingualism should also be fostered in the European Schools. Furthermore, they should set an example in promoting less widely spoken languages worldwide.

Attention must be drawn to the fact that the European Schools’ syllabus should be made more compatible with national education systems in order to facilitate the swift reintegration of pupils returning to their countries of origin.

The European Parliament thus urges the Member States to ensure that all their universities and higher education institutions apply the same requirements when recognising the education of students from European Schools as for students from national schools, and that these students are subject to the same system of assessment so that they are guaranteed equal opportunities when applying for higher education.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The European School, which was first founded in Luxembourg in 1953, is a unique educational experiment offering students with different mother tongues the chance to study according to a single educational curriculum.

The European Schools, which, in 2010, had over 22 000 pupils, allow children whose parents work abroad to study a varied educational curriculum in their mother tongue, so that they can be reintegrated into a school in their country of origin at any time. It is therefore important to assess the importance of this project, which is clearly an investment in the future of young Europeans, even if the economic crisis requires inevitable cuts.

I hope, therefore, that adequate funding will be looked into so that teaching will continue to be entrusted to mother-tongue teachers, despite the costs. Furthermore, I invite Member States to work not only for the conservation of this system, but also for the expansion of this unique and exceptional model of education in Europe, which opens up stimulating prospects for providing a framework for a European educational system. These are the reasons I voted in favour.

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), in writing. – (CS) The report attempts to outline the current problems of the European Schools, which were established to provide an education to the children of EU officials. This specific system of education enables pupils to study all subjects in a multicultural, multilingual environment, with qualified teachers, while retaining their mother tongues. European Schools are an excellent educational showcase, based on a tried and tested teaching approach, and are an example of one of the best possible forms of schooling in Europe, based on the dissemination of European culture, values and languages. One of the current problems is the need to make the European Schools’ syllabus more compatible with national education systems in order to facilitate the swift reintegration of pupils returning to their countries of origin. The report also tries to make an appeal regarding the difficult situation of the European Schools, which are currently in a legal limbo, manifesting itself in the unclear legal and jurisdictional status of acts adopted by the Schools’ bodies, insufficient possibilities to challenge those acts before national courts, and no possibility of recourse to the European Ombudsman. For the reasons mentioned above, I have supported the report.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted against the European Schools, which were created using taxpayers’ money for children of EU officials. I cannot understand why these children are being educated in a system that, on one hand, is luxuriant and, on another, equips them with a baccalaureate that is not widely recognised elsewhere, rather than following the education systems in their own countries. I do not think it is correct to bring the next generation up with a wholly one-sided view of the European Union, when nobody under the age of 54 has had the opportunity to vote for or against UK membership. When I read about a request to national states to promote the inclusion of a specific subject on the background, goals and functioning of the European Union and its institutions, to encourage young people to feel more involved in the process of European integration, I was extremely disturbed. I also strongly oppose the fact that these schools will be protected from austerity measures when school children in Wales are watching schools close and merge and are being educated in dilapidated buildings with overcrowding in classrooms while the children of privileged Eurocrats are given better resources and opportunities.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the Cavada report on the European Schools. The report insists on the dissemination of European culture, values, integration and languages. The recognition of the European baccalaureate by every Member State is a real development; it is accompanied by the introduction of a school-leaving certificate other than the baccalaureate for students wishing to specialise in vocational courses.

Better monitoring of students with special educational needs will also be guaranteed thanks, in particular, to the improved integration of such students in classes. Finally, the report proposes that the European Schools’ financing model be reviewed in order to ease the burden on certain Member States during this crisis period. In particular, it proposes that the working languages be used for non-fundamental subjects. I support this proposal.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Schools play a precious role in their communities, since they function as promoters of multiculturalism and multilingualism, and as models for the protection and promotion of the languages used less at international level. The economic crisis has had an impact on the funding of the European Schools, so their costs need to be rationalised. However, that must not affect the children’s education. The budgetary restrictions that the schools will have to accept must be accompanied by a real increase in their management autonomy. Giving each European School a greater level of budgetary autonomy, following an assessment ensuring that it will be of benefit to them, could constitute an effective means of improving the management of the resources assigned to them.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for this report because I believe strongly that education plays a role of primary importance in the growth of each individual. I fully agree with the wish to push for an integrated education system using the European Schools as a vehicle for an education aiming to promote greater mobility of students between Member States, as well as greater multilingualism and multiculturalism. I would also like to focus on the need to ensure that all students receive equivalent levels of education, in order to quash the idea that the European Schools constitute an elitist system that is not accessible to all. To this end, it is important for Member States to come to an agreement about the organisation of the educational system and the teaching content in order to safeguard the cultural and linguistic identity of the various students.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report by my colleague, Jean-Marie Cavada, as it aims to improve the European Schools concept and establishes very specific policy priorities in order to do so. The European Schools system must adapt to new economic and social demands, whilst remaining an inspirational model for national school systems, promoting European citizenship and encouraging the development of mobility and foreign language learning.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because it argues that budget cuts must take into account the particular situation of the children and young Europeans attending the European Schools. Savings cannot compromise the fundamental principles on which the system is based; specifically, teaching in the student’s mother tongue, and the education of children who are vulnerable, or have learning difficulties or special needs. The European Schools are not elitist schools, but rather a necessity. Their mission is to provide students whose parents could be forced to move or return to their country of origin with an education in their mother tongue.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) There are currently 14 European Schools, with 22 778 students, 14 292 of whom attend the schools in Brussels and Luxembourg, which corresponds to some 63% of the total number of students. As the father of children who attend the European Schools, I am well aware of their importance, but I also know about their problems. I will admit that it is tempting in the current economic climate to cut the budget for the European Schools, but, as I have always argued, any cut concerning the education of our children is a cut to our future capacity for competitiveness. It is therefore a cut that is wrong. I would argue that the European Schools should maintain their multicultural stamp without losing sight of the real reason for their creation: to allow the children of officials working abroad access to education in their mother tongue, in conditions as close as possible to those they would have in their country of origin.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) We are always hearing that ‘children are the best thing in the world’. However, it is we who are responsible for preparing their future. It is therefore crucial that we be aware that investing in education is investing in the future of our children and in an increasingly globalised world. This report is on the system of European Schools, which have been operating for more than 50 years. The first European School was founded in Luxembourg in October 1953. They are now attended by around 23 000 students, with 63% – around 14 500 students – attending the schools in Brussels and Luxembourg. The initial purpose of creating these schools was to guarantee the children of officials of the European institutions access to an education in their mother tongue when living abroad. The system is unique, based on cooperation between the Member States and the European Union, and values and promotes multiculturalism. Given that these schools are in great demand, partly because of the expansion of the EU, it is crucial that they continue to meet the objectives for which they were founded. I therefore voted for Mr Cavada’s report.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The European Schools resulted from the intention of developing a network of schools at the service of the children of officials of the European institutions, who may be forced to move or to return to their country of origin, and providing them with an education in their mother tongue. The report includes positive aspects, which we value. Examples include the defence of the schools’ fundamental principles, such as teaching in the mother tongue; the guarantee of equivalent teaching conditions for children from all language communities; and the clear and unequivocal statement that ‘the proposed cuts in the budgets of the European Schools constitute a serious threat to the quality of education and the proper functioning of the European Schools’ and therefore opposes ‘any budgetary cuts’. This position is all the more important since, as we have already had occasion to report, the Portuguese Section of the European School of Brussels II (Woluwe) is preparing measures that jeopardise the quality of teaching, under the pretext of budgetary restrictions, which is unacceptable.

However, the report also includes a number of contradictions, such as advocating the use of so-called ‘working’ languages, and unsubstantiated positions that we do not support, like the statement that ‘the current intergovernmental legal status of the European Schools has reached its limits and requires profound change’.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The European Schools resulted from the intention of developing a network of schools at the service of the children of officials of the European institutions, who may be forced to move or to return to their country of origin, and providing them with an education in their mother tongue. The report includes positive aspects, which we value. Examples include the defence of the schools’ fundamental principles, such as teaching in the mother tongue; the guarantee of equivalent teaching conditions for children from all language communities; and the clear and unequivocal statement that ‘the proposed cuts in the budgets of the European Schools constitute a serious threat to the quality of education and the proper functioning of the European Schools’, coupled with opposition to ‘any budgetary cuts’.

This position is all the more important since, under the pretext of budgetary restrictions, measures are being prepared that jeopardise the quality of teaching, which is unacceptable. However, the report also includes a number of contradictions, such as advocating the use of so-called ‘working’ languages, and unsubstantiated positions that we do not support, like the statement that ‘the current intergovernmental legal status of the European Schools has reached its limits’.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The first European school was founded in Luxembourg in October 1953 and this educational experiment, which brought together children with different mother tongues, was speedily judged to be successful. The educational organisation of the European Schools requires basic teaching in the pupil’s mother tongue. Each school has several language sections, in which the breakdown and content of courses are the same and, in order to encourage genuine multicultural education, stress is placed on the use of foreign languages. The European Schools were set up to ensure that the children of the European institutions’ staff who are required to live and work abroad in a different cultural environment have access to education in their mother tongue so these children can be reintegrated into a school in their country of origin at any time. Over 50 years after the creation of the first European School, it is clear that the concept must change and adapt to new economic and social requirements. It must nevertheless remain a model of inspiration for national school systems, in developing European citizenship and encouraging mobility.

The evaluation of the running of the European Schools is positive and this system opens up stimulating prospects for providing a framework for a European educational system. I firmly believe that it is desirable that Member States work not only for the conservation of this system but also for the expansion of this unique and exceptional model of education in Europe.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The European Schools have developed over the last 50-odd years in order to ensure that children whose parents, mainly European civil servants, are unable to work in their country of origin are taught fundamental subjects in their mother tongue. This is not a luxury, but a requirement.

Today, these Schools provide quality education and disseminate European culture and values, the merits of which are plain to see.

The report, which was adopted almost unanimously, calls for the promotion of this model in national education systems, whilst guaranteeing respect for the competences of Member States.

These Schools contribute to the development of a European identity that is based on the strong educational principles of multilingualism and mobility. I support the idea of these successful models, which can certainly still be improved upon, being able to inspire national education systems.

That is why I welcome the adoption of this report, which will allow us to further reflect on the performance and relevance of existing education systems.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) The European Schools are often wrongly considered to be elitist schools, a luxury rather than a necessity, when their mission is, in fact, to provide mother-tongue education for students whose parents may be required to change their place of work or return to their country of origin. I welcomed this document because the European Schools constitute an excellent educational showcase based on a tried and tested teaching approach, which should become an example of one of the best possible forms of schooling in Europe, based on the dissemination of European culture, values and languages, and because incorporating certain elements of this model, such as the emphasis on foreign language knowledge, into the national and regional education systems would assist professional mobility and help to foster multilingualism and European integration. The European Schools’ syllabus must be made more compatible with national education systems in order to facilitate the swift reintegration of pupils returning to their countries of origin. I believe that we must provide access to European studies and the European baccalaureate throughout the Member States. The Member States must cooperate when developing their national syllabuses by preparing common syllabuses for all European Union schools so as to bring the national systems and the European Schools system closer together. The European Schools must be financed on a sound and adequate basis so that the quality of the education provided, as well as equal and equivalent teaching conditions for children of all language communities in the European Schools, can be guaranteed.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Above all else, the European Schools represent a project that makes it possible to educate children whose parents have left their native land through their mother tongue. These schools are also charged with promoting multiculturalism where the teaching is conducted in several languages concurrently, as well as with disseminating a mobile and dynamic system of education that will facilitate the readjustment of children to the educational system of their own country when the family decides to return from emigration.

Such establishments should be properly cofinanced by the Member States who must also provide teachers for their respective language sections. The systems of financing should be sufficiently flexible so as to ensure that, notwithstanding the emerging financial difficulties, the cuts caused by the financial crisis will not be allowed to impede the development of young Europeans.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The European Schools are a resource for the international education system and an investment for the future of the whole European Community. It is with an eye to the future and an absolute conviction of the need to take action on this issue as soon as possible that I voted for the report by Mr Cavada. The current crisis often forces us to make difficult choices in important areas when re-launching economic growth. Education and the European Schools system are among the areas that it is our duty to defend and safeguard even during difficult times. This is why, because of the principles of preserving one’s identity while opening up to European cultures, which symbolise the unity in diversity that represents us, I believe that this report will make the education of young Europeans less complicated.

  Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE), in writing. – (DA) The purpose of and basic idea behind European Schools – that pupils could receive instruction in their mother tongue – are positive and merit our support. It has not always proven to be that easy, and certain groups of pupils will continue to lose out when it comes to receiving instruction in their mother tongue. I would like to call for attempts to be made in future to accommodate all groups, so that students without a language section (SWALS) can also be taught in their mother tongue. At the same time, the multicultural element is also important within the European Schools, and we ought also to focus on the importance of pupils who speak several languages. Pupils with strong language skills will be in a strong position in a global jobs market. There is currently a European School in the planning stage in my own country, and I hope that the plans will come to fruition. There is a need to offer attractive conditions for foreign workers, and that does not just apply to Denmark. Overall, the provision of international schools throughout the Member States is key. I have voted in favour of this report on European Schools, as I believe it to be sound and well-balanced, and I look forward to continuing to follow the important work being carried out with regard to these European Schools.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The premises on which the European Union is based should include contributing towards the development of high-quality education and, first and foremost, the promotion of cooperation between the Member States. I believe it is important to encourage Member States and regional authorities vested with legislative powers in the educational sphere to promote the concept of the European Schools on their territory by organising awareness-raising campaigns on the subject of European education. We should make additional investments in young people our priority, which is why I voted in favour of the Cavada report on the European Schools system.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report. The European Schools were set up to ensure that the children of the European institutions’ staff – who are required to live and work abroad, in a different cultural environment – have access to education in their mother tongue, so that these children can be reintegrated into a school in their country of origin at any time. These schools are therefore a necessity and not a luxury. It should be borne in mind that education is free in all the Member States. The institutions’ staff have no other option than to enrol their children in these schools if they want them to be taught in their mother tongue.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report on the European Schools system. At a time when a petition concerning the European Schools has been presented by several European citizens, and was even the subject of an urgent procedure for the first time before the Committee on Petitions, it is essential that the whole of Parliament take up this topic in order to respond to their concerns. The European Schools make it possible to build Europe on a daily basis, by educating European citizens who are familiar with multiculturalism having mastered several languages. The report calls for greater budgetary autonomy for the European Schools and for a change to their legal status. It promotes developing the European Schools, providing them with greater infrastructure and making them better understood and less elitist. It also stresses the importance of the European baccalaureate being recognised in every Member State. It rightly criticises the reduction in the budget for the European Schools and the disengagement of the European Union. Finally, it draws attention to pupils with special needs and to the need to offer qualifications other than the baccalaureate to enable reorientation.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The European Schools are essential to the proper integration of the children of those needing to move abroad to work in the European institutions. These schools were created to guarantee the children of employees of the European institutions called on to work abroad in a different cultural environment access to education in their mother tongue, in such a way that these children could, at any time, integrate into an educational establishment in their country of origin. It should not be forgotten that education is free in all the Member States and that employees of the institutions only have the opportunity to enrol their children in these specific establishments if they intend to guarantee them teaching in their mother tongue. Clearly, the system needs to evolve and adapt to the new economic and social requirements, as 50 years have passed since the first European School was founded. However, it should continue to be an inspirational model for national educational systems, as it values European citizenship and encourages the development of mobility.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) There is no alternative to education if we want to offer the children of the world a better life and a more promising future. It is a moral and ethical imperative. Education is the basis of prosperity. There will be no economic, social or human progress without access to universal learning. The European Schools were created out of a concern to offer children who are not resident in their country of origin an education in their mother tongue. More than 50 years after the creation of the first European School, the added value of this project is well proven. Children leaving these institutions are not only multilingual; they are also open to other cultures and equipped to pursue studies in line with their aspirations in an increasingly interdependent and globalised world. Countries which do not provide teachers, who are essential for the proper functioning of these schools, should be aware that they are penalising the children of their citizens. Let us not forget that we live in the age of knowledge. The articulation between education, vocational training, the quality of education, research, innovation and the business world will be crucial in the coming years.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The report suggests that the European School model be exported to the national school systems, developing schools that can welcome children whose parents are not agents of the institutions, creating new schools at the initiative of Member States and encouraging multilingual and multicultural schooling at national level. In terms of budgeting, the report calls for budgets to be preserved, if not increased, so that the fundamental principles forming the basis of the European School concept – such as mother-tongue teaching by native speakers – are not compromised. It also points out that some Member States are not meeting their obligations regarding the secondment of teachers and proposes that those Member States who do not contribute financially by seconding teachers might pay an equivalent financial contribution to the Schools’ budget. Adopted S&D amendments sought to ensure that students who have successfully completed the European Baccalaureate have equal access to European universities under the same conditions as students coming from national education systems. I voted in favour.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) First of all, I am pleased that over many years, we have established a truly unique educational model which enables children living abroad in a multicultural environment to not only acquire a quality education, but also learn their native language. I am therefore certain that, when assessing the importance of these schools, the European Union must pay due attention to the funding of these schools from the Union’s budget. At the same time, in addition to clearer regulation of the sources of funding for these schools, we must pay suitable attention to managing these schools more efficiently. I am therefore sure that the resolution drawn up may be a significant stimulus for further developing this education system that is important for Europe.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – European Schools were created so that the children of the European Institutions’ staff who are required to live and work in a different cultural environment can receive education in their mother tongue. The existence of these schools is not a luxury but a right belonging to the children of these officials due to the standards upheld by the European Union. The schools build into the students the concept of what it means to be a European citizen and promotes both the EU and its institutions. These schools have existed for over 50 years, and thus this educational system requires some updating. I voted for this report because it calls for the system to be opened up to other students in the European Union. It is also deemed necessary that these European Schools would become examples to schools throughout Europe, representing the distribution of culture, values and languages. The reform of the schools also calls for an EU-wide recognition of the baccalaureate awarded by these schools so that students may achieve high education in any Member State they choose.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of Mr Cavada’s report, which not only outlines the current situation of European education, but also has the more far-reaching and decidedly noble objective of creating a European education system. The current reforms to the European Schools’ system involve simplifying access to education between countries. Increasing access to education between different countries promotes mobility, interculturalism, a European identity and solidarity. In summary, the current assessment of the European Schools’ system within Member States is positive and is capable of laying the foundations for a European School that would define a European identity for citizens of the future.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The first European School was founded in Luxembourg in October 1953 at the instigation of a group of officials. This educational experiment, which brought together children with different mother tongues, was soon considered a success and, over the years, 14 European Schools were founded in various towns; these correspond to the present Type I Schools. At a time of crisis and generalised cuts, it is crucial to create exceptions for areas like education, in which the principle should be to invest more and reap the rewards in the next economic cycle. Indeed, the fundamental principles on which the European Schools system is based must be maintained, with education continuing to be provided by teachers in their mother tongue and the necessary mechanisms being explored in order for the quality of the education provided by these institutions not to be neglected. I therefore voted for this report.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I agree that, while they are rather limited in reach, the European Schools – which are essentially aimed, as is well known, at the children of officials and employees of the EU institutions – represent a commitment to the area of education by the European project. As a result of the particular circumstances that led to their foundation, these are educational models founded on a compromise between respect for the mother tongues of students who could have to return to their country of origin at any time, on the one hand, and an education for multilingualism, on the other. The need for the active cooperation of the Member States should be stressed, however, as without them, these schools would find it extremely difficult to operate.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The EP: (...) 3. Believes that this specific system of education enables pupils to study all subjects in a multicultural, multilingual environment, with qualified teachers, while retaining their mother tongues; 4. Takes the view that the European Schools, which constitute an excellent educational showcase based on a tried and tested teaching approach, should become an example of one of the best possible forms of schooling in Europe, based on the dissemination of European culture, values and languages, and whereas incorporating certain elements of this model, such as the emphasis on foreign language knowledge, into the national and regional education systems would assist professional mobility and help to foster multilingualism and European integration; 5. Believes that European Schools play a valuable role in their communities.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The European Schools were set up to ensure that the children of the European institutions’ staff who are required to live and work abroad in a different cultural environment have access to education in their mother tongue so these children can be reintegrated into a school in their country of origin at any time. These Schools are therefore a necessity and not a luxury

Over 50 years after the creation of the first European School, it is clear that the concept must change and adapt to new economic and social requirements. It must nevertheless remain a model of inspiration for national school systems, in developing European citizenship and encouraging mobility.

Although the financial crisis requires some budget cuts, it is essential to consider the situation more from the angle of investment in the future of young Europeans rather than from the point of view of costs.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) How best to reform school systems so that they can adapt to the new economic and social demands – this question is particularly important for Lithuania. I am glad that the rapporteur examines this problem, but the report does not draw attention to certain important matters such as reducing school drop-out rates. In Lithuania, the school drop-out rate is now 8.1%, whereas in 2008 it was 7.4%. Even more worrying is the huge gap between urban and rural areas (3.7% and 15.7% respectively) and boys and girls (9.9% and 6.2%). The main reasons for such regional differences are the inadequate school network, undeveloped infrastructure for supporting education and insufficient qualified and competent teachers. In order to address these issues, it is absolutely essential for Lithuania to take a few specific actions. Firstly, the infrastructure supporting training and education must be adapted to socially vulnerable groups. Secondly, we must reduce regional differences in the quality of pre-school and primary education. Thirdly, we must encourage young people to continue to study in professional educational establishments and to acquire a professional qualification according to the needs of the labour market.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The first European School was founded in Luxembourg in 1953. It is a special characteristic of a European School that, after the initial primary education, which takes place in the pupil’s mother tongue, teaching in either English, French or German is compulsory from the first year of primary school onwards. As the rapporteur calls, in this report, for there to be a stronger focus on Type II and III institutions in future, and as that would mean that this exceptional model of education would be made available to considerably more children, I voted in favour of this report.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I have voted, with satisfaction, for the adoption of this document. The system of European Schools has been in existence in Europe for over 50 years and it presents an inspiring model. More and more educational establishments are striving to meet the demands of today by giving their children and young people a full and well-rounded education aimed at enhancing their talents and skills. This must constitute the main objective of contemporary education. Implementation of this objective requires specific legal solutions and a clear system of financing. In Poland, classes offering a European profile in education whereby students are taught within a system similar to that in university are becoming increasingly popular. Quite a few higher educational establishments already offer courses where tuition is conducted in a foreign language. Some of these establishments are even running certain courses (specialising in advanced philological studies) which can only be followed by students with a sufficient command of a foreign language. We are, therefore, at the beginning of a road that signifies important changes in the European system of education from which future pupils and students stand to benefit.

Report: Michael Theurer (A7-0287/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) In line with what the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament is advocating, I believe the exchange of good practices to be absolutely essential. It is also important to note that too much time is spent on managing and controlling the complexity of compliance rules and the number of errors. There is a need for a suitable balance between simplification and stability of rules and procedures, and the emphasis should be put on payments for delivery of results rather than checking inputs. Furthermore, a stronger focus should be given to fraud rather than formal irregularities and on a more differentiated treatment of irregularities, allowing for flexibility depending on the seriousness of the irregularity identified.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this important resolution on absorption of the EU Structural and Cohesion Funds. What have we learnt by implementing the EU cohesion policy and using money from the EU Structural Funds for that purpose? Firstly, it should be noted that many Member States have faced difficulties in absorbing the Structural and Cohesion Funds from the EU budget, especially during the early post-accession years. Furthermore, many problems have been caused by the global economic downturn and different regulatory, legislative and organisational requirements in various Member States. It is also true that the rules relating to the Structural and Cohesion Funds are complex and, therefore, it is difficult to avoid errors. I agree with the rapporteur that rules and procedures should be simplified in order to improve the absorption of money from EU funds and increase efficiency. The timely adoption of the multiannual financial framework and of clear rules and guidance on the absorption of EU money is of paramount importance. In turn, the Member States must make every effort to ensure that they help their citizens to properly implement EU-supported projects and do not create additional bureaucratic obstacles and restrictions. Only by working in this way can we expect to improve outcomes, increase the effectiveness of the EU funds, and help citizens understand and accept the EU’s cohesion policy.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Theurer on absorption of structural and cohesion funds.

The capacity of a Member State to spend the financial resources allocated to it in an effective and efficient manner is necessary for making a maximum contribution to economic and social cohesion with the resources available from the EU funds.

I think that coordination between the various Structural and Cohesion Funds should be strengthened, improving the exchange of best practices between Member States in the management and implementation of projects, and optimising the allocation of funds. Furthermore, a simplification of the rules and procedures is essential to ensuring small and medium-sized enterprises’ access to structural funds.

Therefore, the Small Business Act principles should be applied at all levels of decision making to define investment priorities and the design of management, audit and control procedures in order to ensure better absorption of the funds.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report. Many Member States have faced difficulties in absorbing the Structural and Cohesion Funds from the EU budget, especially during the early post-accession years. This report therefore focuses on the problems, their cause and the best practices gained during the 2007-2013 programming period, with a view to learning from this in the future when implementing EU cohesion policy. I agree with the proposals set out in the European Parliament’s resolution, particularly as regards strengthening the proportionality between the volume of support and control requirements, adopting clear and definitive rules and guidance for the Member States, and establishing a cooperation programme among the Member States with the aim of exchanging best practices.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) During these times of crisis in the European Union, it has to be said that the cohesion policy is one of the greatest achievements of European integration. It is the very embodiment of solidarity between Member States and the European regions. However, the absorption capacity of Structural Funds by the States and competent authorities poses a problem: there are many disparities within the Union, but, on the whole, funding is inadequate and misused. Each year, some of the money remains unallocated.

The report that we have adopted lists the various causes for this, underlines the need for simplifying access to funds, and highlights the need for greater coordination between the various levels of governance. Structural Funds provide vital tools during this current period which help us to deal with the consequences of the crisis (with the European Social Fund (ESF) in particular funding training and/or retraining, for example) and move forward with the development of infrastructure projects through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). What we really need to do, however, is maximise their potential.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because the European Union’s cohesion policy is the most important means of promoting the harmonious development of the EU but, despite the progress achieved in reducing inequalities in development between regions, there remain major differences in terms of their level of economic, social and regional development.

Currently, the rules relating to Structural and Cohesion Funds are, by their very nature, complex and therefore difficult to transpose properly into national law and to comply with, and are liable to lead to errors, so that Member States spend a disproportionate amount of time trying to manage and control those errors. Consequently, there is an urgent need to simplify the rules and procedures on the implementation of financial instruments at both EU and national level and to make them more flexible in order to facilitate access to EU funds for project organisers and to promote sound management of those funds by the administrative services, without creating major difficulties for the beneficiaries.

Furthermore, simplification will contribute to the speedy allocation of funds, higher absorption rates, increased efficiency and transparency, fewer implementation errors and reduced payment periods.

The European Parliament regrets that, owing to lengthy administrative procedures and complicated rules, especially in some Member States, implementation of the European Social Fund (ESF) is slower than foreseen and that this discourages many potential beneficiaries from applying for funding. The ESF objectives should therefore be brought into line with the real requirements of the labour market so that there is investment in vocational retraining and in the protection of workers.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) In connection with the future form of the Cohesion Policy, attention should be focused, among other things, on public-private partnerships (PPP) at regional and local level which, due to their flexibility, might resolve difficulties over cofinancing. The Commission must verify the existence and examine the efficiency of the legislative bases for the implementation of PPP projects and, where appropriate, recommend to those Member States which have not adopted such legislative measures that they prepare and adopt as soon as possible, with a view to permitting the mobilisation of resources from the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund for PPP projects in the next programming period, procedures for efficient implementation of these projects at regional and local level. I am concerned that most small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) cannot themselves access resources from the Structural Funds due to the current bureaucratic and financial constraints, and that they therefore need support and advice from their representative organisations. A simplification of the rules and procedures is essential to ensuring the access of SMEs to Structural Funds. The initiative in support of SMEs, the Small Business Act, and its ‘think small first’ and ‘only once’ principles, together with the proportionality principle, should be applied at all levels of decision making to define investment priorities and the design of management, audit and control procedures in order to ensure better absorption of the funds.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Mr Theurer’s report calls for improving the use and management of Structural Funds to meet the requirements of budgetary discipline. This commitment is particularly important as we are currently going through a crisis period which demands rigorous measures to put an end to mismanagement and the risks of fraud. Despite accelerated absorption of funds for the period 2007-2013, absorption rates remain low in certain EU Member States.

We must simplify procedures, without radically overhauling the existing system, in order to remove the red tape and facilitate access to European funding for small businesses.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) European regional policy is a key instrument in promoting economic and social cohesion, so enabling the Union to reduce regional disparities. As such, EU cohesion policy is crucial to promoting real convergence and fostering development, quality jobs and social progress, whilst also serving to benefit the less developed regions. However, there needs to be greater synergy and complementarity between all the shared management funds. Flexibility between the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund should be encouraged, so as to facilitate the financing of integrated projects, while taking into account the specific nature and objectives of each of these funds. Greater harmonisation of rules and procedures is also essential, as is a simplified delivery system, which would encourage participation by potential beneficiaries.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) Within the framework of regional development, the utilisation and proper deployment of funds is crucial in eliminating economic, social and regional inequalities, especially in less developed and disadvantaged regions. The inability to absorb funds is exacerbated at present in light of the economic crisis and austerity policies chosen to address it. The report makes a number of correct assumptions about the importance of absorption of structural and cohesion funds by the EU regions and identifies several of the problems with the procedure. I abstained, because the report suggests the method of ‘public-private partnerships’ as the solution in terms of increasing absorption and proposes that national legislation should be amended in order to improve and simplify its adoption, with a view to further facilitating such partnerships. Experience to date has shown that PPPs, at both regional and local level, serve private profit; they do not maximise social benefits. The cost of implementing them is demonstrably higher, they are less efficient economically and their standard is low. Finally, the benefits are not channelled directly to local economies and communities; on the contrary, they create additional nuisance and charges.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The proper use of the European Social Fund (ESF) can support the efforts of local, regional and national authorities in implementing the Europe 2020 strategy more effectively in the area of employment and social inclusion. This action will help develop human capital in an appropriate manner. However, the closest possible correlation must also be established with the specific features and needs of the Member States and regions. I think it is useful to identify a limited number of priorities to ensure the successful implementation of the projects financed by the EU, as well as to give the programme the appropriate media coverage with the aim of increasing the number of beneficiaries, and to create new jobs.

  Luigi Ciriaco De Mita (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Economic, social and territorial cohesion policy is one of the fundamental pillars on which our coexistence within the EU is based, as it promotes growth in areas struggling to develop in order to enable them to converge and compete fairly against more developed areas. The experience acquired also during the current programming period shows that delays in development are effectively recouped on the one hand by simplifying rules and procedures, while maintaining a rigorous pursuit of objectives, and, on the other, by strengthening the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of management and control systems. All this has to take place within the context of the broad and effective involvement of all the institutional, economic and social partnerships at the various local levels in order to identify the strategies and specific and operational objectives to be pursued. In addition to this, there needs to be effective programming and unified implementation by the different EU (structural, agricultural and neighbourhood policy funds) and national funds, recognising in project funding the capacity for integration of the various areas and production and the different private and public entities, including in a cross-border, inter- and intra-regional context. I believe that the report that I helped to approve contains these suggestions.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Many Member States fail to take full advantage of the financial resources available through Structural and Cohesion Funds. These funds represent around 37% of the EU budget and enable the regions to invest in major infrastructure projects which can create jobs and economic growth. We should therefore help and encourage these States to make better use of these funds. If we want these funds to be an effective tool for regional development, we need to simplify procedures, enable local and regional authorities to independently manage the use of subsidies and relax the barriers to cofinancing projects. The action plan soon to be presented by the Commission should be based on the sharing of best practices and ultimately enable optimum use of these funds.

  Lena Ek, Marit Paulsen, Olle Schmidt and Cecilia Wikström (ALDE), in writing. – (SV) Europe is in the midst of a severe economic crisis in which every little bit counts. It is therefore particularly regrettable that the Member States – particularly the former Eastern and Central European countries – for administrative and economic reasons, are not able to fully utilise the resources made available by European cohesion policy at this time. This report lists a number of important measures, such as the need to simplify the rules and to increase the use of innovative financial instruments, in order to improve the situation. Regrettably, the report also contains an unfortunate and inappropriate claim that the funding for the European Social Fund ‘needs to be considerably stepped up’, something that we cannot support, but unfortunately, did not have the opportunity to vote on separately. We have therefore chosen nevertheless to vote in favour of the report as a whole.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for this report as I regard the absorption of the Structural and Cohesion Funds as one of the main priorities for implementing the EU’s cohesion policy. Absorption capacity is vital so that the maximum possible contribution can be made to the EU’s economic and social cohesion using the resources available from the funds. Achieving the aim of absorbing this absolutely necessary financial support requires both continuous efforts from Member States and the involvement of local and regional levels of administration at every stage of the process.

I support the rapporteur’s position on the need to simplify regulations and procedures in order to achieve higher absorption rates, cut down on the errors and boost efficiency. I agree that a balance should be struck between simplifying the regulations and procedures and ensuring their stability.

Last but not least, one aspect of paramount importance which is highlighted in this report is the large disparities that exist in terms of Member States’ absorption capacities. This is why greater attention must be focused on setting up cooperation programmes between Member States, aimed at exchanging good practices.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the future cohesion policy of the EU because I consider it necessary to find a balance between the simplification and stability of rules and procedures, and the identification and dissemination of good practices, with a view to optimising the funds available.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Mr Theurer, is on the European Union’s future cohesion policy, taking into account the experience of absorbing structural and cohesion funds in the contexts of previous EU aid frameworks. The principle underlying the uses to which structural funding is put is improving the lives of the public. However, the Member States have encountered many problems putting it to use. From delays with the transfer of funds – obliging institutions to turn to banks, whose interest is not covered, to cover their commitments to companies – to excessive bureaucracy, with complex, incoherent procedures, rule changes, etc., and insufficient funds to cover the national contribution, the process is made more difficult. The EU should support those countries that do not manage to absorb the sums set aside for them owing to a lack of knowledge by sending a team of experts. I therefore welcome the adoption of this report and hope it will contribute to these funds being put to better use by simplifying the rules, since they are fundamental in helping disadvantaged countries to develop and contribute to alleviating the regional asymmetries within the EU.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This is about measuring what a Member State and its regions are capable of spending in the way of structural and cohesion funding, so putting EU funding to better use as regards economic and social cohesion. Despite improvements in the reduction of regional inequalities, the report acknowledges that there are some cases where ‘there remain major differences in terms of their level of economic, social and regional development’. We have been condemning the contradictions and limitations relating to the absorption of these funds for a long time. The Member States are well aware of them, particularly those that suffer most from the effects of regional inequalities. The levels of national cofinancing have been one of the main barriers to better absorption, so it is crucial to create conditions whereby the Member States are able to fully absorb Union funds and put them to good use.

The report acknowledges the effect of so-called austerity measures on the ability to cofinance projects, principally in Member States with higher numbers of disadvantaged regions, which represents a serious limitation to accessing these funds. It should also be stressed that the concern given to the need for national regulation, and for eliminating bureaucracy and complex procedures for accessing funds, is understandable.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This is a report that seeks to measure what a Member State and its regions are capable of spending in the way of structural and cohesion funding, so putting EU funding to better use as regards economic and social cohesion. Despite improvements in the reduction of regional inequalities, the report acknowledges that there are some cases where ‘there remain major differences in terms of their level of economic, social and regional development’. We have been condemning the contradictions and limitations relating to the absorption of these funds, of which the Member States are well aware, particularly those that suffer most from the effects of regional inequalities.

The levels of national cofinancing have been one of the main barriers to better absorption, so it is crucial to create conditions whereby the Member States are able to fully absorb Union funds and put them to good use. The report acknowledges the negative effect of so-called austerity measures on the ability to cofinance projects, principally in Member States with higher numbers of disadvantaged regions, which represents a serious limitation to accessing these funds. The concern given to the need for national regulation, and for eliminating bureaucracy and complex procedures for accessing funds, is understandable.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Since the late 1990s, absorption of structural and cohesion funds has been recognised as a principal concern in relation to the implementation of the EU cohesion policy. Many Member States have faced difficulties in absorbing the structural and cohesion funds from the EU budget during the early post-accession years, especially shortly following accession, which resulted mainly from the global economic recession. The consequences included problems in terms of the delivery of projects, changes in expected demands and growing restrictions in national or local public financing. It became even more difficult to obtain sufficient resources to cofinance projects. Further problems were caused by delays with the establishment and introduction of EU and national rules, or with related guidance and gaps in the rules, or rules which were not clear. I believe that some regulatory requirements should be further adapted to take account of implementation experience. The rules relating to the Structural and Cohesion Funds are often complex.

For this reason, they are difficult to comply with, causing errors. Member States therefore spend a disproportionate amount of time trying to manage and control these errors. It is my view that rules and procedures should be simplified in order to reach higher absorption rates, reduce errors and increase efficiency. At the same time, a right balance should be found between simplification and stability of rules and procedures. Finally, multi-level governance and the partnership principle play an important role in the management of the Structural and Cohesion Funds.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) The problem is not whether Member States manage to spend all the regional funds allocated to them by the Union, but why they fail to do so most of the time. It has not escaped the rapporteur’s notice that one of the reasons for this under-use was that these funds can only be cofinanced: the Union is all generosity with other people’s money. Some other local authority, or the State, has to put their hands in their pocket to access partial funding from Brussels, which, in current times of tight budgetary control, is becoming increasingly complicated.

Another reason is the complicated award and control procedures. These are massively time consuming, involve reams of paperwork, take up hours of time of those on the public payroll, and are therefore a massive financial burden on States. However, the question of how relevant these funds are is not raised, nor whether finding national or local projects which can offer access to Structural Funds caused a few headaches, nor whether those projects that actually received funding were of limited use in relation to the objectives set out and, in particular, to what the regions actually need. By not asking the right questions, Mr Theurer’s report does not provide the right answers.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I wholeheartedly support this report as it perfectly illustrates the paradoxical situation in which we find ourselves with an abundance of Structural Funds which go largely underused for a variety of reasons: poor administrative capacity, extremely complicated national procedures which are too strict, especially for small businesses, or even the lack of involvement by local partners in programming measures.

Something else that is largely responsible for this situation is the obsession with austerity, which has led to a reduction in cofinancing, just when we need a more ambitious effort from the European public powers to get us out of the economic and social crisis. We must therefore bemoan the fact that, due to lengthy administrative procedures and complicated rules, implementation of the ESF is slower than expected and, therefore, many potential beneficiaries refrain from applying for funds. Structural Funds are, however, essential tools in supporting numerous projects for inclusion, training, fighting discrimination and, in general, back-to-work projects, which, in this period of crisis, is worth a mention.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Regional policy currently accounts for 35.7% of the EU budget. This funding is vital for the development of European regions. However, what we are seeing is that, despite the accelerated absorption of Structural and Cohesion Funds for the period 2007-2013, rates remain low in certain Member States.

The President of the Commission, Mr Barroso, highlighted this during his State of the Union Address to MEPs on Wednesday, 28 September: growth also entails improving the absorption capacity of Structural and Cohesion Funds.

We are currently going through a particularly turbulent economic and financial crisis. All good management practices must be encouraged. That is why I welcome the adoption of this report, which shows how keen Parliament is to ensure optimum use of European funds and to remove all those obstacles that often lead to the impression that Europe’s money is being thrown down the drain.

We are about to begin negotiations on the next financial perspective 2014-2020. With this report, we are sending a clear signal to the Commission and to the Council. As a budgetary authority, Parliament will be intent on guaranteeing sound management and proper implementation of EU finances.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The Theurer report rightly emphasises the importance of dialogue at regional and local level. These are the levels at which cohesion policy has its main impact and accordingly, these are the levels at which decision making must remain.

  Filiz Hakaeva Hyusmenovа (ALDE), in writing. – (BG) I supported this motion for a European Parliament resolution because I share the rapporteur’s position on the problems with the absorption of Structural and Cohesion Funds and the lessons learnt from them for the EU’s future cohesion policy. I fully concur that one of the main reasons for the low absorption rate during the current programming period is down to the over-complicated rules and procedures for submitting applications, executing and reporting on projects, and the frequent changes made to them. The prompt provision of clear instructions and guidelines by the European Commission to the managing authorities on how to apply European legislation is an important condition for reducing the risks of errors and delay. Striking the balance between ensuring legality and transparency and the need to achieve greater effectiveness is of key importance to fulfilling the cohesion policy’s objectives. I support the view that the regulatory framework should allow greater flexibility for operational programmes in order to be able to reflect better the specific features and development processes in the various regions. Strengthening the administrative capacity of the units involved in managing the Structural Funds is of paramount importance, especially to the new Member States. The exchange of experience and good practices is an important tool for achieving this objective.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because there is a need to simplify the rules and procedures on the implementation of financial instruments at both EU and national level and to make them more flexible in order to facilitate access to EU funds for project organisers and to promote sound management of those funds by the administrative services, without creating major difficulties for the beneficiaries. There should be a stronger focus on punishing fraud rather than formal irregularities; I believe there should be a more flexible approach that takes into account the seriousness of the irregularity identified. Application of the proportionality principle, under which control procedures are determined by the scale of the project, should be strengthened by simplifying the requirements governing the supply of information and monitoring when implementing small-scale projects and programmes, but simplified rules must not in any way have a negative impact on transparency and responsibility. Efforts need to be concentrated on a limited number of priorities – the most urgent being to reduce record levels of unemployment in the internal market, with special reference to jobs for young people and women – in order to ensure that EU-wide projects are implemented more efficiently and that the impact and potential of the ESF are maximised, thus supporting the Europe 2020 strategy. We also need to take into account the different situations in the Member States, strengthen ESF financial autonomy and foster its flexibility. I also agree with the opinion that the simplification of rules and procedures is necessary to ensure that SMEs are able to benefit from money from the Structural Funds.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) We have all had lessons to learn during the current programming period. The management and control system clearly raises serious issues concerning the operation of some Member States which need to apply as much as possible the lessons that have been learnt.

The first evidence of this will be the involvement of all the local and regional stakeholders in the programming phase. It is imperative that future potential applicants or beneficiaries are involved in drawing up the operational programmes, thereby making them more relevant and suitable to their needs. Furthermore, we must pay greater attention to the administrative capacity and human resources available at local, regional and national level.

I think that the process for attracting and retaining well-qualified staff can be improved. As a result, it is useful for Member States to realise that even funds from technical assistance or the European Social Fund (ESF) can be utilised to this end, and I firmly believe that this will happen.

  Vladimir Maňka (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The capacity to absorb resources from the Structural and Cohesion Funds differs widely in the various Member States. It will be necessary to establish a cooperation programme among the Member States with the aim of exchanging best practices. The aim to absorb as much financial support as possible requires the involvement of the local and regional level of administration in every stage of the process. Difficulties were caused by frequent changes of national requirements and inconsistency in EC guidance as EU institutions changed their interpretation of the regulations during the financial perspective. Staff rotation in both the Commission and the Member States causes changes in the interpretation of certain rules during operational programme implementation. Rules and procedures should be simplified in order to achieve higher absorption rates, reduce errors and increase efficiency. Harmonisation of rules and procedures may lead to simplified delivery systems.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – The rules relating to structural and cohesion funds are complex and therefore difficult to comply with. This causes errors. Member States therefore spend a disproportionate amount of time trying to manage and control these errors. The rapporteur takes the view that rules and procedures should be simplified in order to reach higher absorption rates, reduce errors and increase efficiency. At the same time, the right balance should be found between simplification and stability of rules and procedures. I agree with him.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Since the late 1990s, the absorption of structural and cohesion funding has been recognised as a main concern in relation to the implementation of EU cohesion policy. Many Member States have faced difficulties in absorbing the structural and cohesion funding from the EU budget, especially during the early post-accession years. The rules relating to the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund are complex and therefore difficult to comply with, which causes errors. Rules and procedures should therefore be simplified in order to achieve higher absorption rates, reduce errors and increase efficiency. At the same time, the right balance should be found between the simplification and stability of rules and procedures. I consider it more appropriate to give a stronger focus to fraud rather than formal irregularities, and a more flexible and differentiated approach to irregularities depending on the seriousness of the irregularity identified. There needs to be more balance between the rules and procedures required to guarantee the legality and regularity of EU expenditure, on the one hand, and making cohesion policy more geared towards performance and more cost effective, on the other.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – There is a need of a right balance to be found between simplification and stability of rules and procedures. Furthermore a stronger focus is needed on fraud rather than on formal irregularities and on a more differentiated treatment of irregularities, allowing for flexibility depending on the seriousness of the identified irregularity. Therefore, I am in favour of the report.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The absorption of Structural Funds has been a principal concern of EU cohesion policy for the last 20 years. The rules relating to Structural and Cohesion Funds involved procedures that were too lengthy and difficult to comply with, and it was often easy to make mistakes, so it was difficult first to allocate and then to implement them. I think that the simplification proposal, for which I voted, could lead to greater absorption, improving the actual effectiveness of the funds allocated and leading to an EU cohesion policy focused on the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) One of the most widely discussed political issues, both in Greece and in the other Member States, is the absorption rate of EU finance provided by the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund. The low absorption rate does not always signal an inability on the part of the Member States; in numerous instances, it is due to problems inherent in the funds themselves (for example, highly specialised, unmanageable or hard-to-operate programmes which make absorption difficult). In any event, there is no correlation between the absorption of funds and the ability or adequacy of central and local authorities to prepare programmes and suitable projects and to monitor the implementation of such programmes and prevent possible irregularities. In addition to its findings, however, the report identifies one point which is common to all the Member States, including Greece. It recognises that the economic crisis is making it hard for the Member States to find the national contribution needed in order to participate in cofinanced projects and proposes flexible practices, so that EU funds can be released more quickly and invested more efficiently.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This own-initiative report looks at the problems and the reasons behind them, and the good practices during the current programming period (2007-2013). It also draws lessons for future EU cohesion policy. It tables a range of measures to improve capacity for absorption of funds: in other words, to improve the Member States’ ability to use the financial resources assigned to them by the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund effectively and efficiently. It proposes a commitment to simplification combined with increased Member State investment in project preparation and project pipelines in order to successfully manage structural and cohesion funding. I voted in favour of the report for these reasons.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. – The Structural and Cohesion Funds are of immense use in tackling inequalities between Member States and in assisting poorer regions to catch up with more affluent ones. However, there are a number of difficulties in the current economic climate in relation to finding resources at national and local level to cofinance projects under these schemes. This is something which must be addressed in order to ensure Member States can continue to draw upon these funds. We must help poorer regions catch up with more affluent ones. It is also important for the EU to be flexible and capable of adapting its plans in light of the current economic situation. The report highlights the difficulties facing Member States in accessing these funds, from difficulties in cofinancing, to structural difficulties in accessing the funds and adhering to regulatory frameworks. We must ensure that these processes are simplified and that Member States can continue to draw down these funds as required.

  Franck Proust (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This report gives us the chance to further discuss what we are doing as regards the cohesion policy. Over and above the broad principles that we identify every seven years, regional policy is experienced day by day in our regions. In the forthcoming discussions, it is important that Parliament takes up this matter. That is why I voted for this text. This report provides an excellent opportunity to take stock of how Structural Funds are managed by the newcomers. It also demonstrates how cohesion policy instruments differ and are not used uniformly across Europe. The newcomers have encountered a wide range of problems in implementing them. It is crucial that open dialogue on good management practices is maintained with all national and local authorities in order to improve our tools. Nothing is set in stone and our resources are continuously changing. Proof of this is the fact that a new category of intermediate regions is more than likely to be created. We started with the premise that the distribution of funds needed to be reconsidered on the basis of experiences on the ground.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund constitute a singular instrument for the balanced economic development of the European Union. It is necessary to analyse the true impact of how the Member States spend these funds and assess their ability to meet the purposes for which they were spent in order to develop future policy that is more effective and less wasteful of resources. Particularly important in this type of approach is the need to find quicker, more effective decision-making processes, seeking to adapt the level of monitoring to the funding awarded and, in this context, to combat true instances of fraud. These points are given the proper emphasis by the rapporteur, so I voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I voted in favour. Parliament highlights the efforts made to ensure an acceleration in absorption capacities and budgetary implementation of cohesion policy during 2010, despite the problems mentioned, and acknowledges the positive effect of the cohesion policy-related interventions by the European Economic Recovery Plan in speeding up implementation of programmes and accelerating provision of financing to beneficiaries. It also asks the Commission to continue these interventions in the period 2014-2020.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for this report because since the late 1990s, the absorption of Structural Funds has been one of the main concerns standing in the way of implementing EU cohesion policy.

We must take immediate steps to make sure that the rules governing the provision of these funds can be simplified, in order to obtain higher absorption percentages, reduce errors and increase efficiency.

To ensure the legality and transparency of EU expenditure, we need firstly to find a better balance between rules and procedures, in order to make cohesion policy more performance-oriented and cost-efficient.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) For the 2007-2013 period, the cohesion policy has EUR 347 billion, in other words, 35.7% of the EU budget. These funds account for 25% of public investment in Europe and are essential for ensuring economic, social and territorial cohesion within the European Union. However, numerous delays are blamed for their uptake. For example, Greece, which could benefit from a total of EUR 20.3 billion, has only used 4.9 billion as of mid-2011, and has another 15.4 billion to spend by 2013. That takes the biscuit, at a time when that country is going through one of the most serious budgetary crises seen in Europe for decades. The reasons for these delays are clearly set out in this report: slow implementation of new management systems, global economic recession, public finances in crisis, highly complicated rules, procedures changed during programming, a lack of qualified staff, inadequate project preparation ...

There are solutions to improve take-up of these funds: we just need to have the courage to apply them. We need to be brave and make reforms, simplify procedures, empower and support those involved. The cohesion policy will be legitimate and help heal the crisis if, and only if, these funds are actually taken up.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I voted in favour of adopting the report on future EU cohesion policy. I insist that it is imperative to simplify EU and national regulations and procedures for obtaining funding and to make the former more flexible. The current degree of complexity of the management programme does not provide for efficient control over expenditure. In particular, I would like to draw attention to the need to provide permanent, free and easy access to information, advice and training for the beneficiaries of the EU funding. I support the proposal to develop a common EU programme of information exchange between regions with a high level of absorption of the funds and regions with a low level of absorption, to facilitate dissemination of practices proved through experience. I also support the idea of creating an Internet platform for the exchange of good practice to be used by the beneficiaries, local and regional entities and authorities.

It is also essential that future funds, especially the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the Social Fund, take into account the current socio-economic challenges, in particular, the economic crisis. The Member States should provide better information on the resources available through the funds and simplify national procedures for gaining access to those. With this in mind, I am in favour of creating something like ‘European One-Stop Shops’ whose purpose would be to assist in preparing applications to obtain financing through the funds and which would service both local authorities and the citizens of the EU.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The absorption of structural funding is a major concern in the implementation of cohesion policy, and there is a need to analyse the problems the Member States are experiencing in making effective use of funding, in order to learn lessons for the future. The Committee on Regional Development, of which I am a member, has approved a series of proposals based on analysis of the underlying reasons for absorption problems, such as initial problems at the start of a programming period; financial problems resulting from the crisis; new regulatory, organisational and control requirements; the issue of insufficiently qualified human resources; and the problem of delays with information technology systems. The proposals tabled in the document adopted today by Parliament stress the need to simplify rules and procedures, and to focus on payments that produce results, on greater balance between rules and procedures, and on cohesion policy that is more geared towards performance and is more efficient. However, they do not forget the significant differences in absorption capacity among Member States, and suggest the creation of an exchange programme for good practices, whilst stressing the importance of multi-level governance.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – This report calls on the Commission to bring forward proposals that will allow Member States to ensure that the European funds they receive are spent in the most effective way possible. The report emphasises the need for a balance to be struck between the simplification of the rules and ensuring that money is spent correctly, and calls for a more integrated approach to the funding streams available. The Commission must now look at how they will take Parliament’s suggestions into account to streamline the often onerous funding rules, whilst ensuring the legality and regularity of EU expenditure.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report on Structural and Cohesion Funds calls on Member States to improve access to European funding.

Every effort should be made to ensure that all local partners can make better use of these funds. The complicated rules, however, lead to errors, delays and even difficulties in accessing the funds.

Parliament demands, in particular: a stronger focus on controlling actual fraud rather than checking formal irregularities, simplifying procedures on the basis of the amount of funding, reducing cofinancing limits, transposing European regulations more rapidly and the means to make them more accessible.

We could have gone further and asked the States to remove any cofinancing condition.

Nevertheless, this report is heading in the right direction, especially given the blocking tactics employed by the French Government. That is why I voted for it, along with all the members of my group.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) This report deals with the existing problems with the use of the Structural and Cohesion Funds and recommends a simplification of the rules and procedures. Specifically, it calls for the focus to be placed on rewarding the results achieved rather than on checking inputs and for there to be a differentiated approach to dealing with irregularities. It is furthermore recommended that the involvement of the Member States should be further locked in by means of deepening the partnership in funds administration. I voted in favour.

  Hermann Winkler (PPE), in writing. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it goes without saying that I voted in favour of Mr Theurer’s report. The question of how, in future, we can further increase the absorption rates in cohesion policy is of major importance to our regions. The difficult situation for public finances, which does not always lend itself to cofinancing, is evident. We could provide assistance in this connection through more flexible cofinancing, although it would, of course, be necessary to ensure in such a situation that this was not abused. The basic problem, however – namely, the difficult financial situation – is not so easy to change. What we, the legislators, really do have in our gift, though, is the matter of how quickly we can implement the new regulations so that the onset of the new subsidy period does not replicate the cumbersome arrangements of the early days of 2007. The report makes clear that late decision making was a major cause of the delays. We must thus take responsibility and ensure, together with the Member States, that this time we get everything under way more quickly. Of course, that also means that the Member States need to agree on the EU budget quickly, as without such an agreement in respect of the multiannual financial framework, we will also not be able to agree on the details of the new structural fund period.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In the past, the absorption of Structural and Cohesion Funds has created problems as regards implementing cohesion policy within the European Union, as many Member States have difficulties with the procedure, particularly in the early years after accession.

The report by Mr Theurer, for which I voted today, analyses the problems and their causes and tries to propose useful suggestions and proposals for positively developing the EU’s future cohesion policy. I especially share the opinion that Member States should pay more attention to the preparation of projects and try to manage Structural and Cohesion Funds appropriately.

There should also be more active cooperation to promote the exchange of best practices between Member States, as well as harmonisation of rules and procedures, with simplified delivery systems compared with the existing ones.

Report: Elisabetta Gardini (A7-0283/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) The report quite rightly welcomes the creation of a 24/7 European emergency response centre and the simplification of the European Civil Protection Mechanism, requests a proposal on an EU civil protection force from the Commission as soon as possible, and calls for better coordination between all actors. I would highlight the need for more simplification and transparency, better use of current monitoring and prevention tools, and the development of a capacity for telecommunications and a comprehensive communication strategy, so making the distinction between humanitarian aid and military action clearer. The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament also quite rightly stresses that humanitarian aid is not a crisis-management tool, so it should be provided irrespective of any political considerations.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution on European disaster response and the role of civil protection and humanitarian assistance. Last year, there were a number of very severe disasters in Europe and throughout the world, including flash and large-scale floods, heavy storms and forest fires, causing a high number of deaths and huge damage. I am talking about the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland, the earthquake in Haiti and the Pakistan floods. Given the recent dramatic increase in natural and man-made disasters both inside and outside the European Union, the EU must aim to make existing instruments work more efficiently at all stages of the European disaster management cycle. Here, I have in mind prevention, preparedness, response and recovery, as well as optimising the use of all resources. It is also very important to simplify the European Civil Protection Mechanism, which is too bureaucratic. However, the most important thing is for all Member States to contribute to the European disaster response in the spirit of European solidarity. The use of resources available in Member States should be optimised, avoiding duplication of structures, efforts or expenses, and unnecessary or even disruptive bureaucracy.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Ms Gardini and the invitation to the Commission to improve the European disaster response.

The increasing rate of climate change and depletion of natural capital continue to affect different countries and regions around the world, and the European Union is certainly not exempt from the many related risks. Fortunately, the European Union has the main tools for responding to disasters, although these are still limited to systematic scenarios or protocols which make their deployment inflexible in other circumstances.

I hope that the possibility of creating a European emergency response centre that would be a central hub for prompt and effective coordination of assistance and of creating an EU civil protection force to bring together the resources and capabilities of all the Member States will be given serious consideration.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The European Union and its Member States are faced with many risks, such as earthquakes, fires, flooding, landslides, industrial and nuclear accidents, terrorist attacks, natural disasters and major pandemics.

There has recently been a dramatic rise in the number and severity of these natural or man-made disasters affecting people all over the world, with a corresponding increase in the number of human fatalities, the economic, social and environmental losses, and the damage to cultural heritage. We cannot exclude the possibility of such extreme events of an unpredictable magnitude happening at any time, in which case the European disaster response would prove to be extremely useful, as national capacities could be challenged to their limits.

Consequently, I think that the relevant scientific research needs to be developed, with a view to improving risk assessment mechanisms, prevention systems and the methods for combating these phenomena. The most effective disaster management strategy involves an integrated all-hazards approach, aimed at responding to crises at every stage in their cycle, which should link disaster prevention with the level of preparedness, response capacity and recovery, within the broad context of sustainable development.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution because it underlines the vital need to reinforce the coordination of the response to disasters affecting the European Union, both within and outside its borders. Unfortunately, in the past years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number and severity of these natural and man-made disasters affecting the Union and its citizens, as well as other countries and regions around the world. This text highlights the need to rationalise and simplify the functioning of current European disaster response and reassert that disaster preparation, prevention and response cannot be dissociated from each other. I also would like to stress that preventing disasters is often more cost-effective than combating them. For this reason, it is fundamental to complement the policy for enhancing the EU’s emergency reaction capacity by stepping up the EU’s and Member States’ risk prediction and prevention policies. In order to do so, the Commission should prepare a comprehensive and innovative EU strategy on disaster risk reduction.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In the last 35 years, the number of disasters per year has risen fivefold. In Europe alone, in the last 20 years, disasters have caused the deaths of almost 90 000 people, affected the lives of more than 29 million people and caused damage totalling EUR 211 billion. The Treaty of Lisbon has introduced new legal bases for both civil protection and humanitarian aid, with the objective of ensuring a rapid and effective response to disasters happening inside and outside Europe. This report calls for more efficiency at all stages of the European disaster management cycle, including prevention, preparedness, response and recovery, as well as optimisation of economic resources during times of austerity. It stresses the creation of a genuine and permanent emergency response centre that cooperates with the Member States, making decisions about what resources to mobilise in the case of a disaster, with a view to ensuring immediate and effective assistance for victims. It calls for better coordination among all actors to avoid overlapping and duplication of efforts. It also advocates the simplification of the European Civil Protection Mechanism. That is why I voted in favour.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) We are living in a time when more and more disasters occur. Last year, Europe had to face a number of very serious disasters, including flash floods and exceptionally widespread forest fires.

Recorded disasters within Europe over the past 20 years have affected more than 29 million people and caused EUR 211 billion in economic losses. Against the background of the dramatic increase in natural disasters, I share the rapporteur’s request for more efficiency in all stages of the European disaster management cycle, including prevention, preparedness, response and recovery, while optimising economic resources.

The Lisbon Treaty introduces new legal bases for civil protection in order to ensure a rapid response to disasters happening inside and outside the EU. I also hope that there will be a simplification of the European Civil Protection Mechanism which, in my view, is too bureaucratic.

I welcome the creation of a 24/7 emergency response centre which, in agreement with the Member States, would take decisions on the assets to be deployed in the event of a disaster in order to ensure immediate and effective assistance to the victims.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I believe that the issue of a stronger European disaster response is certainly to be welcomed and therefore I voted in favour of it.

The natural disasters that have recently affected the north and, in particular, the Veneto region, have underlined the need for urgent improvement to European civil protection mechanisms and assistance to the victims of such events, and the need to ensure that such mechanisms are rapidly implemented and not impeded by excessive bureaucratic procedures.

These priorities have been well interpreted by the document in question, which specifically asks for a considerable reduction in the bureaucratic procedures relating to the management of assistance to victims. Therefore, I fully support the report and voted in favour of it.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because, in the space of just a few decades, there has been a fivefold increase in the number of disasters worldwide – up to 400 disasters a year. Therefore, in order to prevent a high number of casualties, it is necessary to improve the European Union’s disaster response.

The main disasters faced in the European Union’s Member States include major forest fires, drought, tidal waves and earthquakes, floods, nuclear accidents, terrorist attacks, natural disasters and pandemics. Over the past 20 years, these disasters have killed almost 90 000 people in Europe and affected tens of millions of others. Furthermore, the economic losses are estimated at EUR 211 billion. In future, these disasters may only increase as a consequence of climate change and the depletion of natural resources, and it is therefore necessary to take specific action as a matter of urgency.

Improved actor coordination, a protection system, a 24 hour European emergency response centre and accurate information during a crisis are some of the main measures that might reduce the number of casualties in the future.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur Ms Gardini for this important report, which presented a very topical issue to the House and for which I voted.

Europe has had to face an unremitting increase in natural disasters, including severe ones. These include flash and increasingly frequent floods, heavy storms and forest fires which, over the past 20 years, have killed more than 90 000 people, affected more than 29 million and caused EUR 211 billion in economic losses. Faced with these numbers, the EU must respond more efficiently in all stages of disaster management, including prevention, preparedness and response, as well as implementing pre-identification of the assets available in the Member States that are placed at the disposal of the European Civil Protection Mechanism on a voluntary basis.

I also share the rapporteur’s hope for simplification of the European Civil Protection Mechanism and the creation of a 24/7 European emergency response centre which, in agreement with the Member States, would take decisions on the assets to be deployed in the event of a disaster in order to ensure immediate and effective assistance to the victims.

  Jan Březina (PPE), in writing. – (CS) In my opinion, we should first and foremost build on the existing monitoring and prevention tools (especially in-situ observation devices) such as those provided by the European Union’s Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) programme or the INSPIRE and GALILEO programmes, which could monitor areas potentially at risk and thus prepare more effectively for providing disaster relief to the victims. The Commission should explore the possibility of equipping the EU with a dedicated and secure telecommunications capacity and integrated crisis management solutions ranging from prevention to recovery. In my opinion, there is considerable potential in the use of the existing capacity provided by telecommunications satellites in order to facilitate the development of services for citizens in the fields of public security and emergency response, in collaboration with the European Space Agency, Member States and stakeholders such as private operators and industry. The Commission’s role is to develop a communication and information network, exploring, in particular, the use of telecommunications capacity, including satellites, in order to give rescue teams access to rapid and detailed information facilitating effective disaster relief. In view of the fact that preventing disasters is often more cost-effective than combating them, we need to prepare a comprehensive and innovative EU strategy on disaster risk reduction and to dedicate sufficient resources to early identification of possible disasters.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I do not support any new legislation from the Commission to create a new EU civil protection force based on the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. I dispute that it would be better to combine resources to provide both civilian protection and immediate emergency aid in times of crisis and view such efforts by the EU as attempting to commandeer crisis management, which, based upon the situation in the eurozone, is not their strength. Most concerning is the statement that the Commission calls for the need for better coordination among all actors to avoid overlapping and duplication of efforts both on the political and on the operational side – which each should function autonomously in order not to impede the rapid and effective help for the victims of the disaster. This implies that independent charities and nation states will be overruled by the EU who would have final say in how the crisis is managed, under the EU banner, both at home and abroad. Voluntary efforts of Member States should be a priority and thus, the Union does not need a 24/7 emergency response centre as a planning and operational coordination platform.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of the Gardini report, which calls for the creation of a European civil protection force. It echoes the proposals set out in a communication from the Commission and paves the way for legislative proposals expected in late 2011. The proposed multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020 already intends to allocate a budget of EUR 455 million to the civil protection financial instrument. I now call on the Commission to be ambitious in its legislative proposals planned for late 2011, so that we can create a genuine European civil protection force.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the report by Ms Gardini on the European disaster response because it is an important step towards improving speed and efficiency in crisis situations. To do so, it is necessary to move away from a system of an ad hoc response, once the emergency has already taken place, towards an advance planning in which the EU pre-identifies the assets the Member States will be able to make available so that efforts can be coordinated.

I believe the wish to strengthen cooperation between Member States is positive and underlines the importance of solidarity within the EU and the exchange of experience and capabilities in the various areas. The EU budget needs to include funding for disaster planning, in order to avoid being caught unawares and to facilitate rescue and recovery operations.

I also appreciate the decision to set up an operational centre to link and coordinate existing national units, because often, disasters require a broader response than that which can be provided by individual Member States.

  Nikolaos Chountis (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) Although the report on ‘Towards a stronger European disaster response’ states that its basic aim is to strengthen and improve the European response to major disasters, it contains several ambiguities in connection with basic questions of ethics and social freedoms. Firstly, the provision to activate the ‘solidarity clause’, as set out in the Treaty of Lisbon, allows terms such as terrorism and man-made disaster to be interpreted subjectively. Furthermore, the report makes provision for the use of military means under civil protection in order to address disasters, again without carefully clarifying the type of disaster. Finally, the provision for extended use of obscure satellite monitoring systems, such as Galileo, harbours the risk of such systems being used for the purpose of monitoring action by social and political groups. That is why I voted against the report.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) There has been a dramatic increase in the number and seriousness of natural and man-made disasters across the world; that is, forest fires, floods and landslides, earthquakes, industrial and nuclear accidents, terrorist attacks, etc. Unfortunately, the EU and its Member States are no strangers to this type of disaster. Therefore, given the increasing pace of climate change and the increased probability of natural disasters that are more frequent and intense, there is an urgent need to strengthen the EU’s capacity for response, both inside and outside its borders, so as to increase its effectiveness, efficiency, consistency and visibility. There is a need to change to a predictable system within the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, and to introduce a system for monitoring, supervising and developing EU action in disaster relief operations.

It is important to develop a protection system based on sharing and rationalising the existing resources, avoiding duplications and overlaps, thereby gaining in terms of consistency, effectiveness, rapidity of aid, and reduced costs. There is also an urgent need to introduce the necessary amendments to the regulation establishing the Solidarity Fund, which is characterised by rigid deadlines and procedures, and contains prior conditions which hinder and delay its mobilisation.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for this report because I believe it is essential to make the role of civil protection and humanitarian assistance more efficient at a time when there has been a dramatic increase in the number of natural disasters. I fully support the call for greater integration in the stages of natural disaster management, such as identification of the resources required for a rapid and efficient response to such events, and redefinition of the systems for preventing and protecting against such disasters. It is also important to encourage cooperation between EU Member States in order to strengthen the ability to respond jointly in the future. Coordination is, in fact, essential in the event that there are insufficient resources available in the Member States affected and limited spending capacity in individual Member States following the recent economic crisis. I also hope that there will be a joint effort towards an integrated resource sharing system, a simplification of processes, and preparation and prevention on the ground.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I must remind you that Romania received financial support from the European Union for the projects implemented in the areas affected by flooding. However, the fund’s resources were released late in relation to the time when maximum effectiveness would have been achieved. With this in mind, I think that the possibility of assistance being granted in the form of an advance payment scheme, based on an initial estimate of the direct losses, to a country affected by a disaster, at its request, would be a facility greatly appreciated by the affected areas, immediately after a disaster has occurred.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) There is no doubt that greater European coordination and cooperation in the area of civil protection and humanitarian aid will tend to promote the capacity for collective response to any problems that could arise for the various Member States, specifically as regards the use of scattered human and material resources by each of these. My country, which is regularly scourged by the phenomenon of forest fires, has already repeatedly confronted the limitations of these resources and felt the need to be able to count on outside help. I believe situations of humanitarian disaster and emergency test European solidarity and the capacity for finding swift and effective responses for extreme situations, which often go beyond the borders of one single state. Without these last renouncing the responsibilities which they cannot abandon, I welcome this initiative and hope it will meet the specific expectations and needs of Europe’s peoples.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Ms Gardini, concerns the need to reinforce Europe’s capability in disaster situations, particularly as regards civil protection and humanitarian assistance. In recent times, we have witnessed a great increase in the number of disasters, such as those in Haiti and Japan. In Europe, we have had fires on a large scale, the ash cloud from the Icelandic volcano, and landslides and floods resulting from heavy rains. Indeed, in the last 20 years, the number of disasters has risen fivefold, and resulted in some 100 000 victims. These are large-scale phenomena that require effective and properly coordinated responses. The European Union needs to adopt preventative measures, such as combating climate change, and also play the role of coordinating all the Member States, to which responsibility for this area falls; if not, we will become tangled up in a web of responsibilities that make a quick and effective response more difficult. I welcome the adoption of this report, which focuses on the most vulnerable areas, such as mountain, island and coastal regions, so demonstrating great human and financial concern, and I welcome the creation of a European civil protection force.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) Preparation, response and restoration constitute stages in the disaster management cycle on which there could and should be cooperation between Member States, because of both the cross-border nature that disasters can have, and of the complexity, scale and cost of the materials that need to be mobilised when large-scale disasters occur. This cooperation should be based on solidarity and mutual aid, and could also involve resource sharing. Whatever the case, countries’ sovereignty must be respected and there must be no duplication or overlapping of chains of command, which must rest with the competent national or regional authorities.

Disaster response cannot be a pretext for external intervention, for asserting economic and geostrategic interests, or for military intervention and occupation hidden beneath a cloak of humanitarian intervention. There are already sad examples of this situation and, furthermore, worrying signs that it could be exacerbated in the future. A good example would be the recent changes to the strategic conception of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which have illegitimately and unacceptably expanded this military organisation’s scope for intervention; in other words, war. We do not believe that the framework for disaster response proposed in this report guards against all these issues, which we consider essential.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report does not give enough weight to prevention policies; in other words, those that could prevent, in some cases, or minimise, in others, the effects of disasters. Prevention involves policies on the environment, agriculture, energy, industry, water resources, and the organisation and management of territories. How many forest fires could have been prevented if the common agricultural policy had not contributed to desertification of our inland areas, and to harming our agriculture, our agro-agriculture and our rural life? Europe urgently needs to have more means of funding policies that are actually preventative, and for prevention and warning measures. Increasing Europe’s response capability must involve preservation of the environment, changes to common policies, education and awareness-raising about the environment, increasing each Member State’s capacity for response, and planned cooperation between neighbouring countries, including comprehensive declarations of risk and mechanisms for warning and taking action.

The idea of a special unit for combating forest fires seems neither useful nor feasible. Greater mutual aid and cooperation is possible and desirable. When mention is made of the usefulness of the European Space Policy and the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security programme, there is a danger that security concerns are being given greater emphasis than the environment.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D) , in writing. – (SK) Last year, Europe had to face a number of severe natural disasters, including flash and large-scale floods, heavy storms and forest fires, and also the ash cloud following the eruption of an Icelandic volcano. Some very severe disasters occurred outside Europe, too, causing an enormous number of casualties and huge destruction, notably the earthquake in Haiti and the Pakistan floods, and the most damaging oil spill ever in the Gulf of Mexico after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling well. Now the world is struck by the dramatic happenings in Japan, hit by a combination of a strong earthquake, a tsunami and a nuclear catastrophe. Disasters within Europe over the past 20 years have killed almost 90 000 people, affected more than 29 million and caused EUR 211 billion in economic losses. Approximately 90% of European citizens expect the EU to do more to help their country when struck by a disaster.

I am of the view that the European response needs to be enhanced through pre-identification of the assets available in the Member States that are placed at the disposal of the European Civil Protection Mechanism on a voluntary basis. This would be an important move towards advance planning through the development of reference scenarios, mapping of Member States’ assets, and contingency planning. It is also important that all Member States contribute, in the spirit of European solidarity, to the European disaster response.

  Gaston Franco (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Given the extent of the European and international disasters that we have faced, such as the tsunami in 2004, Haiti in 2010 and Fukushima in 2011, it is high time that Europe had an effective system to ensure a rapid response to disasters. That is why I welcome the adoption of this report, which is the first step towards a harmonised, organised and united response from the European Union.

I tabled a number of amendments, which were adopted in the final report, to emphasise the importance of prevention in crisis management and the organisation of this prevention through operational tools, which I welcome. Until more thought has been given to the establishment of any real future European civil protection force, I think that the creation of a European emergency response centre will simplify the current European Civil Protection Mechanism. I called for this European centre to be equipped with two Community tools to protect forests from forest fires, EFFIS and EFFICS, which was adopted in the final report.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The question of European cooperation in matters of civil protection is not even raised and it is obvious that natural disasters, fires, tsunamis and so on have no respect for borders. Over 373 natural disasters were counted worldwide in 2010, resulting in nearly 300 000 victims and affecting 207 million people. These figures are a powerful reminder of the EU’s urgent need to organise itself better to provide a large-scale, rapid and effective operational response. They urgently call for systematic action at European level, both inside and outside the EU (as proposed in the Commission’s communication and approved in our report). The current Community Civil Protection Mechanism is undoubtedly effective, but it is inadequate. I will wholeheartedly support any proposal that goes along these lines to provide greater visibility to European action in matters of civil protection, but also to all voluntary action taken in the service of civil protection. In addition, I even believe that this visibility should involve the creation of a genuine European civil protection force, together with a common logo, a European flag and a common uniform.

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. – I welcome this slim, concise report which epitomises EU solidarity and efficiency. This report is not about taking powers from Member States but rather attempts to assist Member States in disaster by information sharing and coordination of resources in order to act swiftly to save lives. There has been a huge increase in the number of disasters in the last 20 years: more than 90 000 people have died in disasters, over 29 million people have been affected by disasters, with an economic cost in excess of EUR 211 billion. In 1975, 78 disasters occurred; currently, almost 400 disasters occur worldwide per annum. Therefore, we need a more organised response to disasters in order to save lives. Disaster reduction is key to EU development and I sincerely welcome the attention which this report has drawn to this crucial area.

  Filiz Hakaeva Hyusmenovа (ALDE), in writing. – (BG) I supported the report on strengthening the European Union’s disaster response because I think that the basic action guidelines presented in it are important for the future and safety of Europe’s citizens. As a former minister who was responsible for these matters in Bulgaria, I firmly believe that good coordination and coherence, both within the EU and with international partners, are key requirements when crisis situations arise. Unfortunately, in recent years, we have witnessed severe disasters caused both by nature and man, which resulted in heavy human casualties and in social, economic and environmental damage. I think that we should be more consistent and active in taking preventive measures to avert the adverse consequences of such events. We must also improve our preparedness for a coordinated response at European, national and regional level when disasters occur. At the same time, I think that the assistance mechanisms should ensure greater flexibility and rapid response capabilities. I also fully support the need outlined in the report for a clear communication strategy and for better access to information because this would make the policy being pursued more effective.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because I believe that we need to rationalise and simplify the functioning of the current European disaster response and optimise the resources available for common benefit, whilst encouraging all Member States to contribute and thus guarantee European solidarity. The Solidarity Fund Regulation needs to be revised so as to adapt the eligibility criteria to the characteristics of each region and each disaster, including slowly evolving disasters such as drought, and enable mobilisation to be more flexible and timely. There needs to be a qualitative shift from the current ad hoc coordination to a predictable and pre-planned system within the EU Civil Protection Mechanism based on pre-identified resources available for immediate deployment in EU disaster relief operations and on any other means and resources which Member States may consider appropriate for deployment. We need to introduce a system for monitoring, supervising and developing EU action in disaster relief operations. The cross-border nature of disasters implies that the EU should coordinate its resources and cooperate, and there must be a coherent EU response.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) In response to the natural disasters as well as man-made catastrophes haunting Europe and the entire world, the European Union must coordinate the activities of its relevant institutions in order to facilitate the most efficient provision of relief to victims.

A good step in this direction is the setting up of the crisis response centre that will, I hope, improve and accelerate response by the relevant agencies in crisis situations. Solidarity is the fundamental principle underpinning the existence of the Community and, with this in mind, we must provide help to those who need it. For our efforts to be effective, it is essential for all institutions and Member States to cooperate with each other. Since our organisation is one of the richest in the world, we must remember those regions that are amongst the most overlooked and poorest in the world and that are unable to cope on their own with the disasters that plague them.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The natural disasters that have continued to affect our planet in recent years are forcing us to take careful stock of the methods of response and their effectiveness and methods of prevention. The text presented by Ms Gardini, which I fully support, moves towards greater coordination of operations for preventing and protecting people against natural disasters. A properly coordinated EU civil protection service would not only make it possible to collaborate efficiently when dealing with humanitarian crises, but also to redesign the investment of resources for the sector which are often wasted because of a lack of coordination in emergency response procedures. The intrinsic value of this proposal is to finally redefine the European situation also in its model of response to emergencies caused by natural disasters. This must involve all levels of the European institutions in preventing or tackling the kind of disasters that have marred and, unfortunately, continue to feature in the history of various EU Member States.

  Sabine Lösing (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (DE) I voted against this report as I reject the notion that, if in doubt, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief should be tackled from within the framework of the common security and defence policy (CSDP). What is more, there must not be any mixing of civilian and military activities, something that this report would make possible. I furthermore strongly reject the introduction of security policy elements into the areas of civil protection and humanitarian assistance on the strength of any purported threat of terrorism.

I advocate civilian disaster relief independent of security policy concerns and argue for the build-up of the necessary logistical capabilities, which must be independent of the military. Moreover, I would point out that the report refers to the solidarity clause in a positive light, a clause which, for example, also makes military intervention against striking workers possible.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I believe, just as I have asserted already in countless speeches, that the European Commission should take measures enabling the EU’s Solidarity Fund to increase its flexibility and simplify its administrative rules, as simplifying the administrative procedures would speed up payments and ensure that those in need of support receive payments immediately. Another observation that has been made over time within the Committee on Regional Development is that European regions situated at the EU’s borders may be affected by disasters occurring in regions located in third countries, thereby making intervention even more difficult. It is therefore crucial that specific measures are developed to support these regions, while also taking into account disasters caused by people or industrial accidents, which require different strategies. Last but not least, the Commission must ensure that, in future, Member States involve their regional and local authorities in disaster response operations right from the outset, based on the multilevel governance model applied in the cohesion policy, through a win-win communication strategy for all the actors involved in the response mechanism.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Today, we voted on a very important and very good report by Ms Gardini on European disaster response and the role of civil protection and humanitarian assistance. I sit on the Committee on Regional Development, and I believe that implementation of all the provisions contained in the report will enable us to improve coordination and response generated at regional or national level and employ our efforts and resources to maximum effect. Only in this way will we be able to minimise the aftermath of catastrophes and natural disasters. It is also a splendid idea to merge the Monitoring and Information Centre and the ECHO humanitarian aid crisis room into one consolidated entity, namely, an emergency response centre that will expedite the information flow and improve cooperation. This is why, together with others, I voted in favour of adopting the report in its entirety.

  Vladimir Maňka (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The number of disasters has increased fivefold over the past 35 years. Disasters within Europe over the past 20 years have killed almost 90 000 people, affected more than 29 million, and caused EUR 211 billion in economic losses.

Disaster response measures need to be enhanced. It would mean a move away from the current ad hoc response to disasters, towards advance planning through the development of reference scenarios, mapping of Member States’ assets and contingency planning. The European Civil Protection Mechanism is bureaucratic in nature. The merging of the MIC and Echo crisis room and the creation of a genuine 24/7 emergency response centre which, in agreement with the Member States, would take decisions on the assets to be deployed in the event of a disaster in order to ensure an immediate and effective assistance to the victims, should be welcomed. The Commission should submit a proposal for an EU civil protection force based on the emergency response centre. The use of resources that are available in the Member States should be optimised for the common benefit. At the same time, the duplication of structures, effort or expenses should be avoided.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – We are living at a time when more and more disasters occur. Last year, Europe had to face a number of very severe disasters, including flash and large-scale floods, heavy storms and forest fires – not to mention the ash cloud after the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland. Outside Europe, some very severe disasters struck, causing an enormous number of casualties and huge destruction, namely, the Haiti earthquake and the Pakistan floods. The most damaging oil spill ever happened in the Gulf of Mexico after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling well, and the Sahel was hit by severe droughts. Now the world is struck by the dramatic happenings in Japan, which was hit by a combination of a strong earthquake, a tsunami and a nuclear catastrophe. Against the background of the recent dramatic increase in natural and man-made disasters both inside and outside the European Union, we need more efficiency at all stages of the European disaster management cycle, including prevention, preparedness, response and recovery, while optimising economic resources during times of austerity.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the resolution to give the Union a genuine rapid disaster response mechanism. There are many examples of when Member States have had to call on the solidarity of their European partners to tackle natural disasters that have struck a number of regions such as Madeira, western France and various regions in Spain in early 2010. The human and material consequences caused by these violent meteorological phenomena affect me deeply as an elected representative. European institutions can make progress in this field, and that of humanitarian assistance, by shifting from simple coordination towards a predictable and pre-planned system of EU civil protection. The EU will then be able to carry out disaster relief operations thanks to immediate deployment. Obviously, this system should not replace the action of Member States, who are competent at national, regional and local level, but should complement this action with European solidarity.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) We are living at a time when more and more disasters are occurring. Worldwide, the recorded number of disasters in one year has risen fivefold during the last 35 years to nearly 400 today. Recorded disasters within Europe over the past 20 years have killed almost 90 000 people, affected more than 29 million and caused EUR 211 billion in economic losses. To enhance European disaster response even more, the Commission needs to table a proposal as soon as possible on an EU civil protection force based on the emergency response centre. Another crucial point is the need for better coordination between all actors to avoid overlapping and duplication of efforts, on both the political and the operational side; each of these should function autonomously, in order not to impede rapid and effective help for the victims of the disaster.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Showing solidarity with the most vulnerable on our planet is one of the European Union’s fundamental values. The creation of a stronger European disaster response capability is a concrete expression of this solidarity. The creation of a unique crisis management centre was essential for improving the response to emergencies while providing better European coordination and by cutting red tape and duplication as much as possible. As I have already said on many occasions, particularly during the floods in Pakistan, or again during the earthquake in Haiti, the Barnier report was a perfect source of inspiration, which helped establish this mechanism. The current resolution is echoed in the 2014-2020 financial perspective which outlines the need for systematic action against a background of increasing natural and man-made disasters. Humanitarian assistance and civil protection are therefore stepped up in response to the actual needs of people in danger and to the demands of European citizens.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – In its communication, the Commission proposes to improve and reinforce European disaster response capacity by proposing a two-fold approach: to set up a European emergency response capacity, based on Members States’ assets and expertise, and to establish a European emergency response centre and civil protection as a new platform for collecting real-time information on disasters, monitor hazards, alert Member States, and coordinate the EU’s disaster response actions. The report welcomes the creation of a genuine 24/7 emergency response centre as a simplification of the current Civil Protection Mechanism, which is considered too bureaucratic. It also highlights that better coordination among all actors is essential to avoid overlapping and duplication of efforts, on both the political and operational sides.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) Natural and man-made disasters and their after-effects often cross a country’s borders. Therefore, when saving people’s lives, property and the environment, there not only needs to be a rapid response to these disasters, but excellent coordination of the work done by forces from neighbouring countries. I would like to congratulate the rapporteur for drawing attention to this problem in the report and I would like to add my voice to the calls for both the European Commission and individual Member States to take stronger action to ensure that work is better coordinated among national bodies, that problems relating to the provision of logistical, technical and other types of assistance are addressed and that a more pro-active EU publicity campaign is launched. We would thereby not only guarantee more effective use of funds allocated to the civil protection sector, but also more effective protection of our environment, citizens and their property.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) Over the last 35 years, the number of disasters around the world each year has risen by a factor of five. In light of this, it is important to increase the efficiency of disaster response in the European Union. Clearly, this requires better coordination between all the parties involved in order to achieve synergy effects, plus an enhanced exchange of proven procedures between the various Member States. However, a standing EU civil protection force is something that I reject. There is a need to provide mutual assistance where necessary but, as a rule, the principle of helping people to help themselves should apply. In addition, I find the report to be lacking a fundamental discussion of particularly risky technologies such as nuclear power and deep-sea oil drilling. If we find ways to avoid these, we will ultimately also avoid disasters like Fukushima or the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Having weighed up the issues above, I abstained from voting.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the report by Ms Gardini on the European response to natural disasters because I believe the role of civil protection is truly important and I hope it will be possible to create a European civil protection force capable of providing humanitarian aid and assistance like the Italian civil protection force. The rapid response to the growing number of devastating natural disasters must be well organised and coordinated at a European level. Simplifying the relevant rules is undoubtedly the way towards achieving greater efficiency in the field as far as both assistance and reconstruction and the return to normality are concerned.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) Europe, like the rest of the planet, is experiencing more frequent and more extreme disasters, both natural and man-made. The fatal fires, especially of Mediterranean forests, which plague Greece nearly every summer, are just one form of disaster. Disasters have cost Europe a total of over EUR 210 billion in the last twenty years. This growing trend needs two main strategies. Firstly, we need to organise at European level, given that natural disasters know no borders, and secondly, we need to develop a fully operational European Civil Protection Mechanism. The Treaty of Lisbon satisfies both these preconditions, by establishing new legal bases for civil protection, on the one hand, and for humanitarian aid, on the other, in order to guarantee a fast and effective response to disasters both inside and outside the EU. A European Civil Protection Mechanism, backed by appropriate resources and the necessary expertise to guarantee its success, is in everyone’s interest. These points are addressed in this report, which is why I voted in favour of it.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which tables a range of solutions to optimise coordinated action when disasters occur. The rapporteur calls for more efficiency in prevention, preparedness, response and recovery, while optimising economic resources during times of austerity. In fact, studies show that approximately 90% of European citizens expect the EU to do more to help their country when struck by a disaster. This concern is also reflected in the Treaty of Lisbon, which introduces new legal bases for both civil protection and humanitarian aid, in order to ensure a rapid and effective response to disasters happening inside and outside the EU. To add weight to these proposals, I join the rapporteur in calling on the Commission to table, as soon as possible, a project on the establishment of an EU civil protection force based on the emergency response centre.

  Rovana Plumb (S&D), in writing. – (RO) We are living at a time when the number of disasters is steadily rising. The number of disasters recorded worldwide in one year has risen fivefold during the last 35 years to nearly 400 today. The disasters experienced in Europe over the past 20 years have resulted in almost 90 000 deaths, affected more than 29 million people, and caused economic losses to the tune of EUR 211 billion.

I voted for this report to create a mechanism for making every stage of the European disaster management cycle more efficient, including prevention, preparedness, response and recovery, while making the most cost-effective use of economic resources during times of austerity. This approach is supported overwhelmingly by approximately 90% of European citizens, who expect the EU to do more to help their country when struck by a disaster, while a similar proportion endorses EU humanitarian actions outside the EU.

I should stress that it is important that all Member States contribute, in the spirit of European solidarity, to the European disaster response.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this report on developing a stronger European disaster response. The need to move away from what this report describes as an ad hoc policy towards emergency situations to a more premeditated and planned approach is obvious. In particular, I support two things. First, I support the establishment of the European emergency response centre, which would act as a first port of call through a programme of monitoring potential disaster situations and alerting the relevant authorities about any potential threats. Secondly, I welcome the creation of a European emergency response capacity whereby the emergency relief assets of Member States are pooled on a voluntary basis, which would enable more effective and certain pre-emergency planning. It would also facilitate a more thorough response in the event of an emergency.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The frequency of the occurrence of natural disasters points to the need to provide for reactive mechanisms that enable aid for affected populations within a short space of time. This applies, not just to the most unpredictable volcanic eruptions, but also to the increasingly frequent floods, storms, earthquakes and forest fires. In this context, there is a need for coordination of the resources made available by the various Member States, as well as for a central coordinating authority, which will increase the efficiency of any EU action. To this end, the merger of the Monitoring and Information Centre and the ECHO humanitarian aid crisis room to create the European emergency response centre is particularly important. In general, these are instruments that not only enable direct aid for Europeans, but also make it possible for the EU to act internationally in a capable and responsible way. I voted in favour for these reasons.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I voted in favour. Parliament welcomes the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council entitled ‘Towards a stronger European disaster response: the role of civil protection and humanitarian assistance’ and its objectives. It emphasises that the proposals outlined in the communication should be further examined to fulfil the expectations for an enhanced, coordinated, consistent, effective, cost-efficient and visible cohesive and comprehensive European response. It underlines the need to rationalise and simplify the functioning of current European disaster response and to optimise the resources available for common benefit, whilst encouraging all Member States to contribute and thus guarantee European solidarity. It considers, accordingly, that the EU’s reaction capacity should form part of an integrated multi-risk approach. Moreover, it highlights the need to carry out ‘bottom-up’ delegated resources and information management. In other words, the initiative should come from the Member States, which can provide voluntary resources and expertise;

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The climate change of recent years has led to increasingly frequent disasters.

Last year, Europe had to face a number of very severe disasters, including flash and large-scale floods, heavy storms and exceptionally widespread forest fires, not to mention the ash cloud after the eruption of the volcano in Iceland.

Outside Europe as well, some very severe disasters struck, causing an enormous number of casualties and huge destruction. Worldwide, the recorded number of disasters in one year has risen fivefold during the last 35 years to nearly 400 today. 90% of European citizens expect the EU to do more to help their country when struck by a disaster.

With the adoption today of this important document, Parliament is asking for more efficiency in all stages of the European disaster management cycle, including prevention, preparedness, response and recovery, while optimising economic resources during times of austerity. The response needs to be enhanced through pre-identification of the assets available in the Member States that are placed at the disposal of the European Civil Protection Mechanism on a voluntary basis, while avoiding overlapping and duplication of efforts both on the political and on the operational side.

  Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Between 1975 and 2010, the number of disasters recorded annually has increased fivefold, from 78 26 years ago to almost 400 today. The earthquake that shook Japan in March 2011 is just the latest example. In Europe alone, over the last 20 years, various disasters have killed almost 90 000 people and caused economic losses amounting to EUR 211 billion. Climate change, population growth coupled with urbanisation, industrialisation and environmental damage are all causes that can explain this increase.

Faced with these tragedies, what is Europe doing? Does it take advantage of these events to demonstrate its added value in terms of coordination, pooling of resources and solidarity? Unfortunately not. In 2006, Michel Barnier proposed a certain number of urgent reforms, which we have only begun to discuss seriously today, and which are echoed in the Gardini report. The Treaty of Lisbon gives the European Union a legal basis on which to develop its response capability to this type of tragedy. It is now up to the Member States to play along and to pool certain prevention and response resources so that European solidarity is finally visible and effective.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I supported the report entitled ‘Towards a stronger European disaster response: the role of civil protection and humanitarian assistance’. At present, when catastrophes or disasters strike, EU procedure does not provide for adequate and sufficient aid to Member States. Urgent action must be taken to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, coherence and clarity of the procedure. More efficient use of available resources will make it possible to avoid additional financial and administrative procedures, especially as concerns regional and local authorities. A more effective and timely response is a much more economical solution than simply dealing with the effects. Cohesive use of the available funds for this purpose will guarantee effective aid at each level. I refer to human resources and infrastructure. The provision of adequate aid will enable better identification of where resources are lacking and of the specific role played by the EU in the provision of aid to the Member States.

I would also like to draw your attention to the need to amend the regulation establishing the Solidarity Fund. The criteria for seeking help from this fund must be adapted to the specific nature of individual regions, disasters and calamities. In addition, like in the case of other funds, it is also important to make it possible to mobilise resources in a flexible way and depending on the needs arising.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Unfortunately, we most often cast our mind to problems relating to the lack of good and smoothly operating systems of response to various disasters only after the event. On a number of occasions recently, we have had to deal with tragic natural disasters in Europe and in the rest of the world. Torrential rains are regularly causing floods, and we have experienced storms, forest fires and the eruption of an Icelandic volcano. All these events result in a huge financial cost and paralyse communications. In addition, events outside Europe, in Haiti, Pakistan, Japan, and the explosion of the oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico have caused the deaths of thousands of people and had a negative impact on the European economy. In times of crisis, we cannot afford duplication of efforts by several European States, as that means duplication of costs and of the efforts made by entities and agencies responsible for providing a response in each of the Member States. Accordingly, we must work out a cohesive, comprehensive and well-coordinated system for the entire European Union, one that would be not only effective but also rational.

Furthermore, I would like to emphasise the importance of cooperation with third countries and countries that adjoin the EU, for it is with such states that we should seek to cooperate and coordinate actions and the use of resources in a way that would allow most effective use of their potential. We should always keep in mind that various disasters and calamities do not recognise the existence of territorial borders.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Natural disasters occurring within Europe over the past 20 years have killed more than 90 000 people, affected more than 29 million, and caused about EUR 211 billion in economic losses. The purpose of this report, tabled by Parliament, is to serve as a basis for the Commission’s legislative proposal, which will also be tabled this autumn. I therefore support the Commission’s proposal to improve and strengthen the EU’s response capability, through the creation of a European emergency response capacity based on the Member States’ specialised assets, as well as the creation of a European emergency response centre, as a simplification of the current Civil Protection Mechanism. The system’s red tape also needs to be cut, by creating a European civil protection force to coordinate all the actors involved at European, national, regional and local level, so as to speed up processes and avoid the duplication of efforts. I come from Madeira, a region whose situation means it is overly exposed to natural disasters, as was the case with the storm of February 2010, so I support the taking of political, but particularly operational, measures to minimise their effects.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The European Parliament’s report and the Commission communication are anything but innocent. The euro-unifying legislative framework of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism has already been extended to include action to ‘combat terrorism’. Within that framework, it proposes the establishment of a civil protection force based on an ‘all-hazards approach’ with ‘synergies among the various existing tools and instruments’. It proposes the activation and implementation of the ‘solidarity clause’ introduced in the Treaty of Lisbon and provides the facility for intervention by the EU in the internal political affairs and developments of a Member State, including for the purpose of dealing with risks to public policy and security.

The sweet-sounding calls for action to deal with forest fires and other environmental dangers or natural disasters conceal plans to use military means and existing monitoring systems, such as the GMES and Galileo satellite systems. In other words, infrastructures and preconditions are put in place for close coordination and mutual support between military and civil mechanisms, in order to establish an enhanced EU civil protection system with even more militarised features and structures.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) This report on the creation of a European Civil Protection Mechanism respects the notion of solidarity in emergencies, at both European and international level, with the emphasis on prevention and coordinated and effective disaster management.

In my opinion, the proposals seem quite positive, such as the dissemination of information and expertise and good practices, pre-identification of the assets available in the Member States, simplification of bureaucratic procedures, the references to climate change and also the responsibility of private operators and the provision of humanitarian assistance and aid regardless of political considerations.

Yet some aspects remain controversial, in particular, including references to bioterrorism, the glowing report given to its response to the Haitian disaster, the use of a highly centralised Civil Protection Mechanism with many powers, and the steps to train young people at a time when budgetary margins for manoeuvre are extremely tight.

However, due to the fact that the emphasis is placed on the principle of solidarity and subsidiarity and on international standards for humanitarian assistance, I voted for this report.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) In recent years, disasters have increased in number and in gravity. It was important that our Parliament reiterated its call for the creation of a European civil protection force, capable of immediate deployment, inside and outside the Union. The shocking images of the earthquake in Haiti, the floods in Pakistan, the forest fires in southern Europe, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, not to mention Fukushima, shook the planet and underlined the desperate need to optimise European action, at all stages of disaster management. On each occasion, I have supported Parliament’s calls for the Commission to make proposals that move towards a pooling of material and human resources available in Member States and towards improved coordination between them to support a European civil protection force, which unfortunately has been a long time in coming. Each disaster brings its share of human tragedy and destruction. It is therefore essential to support Europe’s capacity to intervene in the areas of prevention, response, recovery and humanitarian action. In this area, we need to ensure that the principle of European solidarity is put into action.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) Given the continuous rise in the numbers of natural disasters over recent years, the citizens of Europe are understandably demanding the best possible civil protection. The report calls on the Commission to bring forward a proposal without delay for EU-level disaster protection that should include a more efficient EU disaster management cycle and a 24/7 emergency response centre.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The numerous disasters that have recently affected EU countries and other parts of the world make it imperative to take all measures possible in order to enhance Europe’s capacity to respond to disasters and catastrophes. In my role as Vice-Chair of the Delegation for relations with Japan, I followed the development of the situation in that country with particular attention, after Japan was affected by a major disaster in March of this year. This was brought about by the concurrence of an earthquake, a tsunami and a dangerous failure at a nuclear power station. Being aware of the fact that it is impossible to rule out occurrences of natural disasters or of catastrophes brought about by human beings, it is imperative for us to work out in advance various scenarios based on the use of existing mechanisms and taking into account the previously identified pool of resources. A cohesive strategy incorporating action plans, an integrated monitoring system with access to satellite information, measures to improve the flow of information and coordinated cooperation among Member States will most certainly curtail the damage to the environment, society and the economy in the event of a disaster.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I voted in favour of adopting the present report. It is gratifying that the European Parliament is paying increased attention to the Union’s capacity to provide aid in cases of disasters and catastrophes. It is necessary to emphasise the fact that over the last 30 years, the number of different kinds of disasters recorded the world over, including in Europe, has increased fivefold. This means that we should work out considerably more efficient methods for dealing with the consequences of this growing number of disasters. In my view, while the European Union is allocating more and more resources to this objective, its actual capacity remains far from sufficient. The latter should not be based on the use of resources offered – voluntarily – by individual Member States of the European Union. The Union should be building its own resources at pan-Union level. These would include, for example, a fleet of transport aircraft to be immediately available whenever humanitarian assistance has to be provided following a catastrophe or disaster.

Report: Sophie Auconie (A7-0076/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, which stresses the new benefits of simplifying regulatory constraints, since it will enable euro cash to move more freely between euro area Member States, whilst ensuring a high level of professionalism and security. However, it is regrettable that the Commission wanted to unilaterally amend the text, without taking into account the opinion of social partners, as the European Parliament requested.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Although euro notes and coins were introduced in 2002, the market for transporting euro cash is still highly fragmented. This is due to widely-diverging national rules which make it extremely difficult for cash-in-transit (CIT) companies to provide cross-border services. The purpose of this regulation is therefore to simplify these regulatory constraints so that euro notes and coins can circulate more easily among the Member States in the euro area.

Due to the particular dangers involved in cash transportation, this regulation must help reinforce the safety requirements for both CIT staff and the public. With regard to the range of cash transportation methods, Member States must be able to select as many options as they wish from the five transportation methods available for notes and the two for coins, which are set out in the regulation.

I voted for this report because I think that it is important to ensure that the rules are sufficiently clear and workable for the CIT companies and national authorities.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) Euro banknotes and coins were introduced in 2002 and are a pan-European means of payment, allowing European citizens to settle their debts in euro throughout the euro area, currently consisting of 17 Member States. The very principle of a single currency implies the freedom to move cash between the participating Member States. However, due to incompatibilities between national legislations, it is, in most cases, very difficult for professional cash transporters to move euro cash between euro area Member States, and very little cross-border land transportation therefore takes place. Regulatory differences concern a wide range of issues, such as the possession and carrying of firearms by the cash-in-transit (CIT) staff, the authorised modes of transport, the armouring and equipping of the CIT vehicles and the number of staff in those vehicles. The current regulatory obstacles imply a fragmentation of the single market in this sector. These constraints on professional euro cash transportation have an impact on the cash cycle and, ultimately, on the cost of cash for firms and citizens. I agreed that it is necessary to take action to remove existing regulatory barriers to cross-border transportation of euro cash by road and thereby facilitate the free circulation of the euro.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The proposal for a regulation has the merit of taking action to make the cross-border transportation of euro cash less fragmented.

The aim of simplifying national rules governing cross-border euro cash transportation services is an objective that will make the professional job of cash-in-transit companies and the circulation of euro notes and coins easier.

The report by Parliament integrates the text from the Commission into important points of the regulatory measure. I approve of the efforts to make cash transportation safer with the safety systems specified in the amendments approved by our colleagues during its submission to the Commission. I therefore voted in favour of the report.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I have nothing against eurozone countries defining what kind of CIT companies may be granted a cross-border licence by a Member State, nor have I anything against using the intelligent banknote neutralisation system (IBNS). However, the fact that the EU wishes to harmonise the IBNS among the participating Member States at a time when the euro is failing, the very production of the report, which aims solely to sustain what is, in essence, the collapsing myth of the euro, is a sheer waste of taxpayers’ money.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the adoption of this report by our fellow Member, Ms Auconie, which will facilitate the transport of funds between EU Member States. I therefore voted for this report, as it will further enhance the safety of people and funds transported while safeguarding employees’ social conditions.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Given the continued fragmentation of the market for transporting euro cash, there was a need to review and simplify the national regulations, so as to enable quicker, more effective circulation between the Member States that have adopted the single currency. However, as well as greater simplification, there is also a need to be careful with the provisions in force regarding the transportation of cash in each Member State. I believe the agreement reached here strikes this balance both in terms of the choice of transport, and the public safety rules required and the employment conditions achieved for the sector’s workers.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by our fellow Member, Ms Auconie, concerns a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the professional cross-border transportation of euro cash by road between euro area Member States. The purpose of this proposal is to facilitate the cross-border transportation of euro cash between Member States that have adopted the euro as their currency by establishing clear operational rules. As such, the proposal for a regulation provides for the existence of five transportation methods for notes and two for coins, from which each Member State chooses those best suited to its situation. The issue of the safety of this type of transportation has not been forgotten for cash-in-transit (CIT) workers or the general public: it encourages the use of the intelligent banknote neutralisation system to discourage attacks on CIT vehicles. I am voting for the report for the above reasons, and I hope it will contribute to facilitating the transportation of cash between Member States, so conferring greater security on the European public and its cash.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The purpose of this proposal for a regulation of the European Commission is to facilitate the cross-border transportation of euro cash, but without prejudice to the Member States’ various chosen approaches to regulation of the cash-in-transit (CIT) sector.

According to the rapporteur, this regulation will simplify regulatory limitations, with a view to facilitating better circulation of euro coins and banknotes between the Member States that have adopted the single currency, whilst also taking into account their contribution to reinforcing the imperative of public safety for both CIT staff and the public. As the report says, ‘although euro notes and coins were introduced as long ago as 2002, the market for transporting euro cash is still highly fragmented. Widely diverging national rules make it very difficult for [CIT] companies to provide cross-border services’.

Adequate consideration is given to the need, in future, to encourage application of the intelligent banknote neutralisation system to prevent any worsening of the violence that characterises attacks on CIT vehicles.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) As the report states, ‘although euro notes and coins were introduced as long ago as 2002, the market for transporting euro cash is still highly fragmented. Widely diverging national rules make it very difficult for cash-in-transit (CIT) sector companies to provide cross-border services’. According to the rapporteur, the Commission’s proposal should facilitate the cross-border transportation of euro cash, but without prejudice to the Member States’ various chosen approaches to regulation of the CIT sector.

The purpose of this regulation is to simplify regulatory limitations, with a view to facilitating better circulation of euro coins and banknotes between the Member States that have adopted the single currency, whilst also taking into account their contribution to reinforcing the imperative of public safety for both CIT staff and the public.

The rapporteur therefore considers that, in order to do cross-border work, companies must have an adequate minimum level of experience, and stresses the need, in future, to encourage the use of the intelligent banknote neutralisation system to prevent any worsening of the violence that characterises attacks on CIT vehicles.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) Although euro notes and coins were introduced as long ago as 2002, the market for transporting euro cash is still highly fragmented. Widely diverging national rules make it very difficult for cash-in-transit (CIT) companies to provide cross-border services. The purpose of this regulation is therefore to simplify the regulatory constraints so that euro notes and coins can circulate more easily among the Member States that have adopted the currency.

  Vladimir Maňka (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The purpose of this regulation is to simplify regulatory constraints so that euro notes and coins can circulate more easily among the Member States that have adopted the currency. This proposal will serve to facilitate the cross-border transportation of euro cash without prejudice to the Member States’ various chosen approaches to regulation of the CIT sector. Member States must be able to select as many options as they wish from the five transportation methods for notes and the two for coins which are set out in the regulation.

The regulation must help to reinforce the imperative of safety for both CIT staff and the public. In order to do cross-border work, companies must have an adequate minimum level of experience. The regulation will not result in an erosion of employment conditions for CIT staff.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this proposal. Although euro notes and coins were introduced as long ago as 2002, the market for transporting euro cash is still highly fragmented. Widely diverging national rules make it very difficult for cash-in-transit (CIT) companies to provide cross-border services. The purpose of this regulation is therefore to simplify the regulatory constraints so that euro notes and coins can circulate more easily among the Member States that have adopted the currency.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The market for transporting euro cash in the EU is still highly fragmented due to widely diverging national rules that make it very difficult for cash-in-transit (CIT) companies to provide cross-border services.

Therefore, we believe that it is necessary to simplify the regulatory constraints so that euro notes and coins can circulate more easily among the Member States. In our view, in order to achieve this, it is important firstly to ensure that the rules established are sufficiently clear and workable for the CIT companies and national authorities.

With regard to cash transportation methods, Member States must be able to select as many options as they wish from the five transportation methods for notes and two for coins which are set out in the regulation. Given the particular dangers involved in cash transportation, the regulation must help to reinforce the imperative of safety for both CIT staff and the public. Use of the intelligent banknote neutralisation system should be encouraged to prevent attacks on CIT vehicles.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Although euro notes and coins were introduced as long ago as 2002, the market for transporting euro cash is still highly fragmented. Widely diverging national rules make it very difficult for cash-in-transit (CIT) companies to provide cross-border services. The purpose of this regulation is therefore to simplify the regulatory constraints so that euro notes and coins can circulate more easily among the Member States that have adopted the currency. The cross-border transportation of euro cash should be facilitated, but without prejudice to the Member States’ various chosen approaches to regulation of the CIT sector.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The purpose of this regulation is to simplify the regulatory constraints so that euro notes and coins can circulate more easily among the Member States of the euro area, ensuring a high level of professionalism and safety. The amendments adopted in the Committee on Economic Affairs concern the involvement of EU institutions and social partners, reference periods and professional training. Moreover, the scope of the regulation is extended – by Recommendation APP/2010/0206 – to the territory of Member States that are about to introduce the euro, since there is normally an increased need for euro cash transportation in the run-up to the changeover.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which is based on the European Commission proposal resulting from a long consultation process, which seems balanced to me. Its purpose is to facilitate the cross-border transportation of euro cash, but without prejudice to the Member States’ various chosen approaches to regulation of the cash-in-transit (CIT) sector. It presents various types of transport, and changes the rules of the sector, but without resulting in an erosion of employment conditions for CIT staff.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) From the technical point of view, regulation of the cash-in-transit (CIT) sector should involve a clear regulatory framework adapted to the particular characteristics of the transport operators. That is the only way it will be able to preclude distortions of its role because of artificial barriers to competition. Moreover, legislation must always use the safety of operators as a reference, since the CIT sector is undeniably dangerous. These issues are covered in the proposal for a regulation, so I voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I voted in favour. Although euro notes and coins were introduced as long ago as 2002, the market for transporting euro cash is still highly fragmented. Widely diverging national rules make it very difficult for cash-in-transit (CIT) companies to provide cross-border services. The purpose of this regulation is therefore to simplify the regulatory constraints so that euro notes and coins can circulate more easily between the Member States that have adopted the currency.

Report: Jörg Leichtfried (A7-0028/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, Parliament has had to decide on proposals tabled by the Commission on dual-use technology; in other words, goods that can be used for civilian or military purposes. The thinking is that controlling this type of export prevents the proliferation of weapons. It is crucial to reflect on the most effective way for the European Union to offer leadership in the movement against the proliferation of weapons, which is particularly important, given its geopolitical and geographic characteristics, especially following its successive eastward expansions.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this document. In the European Union, there are licences for dual-use items (these are defined as items, including software and technology, which can be used for both civil and military purposes, and include all goods which can be used for assisting in any way in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other explosive nuclear devices). The regulation lays down a list of dual-use items and it is regularly updated to reflect the Member States’ international commitments and rapid technological development. The updating of this list, on which we voted, will enable us to guarantee the application of the commitments made throughout the entire EU and will give EU exporters legal clarity as regards the items that require an export licence.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) In the delicate context of exports of dual-use items and technology, there was a need for a legislative measure at EU level to make the legislative and, above all, the procedural framework clearer, simpler and more harmonised.

The proposed amendment we voted on today is important also for manufacturers, as dual-use items account for 10% of goods exported by EU Member States.

Thanks to the proposal put to the vote, the European Parliament will also see more involvement, which will make future procedures regarding the exporting of dual-use items more democratic and give greater control over them to our House. I therefore voted in favour.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because, in order to guarantee human security, strengthen the control of exports in the European Union, and strengthen and tighten rules on the global issuing of arms export licences, it is necessary to amend and supplement several points in the old regulation. The amendments to this regulation set up a Community regime for dual-use items and technology. The supplement to the regulation takes account of the regime for the control of exports in order to establish a reliable system for the collection, transmission and storage of notifications. A lot of attention is also paid to enhancing the European Union’s reputation, and representation in international regimes for the control of exports should also be improved. The granting of authorisation for the export of dual-use items is decided under four international export control regimes. Firstly, the Australia Group endeavours to prevent the proliferation of biological and chemical weapons. Secondly, the Nuclear Suppliers Group aims to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons and controls exports. The Missile Technology Control Regime aims to curb the spread of unmanned delivery systems for nuclear weapons, and the Wassenaar Arrangement focuses on the transparency of national export control regimes. Their most important task is to update the lists of goods to be controlled with a view to cooperating and guaranteeing security.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The issue of dual-use items – goods which can be used for both civil and military purposes, such as chemicals that can be used in fertilisers or to prepare bombs and information technology for computers that can also be used to guide missiles – is currently a highly sensitive one. European-level export controls for dual-use items and technologies aim to ensure respect for the international commitments of the EU and its Member States as regards the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons. The main function of these international regimes for the control of exports is updating the lists of items subject to control.

To date, these lists have been almost automatically transposed into EU law, without any participation, or with minimal participation, from the European Parliament. I welcome the adoption of a joint interpretation by Parliament and the Commission within the new framework agreement, which will be crucial for a more transparent and democratic organisation of the EU’s dual-use regime.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this amendment to the regulation on exports of dual-use items and technology. This proposal for a regulation should help increase transparency in the export of items and technologies that can be used for civil and military purposes.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, since I believe that Parliament’s amendments to Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 make the regime for dual-use items – that is, goods that can be used for both civil and military purposes – more democratic, transparent and secure. The amended regulation will also contribute to reinforcing the image of the Union in international export control regimes, which constitute an important model for the devising and practical implementation of EU legislation in this area.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) All products, software and technologies that can be used for both civil and military purposes are considered dual-use items. As I have already had the opportunity to say, there is good reason for particular requirements and care to be attached to the way that the type of goods in question circulate and are used, as well as for rigorous respect for the international conventions applicable to them and for the list of items classified as such to be constantly updated. The purpose of the proposal in question is to create an EU regime for controlling the export of items and technologies of this type, so we cannot fail to prioritise transparency and security, even if the items covered by the proposed amendment of the regulation are destined for countries that, at least initially, do not pose a particular threat.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Mr Leichtfried, concerns a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports of dual-use items and technology. This is a very sensitive issue, since we are talking about items that can enable the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction, thereby compromising the security of goods and people. This process dates to December 2008, when the Commission submitted its first draft amendment to Regulation (EC) No 1334/2000, with a view to adding six new annexes. The amendments now being introduced step up the security and control of exports of these dual-use items. I welcome the adoption of this report, which constitutes a step towards a more transparent organisation of the EU’s dual-use regime and preventing the unauthorised use of dual-use items, in order to guarantee the safety of the European public.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. –?? (SK)? Export controls of dual-use items, meaning goods which can be used for both civil and military purposes, have been the subject of EU level actions for around 15 years. Controlling the export of dual-use goods is a key for the non-proliferation of arms, including weapons of mass destruction. The main EU export control tool is the Dual-use Regulation 428/2009 of 5 May 2009, which entered into force on 27 August 2009, and introduces a number of significant changes to the scope of dual-use export controls. Several additional amendments have been proposed to help to make the EU’s dual-use regime more democratic and transparent. The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and its clarification concerning the EU’s competences in the area of international trade provide a good opportunity to reaffirm the EU’s role in these formations and the European Parliament’s role, powers and responsibilities within the EU’s institutional framework for decision making.

The EU’s dual-use regime should be organised in a more transparent and democratic manner. I believe that full European Parliament involvement, through the application of the Lisbon Treaty’s obligations and its joint interpretation agreed by the European Parliament and the European Commission within the new framework agreement, would be crucial to achieving this objective.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I voted against this report. The EU has a duty to ensure that dual-use items do not get into the hands of oppressive regimes which can then use them against their own citizens. Whilst the report offers support for human rights, democratic principles and freedom of speech, the controls contained within its provisions do not go far enough.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) Export controls on dual-use items, meaning goods which can be used for both civil and military purposes, have been the subject of action at EU level for around 15 years. I welcomed this document because controlling the export of dual-use goods is key to the non-proliferation of arms, including weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

  Vladimír Maňka (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, which clarifies EU powers in the area of international trade, provides a good opportunity to reconfirm the EU role in these groupings and the role, powers and responsibilities of the European Parliament in the institutional decision-making framework of the European Union.

The EU regime applying to dual-use items should be more transparent and democratic. Full involvement of the European Parliament, through the performance of duties arising from the Lisbon Treaty and its common interpretation agreed by the European Parliament and the European Commission on the basis of a new framework agreement, will be crucial in achieving that objective.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this proposal. Export controls of dual-use items, meaning goods which can be used for both civil and military purposes, have been the subject of EU-level actions for around 15 years. Controlling the export of dual-use goods is a key for the non-proliferation of arms, including weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Given the high volume of trade across the borders of the European Union (EU), the enforcement of EU export controls on dual-use goods relies on preventive measures such as the imposition of export licensing requirements and customs registration procedures. Export controls have a high impact on the EU’s trade policy as they can affect more than 10% of all EU exports. The main EU export control tool is the Dual-use Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 of 5 May 2009, which entered into force on 27 August 2009. This new regulation introduced a number of significant changes to the scope of dual-use export controls in the European Union. These include the introduction of controls on brokering activities and transit with regard to dual-use items.

  Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (CS) Setting criteria and establishing mechanisms for improving the control of dual-use goods is one part of this issue. I would therefore like to call for the better awareness and training of dealers in these goods not to be forgotten, for sufficient up-to-date and intelligible information to be available, based on high-quality legislation, and for there to be clear procedures for all of the stakeholders: control bodies, dealers and others. In conclusion, I would like to add that this should be based on transparency, sound planning and practicality.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the report by Mr Leichtfried because I believe it is right to interpret the Lisbon Treaty in order to increase transparency with regard to dual-use items and technologies by making list updates increasingly precise and by other actions to strengthen the EU’s image and presence in international export control regimes.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Dual-use technological items are all those products – including software and technologies – that can be used for both civil and military purposes. The entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and its clarification of the EU’s competences in the area of international trade provide a good occasion to reaffirm the EU’s role in this area, as well as the decision-making role, competences and responsibilities of Parliament within the institutional framework of the EU. The EU dual-use regime should be organised in a more transparent and democratic manner: the full participation of Parliament, through the implementation of the obligations resulting from the Treaty of Lisbon and the adoption of a joint interpretation by Parliament and the Commission within the context of the new framework agreement, will be crucial in achieving that objective.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – I think that following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, it is necessary to decide on proposals presented by the Commission on dual-use items and technology: a Community regime for the control of exports. Dual-use items are goods which can be used for both civil and military purposes. Controlling the export of dual-use goods is necessary. I am in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The controls on goods, technologies and associated services that could be used for both civil and military purposes that have been in place for the last 15 years are of particular relevance when it comes to weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, they need to be in line with the obligations entered into by the Member States at multilateral level. Furthermore, sanctions are to be imposed for transporting dual-use items illegally when this takes place in connection with a weapons of mass destruction programme. A database of rejected export authorisations would surely facilitate these controls. In light of experiences with SIS I and SIS II, expectations in this regard should not be set too high. Seeking to impose sanctions at EU level runs counter to the principle of subsidiarity, for which reason I voted against this report.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) Dual-use items are defined as goods or associated services that can be used for both civil and military purposes. Caution is required here, particularly when dealing with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction The truth is that a common database could facilitate export controls. However, the competence to punish infringements of export bans should remain with the Member State concerned. I reject the centralised imposition of sanctions from Brussels because this runs counter to the principle of subsidiarity. I therefore voted against Mr Leichtfried’s report.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Export controls of dual-use items, both for civil and military purposes, have been the subject of EU actions for some time and I believe it is right that they should continue to be so. As we have a market on which vast amounts of goods circulate every day, imposing controls is a preventive measure designed to avoid the proliferation of arms which would lead to the situation spiralling out of control. We need to separate military use from civil use. While military use is subject to specific protocols and controls, the same does not apply to civil use, and sometimes we do not know what the final use of the product will be. This is why we need serious and proper regulation.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns the EU regime for the control of exports of dual-use items and technology, or rather goods that can be used for both civil and military purposes. The EU’s dual-use regime should be organised in a more transparent and democratic way. In fact, full participation of Parliament, through the application of the obligations resulting from the Treaty of Lisbon and the adoption of a joint interpretation by Parliament and the Commission within the context of the new framework agreement, will be crucial in achieving that objective. Given Parliament’s increased right of scrutiny over authorising the export of these sensitive products that may have second uses, I voted for this report.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Dual-use items are characterised by their simultaneous potential for civil and military use. The existence of a network of controls is envisaged in this area to control their use for illicit purposes as much as possible. In this context, I would join the rapporteur in stressing the need for Parliament to adopt an active stance as regards the system of controls on the export of dual-use items and technologies, and to strengthen the mechanisms for transparent, legitimate and democratic control.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Against. The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and its clarification on the EU’s competences in the area of International Trade provide a good occasion to reaffirm the EU’s role in these formations and the European Parliament’s role, power and responsibility within the EU’s institutional framework for decision making. The EU’s dual-use regime should be organised more transparent and democratic. Full European Parliament involvement, through the application of the Lisbon Treaty’s obligations and its joint interpretation agreed by the European Parliament and the European Commission within the new framework agreement, would be crucial to achieving this objective. However, with the content of the report, we missed a good opportunity to better strengthen the control of dual-use items and technology.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Given the EU’s new competences in the area of international trade following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, I am in favour of the report, since controlling dual-use products is essential for the non-proliferation of arms and is carried out through preventive measures such as the imposition of export licensing requirements and customs registration procedures.

This could be a significant step towards regulating the dual-use item export market, making it more transparent and democratic.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The text of the report which is the result of the agreement with the Council with regard to the document already voted for in plenary does not contain any critical issues for our delegation and I agree with it. It is a measure that takes the interests of Member States into due consideration and, above all, its intentions should facilitate the work of businesses in the industry.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Regulation (EC) No 428/2009, of 5 May 2009, introduced a number of significant changes in the area of control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual-use items and technologies in the European Union; or rather the control of goods that can be used for both civil and military purposes. I agree with this report because it establishes an effective and uniform control of the export of Union products and their transit within the EU, so creating a level playing field for all European exporters, in line with the principles of international trade, and thereby preventing unfair competition between EU exporters. The purpose of the report in question is to make the industry more competitive, to simplify its current legal system, and to give it its own rules and procedures, and it is important to stress the importance of instituting a safe and codified system for exchanging information among the Member States. Finally, I consider it essential that monitoring reports for this regulation be drawn up every three years, that an exhaustive impact assessment of its implementation should be carried out, and that any suggested changes that will improve the control of exports of dual-use items and technology may be considered.

Report: Carlo Fidanza (A7-0265/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) Tourism plays a key role in creating jobs, and in fostering development and cohesion in the EU. As there is stiff competition from other destinations, it is crucial to make the sector more competitive, particularly when the Treaty of Lisbon creates a new framework for European tourism policy, with new powers. I am voting for this report, since it presents an integrated and comprehensive approach to a European tourism strategy with clear and ambitious goals. I would highlight my proposals in the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development: the need to make use of the cultural tourism ‘exemplified by [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco)] World Heritage Sites, and the exuberant natural beauty found in Natura 2000 sites across the EU’, and the need to consider the regions’ ‘accessibility, principally through extension of the trans-European transport network objectives to these regions’.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The beauty and vastness of European artistic and cultural heritage is a major selling point of the European Union, which is the chosen destination for vast numbers of tourists from every corner of the earth.

The new European tourism strategy and detailed plan of action project a future of growth and innovation, not only for the approximately 1.8 million small and medium-sized enterprises, but also for young jobseekers. We already talked about this in the last plenary session. The figures show that the unemployment rate is around 10% in Europe, with 22.7 million Europeans looking for work, 5.1 million of whom are under 25 years old.

Congratulations to the rapporteur for this strategy which represents potential for development in terms of employment and cultural growth, a positive boost to our economy, the promotion and consolidation of Europe's image in the world, and also a point in favour of territorial cohesion.

Everyone is well aware that giving tourism a legal basis required a lengthy debate. It is therefore a great achievement to be speaking about a new European tourism strategy today. This encompasses 21 important actions, including professional qualifications, innovation, investment in quality tourism, ecotourism and also encouragement for ethical tourism in order to guard against any form of exploitation of women and children.

  Antonello Antinoro (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I supported this own-initiative report because it is crucial for Europe, currently facing an economic crisis that will not be easy to solve, to find strength in areas precisely such as tourism in order to stimulate new growth. We must aim to make Europe the world’s No 1 tourist destination, and this will be possible if we have a coordinated approach for an action framework that will develop modern, high-quality, sustainable and accessible tourism. Therefore, the financial aspect is important, both in terms of existing funding, such as the Structural Funds, and in terms of funding to be added to the 2014-2020 financial programme.

As a former cultural heritage councillor in the regional government of Sicily, where I come from, I have been in a position to see that in some parts of Europe, it is possible to bring together different forms of tourism to cover all the seasons. The continent with the largest number of UNESCO World Heritage Sites, which has made variety and biodiversity one of its strengths, needs to make a new concerted effort to achieve an important objective that would breathe new life into an industry which needs to reinvigorate itself over the next few years to bring it in line with the requirements of the new global market.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Tourism contributes to human enrichment, interaction, wellbeing, cultural development and social cohesion. Tourism also promotes Europe’s cultural and linguistic heritage, while respecting both its diversity and shared values, and reinforces the sense of European identity, belonging and citizenship. Europe’s diversity, multifaceted nature and multiculturalism expand any form of thematic tourism, and the development and promotion of forms of diversified tourism may be the only effective response to the distortions, problems and deterioration caused by the model of unregulated and undifferentiated mass tourism. Tourism development has a key role to play in enhancing the regional dimension within the European Union.

Tourism provides a crucial economic resource and is the main calling card that Europe presents to the whole world. At the same time, I do not think that European tourism is utilised to its real potential. Europe has a huge amount to offer to both its own citizens and the rest of the world. This is why I urge Member States to facilitate and promote professional training for tourism activity organisers, lend support to the diversification and specialisation of European tourism, and encourage tourism organisations to exchange good practices.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) Europe is the biggest, most sought after tourist destination in the world, with 370 million people coming to visit every year. Tourism is the third largest socio-economic sector in the EU, and accounts for 10% of GDP and 12% of employment. Currently, 1.8 million enterprises and 9.7 million jobs depend on the European tourism sector. I welcome what is in this report in relation to coordinating European efforts to entice tourists and in relation to achieving the priorities of the EU 2020 strategy for competitiveness and viable growth. It would be to the advantage of Europe’s and Ireland’s tourism sector if the international image of the EU were secured as attractive, individual and coordinated tourist destinations.

It would be an advantage to the tourism sector of the Member States if a ‘European brand’ were created, and I support especially what it is in the report in terms of encouraging different kinds of tourism, like rural tourism, agritourism, nature tourism, spa and health tourism, and ethical tourism. Around 7 million visitors from abroad come to visit Ireland every year and a European framework could help a lot with the diversification and development of the market.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this document. The tourism sector in the EU accounts for 10% of GDP and 12% of total employment, making it the third most important economic activity in the EU. This sector, largely made up of micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises, is the main source of income for some EU regions, such as islands, and plays a key role in the economic development and economic, social and regional cohesion of the EU, as well as in achieving the goals of the EU 2020 strategy. Recently, tourism in Europe has faced many challenges, such as the global economic crisis, climate change and demographic changes in Europe, etc. I agreed that tourism policy should be regarded as part and parcel of the EU’s industrial and innovation policies and that we should value and boost the importance of very small enterprises and SMEs for this sector, which is an important source of employment in the EU. The Commission should also revise existing legislation in the field of tourism so that it reflects the needs of this sector today and guarantees high-quality tourism services.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Tourism is a sector of key importance to Europe, accounting for 10% of gross domestic product and 12% of employment as a whole. Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU has had new powers, specifically to coordinate the actions of the Member States in the tourism sector, so as to create a favourable climate for sustainable development in the sector. This report advocates the need to develop diversified, sustainable and accessible tourism, with particular focus on professional training and qualifications as a means of overcoming the challenge of an effective tourist industry policy. It highlights the need for strong investment in innovation, and in information and communication technologies, as key elements for making tourism companies more competitive; the simplification and standardisation of the awarding of tourist visas across the Member States; the development of a stable transportation system that promotes mobility; and finally, it calls for greater coordination with the already existing funds and the creation of a specific heading for tourism in the 2014-2020 financial perspective. I voted for this report for the above reasons.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Tourism is a crucially important sector, the EU’s third largest socio-economic activity, accounting for 12% of total employment, and a vital tool in boosting, spreading and promoting Europe’s global image.

In addition to furthering the integration and development of less developed regions, it manages to combine growth with ethical and sustainable development in the EU’s Member States. Despite the fact that tourism has always been included in Community policies, under the recent Lisbon Treaty, the EU is competent to coordinate actions by the Member States in the tourism sector.

I believe that investments in innovation and ICT are vital factors in effectively increasing the competitiveness of our tourism firms, especially in a context like our present one, in which it is necessary to respond to the needs of a customer base that is more and more oriented towards the use of the Internet and new technologies.

Finally, for a new and ambitious tourism policy to be realised, there has to be adequate funding and training of human resources. To this end, in my view, European programmes are essential if young people are to develop new professional skills – skills and qualifications that the different Member States must recognise.

  Adam Bielan (ECR), in writing. – (PL) I voted for the rejection of the report. Tourism constitutes a powerful economic sector accounting for 10% of the GDP of the European Union, as well as being a leading generator of jobs. It also constitutes a key contributor to the process of integration and balanced development of individual regions. There can be no doubt as to the need for ongoing innovations in this economic sector, especially as regards guaranteeing full access to the Internet across the entire Union. Unfortunately, numerous provisions in the report refer to areas within the competence of the Member States, which, in my view, violates the principle of subsidiarity. Among others, the suggestions to simplify procedures for processing tourist visas may – if we recall the increasingly widespread problem of illegal immigration – deepen the economic crisis in some countries. As to issues concerning the provision of a wider range of possibilities for tourists, improving regional competitiveness or introducing modern information technologies into tourism, I believe these should be presented in a separate report.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The stated objective of the legislative resolution put to the vote is important and merits our full attention. Tourism is, in fact, an extremely important sector in economic terms for the whole continent, especially Italy and regions like the Veneto, which millions and millions of people come to each year to enjoy the landscape, visit the cities and spend time in places that have always been synonymous with beauty, history and culture.

Europe can get more out of tourism than it does at the moment, despite the fact that according to statistics, it is the world’s No 1 tourist destination. The points indicated in the text are good ones, although it is worth pointing out the lack of attention paid to the principle of subsidiarity and the division of competences between various levels of government. However, generally speaking, it is a text that is worthy of support, and I therefore voted in favour.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because recently, tourism in Europe has faced many challenges, such as the global economic and financial crisis, the competitiveness of other destinations outside the EU and the diversity of tourist attractions on offer, the effects of climate change and seasonal fluctuations in tourist activity, demographic developments in Europe, the growing impact of information and communications technologies, as well as many unforeseen events.

I would like to stress the need to promote European business tourism in the EU and throughout the world, given its economic importance for certain places in Europe and the fact that business tourism creates services linked to the organisation of trade fairs, exhibitions, conferences and other business events.

The European Parliament welcomes the policy strategy presented by the Commission, which sets out specific actions to reinvigorate the sector, but deplores the lack of coherence within the Commission with regard to tourism policy. It is therefore necessary to call on the Commission to consider introducing two new principles for tourism: inter-regionality and complementarity, in order to promote joint planning and cooperation between tourist services within a single geographical area.

Furthermore, Parliament calls on the Commission to draw conclusions from recent emergencies, such as the volcanic eruption, and to draw up specific scenarios for EU crisis management, so that coordination and uniform action in all Member States with regard to information and the measures to be taken become the rule.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for this report because I believe that, especially at such a difficult time for the Western economy, it is necessary to firmly support initiatives aiming to re-launch and safeguard our economy, such as the one proposed by the rapporteur, Mr Fidanza.

Tourism is a crucially important sector of our economy, accounting for 12% of total employment figures and 12% of GDP each year. It therefore needs to be supported by common policies. I agree with the rapporteur about the need for suitable enhancement and promotion of existing vocational and university training and of appropriate links with the business world, objectives for which there needs to be more investment in innovation and ICT.

I also agree with the creation of a pilot project to encourage micro-enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises to join the digital supply chain, so that they can increase their competitiveness by accessing new advanced technologies. Finally, I believe that it is important to develop the web portal www.visiteurope.com. If this were to be improved, including by having information there in all the EU’s official languages and the main non-EU languages, it could become a genuine tourism platform.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted against this report as I feel it represents yet another encroachment into domestic affairs and further harmonisation of EU standards in an essential industry to all Member States. By introducing the accommodation classification system, the Commission are seeking to establish an international mark that endorses the EU to the detriment of regions and local economies. The same is true of the ‘European quality tourism label’ and a ‘European Tourism Card’.

As far as I can see, there is no requirement for EU regulation on spa tourism, EU aid to rehabilitate tourist areas in decline or the composition of new directives on package tours. I am strongly against an EU-wide integrated strategy as laid out under the Lisbon Treaty. Individual Member States should be free to compete with each other for foreign tourism within and outside Europe, without financial obligation to promote one another.

  Alain Cadec (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for Mr Fidanza’s report on ‘Europe, the world’s No 1 tourist destination – a new political framework for tourism in Europe’. This is the first European Parliament report dedicated to tourism policy since the Treaty of Lisbon came into force, which gave Europe competence for this. The objective outlined in the report is to ensure that the EU remains the world’s number one tourist destination, based on four building blocks: quality, visibility, competitiveness and sustainable development.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted with conviction for the report by Mr Fidanza on tourism in Europe, because I believe it represents one of our continent’s best potential resources. We must recognise the value of our countries’ cultural heritage, both so that we can preserve it and so that we can fully develop its economic, employment and social potential.

Tourism must be considered an integral part of European industrial policy and innovation policy, because it is a strategic objective. Therefore, I agree with the proposal of focusing on quality through actions aiming to guarantee a uniform standard, so that Europe can continue to be the world’s No 1 tourist destination.

I believe the call for support to small and medium-sized enterprises is positive, as they are major actors in this sector, as is the need to develop environmentally sustainable tourism, committed to safeguarding the environment. I welcome the invitation for European institutions and Member States to collaborate in order to coordinate activities, especially in view of the development of a European Charter for tourists, as the report suggests.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In order for Europe to be able to maintain its role as the world’s number one tourist destination, it is essential to develop an ambitious tourism policy with a coordinated approach, and a framework for action enabling the sector’s competitiveness and capacity for sustainable growth to be increased.

I would congratulate the Commission on tabling 21 proposed actions and a plan for implementing them, from which the priority actions should be identified and timetabled. The proposal framework for action is based on four pillars. The first of these is to stimulate competitiveness through support for innovation and information and communication technologies, in order to improve professional skills and training, and for greater seasonal flexibility. The second is to promote sustainable, diversified, responsible and high-quality tourism that is available to all. The third is to consolidate the EU’s image at international level, whilst coordinating and simplifying processes for issuing tourist visas, so fostering the attractiveness of our tourist destinations. The final pillar is to maximise the potential of the available policies and financial instruments, thereby contributing to the sector’s competitiveness.

There is also a need to create a clearer, more rigorous regulatory framework for consumers and businesses, which will involve an urgent revision of existing Union legislation, such as the Package Travel Directive and the directive relating to the special value added tax system concerning the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) As part of its strategy for promoting tourism in Europe, the European Union must take into account and encourage cooperation between regions in the context of inter-regional projects. This will help promote the traditions specific to these regions, especially the regions in different Member States sharing common traditions, not to mention sites which are significant to European Union history, particularly those which are off the beaten tourist tracks.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for this report, which supports the European tourism sector by developing practical steps for operators in this field. A European label should therefore be launched, as a solid recognition at European level of the quality of services provided by operators in our regions. The measures proposed also recommend increased visibility and the diversification of tourist activities, activities which we should fully support in these difficult economic times.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Tourism, which accounts for 10% of GDP and 12% of total employment, is the European Union’s third most important socio-economic activity. Under the Treaty of Lisbon (Article 195 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)), the Union is now competent to complement and coordinate the actions of Member States in the field of tourism. The European Commission’s communication of June 2010 listed 21 planned actions to make the sector more competitive, including: the promotion of sustainable, responsible and high-quality tourism; facilitating sound business management by introducing European labels and encouraging projects and networks in the sector.

By voting for this report, we have welcomed the Commission’s strategy and called for integrated measures to promote tourism in the Union further using the European label, and increase the visibility, quality, competitiveness, accessibility and diversification of the sector, while respecting subsidiarity and the environment. In the meantime, enjoy your travels around Europe!

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report ‘Europe, the world’s No 1 tourist destination: a new political framework for tourism in Europe’, because it tables important proposals for promoting sustainable, responsible and high-quality tourism in the EU, particularly the proposal to create European brands such as the European label, the Ecolabel or the European quality tourism label.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Tourism is the EU’s third largest socio-economic activity, accounting for 10% of gross domestic product and 12% of employment as a whole, and it is a crucially important sector in terms of employment, of regional and local development, of cohesion and, even, of environmental and cultural policy. I come from a country with immense potential for tourism, both because of its natural and climatic conditions, and because of the diversity of the choices it offers with regard to cultural tourism, to rural tourism, to environmental tourism, to religious tourism, to gastronomic and wine tourism, and to urban tourism. That is why I consider it positive that Europe should position itself as the number one tourist destination in the world, since an immensely diverse range of tourism services are on offer in Europe, which cannot be replicated in other parts of the world and of which we are obliged to make use.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Tourism is the third largest socio-economic activity at EU level, accounting for 10% of gross domestic product and 12% of employment as a whole, and it plays an important role in the development of the most disadvantaged regions and contributes to the dissemination and promotion of Europe’s image across the globe. As an ‘old’ continent, Europe brings together a variety of tourist attractions, ranging from archaeological, monumental and historical heritage to nature in the form of the national parks of the Protected Area Network of Parks, as well as religious, rural, spa tourism, etc., which all combine to make it the world’s number one tourist destination. Moreover, as it is essentially made up of small and medium-sized enterprises, the tourism sector is increasing competitiveness and the capacity for sustainable growth, so working towards the priorities set out in the Europe 2020 strategy. I welcome the adoption of the measures advocated in this report as part of establishing a new political framework for the tourism sector, by fostering competitiveness, diversifying what is available, supporting innovation, improving professional skills and extending tourist seasons. In short, this framework will promote sustainable tourism that consolidates the European Union’s image at international level as a diverse and excellent tourist destination.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The report demonstrates the importance of tourism to the European economy, being responsible for 10% of gross domestic product and 12% of all employment in the Member States as a whole. It is the third most important socio-economic activity in the EU, and is a sector comprising mainly micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The rapporteur advocates an integrated tourism strategy ‘in full compliance with the principle of subsidiarity’.

The report includes positive aspects that could help increase business activities in the sector, such as the collation and dissemination of good practices, advocating support for certain specific sectors like environmental and rural tourism, and advocating the diversification of tourism activities, which are likely to make tourism less seasonal. However, we cannot, in fact, ignore the general situation, which currently limits tourism activity: in other words, a profound economic and social crisis, which could be exacerbated in the near future, particularly in countries like Portugal. This crisis is limiting all economic activity – tourism, in particular – causing thousands of SMEs to go out of business.

What is therefore required, above all, is a profound change to current economic policy.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Tourism, which is the third leading social and economic activity of the EU, representing 10% of its GDP and constituting 12% of total employment, is a very important sector because, apart from its focus on the integration and development of less developed regions, it can also harmonise growth with moral and sustainable development in EU Member States. In addition to the above, it is an important instrument in the enhancement, dissemination and promotion of our image in the world.

Tourism has always been a part of Community policy making. Since December 2009 in particular, EU institutions have taken a new direction in the implementation of new competences guaranteed by the Lisbon Treaty, which endows the EU with the authority to supplement and to coordinate activities carried out by the Member States in the field of tourism. By means of its communication of June last year, as well as the new priorities set out in the Europe 2020 strategy, the European Commission wishes to support a coordinated approach and to set a framework of activities aiming at the strengthening of competitiveness and the capacity for sustainable development in this sector.

I firmly believe that it is important to follow carefully the measures proposed by the Commission, as well as the proposals presented by the European Parliament, and to monitor their actual performance on a regular basis. It is right to maintain continuity in the proposed measures, which would make it possible to apply a new European Union strategy in the tourism sector.

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) I supported this report for two main reasons. The report is encouragement for rural tourism, for agritourism and for nature tourism. On top of that, there is a reference in the report to the importance of attracting tourists from outside the EU and there are proposals in it in relation to simplifying the procedures for tourist visas.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The report we voted on today is an important start for enhancing the European tourism sector and promoting our continent.

Tourism is, in fact, the EU’s third largest socio-economic activity, involving around 1.8 million businesses generating more than 5% of Europe’s GDP. Based on these figures, the creation of a strong and competitive European tourism policy must be seen as a priority by the EU institutions.

Therefore, I voted in favour of this report. In addition, in a society now used to the Internet, it is important to highlight the primary importance of investments for the creation of an ‘ICT and Tourism’ platform, so our tourist operators can grow and adapt to the new habits of online consumers.

Finally, I hope that a more ambitious tourism policy will promote the creation of new partnerships between businesses and closer links between institutions and the business world through the development of calls specifically for tourism and the inclusion of specific programmes aimed at small and medium-sized enterprises in the sector.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) For a number of years now, Europe has been the world’s number one tourist destination. With this in mind, and at a time when competition with other global destinations is growing, I welcome the adoption of this text, which aims to strengthen this position by providing innovative and original solutions. Among the measures proposed, I would like to highlight three proposals which are particularly close to my heart. The first is to enhance regional tourist spots, but also intra- and inter-regional tourism. The second, which is equally important, is based on the assumption that Europe is founded on cultural and linguistic diversity and therefore demands that access to tourism sites by as many people as possible is facilitated by different instruments. The final measure, which I think is particularly important, is the one recommending the preservation and rehabilitation of industrial sites for tourism instead of destroying them.

  Mathieu Grosch (PPE), in writing. – (DE) In many regions of Europe, tourism is one of the strongest sectors of the economy. Europe’s diversity must also be reflected in the EU’s policy in this area. In other words, we must protect the traditions, heritage and nature that many of our regions have to offer. From the seaside to the mountains, many regions have their own special trump cards, and these cannot be allowed to disappear beneath an EU policy. As a resident of a border region, I would, however, welcome certain uniform standards, such as a standard system of evaluating accommodation. Cross-border collaboration could also cover standards that could simplify or harmonise aspects of safety or accessibility for accommodation.

Finally, I would like to stress that, in the budget for 2012, dedicated items, at least, should promote tourism in connection with major cultural, industrial or natural channels in Europe.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The Fidanza report correctly notes the importance of tourism to the EU’s economy. In my own country, Scotland, tourism directly employs some 200 000 people and contributes over GBP 4 billion to the economy every year. The industry accordingly needs political attention, and I welcome this initiative.

  Filiz Hakaeva Hyusmenovа (ALDE), in writing. – (BG) I supported this report because tourism is one of the most important economic sectors in the European Union and a significant source of employment. Member States and the EU are faced with the tasks of adopting measures aimed at boosting tourism’s competitiveness globally and of ensuring the sector’s sustainable growth, in compliance with the principle of subsidiarity. I think that one of the key messages in the report is the need to develop human capital through training and professional development, which would increase significantly the quality of tourism as a product. Given also that a large proportion of businesses operating in the sector are micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises, I think that greater support must be provided in introducing and using information and communication technologies and innovations. Another important focus area is the continuation of the actions launched with the Calypso programme, linked with countering the seasonal bias in tourism and providing opportunities for vulnerable population groups to use tourism products. I consider necessary and support the creation of a uniform vision of Europe as a tourist destination, offering natural diversity, a rich cultural heritage and various forms of alternative tourism.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I agreed with this document because I welcome the measures being contemplated to consolidate the social and economic knowledge base in the field of tourism, without forgetting that additional financial outlay and red tape should be eschewed in so far as possible. Today, the whole concept of package travel is outdated and the Commission should make amendments as a matter of urgency so that the same legislation is applicable to all parties offering tourism services. I believe that this also presents an opportunity for a reduced VAT rate on tourism to be progressively harmonised across the Member States as a necessary condition for transparent competition between tourist companies in the EU and non-EU countries. We must enable disadvantaged people, such as the elderly, people with disabilities, young people and low-income families to have easier access to holidays, particularly during the low season and when travelling across national borders, and physical accessibility, adequate services and reliable information therefore need to be further planned for and incorporated into tourism products. The quality of services provided to a consumer and fair competition should be prime factors. There is also a need to promote European business tourism in the EU and throughout the world, given its economic importance for certain places in Europe and the fact that business tourism creates services linked to the organisation of trade fairs, exhibitions, conferences and other business events (hotels, catering, shops, transport, communications and event management agencies, etc.).

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The new guidelines of the Lisbon Treaty on tourism require new perspectives on the quality of hotel and catering facilities and on service viewed overall. These requirements have been fully picked up in the text by Mr Fidanza for which I voted. In European terms, tourism is a resource to be enhanced through targeted concrete actions capable of developing the quality of a sector that represents an important share of the economy of Europe and the Member States. The current situation and constant developments in technology require us to embrace and succeed in the challenge of making tourism an economic and cultural driver for growth, also through the use of digital platforms that facilitate the dissemination of information about tourist destinations.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE) , in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report by my colleague, Mr Fidanza, on European tourism. This report supports the creation of a genuine European tourism strategy for the first time, with the aim of making Europe the world’s number one tourist destination. Given the economic importance of this sector, especially in France, and the cross-cutting nature of tourism, at the crossroads of many European policies (transport, environment, regional development, consumer protection), it is time that we had a clear vision and coherent objectives to make the tourism sector more sustainable, more competitive and a vector for growth.

Above all, Europe must be promoted as a ‘brand’ in its own right, where cultural diversity espouses the common heritage of the European nations. Although Member States and regions, in some countries, are the ones that decide their own tourism policies, the Union plays the role of coordinator and can improve certain existing legal frameworks such as for recognising professional qualifications, fostering the mobility of those working in tourism, safety requirements in tourist facilities or even package travel, so as to provide better legal clarity and security for consumers and businesses in the tourism sector.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) There is ever-growing talk at the moment about increasing the EU’s global competitiveness, and tourism is one of the most important socio-economic activities, generating a good proportion of the European Union’s GDP.

I think that the strategy put forward by the Commission provides a solid basis from which to develop a sustainable, competitive, modern, high-quality tourism sector that is accessible to all. We must do our utmost to remain the number one tourist destination in the world. To achieve this, we need to make maximum use of every possible funding option.

In this regard, I call on the European executive to develop and mobilise instruments and programmes providing EU support, which are specially tailored to the development of tourism in Europe, in keeping with the Europe 2020 strategy.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The tourist industry is one of the major economic sectors of the contemporary market. It creates numerous jobs and, simultaneously, has a tremendous potential for development. It offers an invaluable ability to promote European diversity, ethnic variety and the attractiveness of individual regions. Quite a few tourist attractions in various countries, albeit uniquely charming, are still not being promoted amongst those who live in Europe, which makes it ever more important to support the promotion of the regions. Providing comprehensive information about such areas serves not only to make them more attractive in the eyes of the tourists, but also to attract potential investors. This is why I voted in favour of the report that covers these important issues.

  Vladimír Maňka (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Tourism represents 10% of GDP and constitutes 12% of total employment. It is focused on the integration and development of less developed regions and represents an important instrument in the enhancement, dissemination and promotion of our image in the world.

This sector will be more competitive if it supports diversification and innovations, improves professional qualifications and skills, and promotes an extension of the tourist season.

Emphasis should be placed on education and professional development, on investment in innovation and ICT, and on ensuring full Internet access in all parts of the European Union, including poorer countries.

The tourist visa issue has to be resolved. We can attract millions of tourists from third countries.

Infrastructure requires modernisation.

It is important to try to overcome the seasonal nature of tourism.

The Member States should apply for a permanent reduction in VAT imposed upon specific labour-intensive activities, including catering services.

  Bogdan Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I voted in favour of the report as I believe there is a strong need to create a single programme to promote Europe as a worthwhile global tourist destination. Therefore, it is extremely important to cooperate in promoting a single ‘Europe’ brand which could highlight the exceptional virtues of the Member States worldwide in the field of tourism.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – Tourism is the EU’s third largest socio-economic activity, accounting for 10% of GDP and 12% of total employment figures. It is a crucially important sector since, in addition to furthering the integration and development of less developed regions, it manages to combine growth with ethical and sustainable development in the EU’s Member States. It is, moreover, a vital tool in boosting, spreading and promoting our global image. This report makes a number of sensible suggestions for supporting tourism in Europe and I voted for it.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted for the report by Mr Fidanza, which is the first true sign and policy contribution made by this Parliament to the promotion of European tourism, one of the most important resources for the economy of the entire EU.

Modernisation of infrastructures, enhancement of artistic and cultural heritage, investments in innovation and the training of human resources, and suitable visa and funding policies are some of the main priorities that will need to be put in place in order to help consolidate and strengthen this sector.

I fully support the need to promote tourism aimed at children, people with disabilities and the elderly, and which is concentrated throughout the year. It is also important for the EU to implement and coordinate the actions of Member States and to encourage amendment of the directive on package travel, package holidays and package tours in order to guarantee a clearer, more definite legal framework for tourists’ rights.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Tourism is the EU’s third largest socio-economic activity, accounting for 10% of gross domestic product and 12% of employment as a whole. It is a crucially important sector since, in addition to furthering the integration and development of less developed regions, it manages to combine growth, sustainable development and ethics in the EU Member States, and is also a vital tool in boosting, spreading and promoting our global image. Owing to the above, it is absolutely essential to create a new political framework for European tourism that continues to promote Europe as the world’s number one tourist destination.

  Alajos Mészáros (PPE), in writing. – (HU) Since the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, the importance of tourism, too, has been part of the competence of the European Union. No wonder, as tourism is a sector that is capable of positively influencing the economic growth of the EU, stimulating job creation, and contributing to development. Consequently, there is a difference to what efforts we make in order to reinforce European tourism and maintain its competitiveness. In 2008, a total of over 370 million tourists visited the EU Member States, accounting for 40% of the world’s tourist traffic. This makes Europe the number one tourist destination among holidaymakers. There is an immense potential yet to be exploited in European tourism due to our excellent geographic position, and we should definitely make use of it. I believe that there is no part of the EU that could not offer something that is unique in the whole world. There is, for example, health tourism. Central Europe has vast reserves of spas, and the region is home to exceptional and entirely unique medicinal baths. We need to take joint action to popularise our history and the roots of our Christian culture together.

We must be able to acquaint visitors with the culinary art of our various regions. We must find ways to make Europe more marketable. We must incentivise EU-level support for tourism and enhanced cooperation between Member States. We must be able to respond and adapt to societal changes, because this is the only way that we can hope for our tourism to be successful.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) During a crisis, it is a good time to think about which sectors of the economy are propping up the European Union. Tourism is one of them as it currently generates 5% of the Union’s GDP. It is a golden opportunity for micro-, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) operating in this sector provided, of course, that they make sure that they remain competitive. We need to remember that access to the best technologies available is absolutely essential for sharing good practices and for promoting goods and destinations. Likewise, programmes such as ‘Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs’ need to be promoted so that young people acquire new skills. These skills have to be recognised by Member States so that those working in this sector no longer have difficulty finding work throughout the year.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The tourism sector plays a key role in creating jobs and fostering economic development and cohesion in the EU. It is thus vital to strengthen its competitiveness as it is facing increased competition from other destinations.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) In the EU, tourism is not only assuming great significance from an economic point of view, but it also offers an opportunity to improve our image. A few initiatives have been put in place at EU level in relation to tourism. These have dealt, for example, with improving the rights of passengers and making the costs of flight bookings more transparent for travellers. In addition, certification marks have been created, in relation, for instance, to environmental protection or high-value tourism, and a few tourism projects have been funded. What is certain, however, is that today’s tourists rely increasingly on the latest technologies and that a professional Internet presence is essential in tourism. When it comes to the measures proposed by the Commission, there are some questions that still appear to be unresolved. Above all, there has been no clarification with regard to tourist visas and the abuse thereof in the context of data protection in relation to the data collection proposed internally within Europe. I therefore voted against this report.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) The positive figures in the tourism sector show that, despite the difficult economic situation, tourism is assuming a major significance in the EU. Considering that tourism contributes to human enrichment, to exchange, to welfare and wellbeing, to culture and to social cohesion, I take the view that, above all, a quality-based approach must take centre stage. The success of Europe as a tourist destination is based, to a large extent, on the incredible diversity that our continent has to offer. I therefore fail to see why we need a uniform EU brand. What we do need is to boost the competitiveness of the EU’s tourism sector through measures to increase awareness of quality rather than pushing for more mass tourism. The present report states that tourism must not take place at the expense of the environment. I call on the Commission to encourage better planning processes, especially in coastal areas, and to support environmentally friendly transport systems. To my mind, the measures proposed by the Commission will not, in some cases (such as the EU brand) help bring about their desired objective, while in other cases, they do not go far enough. I therefore voted against this report. In addition, I expect the Commission’s planned measures within the tourism strategy to aim to curtail illicit working and rural depopulation and to create jobs that are less susceptible to seasonal ups and downs.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – The European Union is the world's top tourist spot, and the tourism sector accounts for 10% of GDP and 12% of total employment within the EU. This sector is especially important because it encourages the development of rural areas, and it promotes the image, culture and unity of Europe as a whole. Tourism can be seen as building bridges between EU countries and the countries that will be joining the EU in the future. I voted for this report because it offers specific measures to encourage tourism in the EU, such as a ‘Europe Brand’ a ‘European heritage label’. ‘Europe Brand’ will promote Europe as a worldwide tourist destination in publicity campaigns and promote a positive image of Europe as a whole. Meanwhile, the ‘European heritage label’ gives prominence to sites crucial to the history of European integration and call on these areas to always remain accessible to tourists. The report also emphasises the need for sustainable development in tourism from this point forward, keeping in mind the interests of future generations.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Lisbon Treaty has given the tourism sector a new importance within the EU system which will allow it to gain a new political dimension that could bring improvements to the whole industry. I congratulate Mr Fidanza for his work with the report which promotes European tourism as never before. I voted in favour of the report. If Europe is the world’s No 1 tourist destination, the new EU competences in the tourism sector can only bring improvements, both in terms of increasing and improving the use of EU funding for infrastructures and tourism services, and for initiatives to increase the tourism services offered within Europe.

  Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D), in writing. – (EL) At a time of acute economic crisis, tourism can, without doubt, play an important role in growth, employment and progress and ensure that Europe remains a prime tourist destination at global level. I voted in favour of the report because I agree with the rapporteur that proper vocational training and specialisation, the use of Erasmus programmes for young businessmen, proactive investment in innovative sectors and the promotion of ‘digital technology’ to help small and medium-sized enterprises become more competitive by making use of new technologies are constructive approaches. However, I am convinced that what is of prime importance is that special programmes to promote and highlight all areas of Europe should be integrated into the financial perspective 2014-2020 and that these programmes should be supported in practice with attractive and accessible packages for everyone, especially young people, within a more rational policy framework for tourism in Europe.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) The European Parliament’s own-initiative report, which I supported, sets out proposals for making the EU the prime tourist destination in the world. This is an objective of considerable interest to Greece, especially as the country is investing massively in its tourist product, in the hope that this will help to reverse its negative economic growth. It should be noted that tourism currently represents over 10% of European GDP. One point of importance to Greece in the report is the reference to the need to harmonise VAT in order to prevent monopolies, and to maintain them at levels that make the Member States’ tourist product competitive. Although the report is not binding, it contains important proposals and strategic approaches for increasing tourism in the EU which the Member States can apply.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Europe is the world’s number one tourist destination. The purpose of this report is to create the new political framework for European tourism. As tourism is the EU’s third largest socio-economic activity, accounting for 10% of gross domestic product and 12% of employment as a whole, it is a crucially important sector since, in addition to furthering the integration and development of less developed regions, it manages to combine growth with sustainable development in the EU Member States. It is, moreover, a vital tool in boosting, spreading and promoting our global image. This report provides for a commitment, inter alia, to training, to innovation, to tourist visas (raising Member States’ awareness of the need to coordinate and simplify tourist visa procedures, and assessing the possibility of establishing common consular desks to reduce the differences in bureaucratic procedures and the administrative costs), to European labels, to transport, to Europe’s visibility, to rural tourism and to agritourism, to nature tourism, to beach and coastal tourism, to cruise ship tourism, and to spa and health tourism. I believe this document is of great importance to the European economy, so I voted in favour.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. – I welcome Mr Fidanza’s report on tourism in Europe. As is comprehensively explained in the report, tourism is a hugely important industry to Europe, particularly in my home country of Ireland. Across Europe, tourism counts for 10% of GDP and 12% of total employment, and hence it is imperative that we put in place a comprehensive plan to develop and improve the industry. In particular, I welcome the report’s call for the publication of good tourism practices each year. This would provide practical advice to the many small and medium-size tourism enterprises that do not have access to the market research of the bigger-scale tourism companies. Moreover, the establishment of a ‘European heritage label’ would, much like UNESCO and other similar brands, help provide a standardisation to tourist attractions, thus improving the experience of those who visit these sights, destinations and experiences. Finally, I am particularly enthused by the proposal to create a long-term strategy for more coordinated and simplified visa procedures. This would greatly enhance the experience of visitors, particularly for those outside the Schengen zone.

  Franck Proust (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Tourism makes up 12% of employment in Europe. In the south-west constituency of the European Parliament in France, and in my region, Languedoc-Roussillon, tourism accounts for a significant part of our economy in all places, all year round. I voted in favour of the report because, for the first time, it sends a strong message in support of renewing European tourism. We are the world’s number one tourist destination: our continent attracts visitors both because of its history and its heritage. For all its potential, our tourist sector has some deficiencies. First and foremost, there is a lack of harmonised classification criteria for venues, accommodation and restaurants. The lack of transparency often creates confusion among foreign and European tourists alike. Lastly, tourists’ tastes and habits are constantly changing. Providers nowadays are faced with fierce competition and tourists have become true consumers. In order to unleash its full potential, Europe needs to encourage more coordination in the tourism sector and to adapt to new markets. Now that the Treaty of Lisbon has entered into force, Europe has a vital role to play.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Tourism represents an opportunity for the European economy for a number of reasons. Indeed, while there are strong ties of integration among the Member States, they manage, at the same time, to offer a diverse range of tourism products, which appeal to different audiences. It is also a singular way of promoting ‘Europe’ as an area of excellence, and of disseminating its cultural values and standards. However, commitment to tourism requires the various Member States to be linked by a network, high levels of professional qualifications to be sought for people working in tourism, and identification standards to be created, such as brands that make it possible to effectively highlight the added value that Europe brings. I voted in favour because I agree with this course of action.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Parliament has sent a bold message today, on World Tourism Day. As this year’s theme is ‘Linking cultures’, it is important to highlight the role that the tourism sector plays in promoting tolerance, respect for others and mutual understanding in the world.

In addition to the symbolism, we also have figures. European tourism generates revenues of EUR 60 billion and 10 million jobs. As highlighted in Mr Fidanza’s report, the European Commission has a central role to play in ensuring that Europe maintains its pole position, with 55% of international tourist visitors and three Member States (France, Italy and Spain) ranked among the world’s top five tourist destinations.

It would therefore be wise to follow the European Commission’s proposal for monitoring European Union policies with an impact on tourism, particularly transport and consumer protection policy. Now more than ever, competition is the name of the game, so the European Union needs to retain its competitive edge by continuing to promote its cultural heritage, particularly when dealing with the populations of the new economic powerhouses – China, Brazil and India.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I congratulate Mr Fidanza for today’s vote on this own-initiative report, which may only be a guideline but represents an important step forward for the future of tourism in Europe.

After the new competences in the tourism sector were introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, a series of initiatives at a European and multinational level were proposed. The aim is to encourage a coordinated approach for tourism-related initiatives within the EU and to define a new framework for action in order to promote competitiveness and sustainable growth capacity.

Today’s vote is a further step in the right direction of promoting Europe as a tourist destination and supports the role of businesses. The wide majority obtained shows that there is a widespread desire to overcome the natural competitiveness between Member States in order to be successful together in this global challenge.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. Tourism is the EU’s third largest socio-economic activity, accounting for 10% of GDP and 12% of total employment figures. It is a crucially important sector since, in addition to furthering the integration and development of less-developed regions, it manages to combine growth with ethical and sustainable development in the EU’s Member States. It is, moreover, a vital tool in boosting, spreading and promoting our global image.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Today’s vote sends a clear signal and confirms a shared will, which is to re-launch the European Union as the world’s No 1 tourist destination and request adequate resources in the EU’s 2014-2020 financial perspective.

The 21 priorities that make up the programme to be implemented centre on four essential points. These are to stimulate competitiveness in the sector, to promote the development of tourism that is sustainable but, at the same time, responsible and of a high quality, to consolidate the image and visibility of the whole of Europe as a top quality tourist destination, and to maximise the potential of the EU financial instruments for tourism development.

Especially for a country like Italy, with its unique artistic and cultural heritage, it is crucial to have Europe behind it providing support for the needs of tourist companies, and investing, above all, in the quality of services provided and the breadth of products offered to travellers arriving from all over the world.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The European Union is the world’s No 1 tourist destination in terms of international arrivals, and this lead position must be reinforced by tackling the challenges created by greater global competition and a market demand that is constantly changing.

Under the Lisbon Treaty, tourism has become a specific competence of the EU, and therefore the objective is to guarantee greater coordination at European level in order to pursue common objectives which are to increase the quality of services, to contribute to sustainable development and to promote accessibility for people with disabilities, not only with regard to transport, but also with regard to accommodation, refreshments and tourism services in general.

These are the reasons why I voted in favour of the report.

  Vilja Savisaar-Toomast (ALDE), in writing. – (ET) I voted in favour of the report on European tourism today because I believe that these are important suggestions for the promotion of the European tourism sector. One should not underestimate the importance of tourism – it provides 10% of European GDP and 12% of employment, which makes tourism the third most important socio-economic area of activity. I am particularly pleased that the report draws attention to the importance of several types of tourism, for instance, rural and farm tourism, nature tourism, cruise tourism and spa and health tourism. These are also important tourist avenues in Estonia, and they need to receive more attention, especially in the area of rural and nature tourism. I also support the use of a common system of labels throughout Europe, in the case of labels pertaining to cultural heritage, ecological issues and quality. The use of common labels would make consumers’ choices much easier when it comes to tourism and ensure the existence of common understandings of the requirements that should be met by a particular service. Unfortunately, this causes many misunderstandings today, because the stars used to denote the quality of hotels, for instance, are used differently from one Member State to another, and this has caused disappointment to many clients. In conclusion, I would like to thank my colleagues for supporting this report.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) A way of strengthening the EU’s image worldwide is also to promote its tourism, which is already the third most important socio-economic activity in the EU.

The tourism sector is also a great opportunity for strengthening and increasing jobs, especially in agritourism. Here there are multiple advantages. It prevents land being abandoned, which is a serious problem in the European countryside, and provides work for social classes which are generally more disadvantaged in terms of employment (young people and women).

The main suggestions from the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development regarding this report are based on rural tourism, which merges farming and farm production with tourism, and farm produce with sales. This is another fundamental point, because the added value is increased through the direct sale of farm produce at prices two or three times higher than wholesale prices, thus creating wealth through the use of the farm’s otherwise unused buildings.

This provides a precious boost to farming income, promotes typical local produce, and finally contributes to conservation of the land by converting abandoned farm buildings.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Tourism is currently the EU’s third most important socio-economic activity, representing 10% of gross domestic product and 12% of employment as a whole; it is also the main resource for the outermost regions, such as my home region of Madeira. Adoption of this report in this House is the first political step towards the creation of a genuine European tourism policy, as enshrined in Article 195 of the Treaty of Lisbon. Commitment to diversified, sustainable, quality tourism that is accessible to all is this report’s main focus. As such, I would stress the importance of the need for the sector to be reclassified in order for the EU to remain the world’s number one tourist destination, and in order to ensure, at the same time, sustainable and more lasting tourism for future generations. However, challenges are arising that need to be resolved, in order to enable the sector to grow and to adapt to current conditions. Overcoming these challenges requires a clear plan of action, with a well-defined timetable and, above all, appropriate funding. I therefore think it will be important to take the tourism sector into account in the next multiannual financial framework, with emphasis on micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, so as to foster growth in a sector that has the potential to minimise the effects of the economic crisis.

  Niki Tzavela (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the Fidanza report, because Europe needs to maintain coordinated action to promote European tourism. European tourism is an important mechanism for promoting European culture and is an important source of revenue, especially for certain Member States in the South with no heavy industry.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I voted in favour of the Fidanza report. It is a good, well-balanced report that tries to find ways in which the world’s number one tourist magnet, namely Europe, can further consolidate its leading position. It addresses and adequately assesses both conventional tourism and new forms.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) Some of the main arguments put forward by the rapporteur are directly related to Lithuania’s tourism sector, particularly the greater need for skilled jobs and better service. Data from the Lithuanian development agency for small and medium-sized enterprises has shown that Lithuania’s tourism sector employs 43 700 people, who serve approximately 2.2 million foreign tourists each year. Almost 4.4% of EU Structural Fund money is to be allocated to Lithuania’s tourism sector for the period 2007-2013. I also agree with the rapporteur that in order to use this money more effectively, there needs to be greater emphasis on the importance of training and professional development. This should include investment in human capital, above all, new managers, administrators and entrepreneurs. Lithuania also needs to modernise its services and strengthen its tourism infrastructure if it wants to become more competitive, attracting tourists from Europe. Developing the budget airline network to and from Lithuania would be a good start. Despite Lithuania’s natural beauty – four UNESCO World Heritage Sites and an almost unique 100 km long coastline – the quality of accommodation and service often does not come up to international standards, according to the United Nations World Tourism Organisation’s report. We need to improve this and make more of an effort to advertise tourism in Lithuania.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – I voted in favour of the resolution to boost Europe’s tourism industry because it includes a variety of important proposals. A successful and innovative tourism industry is essential to Member States’ economies and provides millions of jobs across the EU. The resolution proposes that tourism focuses on engaging further with cultural, historical, environmental and sport sectors and also suggests harmonising recognition of tourist industry qualifications by Member States, which will encourage further EU-wide mobility of workers. Allocating subsidies from EU structural funding, as suggested in the resolution, will also boost the tourism sector in declining areas to encourage the development of more innovative tourism services.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I am delighted that this report on making tourism a priority for the EU has been adopted. Tourism is an important economic driver and a vital source of employment. Parliament has adopted an ambitious strategy and has identified four pillars of action to ensure that Europe is seen as an attractive tourist destination: competitiveness, visibility, quality and sustainability. Tourism is facing several challenges, not least climate change, which has serious implications for the industry’s infrastructure and organisation. In my opinion, it is essential that we work to limit its impact on tourist seasons and employment. I would prefer to go down the route of limiting the seasonal effect by developing alternative forms of tourism. This solution will also reduce the insecurity of tourist sector jobs, which, by their nature, are seasonal. Tourism will have its own budget starting with the 2014-2020 programming period. I will be watching to ensure that, in conjunction with the cohesion policy, substantial aid is provided for all forms of tourism in order to make the sector more competitive and improve job security. Tourism is closely linked to our way of life, making the anticipated benefits of an EU tourism policy all the more significant.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The tourism sector, which is the third largest socio-economic area of activity in the EU, accounting for 10% of GDP and 12% of overall employment, is key for the growth and development targets contained in the Europe 2020 strategy. The Commission’s four-pillar model aims to strengthen sustainable growth in the sector and contains a number of important measures to protect the environment or maintain cultural heritage. The focus is on the training of those employed in the sector; people need to be made more aware of programmes like ‘Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs’. I voted in favour of this report.

  Hermann Winkler (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I would like to thank the rapporteur for his work towards a new political framework for European tourism. I voted in favour of this report and very much welcome the fact that the Commission now wishes to provide an overarching instrument to promote regional tourism. The measures being brought forward in order to support these outstanding holiday regions – like my home region of Saxony, where tourism is one of the most important sectors of the economy and employs over 200 000 people – over the long term form a valuable framework. In future, we therefore need a strong focus on growth and competitiveness in order to benefit, over the long run, from the development of these regions. We – Parliament – should also be even more resolute in future in working towards a further bolstering of SMEs, specifically, in the field of tourism as, across the EU, SMEs represent the majority of the 1.8 million businesses in this sector. It is important to adapt the proposed measures further to our regions and to develop specific schedules in order to achieve implementation of the measures in close collaboration with the competent national and regional actors as quickly as possible. I am convinced that if we follow the course that we have set with these measures even more resolutely in future, that will provide both us and all our visitors with added value.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), in writing. – 14.2 million tourists visit my home constituency of London each year, spending in the region of GBP 8.2 billion annually. These figures are expected to rise when London hosts the Olympics next year. Promoting London as part of a common European label is foolishness; people come to London to see the unique sights and monuments which make it the most beautiful city in the world. Tourism promotion is clearly the responsibility of the Member States. I cannot support surrendering this sovereignty to the EU, especially when it generates such important income for the London economy.

  Anna Záborská (PPE), in writing. – (SK) I believe that there is no field of legal business activity in Europe that would not or could not be beneficial for the European population. Therefore, I will always support any businessman and any company regardless of its size, number of employees or annual turnover. I firmly believe, however, that my support as an MEP should be focused on the establishment of a simple regulatory framework, on searching for a minimum number of rules protecting not only the freedom of business activities, but also consumer rights and the environment. That part of the draft report refers to such rules and has my support. On the other hand, I do not understand why it is necessary to spend public funds on market distortion. Each euro spent by us for such purposes motivates the entrepreneur to devote less attention to the voice of customers and more attention to European funds. Subsidies do not resolve the problem of Europe’s competitiveness; on the contrary, they create it.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The aims of the report by Mr Fidanza, for which I voted, are to encourage a coordinated approach to tourism initiatives within the EU and to develop a concept of high-quality, sustainable, year-round tourism accessible to all.

The text specifically emphasises that promoting the tourism sector is an essential tool for strengthening, protecting and promoting the EU in the world. In addition to enhancing and promoting professional training in the sector, it is important to invest in innovation and new technologies, in order to allow the European tourism industry to take a step forwards and be more competitive, and respond effectively to the increase in demand from beneficiaries of online tourism products.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I voted in favour of the report as the European Parliament has tackled the development of European tourism comprehensively for the first time. This is a sector which is growing in importance in Europe and also in my country, Poland, including the Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodship, where tourism is becoming more important socially and economically. This is particularly so in towns and cities such as: Toruń, Bydgoszcz, Grudziądz, Inowrocław, Włocławek, Chełmno, Tuchola, Brodnica, Żnin and Golub Dobrzyń.

However, I would like to point out that we should also try to be more effective in attracting tourists from outside the European Union, including our eastern neighbours. This requires considerable changes to the EU’s visa policy. We should give preferential treatment to tourist groups and individual tourists to make it much easier for them to obtain visas.

Report: Dieter-Lebrecht Koch (A7-0264/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, since it is extremely necessary to improve road safety, given that 35 000 people died and 1.5 million were involved in road accidents in 2009. The Committee on Transport and Tourism has already quite rightly drawn attention to a more expansive body of measures and to the need for greater coordination at all political levels, in order to significantly reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries. I also support the integrated approach and main objectives of the Commission’s policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020, although I agree with the majority of members of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament who are arguing that these guidelines lack ambition.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Road safety is a very topical issue.

Every year, the number of deaths from road accidents is very high, and includes many children. However, the EU is putting in place concrete measures not only to prevent accidents, but also to take action immediately if accidents happen.

Recently, for example, the EU has stipulated that from 2015, all cars will have to be fitted with an electronic device called eCall, a life-saving device, which, in the event of an accident, will automatically send a request for help to the unique European emergency number 112, with the time, exact position and direction of travel.

Furthermore, between 12 and 18 September, the joint European Seatbelt campaign was held by the European traffic police network. I hope that the future plan of action proposes equally useful measures for the safety not only of drivers but also of pedestrians.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this important document. In 2009, more than 35 000 people were killed and more than 1 500 000 injured in road accidents in the European Union. The target set in the Third Action Programme of halving the number of road deaths in the EU by the end of 2010 was not achieved, although the number has been substantially reduced. I supported the Commission communication, which sets out the strategic targets of reducing the number of road deaths in the European Union by half by 2020 (as compared with 2010). I welcome the call for a fully fledged action programme to be developed by the end of 2011, incorporating a detailed set of measures with clear timetables for their implementation, as well as monitoring instruments, so that the progress of the road safety measures in the Member States can be checked on a regular basis.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Europe’s roads have become safer in recent years. Between 2001 and 2009, the number of deaths in the EU fell by 36%. In 2009, more than 35 000 people died on the EU’s roads and 1.5 million were injured, leaving many of them disabled. These road accidents are costing society around EUR 130 billion per year. This report, for which I voted, recommends the mandatory installation of devices – alcolocks – that block the vehicle if the level is over the limit for drivers who already have a drink-driving conviction. These devices should become mandatory in all new types of commercial passenger and goods transport vehicles, and the Commission should table a proposal for a directive to this end by 2013. It proposes the introduction of a maximum speed limit of 30km/h in residential areas without cycle lanes. It calls for the urgent introduction of a new European road safety action programme. It suggests that an EU road safety coordinator should be appointed by 2014 to help the Member States implement the European road safety action programme.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. – (IT) The objective of reducing deaths on the roads must be pursued with strength and determination by all institutions and at all levels of government. I agree that the EU must also make a major commitment in this matter.

Reducing deaths and disability through accidents also means reducing the enormous social costs and costs to national health services, as well as the human tragedies caused by tens of thousands of similar events every year in Europe.

I also agree with the basic structure of the European strategy, which aims to take action on the issue of road safety without taking away the prerogatives of Member States and local bodies, but by creating a complementary strategy of support to the action necessary on the part of decentralised governments. I therefore voted in favour.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because over the coming years, we must reduce number of road accidents in the European Union, which at present continues to rise. In 2009, more than 35 000 people were killed in road accidents in the European Union. More than 1 500 000 people were seriously injured, the majority of whom were left disabled. The number of deaths on the European Union’s roads is huge, and the social and economic cost is estimated at EUR 130 billion. The European Commission has therefore presented a communication, the target of which is to halve by 2020 the number of road deaths in the European Union (as compared with 2010).

The Commission has prepared seven main strategic actions for reducing the number of road accidents by 2020. The strategic plans set out how to ensure safer road infrastructure, how to guarantee compliance with road traffic rules and develop intelligent vehicles. In order to implement these strategies and reduce the number of victims, we must ensure an exceptionally high degree of coordination, both at European Union and national level.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The authorities in every state have a duty to talk about road safety. This applies in the same way as they should talk about an efficient health service for saving lives and good schools for providing an education.

Romania is endeavouring to make its roads safer. We are still far away from the ideal situation, but according to the statistics, the number of accidents involving casualties is falling every year. Romania is 24th out of the 27 Member States, based on the criterion for measuring public road safety. This position does not show us in a good light and means that we need to adopt serious measures. The number of road victims has fallen by 11% between 2001 and now.

However, we know that people are not statistics and that behind every accident is a tragedy involving several families and the loss of human life. Romania is aware that it must learn from the experience of other Member States which have managed to cut the number of fatal road accidents significantly. Romania has the chance to meet this target more quickly by learning and benefiting from the experience of the European Union’s other Member States. Romania has adopted the European Union’s target of at least halving the number of serious road accidents in Romania by 2020.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Koch because I share the ambitious objective re-proposed by the Commission to halve the number of road accident victims in the EU by 2020.

To this end, I agree with the suggestions of Parliament, in other words, to support policies aiming to increase road safety, and achieve the long-term objective of ‘Vision Zero’. For this, the EU needs to be equipped with a body of more concrete road safety measures. In addition, I believe it would be useful to improve the indicators and data relating to road safety in order to harmonise data for comparison, particularly when analysing the cause of injuries and accidents.

However, the EU’s constant commitment must be acknowledged, as the figures show. The number of deaths in road accidents fell by 36% between 2001 and 2009, with 80 000 fewer victims. These are encouraging figures, even if the ambitious objective of halving the number of deaths in road accidents every year has not yet been met. From 2009 to date, there were still 35 000 deaths and 1.5 million injuries on Europe’s roads.

  Philip Bradbourn (ECR), in writing. – The ECR Group is committed to improving safety on Europe’s roads. However, the Koch report in a large number of areas called for measures at a European level which are outwith the competence of the EU. Road safety is a matter best dealt with by national and local authorities. Similarly, the ECR Group opposes the setting up of agencies or, in this case, coordinators at a European level, dealing with such matters and, for this reason, voted against the Koch report.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I have voted against any attempt to harmonise road safety legislation across the Union. In the UK, we have some of the safest roads in Europe. There are already too many regulations and penalties on drivers largely used as cash cows that do little to make roads safer. Any legislation based upon driving or road use is often exploited by insurance companies to push up premiums or evade insurance pay outs. The proposed legislation would call into question whether other matters would have to be harmonised, from the unit of speed to top speeds on motorways, to the process of new driver training. The system in the UK for learning to drive is long established and effective and any changes should be the remit of the UK Government.

The report also mentions harmonising special penalty points systems. The EU should not hold any authority over penalising individuals for any offence or establishing what would qualify as an offence as this is the privilege of the Member State alone and would effectively create an EU-wide criminal law.

  Antonio Cancian (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report on European road safety 2011-2020, as it highlights a number of initiatives designed to reach the objective of halving the number of road accident victims by 2020.

The report looks at the general issue of synergies and coordination, which must be among the main features of future actions in the road safety sector by ensuring that all European, national and local bodies play a part.

Specifically, the report sets out a number of measures that we must concentrate on in our forthcoming work. Above all, it emphasises improved training for road users, including harmonised European driving tests and health checks. In this vein, I think we ought to incentivise the use of a number of instruments such as the alcolock, which analyses the physical and mental state of the driver and prevents the vehicle from being started in the event of alcohol or drug abuse.

Secondly, the report examines road infrastructure and here I think it is essential to build and improve the service areas that are equipped for drivers. Such areas must be seen as an integral part of road infrastructure, both in the planning stages and during road widening initiatives.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Despite the efforts made at European level, the number of deaths on the road remains shockingly high. In 2009, 35 000 people died and 1.5 million people were seriously injured in 2009.

I welcome the Commission communication on a European road safety area, as I consider it crucial that there be significant and coordinated investment in improvements to training for road users, to road infrastructure, to emergency and first-aid services, and to enforcement of road traffic rules. While it is true that measures should be taken as closely as possible to the citizen, pursuant to the principle of subsidiarity, it is also true that there is an urgent need for a coherent and integrated European-level approach.

I would congratulate Parliament on the report that has been achieved, and I share the view that a European road safety coordinator needs to be urgently appointed to coordinate measures between the Commission and the Member States, to promote initiatives and synergies in relation to road safety, to exchange best practices, and to create links between the relevant political and academic levels. I also support the goal of halving the total number of deaths by 2020, although the long-term goal should be to achieve a death rate of zero.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Koch because I think it can help the Commission to make a genuine commitment to road safety, particularly in terms of developing its proposals into a fully-fledged action programme. In the same vein, I welcome and agree with this own-initiative report, which proposes the creation of the office of the European road safety coordinator within the Commission to coordinate the actions of authorities – whether local, regional, national or international – and stakeholders on issues of road safety. The report sends a very clear message to our governments: we need a properly coordinated European initiative that offers meaningful protection to all risk categories, including not only motorcyclists but also workers and children, who are particularly exposed to danger. I sincerely hope that we can manage to reduce the number of victims and not the amount of funds set aside for them.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Reducing the number of road accident victims ought to be a common aim for all Member States. Road safety is not merely a matter for subsidiarity. In fact, collective awareness is needed in order to provide the same protection for all European drivers throughout the European Union. Parliament supports the objectives set out in the planned European road safety programme to 2020. Governments need to introduce more radical measures such as zero tolerance for drink-driving and for speeding. However, we also need to emphasise training and education about the dangers of the road from an early age. Reducing road accidents must also include improving the infrastructure on secondary roads and developing an urban highway code, with significant input from new technologies.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The report has several objectives: to halve the number of road deaths in Europe by 2020; to reduce the number of under-14s killed on the roads by 60%, and to cut the number of people seriously injured (life-threatening injuries) by 40%.

To this end, the European Parliament has asked the Commission to produce a set of detailed measures with a clear timetable, monitoring instruments and a mid-term review. The report also stresses the importance of collecting quality and comparable scientific data on the causes of accidents and injuries and the need to establish harmonised guidelines wherever possible.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Although the number of people killed in road traffic accidents in the EU dropped by 36% between 2001 and 2009, the fact is that 35 000 people died on Europe’s roads in 2009, and 1.5 million were injured, many of those seriously and resulting in disability. The report states that the number of deaths on the roads in 2009 is equivalent to the death toll that would result ‘if some 250 medium-sized airliners full of passengers were to crash, an unimaginable scenario’, which is a very clear and vivid analogy. It is indeed unimaginable, but these accidents are a direct result of our collective indifference. As I come from a country where the rate of road accidents is alarming, I can only support any measures seeking to reduce accident rates and improve road safety.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Preservation of human life is the highest value we can advocate. Any death, whatever the circumstances, even at the end of a long and productive life, causes us deep sadness. This situation disgusts us when it happens to young people or when it happens in situations where it could have been avoided. In the case of the latter, deaths on the road number in the thousands. In recent years, the measures adopted by the Member States have achieved a significant reduction in this loss of life: 36% between 2001 and 2009. However, 35 000 people were killed in 2009 and almost 1.5 million were injured. These numbers are too high for us to remain indifferent. That is why there is still so much to be done. The purpose of this Commission proposal is to halve these figures by 2020. There is a need to improve the training of drivers, to standardise the rules throughout the EU, to prevent driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and to prevent the use of mobile telephones. I welcome the adoption of this report, whose purpose is to improve European road safety policy over the next decade (2011-2020), so as to reduce the number of accidents. As Europeans, we are all obliged to cooperate on reducing the number of victims on our roads.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) European roads have become much safer in recent years. The number of traffic accident victims in the EU fell by 36% in the years 2001 to 2009. A decisive role in this respect was played by the Third European Road Safety Action Programme. Despite the above, 35 000 deaths and 1.5 million serious injuries, often with permanent consequences, occurred on European roads in 2009 alone. The social and economic costs of such traffic accidents are enormous; the loss of human life and the dramatic effect on the lives of those affected are indescribable. However, society still seems to turn a blind eye to the deadly risks that road traffic poses.

The tragedies that happen every day on European roads pass mostly unnoticed. Shortly before the expiry of the Third European Road Safety Action Programme, the Commission presented a communication where it explained its strategic objectives up to 2020. The key aim of these objectives is again to halve the number of deaths in traffic accidents compared with 2010. I agree with the opinion of the Commission that an improvement in traffic safety requires a coherent, comprehensive and integrated approach, covering all road traffic users and all stakeholders. We have to strive to achieve the maximum possible level of coordination, as well as to include the importance of road traffic safety in all relevant parts of the policy.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Around 1.3 million road accidents a year in Europe cause well in excess of 35 000 deaths and 1.5 million injuries.

That is why we urgently need to establish a European action programme that is capable of bringing to a halt the tragedy that unfolds on our roads each and every day. I agree with the rapporteur, Mr Koch, who has said that above all, we need to encourage exchanges of knowledge and proven practices among the Member States and to conduct a Europe-wide investigation on the causes of accidents. Indeed, using this very information, we must establish the measures that need to be taken to improve road safety.

Such measures surely include the urgent harmonisation of driving regulations, the permitted alcohol limit and road signs. However, I should also like to emphasise the importance of prevention. Training and lifelong learning for drivers, safety campaigns and appropriate medical tests can make a significant contribution to reducing the number of accidents across the European Union.

Sight is also hugely important for safe driving. We therefore hope that in future, greater attention will be focused on sight tests, not only when the driving licence is granted, but throughout a driver’s lifetime.

  Robert Goebbels (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I can endorse most of the aims of the report on road safety. Thirty-five thousand road deaths in Europe each year is a huge number. It is like an annual natural disaster, but the dead are usually anonymous and go unreported. When one thinks of the heated discussions about the victims of nuclear power stations – thousands in Chernobyl and thus far no fatalities in Fukushima – this is perplexing.

I support many of the report’s proposals for technical improvements to vehicles and road networks. However, I am not an advocate of ever-stricter enforcement measures. Calling for a zero limit for blood alcohol is ridiculous, because most of those who drink and drive are well above the 1% mark, if not over 2%. Making it illegal for anyone to drive after a glass or two of wine is not the way to prevent irresponsible driving.

I would also like to remind the critics that motorways are the safest roads, contributing only 6% of all deaths.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) No one is happy with the number of road accident victims, but like its predecessors, Mr Koch’s report on European road safety contains some unacceptable elements. To start with, there are the standard assumptions about bad drivers. The report also proposes that every vehicle should be fitted with an electronic bug which would automatically record all traffic data, with no guarantee that the information would only be used in the event of an accident. Big Brother will be watching your car – and your car will be able to condemn you!

The report wants to introduce a harmonised points system and also widespread use of ‘informative’ displays that tell motorists how fast they are travelling, which we already know are unreliable on fast roads and multiple lanes, distract drivers and therefore cause accidents. As for banning all systems that warn drivers about speed cameras, that would be counterproductive. After all, the authorities tell us that speed cameras are supposed to be installed at danger spots, not the most profitable locations. Essentially, we have the usual blend of pointless duplication, good intentions and full-blown policing combined with a handful of more apposite comments on the quality of the road network and the importance of educating drivers. It is wholly uninspiring.

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D), in writing. – (IT) Despite the measures taken by the individual Member States, the number of victims of road-traffic accidents in Europe is still too high. By approving the report by Mr Koch – which contains more than 100 suggestions on how to ensure effective road safety – Parliament is adopting a resolution in response to the Commission communication of 2010, which appeals to this House to put forward an even more ambitious action programme.

We shall need to improve the deployment of road signs, as well as infrastructure and vehicle safety and information exchange. Above all, however, we shall need to move towards harmonising legislation on the subject, for example, by reducing the speed limit in residential areas to 30 km/h and banning new drivers and those driving with passengers from drinking alcohol. This is the only way that it will be possible to halve the number of victims and reduce the number of injuries by 2020.

We therefore expect the Commission to produce a new plan that follows Parliament’s suggestions by the end of the year. Road safety must be a priority for Europe.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE), in writing. – I voted against the original text of Paragraph 4. I do not believe that an EU road safety coordinator would add value at European level. I believe this would be a further layer of bureaucracy without any real benefits. Yes, I know we need exchange of best practice, but if we set up an EU road safety coordinator, that means we need a secretariat and this would require extra resources that I believe could be better used elsewhere.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I welcome Parliament’s rejection of the proposal to make Day-Glo clothing compulsory for cyclists. This would effectively have made offenders out of victims – when the vast majority of accidents involving bikes are the fault of careless drivers.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) The Commission’s main target is to halve by 2020 the number of road deaths in the European Union (compared to 2010). With a view to achieving that target, the Commission is setting itself seven strategic objectives: improved training for road users and more stringent licensing and driver training procedures, more effective enforcement of road traffic rules, safer infrastructure, improved safety measures for commercial and private vehicles, the development of intelligent vehicles, improvements to emergency and first-aid services and measures to protect vulnerable road users, in particular, motorcyclists. These are excellent, adaptable and necessary measures for reducing the number of deaths on EU roads. However, I abstained from voting on this document because, in addition to repeating the calls consistently made by Parliament, the rapporteur has proposed additional measures to improve road safety in the EU, the application of which will not, in my opinion, deliver the anticipated results. The measures adopted must be adequate, logical and reflect reality. We must facilitate the implementation and enforcement of effective and coherent road safety policies.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) European road safety statistics are appalling. Due to the stupidity of irresponsible drivers, thousands of people are killed or left permanently disabled. This is why standardised legislation in the European Union and its application to new technologies is a priority. A further step is an improvement in the infrastructure, particularly in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, where the quality of roads leaves a lot to be desired and has caused accidents on more than one occasion. This is why monitoring is essential to ensure that these countries make proper use of funding made available for building new roads, motorways and railways. Modern rail transport systems would help to reduce traffic on the roads and to replace lorries, which are especially dangerous to other road users.

I would also like to draw attention to the need for education from an early age. Future drivers should be taught the basics of good behaviour on the roads as soon as possible and should be given good examples to follow.

  Martin Kastler (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I voted against this report today. No one could disagree with the common objective of the EU Member States of halving the number of road traffic fatalities. Almost 100 people are still dying on Europe’s roads every day. The goal is clear – the question is how to get there. Transport policy is, and remains, a national, regional and partly local issue. Successes are only achieved if they are closely based on the reality of people’s lives. Europe is not the right arena for this. Even if all the proposals were scientifically based, this is still not a matter for the EU. The best example of this is the scientifically-based proposal that, in future, children under three years of age should only travel in secure, rear-facing car seats. As a young father, I am well aware that no child aged two or three will want to sit facing backwards on the rear seat. What is more, drivers can no longer see their children, so who knows what might happen. This own-initiative report is superfluous. Signals like this are counter-productive, particularly in the current climate of crisis. We must concentrate on essentials.

  Edvard Kožušník (ECR), in writing. – (CS) I am personally all in favour of road safety improvements. Unfortunately, however, I am not convinced of the correctness of the proposed measures, which are supposed to lead to greater road safety. I am very concerned about the proposals to implement an intelligent speed assistance system, the use of which is just one step away from ‘Big Brother’. I would not like to see a time when some Central European brain determines which road a driver must take, or dictates the speed at which he will travel. I am concerned about cases where technology takes over responsibility for the decisions and actions of the individual. Although the ideas about drivers taking alcohol tests before setting out on a journey are useful, in my opinion, I regard the mandatory fitting of alcolocks as a bad joke from a science fiction film. The questions raised by the mandatory installation of these technologies have not been answered, particularly as regards responsibility for the malfunctioning of these systems.

We should also not forget the greater costs which these technologies entail. For low-income groups, for example, buying a new car will become less affordable than it is at present. We should also not forget cases where the mandatory use of these technologies is required for small and medium-sized enterprises. I take the view that education, higher safety standards and improved transport infrastructure will contribute more to road safety than these technologies.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Koch, which tackles the most critical issues surrounding road safety. Unfortunately, the number of victims of road accidents is considerable; Europe cannot accept this and must strive to reduce it dramatically. We need to take action in a number of different areas: from European coordination through a figure who can bring together all the various countries and not merely supplement the work of other officials, to the issue of road education and the protection of travellers, as well as infrastructure implementation. Achieving the objectives set out in the report that we have adopted is an important goal in showing that we are taking care and taking action to deal with a pressing issue such as road safety.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. – (PL) On 27 September 2011, the vote was held on the report on European road safety 2011-2020 (A7-0264/2011), which I supported. When the Third European Road Safety Action Programme was put into effect, fatalities among road users were reduced by 36%. In spite of the improvements on our roads, 35 000 people died and over 1.5 million were injured in 2009. Having the best interests of our citizens at heart, we should take action to increase road safety. We should coordinate the activities of road users and all interested parties. This is why we need a European coordinator who would oversee the implementation of new strategies at various levels with the support of the European Commission. We need to take practical steps to reduce the number of fatalities.

Dependable statistics and reliable data concerning accidents are key factors in solving the problem of road safety. As it is the citizens who are primarily responsible for road safety, the best possible training should be available for future drivers, and severe punishments should be meted out to those who break traffic laws. The penalty points system should be standardised. Continuing driver education and technical inspections of vehicles are also essential.

  Vladimír Maňka (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The number of traffic accident victims in the EU fell by 36% in the period 2001-2009. Thanks to this, 80 000 lives have been saved since 2001. Despite these figures, 35 000 deaths occurred on European roads in 2009, and 1.5 million people were seriously injured, often with permanent consequences. The social and economic costs of these traffic accidents amounted to approximately EUR 130 billion in 2009. The objective is to halve the number of traffic accident deaths in the European Union (compared with 2010). Therefore, the Commission should develop the proposed steps into a fully-fledged action programme by the end of 2011.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – Although I do not agree with every suggestion in this report, it makes some good proposals for enhancing European road safety and I voted for it.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the resolution on road safety because I am convinced that the number of people killed on the roads in the European Union could be reduced considerably over the coming years. The target of halving the number of road deaths by 2020 must be supported through simple measures, such as the use of alcolocks for commercial road transport, reducing the speed limit to 30 km/h in residential areas and harmonising the rules of the road. The text also recommends standardising road signs by 2013 and a Union-wide harmonised blood-alcohol limit, with a scientifically-based 0% tolerance margin for the first two years for new drivers and permanently for professional drivers.

  Gesine Meissner (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) The German Free Democratic Party delegation abstained from the final vote on the own-initiative report on European road safety 2011-2020. This non-legislative text contains a large number of recommendations for increasing safety on Europe’s roads. Naturally, we support this goal, as we also want to reduce the number of fatalities and injuries on the roads. Some measures are quite over the top, however; for example, the call for a general 30 km/h speed limit in built-up areas, the mandatory carrying of warning jackets for all vehicle occupants, or the use of rear-facing child seats for children under three years of age.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) No one doubts that Europe’s roads have become substantially safer in recent years. Between 2001 and 2009, the number of road deaths in the EU fell by 36%. The Third European Road Safety Action Programme 2001-2010 was instrumental in bringing about that reduction. Since 2001, almost 80 000 lives have been saved as a result of the progress made. Although the target of halving the annual number of deaths has not been met, the figures are very encouraging. Despite all of that, 35 000 people died on Europe’s roads in 2009 and 1.5 million were seriously injured, many of whom were left disabled. The social and economic cost of these road accidents is huge: roughly EUR 130 billion in 2009. In addition to that, there is the loss of life, the grief of the victims’ families, the suffering of the injured and the dramatic changes to the lives of accident victims.

  Louis Michel and Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) This own-initiative report is intended to improve road safety in Europe and encourage the discussion of best practice and success stories. It has been adopted today by a very large majority of the European Parliament with a view to reducing the number of lives lost on our roads every year from the current sobering 35 000. This represents a huge challenge, given all the variations in infrastructure, training, rules, prevention policies and penalties.

There is also a cultural divide, particularly when it comes to alcohol consumption, which does nonetheless have universal physiological effects. We welcome the various recommendations: gradual learning from the age of 17, road safety education from a very young age, fitting alcolocks to professional vehicles and compulsory reflective jackets.

However, we did oppose paragraph 54 on applying a 30 km/h speed limit in all urban residential areas. We must not forget that standardisation has its limits. The failure of the 30 km/h speed limit within inner Brussels is a telling example. The success of a 30 km/h zone is primarily dependent on the road layout and the associated public awareness campaign. By making 30 km/h zones the norm, there is a danger that they would become less valuable in places where they are really essential.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Improving road safety is an important issue. 35 000 people died in road accidents in 2009; 1 500 000 were injured. It is necessary to adopt a broad set of measures and better coordination at all political levels to reduce the number of road deaths and injuries significantly. I am in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) In terms of transport safety, a number of successes were achieved in Europe in recent years, although the target of halving the number of annual road traffic fatalities has not been met. A series of measures are being implemented in an attempt to achieve this self-imposed target. However, these are quite vague and it is doubtful whether they will enable the number of road traffic fatalities to be reduced as desired. It is also important to gather more comparable data in relation to the causes of accidents and injuries for the purposes of better coordination between the Member States. In addition, we should also be clear about the role played in serious traffic accidents by heavy goods vehicles, which are becoming increasingly dangerous, particularly in view of increasing competitive pressures, and about the fact that scrap vehicles are still to be found on Europe’s roads. Of course it would be a good thing for the public to attend regular first aid courses. However this should not be made mandatory for road users. For this reason, I have voted against.

  Sławomir Witold Nitras (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I fully support improvements in road safety by coordinating and harmonising proposals and road signs and introducing a single road safety strategy. However, I believe that the negative consequences of some of the proposals contained in the legislation outweigh their positive aspects. One of these proposals was the idea to introduce speed limits of 30 km/h in residential areas, which would not only have a negative impact on the transport sector and be incomprehensible to a large section of society, but would also fail to improve safety as the law could simply be ignored. Another proposal with which I found myself in disagreement was the introduction of a ban on the manufacture of systems that warn drivers of radar speed checks. As a result, I voted against the proposals.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) The greater part of Europe’s road network is designed to cater for the typical dimensions of modern heavy goods vehicles. The Commission favours ‘gigaliners’, however. ‘Gigaliners’ are up to 25 metres in length and weigh up to 60 tonnes. These giants impair the field of vision of other drivers and the overtaking distances on national roads are increased dramatically. Furthermore, much greater damage – both to people and vehicles – is to be expected when collisions occur. The EU’s plans to halve the number of fatal road accidents by 2020 thus seems like a distant dream. It is important that these ‘gigaliners’ should be banned from our roads. As the report does not deal with this danger, I have voted against it.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) Although, last year, the number of road deaths in Lithuania fell by half, the road wars continue both in Lithuania and throughout the EU. In 2009, 35 000 people were killed in Europe and 1 500 000 were injured, while material damage exceeded EUR 130 billion. I voted in favour of this report, because it aims to halve the number of deaths by 2020. The document calls on EU governments to pay more attention to road infrastructure and ensure better cooperation between the Member States. Until now, if your driving licence is taken away in one EU Member State, it is still possible to obtain a duplicate in another Member State if you live or work there, and this is wrong. It is therefore necessary to establish an EU system for exchanging information on documents. One of the report’s innovative proposals is also important – to install alcohol sensors in all new cars, which would prevent a car from being started if they detect that the driver is at all drunk. It is right to propose increasing fines – drivers who have had a licence for less than two years should be subject to a zero alcohol rule when they take the wheel. Many accidents could also be avoided by using simpler means of prevention: better located road signs, lighting and vigilant traffic police.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Road safety policy is one of the forthcoming objectives for 2020. Reducing the number of victims of road accidents could depend on Europe’s management of the problem and therefore, the EU must provide a technical and legal framework for Member States and local bodies in order to improve citizens’ road safety in an effective way. I voted in favour of the text in question, which provides an opportunity for Europe as a whole to examine each and every aspect – from the behaviour of drivers, to roadside maintenance and infrastructure safety – in order to come up with some proposals for ways to improve road safety.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE), in writing. – (EL) Despite the drop in road traffic accidents, the EU still loses enough people to fill a town (35 000 victims) in fatal road traffic accidents every year. Road behaviour is certainly one of the reasons for these losses. However, no one can question the importance of well-constructed and modern road infrastructures in the effort to stop road traffic accidents. Unfortunately, numerous cofinanced road projects have been shelved or put on hold as a result of the economic crisis, due to a lack of funds for national contributions. This is the case in Greece, where road projects have been left half-finished for months. The own-initiative report, which I supported, recognises the modern-day challenges and proposes flexible procedures to facilitate the absorption of funds. At the same time, it recognises the need for quantitative targets for the Member States and the need to evaluate individual national policies by drafting and publishing national road safety plans on the basis of harmonised joint guidelines.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) According to the data presented in this report, which are uncontested, Europe’s roads have become substantially safer in recent years. Between 2001 and 2009, there was a 36% reduction in the number of road deaths in the EU. The Third European Road Safety Action Programme 2001-2010 was instrumental in bringing about that fall. Since 2001, almost 80 000 lives have been saved as a result of the progress made. As such, I voted for this report, in which a series of complementary measures have been tabled with a view to improving road safety in the EU.

  Marit Paulsen, Olle Schmidt and Cecilia Wikström (ALDE), in writing. – (SV) Road accidents kill and injure thousands of people in Europe every year – every single case is a tragedy. Road safety is an important issue, and it is a cross-border one. However, we cannot legislate away people’s own responsibility on the road. It is neither reasonable nor effective for the European Parliament to establish detailed rules on road safety, and creating rules that are impossible to supervise and monitor will only create an uncertain legal situation. Road safety is primarily the responsibility of the Member States and a matter that is subject to the principle of subsidiarity. We are nevertheless supporting the report as a whole in order to emphasise the importance we attach to the issue of road safety, but would hereby like to make known our view that forthcoming European legislative proposals in this area should not be as far-reaching as this own-initiative report.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. – We must aim to better protect vulnerable road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, children and the elderly. That 35 000 people lose their lives in road accidents in the EU each year is simply unacceptable. That 1.5 million people are seriously injured is an astonishing figure and we must take action to address this problem. In order to address this situation, we must have a clear and comprehensive idea of the scale and nature of the problem. We need to have comparable data on the causes of injuries and accidents throughout the EU. The EU requires a system for compiling harmonised European statistics on the causes of accidents, with a view to improving our understanding of the problem. These statistics can draw on the wealth of knowledge and experience already gained in this area in individual Member States. If road safety is to be improved, a coherent and integrated approach is needed. In order to do this, we must first have a clearer understanding of the nature of these road accidents.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In spite of progressive technological improvements, road accidents remain a very significant cause of death. That is why efforts have been made for many years to achieve the EU objective of reducing the number of deaths on the road. It is therefore necessary to adopt measures to reduce these incidences of death, and to seek to gradually reduce the number of fatal accidents to zero. I voted in favour because I share this concern.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) In today’s plenary session in Strasbourg, we voted on the report on European road safety.

The report by Mr Koch basically upholds the objectives set out by the Commission and the measures that have been broadly outlined, which state that in order to improve road safety, we need to adopt a coherent, holistic and integrated approach that includes all road users and stakeholders while also looking into synergies with other policy objectives.

We must therefore integrate road safety requirements in all relevant policy areas and ensure effective coordination between the various levels – local, regional, national and European – in preparing and implementing the measures.

In this vein, the report therefore proposes establishing the office of European road safety coordinator which, with the Commission’s support, ought to function as a shared point of reference for the various approaches and administrative levels.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. In recent years, Europe’s roads have become substantially safer. Between 2001 and 2009, the number of road deaths in the EU fell by 36%, and the Third European Road Safety Action Programme was instrumental in bringing about that fall. Since 2001, almost 80 000 lives have been saved as a result of the progress made. Although the target of halving the annual number of road deaths has not been met, the figures are very encouraging. Above all, however, they are a call for further action. In 2009, the number of people killed on Europe’s roads was still 35 000 and the number seriously injured was 1.5 million, with many of them being left disabled. The social and economic cost of these road accidents is huge (roughly EUR 130 billion in 2009). The human loss involved, the grief experienced by the friends and families of the victims, the suffering of the injured and the dramatic changes to the lives of accident victims represent costs of a different kind.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Europe’s roads have become substantially safer in recent years.

The Third European Road Safety Action Programme 2001-2011 was instrumental in bringing about this achievement. Since 2001, almost 80 000 lives have been saved as a result of the progress made.

Shortly before the Third Action Programme expired, the Commission submitted a communication setting out its strategic objectives for the period to 2020. Once again, the Commission’s main target is to halve the number of road deaths in the European Union by 2020.

The report adopted today underlines the need for a coherent, holistic and integrated approach which encompasses all road users and stakeholders and seeks to develop synergies with other policy objectives.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I would, in theory, be in favour of the report because, under the principle of subsidiarity, the European Union ought to set out a general framework and some objectives on road safety to act as a focal point for national and local strategies.

In order to reduce the number of fatal accidents, I think it would be well worth putting controls in place, harmonising road signs, creating safe road-traffic infrastructure and promoting the sale of safe vehicles fitted with mandatory alcolocks. We would also need the United Kingdom to stop driving on the opposite side of the road to all other European countries and get into line with the rules in place in the EU.

Unfortunately, however, this report suffers from the negative influence of a series of amendments adopted in this House, which make it too oppressive. For example, forbidding people from driving when using medicines that influence their fitness to drive is absurd since, precisely for their own peace of mind, most pharmaceutical companies advise against it in their instruction leaflets. In reality, very few people using such medicines have any problems driving as a result.

Another overly burdensome amendment for licence-holders is the obligation to attend first-aid refresher courses every 10 years. I have therefore voted against the report.

  Debora Serracchiani (S&D), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report on road safety by Mr Koch because I think that this issue has an important role to play considering that around 55% of fatal accidents happen on rural roads, 36% in urban areas and 6% on motorways.

Over the last three years, road accidents in the capital cities of the European Union have caused an average of 1 845 deaths each year. Many of these victims are pedestrians, cyclists, elderly people and children. In order to reduce the number of deaths caused by road accidents, common and harmonised restrictive measures are needed across Europe, including the creation of safe road-traffic infrastructure, respect for driving and rest periods, and the establishment of safe parking areas for lorry drivers which are in line with the minimum social standards.

I support the creation of the office of the European road safety coordinator by 2014, with particular responsibility for opening an investigation on the effectiveness of road safety policies in large and medium-sized urban areas and on the necessary elements for once again making travel safe for all citizens.

  Renate Sommer (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I have voted against this own-initiative report on European road safety. Even though the report contains a number of good points, there are some key issues that I cannot support. A universal speed limit of 30 km/h in residential areas would bring traffic in conurbations to a standstill. The establishment of a ‘genuine’ EU observatory and the position of an EU coordinator would not just generate unnecessary bureaucracy. Experience shows that we would quickly have a new, costly agency. On top of this, there are cost-intensive proposals for the mandatory introduction of new electronic playthings such as alcohol meters, fatigue alert systems or speed regulation systems. This is superfluous. It is discriminatory to require over 65s to undergo regular physical, mental and psychological testing of their driving capabilities. The standardised use of winter tyres is unrealistic in view of the different climatic conditions in the various Member States. The call for obligatory rear-facing seats for children under three is also out-of-touch. This would prevent you from watching the child or communicating with it. All the child can see is the backrest in front of it, it will become fractious and will finally escape from the seat. A child would be able to manage this from the age of two at least. Anyone telling me that you should not talk to children while driving and that the new child seat has a system of mirrors for observing the child has obviously never driven children about.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Figures from 2009 demonstrate that a devastating number of people are killed on Europe’s roads: more than 35 000 people died and 1.5 million people were seriously injured, many of whom were left permanently disabled. Publication of these figures has led Parliament to call for a plan of action for road safety to be drafted, as a matter of urgency. Of the measures included in the report, I should like to highlight the standardisation of road signs and road traffic rules in the EU, and of the blood alcohol limit. It is also suggested that alcolocks be fitted to all commercial passenger and goods transport vehicles, and that greater importance be attached to lifelong learning. The objectives set out for Europe’s roads are ambitious, but they are necessary because of the loss of lives caused by a lack of road safety. Coordination among the Member States and the Commission should be the cornerstone of the entire strategy, so I am in favour of creating a road safety coordinator role within the Commission to ensure multilevel coordination. It is also important that the Member States improve their statistical indicators, so that these can be progressively harmonised and intelligent vehicles developed.

  Niki Tzavela (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the Koch report because road safety is a major European issue. It should be pointed out that a coordinated approach to road safety and revised highway codes, better training and examination of learner drivers and road behaviour in general are actions which help to cut the number of road traffic accidents in Europe. For example, there has been a 37% reduction since 2000 and this reduction appears to have been sustained in 2011.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I rejected the report, not because I am against road safety, but rather because the measures proposed here are mostly prescriptive and interfere with civil liberties to a huge extent. They go far beyond simple recommendations and are almost like a catalogue of repressive measures from a dictatorship. If I were cynical, I might say that the quickest way to reduce road traffic fatalities would be to prohibit all two-wheeled vehicles with immediate effect. However, proposals of this kind represent a major restriction in civil liberties.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. – I supported the 103 measures contained in this report as they will be crucial in ensuring the safety of roads in Wales and across Europe. Following the Commission’s unambitious proposals earlier in the year, the Parliament have set out their plans and ideas that will cut road deaths from the current levels of 35 000 a year across the EU. This report sends a strong message to governments, including the UK Government, that we must take serious measures to cut accidents and road deaths in the EU, and not be cutting road safety budgets.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I abstained in the votes on all the amendments and in the final vote on this report, not because I am not interested in road safety issues, but because I feel that the European Union already does plenty in this field and I believe that our priorities should lie elsewhere at present.

Yet the report goes into a mind-boggling level of detail (urban speed limits, blood alcohol limits, ban on speed check detectors, harmonising legislation for winter tyres and more). The report is also another example of focusing on safety rather than prevention.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, just by way of example, I am astounded to see that there is nothing on the subject of lorry drivers’ working hours, even though we know that this is something which can have grave repercussions.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) The Schengen area has considerably enhanced freedom of movement for travellers, tourists and goods, to the point where road safety has become a European priority. In 2009, 1.5 million people were injured and 35 000 killed in road accidents. We need to coordinate our national efforts to prevent these human tragedies at all costs. Europeans will not understand if we do not take the necessary action to reduce road deaths. This is the very aim of the strategy that we have just adopted, which establishes a target of halving the number of people killed on our roads by 2020. In order to do that, we need to harmonise our national rules on traffic, signalling, technical vehicle checks and blood alcohol limits. Essentially, it is no longer acceptable that the majority of accidents are caused by a lack of courtesy at the wheel. The road must not be a place where the rules do not apply: only by respecting common rules will we be able to save lives.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The measures proposed in the report, some of them already described in great detail, are understandable, proportionate and necessary. Although the number of road traffic fatalities has been declining for years, there is still some work to be done. I voted in favour.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The report tabled by Mr Koch has the ambitious goal of halving the number of road accident victims by 2020. If this is to be achieved, then we need a coherent, holistic and integrated approach that provides for the active involvement of all stakeholders. The EU institutions will need to provide direction and coordination, while the Member States and local organisations will have to ensure that better road safety policies are implemented on our roads.

We must welcome the proposal to create a European road safety coordinator who, with the Commission’s support, ought to act as a kind of liaison to ensure cooperation among the various levels. I voted in favour for these reasons.

  Artur Zasada (PPE), in writing. – (PL) For several years now, European road accident statistics have been improving, but the fact remains that around 35 000 people die in road accidents and 1.5 million are injured annually. The Commission estimates that only about 27.5% of the measures in the Third European Road Safety Action Programme have been implemented. I am convinced that we have not exhausted all the legislative avenues open to us in this regard and that further regulation at European level is possible.

Mr Koch’s document contains many interesting ideas but is not without its defects. I am particularly interested in, inter alia, the initiatives on improving the quality of training for young drivers, the introduction of obligatory eye tests for drivers and improvements in safety at level crossings. However, I am not fully convinced by some of the rapporteur’s suggestions, such as restricting the speed limit to 30 km/h in residential areas and on all single-lane roads in urban areas which have no separate cycle lane (I voted against this provision). Some of the initiatives do not include deadlines or methods of implementation, and taking the complexity of the problem into consideration, it would not be possible to introduce them at this moment in time.

However, I did finally endorse the document. I believe that the European Commission will look carefully at the proposals contained in Mr Koch’s report and will present a thorough analysis of the impact of the individual proposals as soon as possible.

Report: Nirj Deva (A7-0213/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report, which draws attention to the fact that large dams have failed to produce as much electricity, provide as much water or control as much flood damage as was foreseen. Efforts to mitigate this damage have not been very successful. In general terms, in order to improve this situation, I call for a wide-ranging, transparent and participatory assessment that considers the full range of available options for reducing the impact of floods, and which fulfils water and energy needs, whilst giving priority to preserving ecosystems, respecting human rights, and increasing the efficiency and sustainability of the systems already in place.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Water is a scarce natural resource, which means that the fairness of its allocation needs to be examined. As a result, the point needs to be highlighted that rethinking the management of freshwater resources, in the context of climate change, is undoubtedly a key challenge facing the world. On the other hand, in the last century, no other natural hazard has proved more destructive in terms of material damage or loss of human life than flooding, in spite of the billions of dollars spent on flood management.

I think that balanced investment is needed in managing and improving water capture and storage methods to increase the sustainable and efficient use of water, mitigate the effect of recurrent floods and droughts, and achieve minimum water security. I urge for priority to be given to investments which reduce rural poverty, strengthen resilience and adaptation to climate change, and foster cooperation in the international river basin.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – This report is important because I value its aim to find a comprehensive and transparent evaluation of the full range of options available to reduce the impacts of floods and meet water and energy needs. Despite the billions of dollars spent on flood management in the past years, globally, no other natural hazard has cost more human lives or proved more destructive to property than floods. I believe that the EU must promote the establishment of a global early warning system for floods and should finance capacity building and training in improved land management. In this field, priority should be given to ecosystem-based solutions and to making existing systems more effective and sustainable. I also would like to stress that any planning of dams should be evaluated according to five values: equity, efficiency, participatory decision making, sustainability and accountability.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this document. Globally, no other natural hazard over the past century has proved more destructive to property or cost more human lives than floods, despite the billions of dollars spent on flood management. There was an increase in the frequency of serious floods throughout the second half of the 20th century, and flooding will prove to be a critical issue in the coming decades. In order to guarantee a reliable supply of water during droughts and prevent excessive water during periods of flooding, storage methods need to be improved. Rethinking the management of freshwater resources, in the context of climate change, is undoubtedly a key challenge facing the world. I agree that it is essential to adopt a multi-pronged flood strategy as a matter of urgency in regions where there is a critical threat of floods and to ensure balanced investment in demand-side management measures, land management, improved water capture and storage methods.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because we must improve water storage methods and reduce the construction of huge dams worldwide. Approximately 40-80 million people have been forced to leave their homes during the construction of huge dams. Dams change rivers and the use of natural resources and have a major impact on biological diversity and river ecosystems and, above all, pose a threat to communities. On every continent, dams threaten people or the ecosystem. One real example is in Brazil, where a licence has been granted to construct the world’s third largest dam, although its construction will do incalculable damage to the Amazon’s ecosystem and biodiversity. Around 50 000 people will also be forced to leave their homes. It is necessary to reduce dam building because, according to current estimates, by 2050, there will be a major risk of floods, endangering around 2 billion people. Furthermore, dam reservoirs pose a serious threat to the environment due to greenhouse gas emissions.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I voted against this report, which calls for a creation of a cross-border agency, established under the United Nations, with the express purpose of sharing available data, addressing the problems and causes of transboundary water-related hazards and proposing appropriate adaptation and mitigation measures. It stresses that, without such an adjudicating agency at the helm, critical negotiations on flood prevention and alleviation may prove insurmountable between conflicting countries, especially those in the developing world. With all sympathy to those who are living in least developed countries to whom access to water can be a daily struggle, we cannot afford to create a whole infrastructure in order to promote the EU and its climate change policy. I do not see it as the EU’s role to oversee issues in third countries.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Water is a scarce natural resource, which raises concerns over the fairness of its distribution. There is a need to rethink the management of fresh water resources in the context of climate change. Only 5% of the cultivated area in Africa is irrigated, less than 10% of the continent’s potential for hydroelectricity generation is being used, and only 58% of Africans have access to safe drinking water. The development of decentralised supply infrastructure is a key condition for guaranteeing the security of water supply in Africa and achieving the Millennium Development Goals. It is, therefore, necessary to improve storage methods, so as to ensure a reliable supply during periods of drought and retain excess water during periods of flooding.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) As water is a scarce natural resource, the management of water resources is certainly a major challenge that the world is facing, particularly in the context of climate change. If the construction of dams in developing countries guarantees a secure water supply and a whole range of indisputable benefits, on the one hand, the risks inherent to their construction should be, and must be, cause for reflection and concern, on the other. Dams, both natural and artificial, can fail or break, causing floods and landslides, which is exacerbated, in the case of natural floods, by the effects of global warming and by the black carbon deposits in glaciers, so accelerating their retreat, for example, in Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal.

I believe that it is important to adopt a multifaceted strategy in these regions, that dam building should be assessed in terms of environmental, social and economic impact, but also that developing countries have the final word in assessing their priorities and the cost/benefit relationship.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Water is an inestimably valuable resource given its scarcity and the fact that it has to be managed very carefully indeed. The management of freshwater resources deserves particular attention; if we take climate change into account as well, then it represents a crucial challenge for the entire world. Moreover, we must not forget that in recent decades, no other natural phenomenon has been so damaging as disasters caused by flooding, even though the expenditure to manage and prevent them has been anything but meagre. Balanced investment is needed to improve methods of collecting and storing water, to increase the efficient and sustainable use of water resources, and to reduce both the effects of flooding and the negative effects of drought. I therefore voted in favour of this report, even though I think that further work is needed on reaching the goal of limiting climate change.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on the financing of dam infrastructure reinforcement in developing countries because I believe there is a need to undertake a wide-ranging, transparent and participatory assessment of the existing alternatives as regards reducing the impact of floods, and satisfying water and energy needs, whilst giving priority to ecosystem-based solutions, and increasing the efficiency and sustainability of already existing infrastructure.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Management of water resources constitutes one of the main problems for many developing countries, which are ravaged by a cycle of droughts and floods. Dams constitute a means of seeking to manage this scarce resource and regulate river flows, in order to protect neighbouring populations. The increasing number of floods in the second half of the 20th century must certainly raise concern with regard to the location and safety of many of the dams built and to how they are being maintained, and it is recommended that their future construction be exercised with caution, that their condition be rigorously maintained, and that their impact on local communities be carefully monitored.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This report, drafted by Mr Deva, concerns the financing of dam infrastructure reinforcement in developing countries. Climate change recorded in recent decades has been causing unexpected natural disasters in unthinkable places. Floods have caused thousands of deaths and damage costing many millions of dollars, especially in developing countries. The future prospects in this area do not bode well at all. We all know that the increased average temperature globally has been causing the icecaps to melt, and has led to rising sea levels.

It is therefore essential to support these countries in terms of warning them of similar situations, and of encouraging integrated and sustained development in regions that are more geographically fragile. I therefore welcome this report, which encourages the European Union to promote technologies that will drastically cut carbon emissions, to create a cross-border monitoring agency, to support the construction of dams that will minimise the risk of floods, and to improve disaster prevention methods and flood resistance tests for buildings.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The report weaves together some relevant points on the lack of infrastructure in less developed countries, with a view to guaranteeing the security and reliability of water supply during periods of drought, and the retention of excess water in periods of flooding. However, it is not entirely clear what the basis, justification and goals of this own-initiative report are. Moreover, this report believes that, on some occasions, support for construction of such infrastructure could represent ‘wasteful spending of EU taxpayers’ money’. Several of the very significant environmental and social impacts of large dams are mentioned. While it is true that some of these impacts are real, situations should, naturally, be analysed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific environmental, economic and social conditions in each country or region.

Support for the virtues of small water storage structures is generally well founded, but we cannot fail to also take the aforementioned conditions into account.

We agree with some of the proposals made in the report, such as those concerning an early warning system under the auspices of the United Nations. The points relating to environmental impact assessments, including the assessment of alternatives, and the support for preference to be given to ecosystem-based solutions, are also timely.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) There are some relevant points on the lack of infrastructure in less developed countries, with a view to guaranteeing the security and reliability of water supply during periods of drought, and the retention of excess water in periods of flooding. However, it is not entirely clear what the basis, justification and goals of this own-initiative report are. Moreover, this report believes that, on some occasions, support for construction of such infrastructure could represent ‘wasteful spending of EU taxpayers’ money’, which contradicts other aspects.

Several of the very significant environmental and social impacts of large dams are mentioned. While it is true that some of these impacts are real, situations should, naturally, be analysed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific environmental, economic and social conditions in each country or region. Support for the virtues of small water storage structures is generally well founded, but we must also take the aforementioned points into account.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) According to current estimates, there are more than 50 000 large dams, 100 000 medium-sized dams, and 1 million small dams in the world. These dams, which substantially modify rivers, and the use of natural resources, have a significant impact on human communities, on the ecosystems of rivers and marshes, and on biodiversity. In my opinion, it is essential to adopt a multi-level flood prevention strategy in regions where unstable glacier lakes represent the key flood threat and further aggravate the effects of global warming on precipitation systems, as well as the presence of black carbon, which demonstrably accelerates the decline of glaciers.

The construction of dams should be assessed, amongst other things, in view of their impact on river flows, rights of access to water and river resources. At the same time, consideration has to be given as to whether the dam will require the destruction of existing settlements, will cause the disruption of the culture and the resources of local communities, and whether it will lead to the exhaustion or deterioration of environmental resources. The planning of every dam should be assessed on the basis of such criteria as justice, effectiveness, shared decisions, sustainability and responsibility, and I believe that the decision-making process relating to dams should give full consideration to the concept of human rights.

  Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) I am delighted that the report on dam infrastructures in developing countries has been adopted with such a large majority. Although Mr Deva’s report initially generated a lot of criticism, the amendments proposed by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and adopted by the Committee on Development, for which I am the coordinator, have allowed us to produce a particularly valuable document.

Among other things, the fact that Parliament has recognised that the Belo Monte dam in Brazil could cause serious damage to the invaluable ecosystem and precious biodiversity in the Amazon, and to the indigenous peoples, marks a massive victory.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because, unless highly productive agricultural areas are protected from the effects of flooding, emerging economies could see an abrupt turnaround in their development and a rapidly growing food security problem. The melting of the glaciers in the Himalayas is initially expected to increase river flows for two to three decades, but flows will then decrease substantially in the longer term. It is thus essential to develop mitigation and adaptation strategies to address droughts in the future. Immediate action must be taken with a view to reducing carbon monoxide and methane emissions, mainly through the promotion of research and investment in technology aimed at reducing polluting emissions, as a fast-action method of halting glacial and snow melting. Carbon monoxide and methane have a short atmospheric life, so there therefore needs to be a combined effort to reduce emissions and take swift action to dramatically and rapidly alleviate the threat of glacier lake outburst floods.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I decided to vote in favour of the report by Mr Deva, which looks particularly closely at the issues related to the overheating of the planet and the resulting need to invest in dam infrastructure in developing countries. The floods that have affected various parts of the planet even in recent years bear witness to the fact that the flooding issue is dependent on other factors and requires detailed preventive and infrastructural solutions. Working both on the environmental aspects, to reduce the level of CO2 emissions, and on the infrastructural aspects, to avoid natural disasters that would have serious repercussions on the economic growth of developing countries, is therefore an important task that we must tackle by common methods.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Mr Deva’s report on dam infrastructure in developing countries stresses, inter alia, a multilateral approach to the prevention of flooding in areas at risk. This issue is of particular importance in view of the fact that during the last century, no other natural disasters around the world proved more destructive to property or cost more human lives than floods. Flood tragedies and their consequences have affected many countries in Europe as well as worldwide, so a comprehensive solution to the problem is of paramount importance. This is why I endorsed the report and voted in favour.

  Vladimír Maňka (S&D), in writing. – (SK) There are currently 50 000 large dams, 100 000 medium-sized dams, and 1 million small dams in the world.

No other natural risk has proved to be more destructive and has resulted in a larger number of victims than floods.

The most threatened countries are the least developed ones. I support UNEP’s recommendations on dealing with floods, according to which an improved land cultivation system should be combined with better water accumulation methods based on both traditional and more modern scientific knowledge. It is necessary to regenerate and renew key ecosystems, beginning with forests and ending with marshes. This will improve water supply, while these ecosystems will act as buffer zones against extreme climatic events, such as floods.

The EU must support the construction of an infrastructure for dams. The conditions under which floods occur are not static and require a flexible approach, such as the improvement of the flood forecast system, improving the protection of buildings against flooding, the allocation of land for the containment of flood waters, and the construction of water drainage systems.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution which recommends the formation, as a matter of urgency, of a cross-border agency, established under the auspices of the United Nations, with the express purpose of sharing available data, addressing the problems and causes of transboundary water-related hazards and proposing appropriate adaptation and mitigation measures. It stresses that, without such an adjudicating agency at the helm, critical negotiations on flood prevention and alleviation may prove insurmountable between conflicting countries. It emphasises that glacial regions, so often the source of flood events, are considered to be points of strategic importance, forming boundaries between nations, and that, as a result, the affected parties might prove reticent in sharing vital information.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I believe that dam construction must be assessed in terms of its impact on river flows, the rights of access to water and river resources, and whether the dam will uproot existing settlements, disrupt the culture and sources of livelihood of local communities, or deplete or degrade environmental resources. It is therefore very important to assess all types of impact caused by the construction of new dams, especially in developing countries.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The report makes some reasonable points. I thus support the call for financial compensation for those who have to be resettled as a result of dam projects and welcome the reference to the need for impact assessments when building dams. Such projects can have an enormous impact on neighbouring states and can cause significant damage to the environment. I find no reference to the embezzlement of monetary aid provided for the construction of dams, however. Estimates from Transparency International (TPI) gauge that 70% of the budget set aside for the flood relief authority in Pakistan has been embezzled. Action must be taken to prevent this, rather than continuing with the established practice of providing aid. The report also makes some inadmissible links to climate policy targets that cannot be justified in the context of financial aid for the reinforcement of dams in developing countries. For these reasons, I have decided to abstain from voting.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – I welcome the European Parliament’s initiative in addressing this important issue. Improving dam infrastructure in developing countries is necessary to address climate change consequences and to achieve development goals. It not only helps in managing flood risks and in providing better access to fresh-water resources, but also may provide for hydropower generation capacity. I believe a good impact can be achieved through micro-projects for hydropower dams, requiring small investment and rather basic technologies. Micro-investment may have a big positive effect for the most vulnerable communities in remote areas. As regards the large-scale projects, the EU assistance should be provided only for those which underwent thorough impact assessment, taking into account all environmental and societal consequences. The EU should work with the relevant organisations and partner countries so the dam infrastructure is developed in an environmentally sound way. Having said all that, it is important to ensure the visibility of the EU assistance provided to the relevant projects.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Given that we are members of such a developed and enterprising Union, I think it is appropriate to support increased funding for the construction of infrastructure in developing countries, in this case, dams. The solidarity and humanitarian aid that we can provide to these countries, often located far from our own, is really essential for them. I think it is a moral and a civil duty for the European Union to provide aid that can prevent catastrophes and, above all, that can provide water for drinking and irrigation in areas that face such enormous problems in this regard.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report on the financing of dam infrastructure reinforcement in developing countries. This report has been adopted by a large majority and urges the EU to continue promoting dam infrastructure to deal with the problem of floods. The report recognises that flood conditions are not static and, as such, require a flexible approach. It calls for the improvement of flood forecasting, the flood-proofing of individual buildings, and the development of floodplain storage and bypass systems in developing countries. I agree with the need to assess dam construction projects on the basis of equity, efficiency, participatory decision making, sustainability and accountability in order to ensure that the potential harm caused by a project does not outweigh its benefits.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. – I welcome Mr Deva’s report on the financing of reinforcement dam infrastructure in developing countries. Water-related disasters, particularly floods, cost more lives than any other natural phenomenon and arguably cause the most destruction to property. Underscoring this point is the UN statistic that 2 billion people worldwide live in constant threat of severe flood damage. I speak with some knowledge of this issue, as my own home town of Clonmel in Ireland has been savaged by floods on a continuing basis for many years, with flood damage costing millions of euro and many people being unable to insure their homes and property because of the risk. In 2009, the Civil Defence had to be drafted in to help evacuate people from their homes. The problem of flooding is exacerbated in developing countries where access to emergency shelter and services such as the Civil Defence is limited. Creating a comprehensive dam infrastructure would help achieve this aim of moderating the risk of immediate flood damage in the developing world.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Any EU analysis of the use of dams as a means of producing electricity should take into account the overall context in which this occurs. Therefore, first and foremost, the overall situation concerning the fragility of the environmental system, which has led to an exponential increase in natural disasters, must not be discounted. In this context, water shortages resulting from access problems represent a prime danger to sustainable development. However, we must not disregard the severe environmental impact caused by ‘large dams’, or their effects on local populations: it is estimated that some 40-80 million people have been displaced for this reason. As such, the EU’s efforts should be towards promoting the use of means of energy production that, without sacrificing the energy needed, have less of an environmental impact: we should not just be thinking about using renewable energy sources, but also about opting for small dams instead of large constructions. Since that is the report’s argument, I voted in favour.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. The EP: 1. Considers that, globally, no other natural hazard has proved more destructive to property or cost more human lives than floods over the past century, despite the billions of dollars spent on flood management; 2. Highlights that water is a scarce natural resource, which gives rise to equity consideration in its allocation; stresses therefore that rethinking the management of freshwater resources, in the context of climate change, is undoubtedly a key challenge facing the world; 3. Points out that there has been a documented increase in the frequency of serious floods throughout the second half of the 20th century and that flooding will prove a critical issue in the coming decades;

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) No other natural hazard has proved more destructive to property or cost more human lives than floods over the past century, despite the billions of dollars spent on flood management.

The development of decentralised water infrastructure is a prerequisite for water security in Africa and for meeting the targets of the Millennium Development Goals.

Improved storage methods are needed to enable a sufficient water supply during droughts and to retain excessive water during periods of flooding. The current average per capita storage capacity in Africa is about 200 cubic metres a year, much less than that of developing countries in other regions.

The text voted on today highlights the need to adopt a multi-pronged flood strategy in regions where unstable glacial lakes pose a critical threat of flooding.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) I shall abstain in the vote on this report because it provides for funding dam improvement works in developing countries.

There is no doubt that dams cause immediate changes in the ecosystem and sometimes even damage homes and existing structures, but we must consider that they also bring economic and social benefits tied to their possible uses, above and beyond the production of clean energy.

Mr Deva contrives to believe that dams are harmful because they produce CO2. Perhaps in Parliament’s official documents, we ought to stop seeing CO2, a gas that we also ingest by drinking fizzy drinks, as the arch-poison of the planet. I think much more CO2 would be emitted by producing electricity through fossil fuels than by the hydroelectric system.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) For years, the European Investment Bank and the World Bank have financed projects relating to the water sector, particularly the construction of dams in less developed countries, such as Laos and Pakistan. I am voting for this report because I consider water a scarce resource essential to public health, and believe it is important to ensure effective management of water resources and their equitable distribution to populations. I advocate the construction of dams that contribute to improving the quality of life of populations, and argue that their impact on river flows and the way they will affect the agricultural livelihoods of local communities should be assessed. In the future, efforts should be made to analyse the economic viability of large dams, and measures taken to optimise the distribution of water from already existing infrastructure and its use by multiple sectors of the economy. As such, I believe that improving the quality of life of the populations of less developed regions should involve setting out a comprehensive dam strategy, establishing fruitful political dialogue, and investment in warning systems capable of pre-detecting natural disasters such as floods, landslides or tsunamis.

  Niki Tzavela (EFD), in writing. – (EL) I voted in favour of the Deva report on dam infrastructure in developing countries because, bearing in mind that water is a vital resource for farming and for the survival of the population in developing countries, the proposals made in the report are a step in the right direction. Making funds available for the construction of dams in developing countries will reduce the risk of flood which, as the report rightly states, are the most destructive natural disasters in the world. The call for greater use to be made of hydropower is also a positive point.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) The report adopted on Tuesday by the European Parliament on dam infrastructures in developing countries makes constructive proposals on a number of points, such as population displacements linked to dam building.

In this text, Parliament expresses its concern that the World Bank has committed USD 100 billion to dam construction which has resulted in between 40 and 80 million people being displaced without receiving any financial compensation at all.

The danger of using large-scale dams to prevent flood damage has also been taken into account, as the safety of these dams is threatened by the rise in the frequency and intensity of flooding, which is mainly linked to climate change. The European Parliament has taken this opportunity to call on the Union to increase its commitment to reducing greenhouse gases in order to achieve its aim of ensuring that the global temperature does not rise more than 2 °C above pre-industrial levels.

However, one fundamental element is missing from this report: recognition that water is a vital public good, with all the associated implications.

I have therefore abstained.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The huge disasters of recent years as a result of flooding have cost many lives and resulted in damage to property costing billions. The report picks up on the recommendations of the United Nations and draws conclusions from the report of the World Commission on Dams, which recommends implementing fewer new projects and concentrating instead on optimising existing dams, getting to the root of the problem instead of wasting one’s energies on moderate successes in combating the symptoms, further countering the EU’s Millennium Development Goals, which now seem extremely unlikely to be met. I voted in favour of this report.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) There has been a constant increase in the frequency of serious floods throughout the second half of the 20th century and this will become an even more serious problem in the coming decades.

According to a United Nations estimate, by 2050, some 2 billion people will have to live under the threat of severe flood damage. Even if floods are coming to be a serious problem for Western countries as well, it needs to be reiterated that developing countries, with their lack of early warning systems and sturdy buildings, are, unfortunately, the most vulnerable to the effects of flooding. Among other things, the economies of these countries are largely based on agriculture and, if agricultural areas are not securely protected from the effects of flooding, the damage caused could give rise not only to loss of earnings but also to a serious slowdown in the already fragile economic system.

That is why the European Union must continue down its chosen road by committing to support the construction of dams in these countries and to improve the protection of buildings from floods by developing floodplain storage and appropriate bypass systems. I voted in favour of Mr Deva’s report for these reasons.

Report: Gabriele Zimmer (A7-0284/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I am voting for this report. The right to enough food should be made a reality. I would encourage the Commission and the Member States to keep the Millennium Development Goals regarding eradication of poverty, hunger and malnutrition in mind when formulating the agenda for their policies and strategies. Effective measures should be taken at European and international level against price volatility and uncontrolled land acquisition, so as to limit speculation and support local agricultural markets.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this important resolution on assisting developing countries in addressing food security challenges. It is clear that food insecurity is challenging the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, especially in sub-Saharan Africa and the least developed countries. New challenges, including climate change, loss of biodiversity, land degradation and pressures on water, have had an impact on the state of food security in the world. I agree with the rapporteur that the European institutions and the Member States still do not consider the eradication of poverty, hunger and malnutrition to be their key strategic goal, despite strong commitments regarding the enforcement of human rights in relation to food, water, energy, etc. Consequently, in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015, it will be crucial to review, and to change if necessary, all EU strategies, such as Europe 2020, Global Europe, energy policy, the sustainable development strategy and the future of EU development cooperation in general. Furthermore, the EU and the Member States must stand up for their commitments to fight poverty and hunger worldwide within international organisations such as the World Bank, the IMF and WTO. I share the rapporteur’s concerns over the EU’s trade strategy, which focuses on competition and market access for EU products and which fails to provide a pro-development approach. A further reduction of tariffs on agricultural imports from developing countries should be encouraged in order to promote economic growth in those countries.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Ms Zimmer because the problem of food security, especially in developing countries, is a challenge for all industrialised nations and, in particular, for the EU and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.

Despite the efforts that have been made, there is still not enough progress in this area and the Food and Agriculture Organisation’s estimate that there are more than 900 million people suffering from hunger in the world is shocking. The EU and the Member States should see the fight against poverty as a top priority in order to be able to achieve its complete elimination and make this a sustainable goal.

The EU must increase the efficiency of its efforts to promote respect for human rights in relation to food, water and energy by giving them the proper significance in the strategy on the energy policy, in the strategy for sustainable development and in the future of the EU’s development cooperation.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this resolution because it asks for immediate steps in order to make the right of food security a reality. Food insecurity is challenging the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, especially in sub-Saharan Africa and the least developed countries. As we all know, the growing threat of food speculation, climate change, global land acquisitions, loss of biodiversity and pressures on water have contributed to further affect the state of food security in the world. For this reason, all the European institutions as well as the Member States must put the eradication of poverty, hunger and malnutrition as the first item on their agendas. It is imperative to stress that emergency mechanisms could have negative effects, especially on local economies, and must not be thought of as a long-term solution. A sustainable development policy could only be based on a cooperation approach.

  Liam Aylward and Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN, food production must be increased by at least 70% to meet the global demand for food, it being estimated that there will be more than 9 billion people in the world by 2050. Furthermore, 900 million people are suffering from severe hunger as a result of extreme poverty, and another 2 billion are in danger of hunger as a result of poverty. Even though it appears that there is enough food available, many people do not have the money to buy their basic food materials. The issue of access to food must be tackled. To this end, we fully support the measures that are discussed in the report in relation to the security of food supply. The agricultural sector and CAP have a very important role as we try to achieve food security in the EU and in the wider world. CAP must, after 2013, be able to tackle the new challenges of food security, such as climate change, volatility in the market and territorial equality. As trade agreements between the EU and third countries are being discussed, the basic right in relation to access to food must be protected.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) The food crisis, particularly in developing countries, poses a major threat to peace and security worldwide. There has been a month-on-month rise in food prices since August 2010, in line with a trend over the last ten years, with levels now higher than during the food price peak of 2008. The volatility of commodity prices is impacting greatly on low-income countries and the poorest, most vulnerable and marginalised segments of the populations of developing countries. I agree that the European Union and the Member States must, as a matter of urgency, make new investments in agriculture and rural development, introducing dedicated mechanisms for stockpiling sufficiently large quantities of basic foodstuffs, removing their own barriers to trade, and reducing the debt of the countries most affected. In view of the growing global population and increasing pressure on natural resources, it is essential to establish more sustainable, energy-saving and efficient forms of production globally. I therefore agree with the call for the Commission and the Members States to take concrete action to effectively tackle financial speculation on grain and food.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this report because, in this day and age, the number of people suffering from hunger is unacceptable. Despite the significant combined efforts that have been made internationally, the Millennium Development Goals have yet to be achieved, and therefore the European Parliament calls for urgent steps to be taken to fulfil internationally binding commitments and make the right to adequate and nutritious food a reality.

Parliament welcomes the European Commission communication on a European Union policy framework to assist developing countries in addressing food security challenges. However, it considers that the world food crisis represents not simply a humanitarian disaster on an unprecedented scale, but a major threat to peace and security worldwide.

Although credit should be given to the Commission’s commitment to seeking out solutions that could lift a billion people out of extreme poverty, the European Union and the Member States must, as a matter of urgency, make new investments in agriculture and rural development, above all, in view of the new common agricultural policy, introducing dedicated mechanisms for stockpiling sufficiently large quantities of basic foodstuffs, removing their own barriers to trade, and reducing the debt of the countries most affected.

  Ole Christensen, Dan Jørgensen, Christel Schaldemose and Britta Thomsen (S&D), in writing. – (DA) We, the four Danish Social Democratic Members of the European Parliament, are not in favour of the Member States of the EU increasing investments in agriculture, which currently receives considerable subsidies from the EU. We do not believe that more agricultural aid and the stockpiling of agricultural products is an effective way to tackle hunger and need in developing countries, as stated in paragraph 3 of this report. Nevertheless, we decided to vote in favour of this report because it contains other positive elements and because we fundamentally believe that it is important to ensure that there are good prospects for agriculture in developing countries. One way to ensure this is to give farmers in developing countries access to other markets.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), in writing. – (PT) According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, 925 million people are suffering from hunger. This is an unacceptable figure for the modern world. If we want to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and eradicate hunger and improve food security, we need to establish synergies and place the emphasis on a genuinely global strategy on food security. New threats such as price speculation, climate change, degradation of soils and biofuels have contributed to exacerbating this problem even further.

I welcome this Commission communication, and should like to stress, right from the outset, the urgent need to make foodstuffs more available, to increase their nutritional value, and to combat price volatility, on the one hand, and to review European sustainable development strategies at institutional level (particularly coordination of sectoral policies), to increase the share of official development assistance allocated to agriculture, and to respect the commitments made on this issue within international organisations, on the other.

I would stress that the European Union should acknowledge and advocate the need for developing countries to guarantee their food security and their right to be as self-sufficient as possible by promoting sustainable agriculture.

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of this report because I think it is important to support developing countries in implementing food and nutrition security policies, which are essential for improving human rights in these countries. I should like to highlight, in particular, that relieving the problems of poverty in the world ought to be the result of broad-based cooperation, which is essential for the promotion of peace and common security. In this vein, I believe that each Member State needs to contribute to helping developing countries through fresh and more substantial investment in the agricultural sector, cutting debt in these countries, removing barriers to international trade and promoting policies on young workers. Guaranteeing the availability of food, access to it and a suitable calorie intake must be a priority for all countries, as they are fundamental rights for each and every person.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. – (RO) Global demand for agricultural products is expected to increase by approximately 70% by 2050, while the world’s population is also expected to reach 9 billion by then. As food insecurity is exacerbated by a host of factors, but by climate change in particular, I think that the European Union needs, as a matter of urgency, to take steps to restore food stocks which have reached record lows in recent years, thereby contributing implicitly to speculation over the prices of agricultural products on the market.

As a champion of women’s rights, I firmly believe that women, as smallholder farmers, play a key role in ensuring food and nutrition security for both themselves and their children. In this context, I think that the European Union must adopt a strategy to foster and safeguard women’s livelihoods and to enable them to improve their knowledge about having sufficient nutrition.

Last but not least, I should mention that the European Commission must focus on implementing a set of measures so that women, as smallholder farmers, benefit from agriculture training opportunities, education about nutrition, good health and working conditions, and food security measures.

  Luigi Ciriaco De Mita (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Food security is a prerequisite for achieving balanced development at all levels. Its relationship with sustainable production in the primary sector can be seen in a number of different ways. In environmental terms, it is expressed through the use of eco-friendly techniques and products and through a non-speculative enhancement and management of the immense natural resources that are found in developing countries in particular. In economic terms, it is expressed partly by enhancing the competitive advantages between the various areas and countries – which can also enable developing countries to play an integral role in balanced and global growth – and partly by promoting the link with the land through a focus on locally sourced products, where energy costs and pollution linked to transport and the quality and tradition of the products can be better protected. In social terms, the processes of gradual urbanisation and population growth, above all, in developing countries, have to be reconciled with the needs of living in these places. Lastly, in political terms, because the primary and food sectors represent the most tangible, daily platform for relations between people, including in their relationships with institutions. I believe that the report we have adopted upholds this view.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for the report on assisting developing countries in addressing food security challenges because the eradication of poverty and the realisation of the Millennium Development Goals as regards combating hunger and malnutrition should be a political priority for the EU and the Member States. Measures are also needed to limit speculation on the markets in food and agricultural products.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) At the start of this year, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) warned of a possible increase in food prices in 2011, after they reached new historic highs in 2010, following the increase during the food crisis of 2008. This price increase, which is affecting the whole world, has hit developing countries particularly hard. According to the FAO, the estimated number of people suffering hunger was 925 million in 2010, and there are signs that this figure could be increasing. As this is an extremely serious situation, I believe Parliament should call for measures that could alleviate it. However, this is not an appropriate time for entering into a debate on the future of the common agricultural policy and, even less, on a financial transaction tax (FTT). As I have already said on other occasions, I do not agree with this way of making policy that involves systematically approving a proposal in reports that have nothing to do with the essence of that same proposal, as is the case with the FTT.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The first of the Millennium Development Goals – to which the 189 UN Member States are committed – is to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger by 2015. To this end, they have committed to halving the proportion of people whose income is less than USD 1 a day, and to halving the proportion of people who suffer from hunger. Achievement of this goal is being made harder by food insecurity, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and in developing countries. Following a slight decline in 2010, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation forecasts that the number of people suffering from hunger will increase in 2011, owing to the economic and financial crisis, which has caused an increase in the price of food products. Climate change, loss of biodiversity, degradation of soils, pressure on water resources and biofuels can be added to this problem. In the face of this situation, the EU has felt it necessary to revise its approach to food security. I welcome the adoption of this report, which includes principles of safeguarding the right to food in trade agreements between the EU and third countries.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report tackles an issue of great importance. The rapporteur quite rightly mentions the need for consistency – which is clearly non-existent at the moment – among the major EU policies, like the common agricultural policy and trade policy, and the objectives of this strategic framework. The emphasis on the role of small-scale and family farming and of women in rural areas, on local production and consumption cycles, on the need for the involvement of populations and local and regional authorities, and also on public investment in research for sustainable agro-ecological production systems, is important. We also agree with the criticism of current levels of official development assistance, in particular, as regards the agricultural sector, as well as criticism of the pressure to grow biofuels. Although they are not explicitly mentioned, as they ideally should be, certain basic principles associated with food sovereignty can be found in the report.

As regards price volatility resulting from speculation on foodstuffs, despite some relevant observations, the report could and should have gone further, specifically by mentioning that the only way to prevent such speculation is to abolish the instruments that make it possible, such as over-the-counter derivatives. Finally, the criticism of the economic partnership agreements errs on the side of meagreness.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) In this report, which tackles an issue of great importance, the rapporteur mentions the need for consistency among the major EU policies – like the common agricultural policy and the trade policy – and the objectives of this strategic framework, which emphasise the role of small-scale and family farming and of women in rural areas, local production and consumption cycles, the need for the involvement of populations and local and regional authorities, and also public investment in research for sustainable agro-ecological production systems. She also criticises current levels of official development assistance, in particular, as regards the agricultural sector, as well as the pressure to grow biofuels.

Although they are not explicitly mentioned, certain basic principles associated with food sovereignty can be found in the report. As regards price volatility resulting from speculation on foodstuffs, despite some relevant observations, the report could and should have gone further, specifically by mentioning that the only way to prevent such speculation is to abolish the instruments that make it possible, such as over-the-counter derivatives. Finally, the criticism of the economic partnership agreements errs on the side of meagreness.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Food uncertainty is hampering the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and in the least developed countries. At the summit held in September 2010, it was concluded that the progress achieved in hunger reduction is not sufficient. For the time being, neither the European institutions nor the Member States are putting the elimination of poverty, hunger and malnutrition at the top of their agendas or political strategies, despite there being a determination to promote man’s right to nutrition. I believe that it is essential that the EU supports the UN incentive regarding the basic social protection level, which could help meet the basic food needs of the poor. In the context of the renewed food security debate, the European Commission adopted on 31 March 2010 a new food security communication, which should represent the platform of a joint framework of measures to be adopted by the EU and its Member States.

Basic services (the availability of and access to public services) and social security payments (made to poor and vulnerable persons with the aim of enhancing food security and nutrition) are the two essential elements which help to implement the approach based on human rights. It is important that trade agreements between the EU and third countries include the principles of guaranteeing the right to nutrition. To ensure that such a right becomes reality, it will be necessary to consider the assessment of the effect of human rights on the trade, development and foreign policy of the Union.

  Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) Access to an adequate food supply is a universal human right and a serious concern for developing countries. While adopting the positive elements included in the communication, the report laments the lack of policies addressing the root causes of food insecurity, such as land grabbing, the lack of joined-up policies (links between trade, agriculture, fisheries and development), speculation, the impact of the common agricultural policy, biofuels, financial liberalisation, and so on.

In order to guarantee food security, the report proposes tackling three main areas of concern: supporting small and medium-sized farms, combating speculation and ensuring that policies are consistent. Consequently, as a member of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance, I voted in favour of this report.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) It is our duty to help developing countries to tackle the challenges associated with food security. Financial speculation and greater liberalisation of the financial markets and of trade in agricultural produce have largely driven world food price volatility, with worrying consequences for developing countries.

In this situation, we need to work to establish regulatory mechanisms that will enable us to guarantee a degree of market stability and to conclude equitable trade agreements that promote development. These agreements are essential to world food security. We should also aim to ensure that farmers are paid a fair price, given that their primary purpose is to feed the population.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because it urges the EU to support the UN Social Protection Floor Initiative, which would help satisfy the basic food needs of impoverished populations. I believe that we need to draw attention to the structural causes of price volatility. Speculation on derivatives of essential food commodities has significantly exacerbated price volatility. It is therefore essential to take concrete action to effectively tackle financial speculation on grain and food in order to avoid distortion of trade.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) There are still about a billion people worldwide suffering from hunger, and the increase in food prices has not improved matters. Meanwhile, as the rapporteur has stressed, EU Member States still do not consider food security and the fight against poverty (the Millennium Development Goals adopted at the Millennium Summit of the United Nations in September 2000) to be policy priorities. We should look at food security in a wider, global perspective. Developing countries must achieve independent and stable access to food for their citizens, and our actions should be oriented towards this goal. Let us work to ensure equal competition in world markets, and let us support farmers so that they can guarantee healthy and easily accessible produce for consumers.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I supported the report by Ms Zimmer because I think that growth in the agricultural sector is an effective way to reduce poverty and create jobs. If, on top of this, we add the combination of factors that incentivise agricultural production and ensure secure food supplies for these countries, the progress made will be truly significant. The role of the EU in this difficult process is one of creation and coordination, in order to launch an educational and training project to develop professional skills and investment opportunities and to allow young people to study agriculture to improve their farming in a specialised and sustainable way, thereby slowing the exodus from the countryside and reducing poverty. I believe that the creation of partnerships between local agricultural organisations during the various phases of building an agricultural policy in developing countries would bolster the process of agricultural development. Against this background, the European Union should work to strengthen local associations to ensure that the interests of local communities are defended.

  Vladimír Maňka (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The progress achieved in hunger reduction is insufficient. The number of starving people was estimated at 925 million in 2010 and has further increased in the past several months due to the increase in food prices.

The growing danger of food speculation, climate change, the global acquisition of land, agricultural fuels, loss of biodiversity, deterioration of soil and pressure on water resources all contribute to a worsening of the adverse state of food security in the world.

In order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015, it will be crucial to re-assess all EU strategies, such as Europe 2020, Global Europe, energy policy, the sustainable development strategy and the future of the EU’s development cooperation.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this report in which the rapporteur supports including principles for safeguarding the right to food in trade agreements between the EU and third countries, and believes human rights impact assessments of EU trade, development and foreign policies are crucial to make the right to food a reality.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE), in writing. – I voted in favour of the report on assisting developing countries in addressing food security challenges. Food security is fundamental and it is politically imperative that a coordinated global approach is adopted to address this challenge. The impact of the CAP on developing countries has reduced significantly in recent years, with export subsidies all but eliminated. I support calls on the Commission and the Council to work towards the implementation of innovative financial instruments, such as the introduction of an international tax on financial transactions, but such an initiative should be implemented on an international level and not on a regional basis only.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I think it is time for the European institutions and Member States to bring the eradication of poverty, hunger and malnutrition to the top of their agendas, and establish it as a medium- or long-term objective in their policy strategies, despite strong commitments on the effective implementation of human rights as regards food, water, energy, etc. As a consequence, in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015, it will be crucial to review, and to change if necessary, all EU policies, such as the Europe 2020 strategy, the Global Europe strategy, energy policy, the strategy for sustainable development and the future of EU development cooperation.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Promoting agriculture in the developing world should be a priority. Member States must, as a matter of urgency, make new investments in agriculture and rural development in developing countries as well as allocating an appropriate share of EU overseas development assistance to the agriculture sector.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) We must do everything we can to ensure that when there is large-scale hunger, the EU can react as swiftly as possible. A poor response in the face of hundreds of thousands of deaths does not help the EU’s image in the international arena, even though it is the world’s biggest donor. Hunger and food insecurity are not just caused by natural disasters. In some way or other, we can trace their origins back to international trade. It is important to coordinate EU trade policy and other sectoral policies so as to minimise their contribution to food insecurity in developing countries. Nevertheless, most of the reasons lie in the internal policies of the countries concerned, ineffective governance and armed conflicts. I am therefore convinced that those aid measures that are oriented towards long-term development have a real impact. At the same time, it is necessary to encourage African countries to take greater responsibility for creating general welfare on the continent and to establish a collective aid mechanism for the citizens of African countries suffering from hunger and food insecurity.

  Mariya Nedelcheva (PPE), in writing. – (BG) I voted in favour of Ms Zimmer’s report because I think that the issue of food security in developing countries is of paramount importance to security and peace in the world, especially in view of the growing population. This is why I would like to highlight a few important points. First of all, in order to create conditions conducive to improving food security, it is important to encourage the emergence of regional markets in developing countries by using economic partnership agreements. Secondly, I think that when calculating the amount of development aid to be provided to certain countries, greater consideration needs to be given to food security problems. Lastly, I would like to draw attention to the fact that agriculture accounts for only 4% of Official Development Assistance (ODA), whereas 75% of the world’s poor live in rural areas. This is why, in my view, the issue of agriculture must be at the top of the agenda when devising development programmes. I think that this marks an important step towards improving food security in the world and combating hunger. We must take measures to enable us to achieve the Millennium Development Goals for combating hunger. Let us respond while there is still time.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted against paragraph 63 in the Zimmer report on an EU policy framework to assist developing countries in addressing food security challenges. The requests featuring in this paragraph are not supported by real facts. I do not think that we should, in these circumstances, vote in favour of either ‘phasing out export subsidies’ or of the removal of all the other ‘incentives in the CAP which result in trade-distorting measures’.

  Justas Vincas Paleckis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) Hunger is one of the world’s greatest scourges. In 2010, almost a billion people were starving, a quarter of the world’s children under the age of five were malnourished and about a third of them were dying of hunger. I voted in favour of this resolution because it demands that additional action be taken as a matter of urgency to combat hunger. We are calling for an end to food price speculation, which distorts the market and increases prices. People tortured by hunger, particularly in African countries, are unable to buy products that have increased in price. The resolution also calls for an assessment of the changes to the common agricultural policy and for the strengthening of cooperation between the EU and non-governmental organisations combating hunger. In the document, countries and regions in which hunger prevails are urged to store some food so that people would have something to eat in the event of a sudden change in weather conditions, or political or other types of crises. As food is more important than the production of energy, we propose that, while there are still hungry people in the world, we should stop biofuel production. It occupies vast areas of land which could be used for food production.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because of the tragic situation as regards food in sub-Saharan Africa and the least developed countries, and because of the urgent need for intervention in this area. I have some reservations about specific paragraphs in this report, namely those referring to export subsidies, to reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP) and to the competitiveness of agriculture in developing countries. I advocate greater caution from the EU as regards reducing export subsidies, since, while it is important that we make reductions, such measures should obey the principle of reciprocity on the part of other trade blocs in the context of World Trade Organisation negotiations. I am also unable to fully agree with the rapporteur’s calls for deeper reform of the CAP to enable developing countries to be more competitive. This idea should be considered and, above all, put into its exact context, since there are several factors beyond the CAP that contribute to distorting trade. Finally, as regards the competitiveness of developing countries, there are multiple factors at play, and the lack of competitiveness cannot be solely attributed to subsidised agriculture in developed countries.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. – It can be easy to solely focus on the economic difficulties facing Europe and to ignore more pressing issues abroad. Food insecurity is one such vitally important issue. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation has estimated the number of hungry people in 2010 at 925 million. Nine hundred and twenty-five million people who are hungry in this day and age! We are also currently witnessing the most severe famine for the last 40 years in the Horn of Africa. The EU must promote agriculture in the developing world as a way to address this issue. However, issues such as speculation in commodities, water shortages and climate change must also be addressed in order to promote agriculture. The right to adequate food has to become a reality. The EU must do more to promote the eradication of poverty and the realisation of the Millennium Development Goals. To this end, we must limit speculation in food and agricultural commodity markets, as this has a devastating impact on food scarcity. I welcome this report and the recommendations therein.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The concept of ‘food sovereignty’ includes the need to guarantee populations sufficient means to deal with situations of hunger. This is currently one of the greatest challenges in terms of economic development. For proof, we need only remember the recent price rises in the food product markets: according to the rapporteur, although holdings in commodity index funds increased from USD 13 billion in 2003 to USD 317 billion in 2008, basic demand and production only increased 1.4% in the same period It cannot be denied that EU action contributing to ‘food sovereignty’ in developing countries, with a focus on their populations, would be timely. I voted for this report because I agree with this course of action.

  Mitro Repo (S&D), in writing. – (FI) Here in plenary, we are discussing food security and aid to the developing countries while, at the same time, the Horn of Africa is suffering from the worst famine for 40 years. In 2010, 925 million people in the world were starving.

The human right to food must be implemented, and the responsibility for this lies with the entire international community. European values are based on universal human rights and equality. It is quite intolerable that Europe continues to practise protectionism in its trade policy in relation to the developing countries. The reform in agricultural policy should completely remove all barriers to trade with the developing countries. The EU and the Member States should increase their investments in agriculture and rural development in these countries and set aside an adequate amount in development aid appropriations for agriculture.

The EU and its Member States must prioritise both poverty reduction and the achievement of the UN Millennium Development Goals. Speculation on the market price of food should be referred for a decision at international level.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Two years after the much-trumpeted launch of the Global Partnership for Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition by the Heads of State at the G8 summit in L’Aquila in 2009, we are still waiting to see the initial results. Commodities prices continue to spiral, the inhabitants of the Horn of Africa are dying of starvation and the world financial crisis has distracted us from the basic right to food for all. Yet the EU and the 27 Member States remain the leading political and financial stakeholders, and the discussions on a new common food security policy are a step in the right direction. The question is whether it will be able to tackle the challenges linked to food security: unbridled population growth, pressure on natural resources and the disastrous consequences of global warming for agriculture. It is clear that we need to establish a political framework within the EU for combating world hunger: it really is vital that we make this a top priority. Only then will it be possible to feed all of humanity tomorrow, with less water, less land and a further 3 billion people to add to the current 6 billion.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. Food insecurity is challenging the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, especially in sub-Saharan Africa and the least developed countries. At the MDG Summit in September 2010, it was reported that progress towards the achievement of the hunger targets had clearly been insufficient. According to the FAO, the estimate of hungry people in 2010 was 925 million, down from 1 023 million in 2009, but still more than the number of undernourished people in 2008 (about 815 million). There is strong evidence that food price increases during the last few months have already augmented that number even if there are still no official figures available from the FAO. New challenges, including the growing threat of food speculation, climate change, global land acquisitions, biofuels, loss of biodiversity, land degradation and pressures on water, have contributed to further affect the state of food security in the world. In this context, the current problems around hunger and malnutrition have led to a rethink of the food security approach, not only at an EU level, but also at the global level.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) Food insecurity is challenging the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, especially in sub-Saharan Africa and less developed countries.

According to Food and Agriculture Organisation estimates, the number of people suffering from hunger in 2010 was 925 million, down from 1 023 million in 2009, but still more than the number of undernourished people in 2008, which was about 815 million. New challenges, including the growing threat of food speculation, climate change, global land acquisitions, biofuels, loss of biodiversity, land degradation and pressures on water resources, have contributed to further compromise the state of food security in the world.

In this context, the current problems of hunger and malnutrition have led to a rethink of the food security approach, not only in the EU, but also at the global level. The report adopted today urges the European Union and the Member States to stand behind their commitments to fight poverty and hunger worldwide within international organisations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Although Ms Zimmer’s initial considerations are quite valid, as she blames ‘financial speculation’ in food markets for rising or sharply falling food prices, in the end, we absolutely disagree with her proposals.

For example, Ms Zimmer asks for incentives for European farmers to be removed along with all agricultural export subsidies, placing the interests of third countries constantly above those of Member States.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. – (IT) My congratulations to Ms Zimmer, who has managed to achieve a harmonious balance between the proposals of the Committee on Development (DEVE) with almost all the suggestions put forward in the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI).

In particular, I am pleased that the issue that was particularly close to my heart – energy self-sufficiency – has been entirely carried over in paragraph 22. I think that it is important to point out that part of the aid for developing countries ought to contribute to the setting up of facilities for generating renewable energy and towards good water management. All of this should be done with a view to an aid system that is designed to transmit know-how, with the ultimate aim of freeing these countries from foreign influence.

Self-sufficiency, whether in energy or food production, must be integrated into the policies of those developing countries aiming to improve their food security, particularly through the implementation of food strategies designed to alleviate poverty and, ultimately, make the aid itself superfluous.

I will conclude with a clarification: as shadow rapporteur for the opinion of the AGRI committee. I voted against paragraph 63. I did so because in the opinion that we delivered to the DEVE committee, we had already emphasised the need to gradually phase out export subsidies (see paragraph 29) but we cannot accept that the DEVE committee should, in a later paragraph, impose the complete removal of incentives during the full revision of the common agricultural policy.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I am glad that Ms Zimmer’s report on a policy framework to help developing countries to address food security issues has been adopted. In fact, the world food crisis currently affecting almost 1 billion people constitutes not only an unprecedented humanitarian disaster, but also a serious threat to peace and security in the world. In view of the urgency, Member States of the Union need to take action immediately in order to release new investment for agriculture and rural development, to combat speculation on food products, to limit biofuels, to ensure that there are adequate world stocks, to eliminate their own trade barriers and to reduce debt in the worst-hit countries.

According to the forecasts, the world’s population is set to increase to an estimated 9 billion in 2050, which will increase demand for food by 70%. In response, the land must be available to all: the land titles of smallholders must be protected so as to prevent a new agricultural colonialism, in particular, through land grabbing, which, in just a few years, has become a shocking reality.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) More than 1 billion people in the world live under the weight of hunger, malnourishment and no food security policy. There are a number of reasons for this phenomenon, not least the volatility and constant increase of food prices since 2007. In addition to demonstrating the role of the EU and the Member States in seeking food security solutions, this report aims to create a joint programme of the European institutions and Member States towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Following the Commission’s tabling of the EU policy framework on food and nutrition security in March 2010, the role of small-scale food production, which constitutes the basis for developing economies, should be stressed. There is an urgent need to adopt clear and specific aid policies and programmes that take into account the diverse situations of developing countries. Learning on the job is essential to training farmers and to countries’ self-sufficiency. Moreover, there is a need for a clear commitment to research and innovation in order to increase agricultural productivity. These concerns should be taken into account in agreements with developing countries, and particularly economic partnership agreements with the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report on assisting developing countries in addressing food security challenges. Access to adequate food is a universal right. According to the FAO, 925 million people were afflicted by hunger in 2010. On a global scale, 26% of children under five suffer from malnutrition, and this is the cause of more than a third of the deaths recorded among children in this age group. I should emphasise the role played by smallholder farmers in developing countries and especially the role of women in ensuring nutrition security for themselves and their children. Smallholder farmers must use sustainable agricultural practices and have access to microcredit.

In view of the growing population and ever-increasing pressure on natural resources, it is essential to guarantee sustainable, efficient agricultural production worldwide. The FAO stated in February 2011 that food prices had reached a record level and would continue to rise.

I call on the Commission and Member States to invest in agriculture so that the EU can improve its production capacity to be able to help meet its own needs and export agricultural products to third countries.

  Niki Tzavela (EFD), in writing. – (EL) The question of food security and sufficiency is of major importance to the EU. That is why I agree with the rapporteur’s position that the EU needs a more coordinated development policy in terms of global food security. The EU has a responsibility to adhere to the principle of ‘do no harm’ to food markets in developing countries and to adopt a fairer trade strategy. Another important issue is that of agro-fuels, the production of which must not, under any circumstances, cause a loss of agricultural production capacity for food.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of the report presented by Ms Zimmer from Die Linke party, which would allow the European Union to make progress in the fight against world hunger.

It is not acceptable that only 3% of European aid for developing countries is spent on agriculture when 80% of the world’s hungry live in rural areas.

This report clearly raises a number of questions and makes a number of proposals. It could have gone much further, but is the fruit of discussions with the other groups in the European Parliament.

It defends the right to food, emphasises the need to increase aid for the agricultural sector, particularly small-scale operations, and to focus on sustainable production.

The report also criticises the extreme price volatility and argues in favour of regulation designed to prevent speculation on food commodities. It also condemns large-scale land acquisitions by large corporations and calls for local communities to be involved in the negotiations and for their rights to be guaranteed.

I see that a large number of proposals have been adopted in plenary despite opposition from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats).

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The continually increasing lack of food security worldwide poses new challenges to the Millennium Development Goals and requires that the EU strategies in development cooperation should be revised. The EU Commission adopted a new communication on food security in March 2010. The central points are: the increasing of the range of food available through support for food production by small farmers, optimised access to food and the assurance of a balanced diet. Once again, a report by the European Parliament refers to price volatility and the serious impact of speculation with derivatives involving key raw materials used in food. I voted in favour.

  Anna Záborská (PPE), in writing. – (SK) I am pleased that the submitted report draws attention to the relationship between two European policies that appear totally different at first sight – the development policy and the agricultural policy. The huge subsidies provided to food manufacturers in the European Union contribute significantly to food shortages and a lack of jobs in the agricultural sector in the developing countries of Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. Something is definitely out of order if you pay five times less in The Gambia for milk from Holland than for milk from a local producer and Dutch potatoes cost a quarter of the price for which this product can be delivered to the market by a Gambian farmer. These price variations do not result from a higher productivity of Dutch producers, but from the European subsidy policy. First, we contribute from our taxes to enable our producers to squeeze out local producers from markets in the developing countries, and then we provide handouts to these countries in the form of the development aid. As a result, we pay twice and people in The Gambia feel that their efforts are useless. Somewhere here, there is a way to provide quick and effective aid to developing countries.

Report: Rafal Trzaskowski (A7-0269/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) This report concerns unilateral statements annexed to Council minutes. I share the rapporteur’s opinion that this matter deserves a political response instead of a change in the rules. Unilateral statements have no legal force and are not always in line with the results of the negotiations, so they could threaten the consistency of law making. Parliament should send a clear message to prevent these statements from emerging during second-reading negotiations.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) This report originates in a request by the Conference of Presidents addressed to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs to clarify the position of Parliament as regards the meaning and legal status of unilateral statements entered in the minutes of Council meetings. The contentious statements mainly originate from one or several Member States because they are in charge of the transposition of legislative acts at national level. An attempt to interpret those acts in a way which could be divergent from the result achieved by common agreement of the two legislators would indeed undermine the necessary coherence of application of Union legal acts. The case-law of the Court of Justice confirms that we cannot rely on such unilateral statements when it comes to interpreting a Union legal act. It can only be used to this end where reference is made to its content in the wording of the relevant act. I agree that unilateral statements by Member States regarding legal acts should not be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Although they might be interesting, unilateral statements recorded in the minutes of Council meetings are unable to interpret Union law and are not binding on the European institutions. As colegislator, Parliament should be informed about the issue of these statements.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The Conference of Committee Chairs called on the Committee on Constitutional Affairs to clarify Parliament’s position regarding the legal status of unilateral statements entered in the minutes of Council meetings which could, in the context of the codecision procedure, weaken the legal force and will of Parliament as a colegislator. The report on which we have just voted, drafted by Mr Trzaskowski, draws attention to certain inconsistencies in the Rules of Procedure of the Council, even as regards the latest draft, since the Treaty of Lisbon came into force, notably that Parliament is made subordinate to the governments of the Member States and the national parliaments, which enjoy privileged information. As such, I agree with this report that unilateral statements should be avoided, that Parliament should be kept duly informed by the Council at all stages of the legislative process, and that their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union should be prevented.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) The need for ‘legal certainty’ in the legislation issued by the EU cannot be a pretext for imposing certain legislation on the Member States that is considered damaging to issues of vital interest to said Member States. The more each country and its people surrender their sovereignty to the guidelines of the EU’s directorate and the interests that control it, the more important this issue becomes.

EU legislation and guidelines are becoming increasingly centralist and anti-democratic, which tends to strip away power and competences from the political structures close to and controlled by the public.

Moreover, said guidelines and legislation are increasingly serving the financial sector and large companies, and are against the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population. It is clear to the Portuguese workers and the Portuguese public, for example, that EU guidelines and legislation are increasingly being used as justification for dismantling rights and society’s achievements.

We are facing a brutal decline in social terms, whilst big fortunes are on the rise. And, unsatisfied, they want even more. Only the organised struggle of the peoples can stop them.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) While it is true that ‘legal certainty’ is needed in the legislation issued by the EU, it is also true that this certainty cannot result from limiting the national sovereignty of a Member State that considers a given piece of legislation damaging to its interests. The more each country and its people surrender their sovereignty over their present and future and the realisation of their desires and aspirations to the interests of the financial oligarchy of the EU’s major powers, the more important this issue becomes.

EU legislation and guidelines, and their increasingly centralist and anti-democratic nature, are clearly for the large multinationals and the financial sector, which obviously benefit from them. It is clear to the workers and ordinary people, particularly in countries like Portugal, that their rights and society’s achievements are being brutally eroded, at the same time as big fortunes are on the rise. And, unsatisfied, they want even more. Only the organised struggle of the peoples can stop them.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) This report was prepared at the request of the Conference of Committee Chairs addressed to the Committee on Constitutional Affairs with the aim of clarifying Parliament’s position on the significance and legal effect of unilateral statements entered in the minutes of the Council meeting. Several committee chairs expressed their concern with regard to the increase in the number of such statements, particularly in the context of the codecision procedure, in which they could weaken the legal force and scope of adopted legislation, thereby affecting Parliament’s colegislator role. It should be emphasised in this respect that contentious statements of this nature mostly originate from one or more Member States, because the Member States are responsible for the transposition of legislation at a national level.

The attempt to interpret such legislation in a manner that may differ from the objective achieved by the agreement of the two legislative bodies would actually breach the required coherence in the application of Community legislation. The case-law of the European Court of Justice confirms that such unilateral statements need not be relied upon in the interpretation of Community legislation.

These statements may only be used for such a purpose if there is a reference to their contents in the relevant law. As a colegislator with the same position as the Council, Parliament should be equally informed at all stages of the legislative process about all unilateral statements of the Member States which are entered in the minutes of Council meetings.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), in writing. – (FR) It is unfortunate that the Council has the bad habit of including unilateral statements on legislation that has been adopted using the codecision procedure. I have therefore voted in favour of this report which emphasises that under no circumstances can these unilateral statements be used to produce legal effects. What is more, they could generate confusion, uncertainty and a lack of transparency in the EU legislative process, which is most unsatisfactory.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because I believe that statements and declarations which are not incorporated into a legal text but which concern it, regardless of whether they are issued by one or more Member States, have no legal force and may undermine the coherence of Union law and its clear interpretation. I am in favour of the efficient and transparent implementation of legislation across the whole of the European Union.

  Vladimír Maňka (S&D), in writing. – (SK) In the context of the codecision procedure, any unilateral statements entered in the minutes of Council meetings weaken the legal force of the adopted legislation. As such, they may affect the Parliament’s colegislator role.

Such contentious statements originate mostly from one or more Member States, because the Member States are responsible for the transposition of legislation at a national level.

The Council’s rules of procedure amended by the Lisbon Treaty ensure direct delivery of the minutes from the legislative part of the Council meetings to the Member States and to their national parliaments but do not mention the European Parliament. This provides an advantage to the national parliaments over the European Parliament although the European Parliament is the colegislator of the Council.

Unilateral statements made by the Member States in respect of the legislation should not be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It is necessary to prevent any reference to such unilateral statements and to ensure the provision of complete information by the Council to Parliament during all stages of the legislative process.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this report, on unilateral statements entered in the minutes of Council meetings, which points out that the case-law of the Court of Justice confirms that no reliance may be placed on such unilateral statements when it comes to interpret a Union legal act. They may be used to this end only where reference is made to its content in the wording of the relevant act.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Unilateral statements entered in the minutes of Council meetings have no legal force, and may undermine the coherence of Union law and its clear interpretation. As such, unilateral statements must not diminish or compromise the need for all Member States to observe systematically the discipline of publishing correlation tables, setting out the ways and means EU law is to be transposed into domestic law, in the interests of the efficient and transparent implementation of legislation across the whole of the Union.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – The report deals with the unilateral declarations annexed to the minutes of the Council. The subject deserves a political answer rather than a change of rules. The unilateral declarations have no legal value; sometimes, they are even not in conformity with the results of the negotiations and can thus undermine the coherence of the legislative work. The European Parliament should send a clear message to prevent such statements during the negotiations in the second reading, and on the need to encourage ministers to speak on the transposition of directives (through systematic comparative tables). I completely agree.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The motion for a resolution relates to the inclusion of unilateral statements by the Member States in the minutes of Council meetings. In particular, worries have been expressed that the European Parliament may be passed over or disadvantaged. However, there is absolutely no need for the measures called for in the resolution. In its recitals, the report rightly refers to the evaluation of the declarations by the Court of Justice. This denies that the declarations have any legal force. There is therefore no reason to fear that Parliament’s lawmaking powers are under threat. That is why I believe that the Member States can continue to include their statements and declarations in the minutes of the Council meetings. I therefore voted against this motion for a resolution.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) In principle, legal acts should always be self-explanatory. In addition, interpretation is generally guided by the enacting terms or the recitals. As the only elected body of the EU, Parliament should be kept informed of unilateral statements by Member States in all phases of the legislative process. However, I oppose the disallowing of unilateral statements by Member States as an additional basis for interpretation. Legal practitioners have the right to know the contributions and concerns of the Member States, even if these were only expressed as an aside. Accordingly, I also fail to see why these statements should not be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. It is for that reason that I have voted against this report.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report, which is based on a call by the Conference of Committee Chairs for the Committee on Constitutional Affairs to clarify Parliament’s position regarding the meaning and legal status of unilateral statements entered in the minutes of Council meetings. The chairs of a number of committees had expressed concern about the proliferation of such declarations, not least within the framework of the codecision procedure, in which context they could compromise the legal force and scope of the acts adopted. It concludes that unilateral statements by Member States regarding legal acts should not be published in the Official Journal of the European Union and that recourse to these should be avoided as far as possible. Full information should be provided by the Council to Parliament at all stages of the legislative procedure.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The legal force of unilateral statements entered in the minutes of Council meetings should result from the framework given to the legislative sources of EU law. From this perspective, the priority in terms of interpretation must be that of the meaning to give to a legislative text: the value of unilateral statements is purely ancillary, as they cannot point to the definitive meaning of the law being interpreted, or enable the Member States to unilaterally change the meaning of a common provision. I voted for this report because I agree with this perspective.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – In favour. This report originates in a request by the Conference of Committee Chairs addressed to the Constitutional Affairs Committee in order to clarify the position of Parliament as regards the meaning and legal status of unilateral statements entered in the minutes of Council meetings. Several committee chairs expressed their concerns about the proliferation of such statements, in particular, in the framework of the codecision procedure where they could weaken the legal force and scope of the adopted acts, and so possibly affect Parliament’s will as a colegislator. It has to be stressed in this regard that the contentious statements are mainly originating from one or several Member States, since they are in charge of the transposition of legislative acts at national level. An attempt to interpret those acts in a way that could diverge from the result achieved by common agreement of the two legislators would indeed undermine the necessary coherence of the application of Union law.

  Rafał Trzaskowski (PPE), in writing. – This report originates in a request by the Conference of Committee Chairs addressed to the Constitutional Affairs Committee in order to clarify the position of Parliament as regards the meaning and legal status of unilateral statements entered in the minutes of Council meetings. Several committee chairs expressed their concerns about the proliferation of such statements, in particular, in the framework of the codecision procedure where they could weaken the legal force and scope of the adopted acts, and so possibly affect Parliament’s will as a colegislator.

Report: Daniel Caspary (A7-0255/2011)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) I voted for this report because I agree with the majority of the points of view expressed, since they include all the main issues relating to foreign trade policy – goods and services, defence instruments, investment and intellectual property rights – and put forward the idea of using foreign trade as an instrument for humanitarian and development aid.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this resolution on a New Trade Policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 strategy. We must recognise that the EU’s prosperity and growth depend on a functioning international trade system. The Commission should therefore present a forward-looking trade and investment strategy, but we, the Members of the European Parliament, missed this important dimension in the Commission’s communication ‘Trade, Growth and World Affairs’ of 9 November 2010 on the European Union’s future trade strategy. I agree with the rapporteur that the communication on trade, growth and world affairs offers guidance on the policy to be pursued over the next few months rather than a comprehensive trade strategy for the EU, guidance which it particularly needs now as it confronts the challenges of a rapidly changing world economy and a dramatic shift in the economic balance of power. I therefore welcome the resolution’s call on the Commission to draw up a forward-looking study which takes into account the current realities of the global economy and the current situation of the European Union in addition to probable future developments. This should provide a basis on which the Commission can draw up a long-term strategy which fully addresses the needs of the European Union and of its citizens.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The challenge of the Europe 2020 strategy is to stimulate growth in our economies in a smart, sustainable and inclusive way by broadening access to trade and investment.

However, in order to pursue these objectives and make rapid progress towards a profitable future, we first all need to combat unfair trading practices through appropriate instruments and ensure that our consumers and our enterprises have free access to the market, services, investments, raw materials and public procurement, while also ensuring that intellectual property rights are protected.

Quite rightly, the European Union continues to negotiate in the World Trade Organisation so that ‘offensive’ interests relating to free access to the global market and ‘defensive’ interests relating to the consequences of liberalisation can be duly considered when concluding bilateral agreements.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Economic growth, prosperity, jobs and maintaining the European social model are all interlinked and underpin each other. This report sets out the way in which trade and investment policy must help achieve these targets and external policy objectives in general. Furthermore, trade policy is one of the main tools available to the EU to support progress towards reform and democratisation. Trade stimulates efficiency and the spirit of innovation. Europe must capitalise on the benefits offered by more open trade and investment, while keeping a close eye on adjustment costs: stronger growth, more jobs and lower consumer prices.

Trade should also help improve social inclusion, both in the EU and in the rest of the world. Developing countries which have become involved in world trade and in global production chains have enjoyed rapid growth in their revenues and employment market, accompanied by a significant reduction in poverty. The rapporteur gives greater transparency and legitimacy to the European Union’s trade policy. I voted in favour of this resolution.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report because the Union needs a coherent long-term trade strategy in order to take account of the major emerging countries. Such a strategy should be based on a thorough analysis of the current trends in world trade, the Union’s internal and external development, as well as the diversity of European enterprises. It is important to stress that micro-enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises represent 99% of all enterprises in the EU and have great potential to create new jobs and innovation. For that reason, internal and external policies should better address their specific needs to enhance their competitiveness. With regard to external policy, the Parliament must support the Commission in its goal to promote sustainable development, free and fair trade, international labour standards and decent work. We should not forget that trade policy must promote development, permit better regional cooperation, encourage investment and improve economic governance, reminding all stakeholders that other regions of the globe have shown how trade can contribute to welfare.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. – (LT) I voted in favour of this important report. In 2000, at the launch of the Lisbon strategy, the Union’s GDP accounted for 25% of global GDP. It is now estimated that in 2020, it will account for only 18% of global GDP. I agree that the Union needs a coherent long-term trade strategy in order to take account of the challenges ahead and, in particular, the major emerging countries. Such a strategy should be based on a thorough analysis of the current trends in world trade, the Union’s internal and external development, as well as the diversity of European enterprises, their know-how and their technological advances. I believe that the Commission should comprehensively review bilateral trade relations with major trading partners in order to ensure that EU enterprises can compete on a level playing field in third countries’ markets.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) I voted for the report drafted by Mr Caspary because I think that the EU needs a coherent trade strategy to boost Europe’s competitiveness on the world trade stage. As a result of a change in spheres of economic influence, Europe must address the global challenges that are being presented. Trade must be based on fair global competition and full reciprocity.

The fragmentation of the European and global production system has highlighted the need to deregulate the services sector. The quality and price of services are of paramount importance to companies’ efficiency. In order to have a competitive, sustainable economy, the EU needs to have an internal services policy. At the same time, attention must be focused on developing information technologies. This sector has brought about fundamental changes to the world trade system.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Foreign trade is a crucial element of the European economy. Forecasts are that the European Union, which accounted for 25% of global gross domestic product in 2000, will have declined to 18% by 2020. The centre of gravity of the global economy is moving to developing countries. Around 36 million jobs in the European Union – equivalent to 18% of the total – are related to foreign trade. It is estimated that 90% of economic growth will be generated outside the European Union by 2015, increasing dependence on foreign trade. This report argues that exports are an anchor for economic growth and job creation, and that the Commission should view increasing foreign trade as a priority. As such, it calls on the European Commission to table a genuine long-term strategy for foreign trade as soon as possible. I voted for this report for the above reasons.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) In order to implement the goals of the Europe 2020 strategy, on 9 November 2010, the Commission published its communication entitled ‘Trade, Growth and World Affairs’ on the European Union’s future trade strategy. Although the European Parliament welcomes this communication, it urges the Commission to present a forward-looking and innovative future strategy on trade and investment, taking into account the new challenges faced by the European Union.

The EU needs a coherent long-term trade strategy in order to take account of the challenges ahead, in particular, the major emerging countries. Such a strategy should be based on a thorough analysis of the current trends in world trade, the Union’s internal and external development, as well as the diversity of European enterprises, their know-how and their technological advances. Furthermore, the European Parliament is asking the Commission to assess systematically the impact of the EU’s internal policies and regulations on global competitiveness and to give preference to those proposals that are least likely to negatively affect the competitive position of EU enterprises within and outside Europe.

It is therefore crucial for the Commission to carry out a comprehensive study which takes into account the current realities of the world economy and the current situation of the European Union, in addition to probable future developments. This should provide a basis on which the Commission can draw up a long-term strategy which fully addresses the needs of the European Union and its citizens.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Europe needs to rethink its trade policies because their development in recent years indicates that the focus is starting to shift towards developing countries. Exports are a prerequisite for economic growth and for safeguarding or increasing jobs. International trade is facing a number of challenges in the European Union. In 2000, the EU and US accounted for 48% of global GDP. However, according to estimates, in 2020, they will account for just 35% of it. While, in 1999, EU exports accounted for 19% of the total global volume, in 2009, this figure fell to 17%. The focus of the world economy is shifting towards the developing countries.

In the EU, 36 million jobs (18% of the total) have a direct link with international trade. It is estimated that by 2015, 90% of global economic growth will be generated outside the EU, thereby increasing the Union’s dependence on trade. In these circumstances, I welcome the call made by the European Parliament to the European Commission to come up with strategies for driving trade policies in the long term. It is our duty to think just as much about the future as the present.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) I totally concur with this report as it raises a fundamental issue relating to the difficult period we are going through just now: the decline in the European Union’s trading power on the world stage. In spite of the urgent need for action, I support the notion of a long-term economic strategy leading towards economic growth and stability. With this in mind, the European Union must aim both internally and globally at harmonising standards and removing the various obstacles preventing trade and investment.

Having said this, as a member of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I am pleased to see that the report emphasises the importance of striking the balance between achieving these goals, on the one hand, and maintaining high technical standards and economic balance in the European Union, on the other. Last but not least, given the social mission that the European Union has, I fully support the commitment expressed in this report to fight against poverty and to respect, while implementing these measures, fundamental values such as the protection of human rights or the rule of law.

  Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report. Today, Parliament reaffirmed its wish to see social, environmental and human rights standards made compulsory and legally binding in all trade agreements concluded by the EU. Faced with pleas from our fellow citizens for more regulation and new forms of solidarity, the EU must redefine a new doctrine for a different kind of trade policy. If Europe does not champion fairer trade based on values, and which creates quality jobs in Europe as well as the rest of the world, who else will?

  Lara Comi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I approve of the new trade policy. It is essential to increase Europe’s gross domestic product, deal with demographic change and increase exports in order to reduce the EU’s trade dependency. I would highlight the need to establish balanced trade agreements between the EU and its trading partners, in a spirit of mutual benefit. Likewise, it is important to use international standardisation to protect consumers, the environment, health and labour regulations on product safety, and intellectual property rights. Cooperation between customs authorities and supervisory authorities on external borders is therefore essential, while nevertheless developing mutual exchange of goods and technologies between the EU and developing countries. I would underline the importance of relations with the United States for the development of efficient, low carbon-emitting technologies, and for dialogue on legislative and regulatory matters. Lastly, I think that in an economy based on low labour costs, it will be crucial for the EU to pursue innovation and to identify competitive advantages. Foreign direct investment is vital for the European economy, bearing in mind the importance of innovation for strong and sustainable growth, which can be achieved through the creation of European project bonds.

  Marielle De Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) The European Union must adopt a more coherent, better targeted trade policy. Instead of wanting to negotiate trade agreements at any price, it should focus on championing certain principles, such as, for example, the requirement for reciprocal market access for industrialised countries and emerging countries, and respect for intellectual property rights or the needs of European industry and European farmers. Similarly, the European Union must develop a genuine strategy for gaining access to raw materials and rare earths from a competitive, social and environmental point of view, in order to ensure that European industry has secure and effective access to resources in the coming years and to highlight research and development in the recycling of rare materials so as to reduce our dependence on them. Finally, if the European Union wants to preserve its key role in the world trade arena, all ongoing and future trade negotiations must be instruments for promoting European standards in social and environmental matters.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of Mr Caspary’s own-initiative report calling on the Commission to put forward a proper trade strategy for the EU, so as to incorporate the social and environmental components of the agreements drawn up between the European Union and its partners. I also welcome the rapporteur’s proposal for the European agricultural sector to be given special attention when new agreements are signed so as not to endanger what is a key sector for the economy of our regions.

  Robert Dušek (S&D), in writing. – (CS) The world is changing dramatically and, with it, the distribution of power in international trade. While the EU accounted for 25% of global GDP in 2000, it will have a share of just 18% by 2020. In contrast to that, China and India, the most populous countries on earth, continue to grow, both in terms of GDP and in terms of population. In order for the EU to remain a global player in the future, and to participate in setting the rules, it is essential to respond to these changes and draw up a long-term European trade policy strategy.

The report on a new trade policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 strategy takes a critical view of the communication from the Commission of November 2010. I agree with the rapporteur that this communication is more a collection of instructions than a comprehensive EU strategy for a trade policy capable of confronting the challenges of a changing global economy. The European Parliament adopted the ‘Global Europe’ strategy. The aims of the strategy have not been achieved to this day. I welcome the rapporteur’s challenge to the Commission and the Member States, and I would like to add my voice to it. We must do a study and find out why many of the aims were not achieved, and draw the conclusions from this. We approve many opinions, declarations and instructions without retrospectively addressing the issue of whether they are functional and effective. In the field of international trade, however, this is essential. I fully endorse the report submitted by Mr Caspary.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), in writing. – (PT) A trade policy for Europe will have to take into account the profound changes that the world has undergone in recent years and commit to the concrete benefits of the free market, without neglecting the political implications of its trade-related actions or the dignity of the people across the world involved in producing goods and services and in trade. In the period of crisis we are experiencing, it is crucial that we have the courage to set ambitious goals and the political will to create the instruments necessary to achieve them. The report calls on the Commission to make this effort and create the conditions for a trade policy that is competitive and demonstrates greater solidarity; ambition and realism.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) Our fellow Member, Mr Caspary, who drafted this report on the need for a new trade policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 strategy, welcomes the Commission communication on ‘Trade, Growth and World Affairs’, and acknowledges that the EU’s prosperity and growth depend on optimising the workings of the international trade system.

Thanks to the World Trade Organisation, there has been a great expansion in world trade in recent years. Forecasts are that the European Union, which represented 25% of value added at global level in 2000, will have declined to 18% by 2020. By contrast, the emerging economies of China and India, which only represented 10% in 2000, will have increased to around 25% by 2020. These figures oblige the EU to rethink its trade policy. The Commission should analyse the causes of this situation very well and adopt measures to meet the global challenges, linking up with other European policies and tackling demographic growth. Although this is a pessimistic, if realistic, document, I am voting in favour and hope that the measures advocated to minimise the consequences of declining European exports will be taken into account.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report brings together many of the proclamations and clichés of free trade dogma. As such, it is only natural and understandable that it associates so-called European trade policy with the Europe 2020 strategy. In summary, the result is a tired apology for neoliberalism, which not even the deep crisis in which we are mired seems to have diluted. What we have here is a wearisome repetition of statements that do not just lack substantiation, but are completely disproven by reality; for example, that ‘trade opening goes together with employment and job creation’. However, since this fiction cannot survive contact with reality, it is acknowledged that the public can see that the complete opposite is true, so it calls for ‘a better communication strategy on the Union’s trade policy and the advantages and disadvantages of international trade’.

The truth is that no communication strategy can hide the real effects of free trade. What is needed is a change in policy and trade policy is no different. Trade policy should be founded on complementarity, and on fair and equitable trade relations, and should serve development and the peoples, rather than multinationals, big business and the financial sector.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) This report brings together many of the proclamations and clichés of free trade dogma. As such, it is only natural and understandable that it associates so-called European trade policy with the Europe 2020 strategy. In summary, the result is a tired apology for neoliberalism, which not even the deep crisis in which we are mired seems to have diluted. What we have here is a wearisome repetition of statements that do not just lack substantiation but are completely disproven by reality. However, since this fiction cannot survive contact with reality, it is acknowledged that the public can see that the complete opposite is true, so it calls for ‘a better communication strategy on the Union’s trade policy and the advantages and disadvantages of international trade’.

The truth is that no communication strategy can hide the real effects of free trade. What is needed is a change in policy – including trade policy – based on regulation and complementarity, and on fair and equitable trade relations, and which serves development and the peoples, rather than multinationals, big business and the financial sector.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) On 9 November, the Commission presented a communication on the future trade strategy of the European Union entitled ‘Trade, Growth and World Affairs’. This communication is primarily a follow-up to the Global Europe strategy presented in 2006. However, previous evaluations of the strategies presented indicate that a number of their objectives have still not been achieved. All stakeholders have to review the reasons why such a situation has occurred and draw the necessary conclusions from it. The world has changed dramatically in recent years. World trade has witnessed a major expansion thanks to the World Trade Organisation and a number of other initiatives and has begun to include, since the 1990s, an ever-increasing number of emerging and developing countries, which have become a driving force of the global economy.

This appeared mainly in the recession years of 2008 and 2009, when it was mostly the emerging countries that had a stabilising effect on the global economy. Now, 18%, i.e. 36 million jobs in the EU depend on foreign trade and it is expected that by 2015, 90% of global economic growth will be generated outside the EU. Therefore, I consider it important that the Commission prepares a prospective study reflecting the current reality of the global economy and the current state of the EU, as well as probable future development. Such a study should become the basis for the elaboration of a long-term strategy taking full account of the needs of the Community and its citizens.

  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), in writing. – (IT) we cannot set out the guidelines for a new trade policy for Europe without bearing in mind the significant changes which have taken place in the last decade in the international economy. One need only think of the huge growth of countries such as China and India: in the year 2000, they accounted for only 10% of the global economy, while according to some estimates, this figure could reach 25% in 2020.

In order to promote the competitiveness of European industries, I think the time has come to develop a long-term strategy for international trade that is capable of facing up to the many challenges that this new situation poses. Only by strengthening dialogue with our strategic partners, reducing trade barriers and introducing a new European investment policy shall we be able to promote smart growth and safeguard, even at this time of crisis, the more than 36 million jobs that depend, directly or indirectly, on the ability of the EU to trade with the rest of the world.

Lastly, I would note that we are also tasked with protecting EU products from the distortions in international trade caused by globalisation. I therefore hope to see the implementation of suitable trade defence instruments that will provide an effective response to the legitimate concerns of Europe’s small and medium-sized enterprises.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), in writing. – (LT) I welcomed this document because the Commission is urged to present a forward-looking and innovative future strategy on trade and investment, taking into account the new challenges of the EU, and also to deliver forecasts of how the ‘world of trade’ could look in a policy planning perspective of 15 to 20 years, and to take such forecasts as the basis for presenting a revised mid- and long-term strategy by the summer of 2013. The EU must also take account of the fact that population growth is declining steeply inside the EU, at the same time as the population of developing countries, in particular, is continuing to increase dramatically. This will have an impact on countries’ economic situations. If we consider that 18% of jobs inside the EU, in other words, 36 million jobs, are presently dependent on external trade, and 90% of worldwide economic growth will probably be generated outside the European Union by 2015, we see how important it is to formulate and implement a long-term external trade strategy which reflects the EU’s changing role in the world economy. Therefore, taking into account these developments, I welcomed the resolution’s call on the Commission to draw up a forward-looking study which takes into account the current realities of the global economy and the current situation of the EU in addition to probable future developments. This should provide a basis on which the Commission can draw up a long-term strategy which fully addresses the needs of the EU and its citizens.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), in writing. – (DE) I support the report on a new trade policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 strategy because it sheds light on important areas for a sustainable, competitive Europe. The rapporteur has outlined a balanced and concise approach to the revising of the EU trade strategy, which the Commission would do well to take to heart. The commitments to a multilateral trade system, the removal of obstacles to trade, and the integration of sustainability chapters in bilateral trade agreements, are clear pointers to the future direction we should take.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I supported the Caspary report on a new trade policy for Europe. The future of the European Union’s trade policy will be played out on several levels. It goes without saying that every effort must be made to bring the ongoing negotiations at the WTO to a successful conclusion.

At the same time, the European Union must continue to conclude bilateral free trade agreements. Our trade partners are also our competitors, however, and that is why these discussions must be embarked on without naivety. I am therefore delighted to see that this report advocates reciprocity and mutual benefit in our agreements with our trade partners.

The removal of non-tariff barriers must also be one of our objectives, as they have often hindered trade: more regulatory convergence with our partners and more tangible results from the high-level structured dialogues with China, Japan and the United States. These are the directions to be followed. Reciprocity also concerns the international public procurement markets: the aim is not to close our markets and give in to protectionism; rather, the degree of opening up of public procurement markets in Europe should be compensated by the same degree of access to third-country public procurement markets for EU suppliers.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I endorsed the report on a new trade policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 strategy. I think that in view of the prognosis for a lower GDP than expected and a comparative fall in exports and imports, a change in trade policy under the Europe 2020 strategy is essential. I agree with the main proposals put forward by the rapporteur, Mr Caspary, that a future European strategy on trade policy should take the specific features of EU industries and territories and dependence on external growth into account.

In common with many other MEPs, I expected the Commission to provide a future trade strategy which takes into account mid- and long-term developments. We should not build on the false assumption of a continuing status quo on the world trade stage. I think that it is vital to communicate the advantages of international trade and globalisation to EU citizens, as these are often equated with falling European output and job losses. It is the responsibility of the Commission to realise the goals of the Global Europe strategy. I also believe that, with a view to a better understanding of certain failures to achieve, it is necessary to conduct a more critical analysis of the strategy, one which takes into account current trends in world trade.

  Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE), in writing. – (DA) This report refers to the 2010 communication from the Commission entitled ‘Trade, Growth and World Affairs’, which contains a number of guidelines for the EU’s future trade and investment policy. I support the Commission’s communication and the proposals for how to meet the need for a future European trade policy because we need to consolidate the EU’s role as a trading power at a time when the global economy is under strain and we are experiencing a rapid shift in the economic balance of power. The fact is that the EU’s overall trade performance is declining and the EU’s share of GDP is falling as a result of the rapid progress of the emerging countries. I voted in favour of this report because I support its view that the Commission’s communication should not merely contain guidelines for the trade policy that the EU should pursue, but should also contain a real EU trade strategy that takes account of the developments that both define and affect global trade.

  Vladimír Maňka (S&D), in writing. – (SK) Thanks to the World Trade Organisation and to a number of multilateral and bilateral initiatives, world trade has witnessed a major expansion. Despite this fact, the European Union, which, at the time of the introduction of the Lisbon strategy in 2000, accounted for 25% of global GDP, is expected to have only an 18% share in 2020. Meanwhile, various sources estimate that China and India, which generated only 10% of global GDP in 2000, will attain a 25% share in 2020. Such a change should also be reflected in EU policies. While EU population growth is slowing down, population numbers in other countries, particularly in the developing countries, continue to see a rapid growth. Nowadays, 18% of jobs in the EU, that is 36 million jobs, depend on foreign trade. It is expected that by 2015, 90% of global economic growth will be generated outside the European Union. Hence, the Commission should elaborate as early as possible a long-term foreign trade strategy which will reflect the changing EU role in the global economy.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. – I voted for this report. Up to 36 million jobs in the EU depend on external trade. Global competition is getting tougher and it is urgent to have a strategy to maintain and increase the EU’s exports. Trade can, and must, contribute to welfare. Around 7.5 million people across 58 developing countries benefit from the international fair trade system. Parliament calls on the Commission to promote it. It is vital we now use this trade policy framework of human rights, labour and environmental standards, fair trade and policy coherence for development in upcoming trade negotiations and ensure these commitments are followed through.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Careful reflection on Europe’s trade strategy is needed in light of, for example, the fall in world merchandise exports, which went from 19% in 1999 to 17.1% in 2009. Such a strategy must be based on a thorough analysis of current trends in international trade and development inside and outside the EU, as well as on the diversity of European businesses, their know-how and their technological advances. Negotiations within the World Trade Organisation and free trade agreements are powerful tools for a multilateral approach and market access. The development of new agreements must not distract us from taking into account other policies, such as corporate social responsibility, agricultural policy, the creation of secure jobs, and the policy of combating poverty inside and outside the EU’s borders.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), in writing. – (PT) The profound changes that Europe has been undergoing in recent years are forcing us to tackle the issue of ‘trade policy’ again. There is a need to create a new trade policy for Europe that is concerned with making the most of our internal market, and of a free market, but without forgetting the people involved in producing goods and services, and trade across the world.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – This report is a strategic report covering all major aspects of the EU’s external trade policy: trade in goods and services, trade defence instruments, investment, intellectual property rights, trade as a tool for humanitarian assistance and development, and will make it possible to go forward. I am in favour.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), in writing. – (DE) The EU has defined a whole series of strategies with a variety of objectives that it has largely failed to achieve. With this in mind, it may make sense first to assess the old strategies and to explain why these could not be met and why some strategies only exist on paper. When we hear talk at EU level of the strengthening of global competitiveness, this often only relates to large companies and multinational concerns. However, the driving force of the economy and the main employers are the many small and medium-sized enterprises, whose importance is always underlined in the various strategies laid down on paper, but which, in fact, have had very little access to subsidies, and which are burdened with ever-increasing bureaucracy. I voted against this report because it completely ignores the role of the SMEs.

  Vital Moreira (S&D), in writing. – (PT) Although I agree with the rest of this important report on Union trade policy, I voted against two of its points. The first area with which I disagree concerns conceding exceptional trade preferences to third countries as a means of emergency aid in disaster situations. The EU has specific instruments for emergency aid and trade preferences are clearly ill-suited to this purpose, both because they are slow to take effect and because it is hard to focus them on those most in need of aid in these situations.

Secondly, while financial aid comes out of the EU budget, trade preferences will only affect those countries damaged by imports facilitated by exemptions from or reductions in customs duties, which are usually the EU’s less rich countries, as demonstrated by what has happened with the Pakistan case.

I also voted against the reservations expressed in the report regarding the use of ‘trade defence instruments’, or anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures. These are essential to fair trade, as they constitute action that can be taken against unfair and anti-competitive trade practices by certain countries – China, for one – that cause serious harm to European companies within the European market itself.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), in writing. – (DE) In times of globalisation and emerging markets like China, it is more important than ever to improve the competitiveness and standing of the EU as a base for economic activity. In this context, there are several points that are not dealt with adequately in this report, even though they are key to sustainable competitiveness in the EU: on the one hand, the interests and problems of the small and medium-sized enterprises that form the backbone of our economy are not sufficiently considered: I am thinking, in particular, of the access of small and medium-sized businesses to financial supports for international trade in order to enable them to put themselves on an international footing and to promote their capacity for innovation in this direction. This leads me to another point: European companies (in particular SMEs) still experience enormous problems in enforcing their intellectual property rights in third countries, particularly in Asia. We urgently need to take action against the trade barriers imposed by third countries, whether tariff-based or non-tariff-based. The EU imposes strict competition rules on itself. However, at the same time, we also need to combat unfair state supports for domestic production in third countries, otherwise our businesses will soon find themselves left behind. Given that these points are not dealt with sufficiently, I have not voted in favour of the report.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I am completely in favour of the report that we have just voted on, since it is essential to put in place a new, forward-looking trade strategy – particularly at such a critical time as the present. We live in a globalised world and a global market; the European Union’s strategy cannot simply ignore this. Free trade, the protection of small and medium-sized enterprises, progress in dialogue with countries such as China, Russia, the United States and Japan, and the central role played by the World Trade Organisation in international trade, must be the cornerstones of a strategy in perennial evolution, which adapts to changes but is also capable of managing them and not merely looking on helplessly from the sidelines.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. – (PT) On 9 November 2010, the European Commission published its communication entitled ‘Trade, Growth and World Affairs’ on the European Union’s future trade strategy. This paper, which is supposed to set out the external aspects of the Europe 2020 strategy, is basically a continuation of the 2006 ‘Global Europe’ strategy. I agree with the rapporteur’s concern that the Commission communication sets us on the right track for the coming months, but does not offer a genuine strategy for the future. As such, he concludes the report with the need to call on the Commission to undertake a forward-looking study which takes into account the current realities of the world economy, the current situation of the European Union and probable future developments, in addition to a long-term strategy which fully addresses the needs of the European Union and of its citizens. I voted in favour of this report for these reasons.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. – I welcome this report on a new trade policy under the Europe 2020 strategy and would like to emphasise the importance of advancing the Doha Development Round at the World Trade Organisation. We also need to take into account the added difficulties faced by SMEs when tackling foreign regulations and non-tariff barriers, notably the legal and administrative burdens associated with Trade Defence Instrument procedures. I call on the Commission to hasten the simplification and adaptation of TDI procedures to the needs and accounting systems of SMEs and the establishment of adequate support measures for SMEs affected by proceedings initiated by third countries. We must not forget the potential of combined transatlantic strategies to shape labour, health, safety and environmental standards and international regulatory regimes in areas such as consumer rights and intellectual property rights.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), in writing. – (PT) European trade policy should be geared towards long-term results, in line with the Europe 2020 strategy. In fact, as the rapporteur says, the balance of forces in terms of economic relations has been changing very substantially in recent years. Firstly, the great emerging economies have been taking on a prominent position, in absolute terms, in international trade. Secondly, they are showing themselves to be the great engine of the global economy: it is estimated that 90% of world economic growth will be generated by these countries in 2015. I share the concern that the EU should set out a policy to tackle the challenges that the EU faces, so I voted in favour.

  Mitro Repo (S&D), in writing. – (FI) This report was an attempt to deal with all the main priorities in the EU’s foreign trade policy. Possibly this was an over-ambitious goal because the report is quite pro-free trade in spirit, and not all the committees have been given a fair hearing.

European trade policy is a very important subject. For example, there should be support for emergency trade aid at a general level, but we lack more precise guidelines on how to use it. The European Union must consider its priorities in trade policy as a whole, in conjunction with European values and democratic principles. What sort of trade policy do we practise and with whom? Is trade policy a purely economic interest for Europe, or do we also use it as a tool for peace, stability and humanitarian assistance?

European values are based on universal human rights and equality. It is quite intolerable that Europe continues to practise protectionism to defend its position in its trade policy. The reform in agricultural policy should completely remove all barriers to trade with the developing countries.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Against. In November 2010, the Commission issued its new trade strategy under the title ‘Trade, Growth and Global Affairs’, defining it as the ‘external dimension’ of the Europe 2020 strategy. The paper replaces the ‘Global Europe’ strategy of 2005, under the then Trade Commissioner Mandelson. The new strategy basically continues the approach of ‘Global Europe’, that is mainly the continuation of a free trade and market access policy through bilateral trade agreements, which go deep into non-trade issues such as public procurement, investment, regulatory cooperation and removal of non-tariff barriers. However, the new strategy is a little more cautious in its overall tone. The happily drunken trust in global economic openness as the best way of stimulating growth in the EU has gone away a little. The new strategy puts emphasis on fairness and reciprocity principles in the market opening of partner countries announcing that violations of market opening commitments in third countries will be brought systematically to court. Basically, it still fully defends full economic liberalisation and sees challenges only in the unfair practices of some partner countries.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), in writing. – (IT) The Commission communication entitled ‘Trade, Growth and World Affairs’ comes at a time in which the European Union has gained new powers thanks to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon.

However, this document does not set out a forward-looking trade and investment strategy. Instead, it represents an introduction to the policy to be brought in over the coming months rather than a broad trade strategy for the European Union, which is in the grip of a rapidly changing global economy and a significant reorganisation of economic balances.

The text adopted today urges the Commission to carry out an analysis and develop forecasts that incorporate both the current situation in the global and EU economy and probable future changes. Such an analysis should form the basis for the development of a long-term strategy adapted to the needs of the European Union and its citizens.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), in writing. – (IT) This report contains various references and numerous objectives that the Commission ought to have achieved but has not managed to do so.

It also contains extremely interesting statistical data on European and world trade, which show that the level of global exports of emerging countries has increased in just a few years. In 1999, the EU accounted for 37%, but in just 10 years, this has fallen to 29%.

I shall be voting against this report, since instead of setting out rules to protect the interests of our businesses and therefore of Europe, it contains repeated references to liberalisation as a system for generating productivity, without taking account of the enormous imbalances in existence and by keeping to a bare minimum references to the social and economic dumping carried out by Asian countries.

The text includes unacceptable praise for the current policy of the Commission, which is bringing about a proliferation of free trade agreements with countries whose products will cause incalculable damage to our businesses.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted in favour of this report because it calls on the Commission to put forward a genuine, long-term strategy for EU trade policy without delay. In particular, I support the idea that free trade agreements are important tools for this new strategy. Why? The multilateral negotiations are deadlocked, and we cannot expect convincing results; however, the agreements can also convey the values of the Union by including basic social and environmental standards.

In addition, I also support the idea that Parliament is committed to tackling poverty outside the EU. Of course, trade cannot be the only remedy. When combined with other EU policies, however, tools such as the generalised system of preferences and the economic partnership agreements bring genuine added value to development policy.

One final point strikes me as crucial: the EU, which is the most open market in the world, is having difficulty obtaining reciprocity from its trading partners. The idea of ‘positive reciprocity’ taken up in this report should, in time, help our businesses gain access to foreign markets.

  Matteo Salvini (EFD), in writing. – (IT) Regrettably, our delegation felt unable to vote in favour of this report. The liberalisation of trade with third countries not only diminishes Europe’s role in the international economy, but also helps these third countries to grow, without especially protecting our interests or those of other Member States that still believe in protecting a local economy and not, conversely, in unregulated foreign relocations. Furthermore, I believe that since the report deals with a subject on which Europe is profoundly divided, it requires further political scrutiny.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) The report covers the important subject of trade policy in the framework of the Europe 2020 strategy. Our European trade policy must support the creation of new jobs. The right policy could be a driving force for growth in Europe. Agricultural and environmental policy, the fight against poverty within and beyond the EU and the security of energy supply and raw materials are just some of the areas which ought to be considered when conducting trade policy. At the same time, we should not forget that the subject under discussion is one of the most important elements of EU industrial policy. A stable, European, manufacturing sector must be based on fair competition. The aforementioned activities would contribute significantly to achieving an EU programme of action geared towards smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

Finally, I agree with the rapporteur. The Commission document shows the right way forward for the Union, but there is no real strategy for the future, something which Europe is greatly lacking today to help us escape, at least partially, from the crisis.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I voted in favour of the resolution on ‘A new trade policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 strategy’ because economic growth, prosperity, jobs and the European social model also depend, to a large extent, on EU trade policy. The Commission estimates that 18% of the European Union’s labour force (36 million jobs) is dependent on the EU’s trade performance.

European industry is facing ever-growing global competition from industrialised and emerging countries such as China, India and the states from the Mercosur region in terms of access to resources, technological innovation, skilled labour force, not to mention industrial and innovation policies. The EU is currently the largest source of foreign direct investments (FDI) in India, accounting for 27% of the total FDI in 2009, while trade between the EU and Mercosur is as much as approximately EUR 100 billion per year.

The development of the EU’s industrial policy depends on the availability of resources and raw materials. This is why the EU’s future trade policy must be aimed at securing raw materials and resources so that industrial production and jobs can be preserved across the EU.

  Georgios Toussas (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (EL) The group of the Greek Communist Party in the European Parliament voted against this report on a new trade policy under the Europe 2020 strategy, which is being used to step up the aggressive approach of monopoly groups in the EU Member States and third countries in order to plunder the wealth of the people and increase the profits of the monopolies, even in the midst of the capitalist crisis. The people know that, when the bourgeoisie talk about ‘opening up the market’ and ‘free trade zones’, they mean an attack on grassroots rights, more exploitation, higher unemployment, greater poverty and more imperialist interventions to safeguard the profits of the monopolies. It is in the people’s interest for the working and grassroots movement to be reformed and to counterattack, to build up the popular alliance, to overturn the anti-grassroots policy and the power of the monopolies and to break free from the EU, with power to the people and a popular economy in which international trade can develop on the basis of mutual benefits for the people.

  Viktor Uspaskich (ALDE), in writing. – (LT) In the last seven months, Lithuanian trade has come back from the brink. According to information from Eurostat, Lithuanian exports in the first half of 2011 reached EU 9.7 billion, and grew by 41% compared to the first half of 2010 (EUR 6.8 billion). Our imports also grew by 42% to EUR 11 billion. However, perfection knows no bounds. Lithuania needs a new ambitious EU trade policy in order to make best possible use of its trade potential. I agree with the rapporteur that the Commission’s communication on ‘Trade, Growth and World Affairs’ fails to present a forward-looking trade policy. It recognises that our prosperity and growth depend on a functioning international trade system, but only proposes policy guidelines for the next few months, rather than a long-term strategy for the EU, even though we are being confronted with the challenges of a rapidly changing world economy and a dramatic shift in the economic balance of power. I believe that the EU should pay more attention to the human rights of its trading partners. Respect for human rights and democratic principles must be fundamental elements of EU trade policy. This is not negotiable.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) Today, 27 September, the European Parliament adopted a report pompously titled ‘A new trade policy for Europe under the Europe 2020 strategy’, which actually contains nothing new.

The European Parliament is succumbing to a view of international agreements that are dominated solely by economic needs. It also reaffirms that opening up and gaining access to markets remain the principal objectives.

Although there can no longer be any question of dismissing humanitarian, development and environmental issues, ‘the Commission must give high priority to the EU’s trade interests’ and the other policies may be taken into account only from the point of view of their effects on those trade policies. That says it all.

In other words, there is no risk of the European Union being upset by this report. Economic interests and tackling distortions of competition always take precedence, to the detriment of everything else, especially the interests of populations, whether they live in the European Union or in the countries of the South.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I welcome the adoption of this report, which presents a fair picture of European trade policy and provides guidelines for its renewal. To uphold its position as the largest trading power, the European Union must encourage free-trade and the conquering of new markets, but not at any price. We must negotiate trade agreements without being naive and impose the principle of reciprocity. These demands obviously have to be adapted to our partners’ level of development and sectors of activity. In my opinion, the Union needs to adopt an integrated approach to its trade policy, as it covers many issues: the competitiveness of production, and socio-economic, health and environmental standards.

That is why I think that we can no longer hand over blank cheques to our partners, in our bilateral agreements or to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Unfair competition is no longer acceptable, as it jeopardises our businesses and our workforce. It would be tragic to sacrifice our economic, social and agricultural model at the altar of short-term considerations. When it comes to our trade agreements, realism and a sense of responsibility must take precedence over uncertainty about expected economic gains. Globalised trade does not necessarily have to be unbalanced trade.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI), in writing. – (DE) The evaluation of the Global Europe strategy from 2007 shows that many of the targets identified have not been met. The EU’s share of global added value is in decline and continues to lose ground to new players in the global market, such as China or India. In view of the fact that 36 million jobs in the EU depend on foreign trade, there is a need for analyses and strategies that will meet the needs of the Union and its citizens.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), in writing. – (IT) I voted in favour of the report by Mr Caspary, which represents Parliament’s assessment of the EU’s new trade policy strategy, tabled by the Commission in November 2010.

As well as expressing his hope for a more long-term international trade policy from the Commission, Mr Caspary also underlines the need to integrate trade policy more coherently with the EU’s other policies – above all, with industrial policy. European economic and industrial competitiveness is at the core of the trade strategy from now until 2020. We need initiatives that are designed to strengthen trade with the EU’s biggest trading partners, stem the proliferation of customs duties or other forms of customs barriers, ensure access to raw materials (including through new relationships with third-country markets) and avoid unfair practices that are counterproductive for the interests of European businesses.

10. Corrections to votes and voting intentions: see Minutes

(The sitting was suspended at 14.30 and resumed at 15.00)

IN THE CHAIR: JERZY BUZEK
President

11. Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes

12. Question Hour with the President of the Eurogroup, Jean-Claude Juncker

  President. – The next item is Question Hour with the President of the Eurogroup, Jean-Claude Juncker.

We would like to extend a very warm welcome to Mr Juncker.

(Applause)

This is one of several extremely important debates which are being held by the European Parliament this week. It is also the European Parliament’s reaction to economic events which are currently taking place in Europe. As you know, thanks to the tremendous efforts of our rapporteurs in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, we have reached a good solution on the six-pack. We will be voting on this tomorrow, so no decisions have yet been made, but this was sterling work by Parliament and especially by our rapporteurs and shadow rapporteurs. Today, we have the opportunity to discuss important matters concerning the economic and monetary situation in Europe with the President of the Eurogroup, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg.

I will remind you of the rules: Question Time will consist of two parts. In part one, the chairs of the political groups will ask questions. The initial question asked by each chair will take one minute, and one minute will be allowed for the answer. If any of the chairs wishes to ask a supplementary question, he may ask a supplementary question lasting half a minute, and Mr Juncker will be allowed half a minute to answer it.

Part two will consist of questions from the Chamber – the ‘catch-the-eye’ procedure, with which we are all familiar.

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Mr Juncker, for weeks and months now, the leaders of the euro area have shown how determined they are to stand up for the euro and to make European solidarity the cornerstone for their political actions.

Yet we need to recognise that what has been decided since the summer is not enough, is too late and, above all, difficult to implement. You get the feeling that it is the markets rather than politics now in the driving seat. That cannot last. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) believes that only strong and simultaneous EU decisions will have the necessary weight to reassure our fellow citizens and the markets of our decision-making ability.

Mr Juncker, intergovernmental management of the crisis has reached the end of the road. As both a head of government and President of the Eurogroup, can you tell us then what the plans are to get us out of the crisis?

The worst thing is that we cannot see a way out. There are a number of instruments: Eurobonds, guarantees from AAA countries, quadrupling the stability fund’s firepower, but over and above these instruments, where is the political will and how do we bring it all together? We need to be strong and, above all, we need to lead the way in getting out of the crisis. So where are you?

(Applause)

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (FR) Mr President, you are addressing me here as the President of the Eurogroup and not as the Luxembourg Prime Minister. I have got to admit that, on some of the things you have just mentioned, the Luxembourg Prime Minister has a stronger internal mandate than that of the President of the Eurogroup, which is more limited. Having said that, I would need at least a minute to talk about each of the subjects that you have just mentioned.

It is true that Europe has reacted at a snail’s pace and not as quickly as it should have. For this I blame the severity of the crisis, the lack of any early analysis and the fact that the 17 members of the euro area are unique in that the Heads of State or Government and finance ministers represent 17 democracies whose governments are made up of at least 50 political parties. As someone who so gracefully masters the various games and challenges of this House, you must understand how tricky it is.

I think that what we need to do is translate all the decisions taken by the Heads of State or Governments of the euro area on 21 July into reality and fact, and that we think outside the box of what was agreed on 21 July. With my Luxembourg Prime Minister’s hat on, I am telling you that I prefer the community method by far over the intergovernmental method that we have seen in recent years.

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, my first question is directed to the Prime Minister of Luxembourg. You are now a member of this circle of Heads of State or Government of the euro area, which is pursuing the policy of intergovernmentalisation that you have just criticised. In other words, you are now a member of the club of intergovernmentalists. We have heard from you that you are nothing of the sort, but I must now hold you responsible for your esteemed colleagues with whom you regularly meet. I would like to ask Mr Juncker for his response to the fact that the President of the Eurogroup, in other words, the finance minister of the euro area, is to be kicked out and replaced with a function not provided for in the European Treaties, namely, the President of the European Council of the 27 Member States – as I understand it, although I may have misread the Treaty, this is Mr Van Rompuy, the President of the 27 Heads of State or Government. In a declaration of autonomy, the 17 Heads of State or Government, yourself included, have now stated that Mr Van Rompuy should also head up the euro area or the economic governance of the euro area. My question to the Prime Minister of Luxembourg is as follows: how is it that this function is not to be transferred to the President of the Eurogroup, who is actually predestined for this role and who, I believe, on the evidence of his actions to date, is exactly the right person for this position?

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (DE) Mr President, my long friendship with Mr Schulz has encouraged him to describe me as both perpetrator and victim in his speech in my support to this House. Accordingly, I find myself in a mood that may well match his permanent state of mind.

I have some reservations about the way we manage the euro area. I am aware of the weaknesses – including the weaknesses in my own administration and tenure of office – and I certainly believe that we need urgent reform and revision here.

Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy have proposed appointing the President of the European Council, Mr Van Rompuy, as President of the euro formation within the European Council, and I concur with this proposal because I believe that we already have sufficient dividing lines between the 17 euro countries and the 27 Member States of the European Union. Anyone who can head up a group of 27 countries can certainly lead 17 of these 27 Member States without a huge readjustment.

However, I would not be happy to back a development that would see the Heads of State or Government take over command in such a way that the specific Council formations, such as this informal Eurogroup, would no longer be able to fulfil their functions. I know from experience that it takes several hours’ work each day to perform this task properly. A lot of time needs to be spent meeting with the Member States and listening to their positions in order to do some sort of justice to this task.

I would not like to see the finance ministers, who meet every month, slowing down in their decision making. You will tell me that that cannot happen, but I can assure you that we could be even slower than we already are. We cannot have a situation where, whenever something goes wrong and a reaction is needed, we always get hung up on the conclusions of the European Council – which are, in any case, always very differently understood by those drafting the conclusions and those interpreting them – or that we might not be prepared to make a decision because the next planned European Council meeting is to be in euro formation or because we have to refer the matter back to the Heads of State or Government.

We should make decisions on a faster, more thorough and more efficient basis. That is why we need a consensus between the President of the European Council and the President of the Eurogroup. This condition is met at present.

  Martin Schulz, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr Juncker, I understand your use of diplomatic language. I also respect it. That it why I wish to ask you very precisely, in your capacity as Prime Minister of Luxembourg: if the Heads of State or Government of the euro area entrust this office to Mr van Rompuy outside the bounds of the Treaty, would you, in your capacity as Prime Minister of Luxembourg, tell the House that you would only agree to the resolution if it is assured that he would also be made accountable to the European Parliament in his new role?

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (DE) Mr President, to be brief: yes.

(Applause)

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Mr President, firstly, I am extremely pleased to see someone who has always been on our side over the many years of battles in the European Council, Jean-Claude Juncker, someone who has always stood up for the Community cause and the European cause with us. I have one question to ask him about economic governance. You know that Ms Merkel and Mr Sarkozy have proposed the introduction of a European economic government meeting twice a year. I do not know what your experience as Prime Minister is, Mr Juncker, but I thought it would be at least twice a week that it should meet, or even, if necessary, twice a day, but not twice a year.

So is your position that a European economic government cannot be organised with full-time people actually at the initiative of the European Commission rather than at that of an intergovernmental organisation? What is more, I have heard you say: ‘Yes, the Eurogroup needs to be chaired by a full-time President’. Do you also not think that the Eurogroup could be chaired by the Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs, rather than starting to invent other institutional ‘gizmos’, as they are doing now, which will solve nothing, because the financial markets expect a complete economic and fiscal Union. Only in this way, and not with ‘institutional games’, will we overcome the crisis surrounding the euro on the basis of intergovernmentalism, aiming to safeguard the power of EU Member States.

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (FR) Mr President, I have quite a broad approach to the notion of economic governance. In 1991, during the Intergovernmental Conference on Economic and Monetary Union, I argued in favour of economic governance, and I am very happy that a type of ecumenism – which, at the time, could not be hammered out – has now seen the light of day. However, I do wonder about the exact content of this expression depending on who uses it. We would firstly need to agree on the exact content of this notion which, in my eyes, must have a large scope, ranging from financial, budgetary, economic and other policies to social policies, because those who talk of government are also talking about social policy. When we talk about government, we are not just talking about economics, budget and finances; we are also talking about Europe’s social dimension.

I am a supporter of an institutional system even if, nowadays, it is more about intergovernance than Community; I am in favour of a system which gives credence to the European Commission. Everything is not possible with the Commission but nothing is possible without it. The Commission should not systematically be eliminated from our way of working, deliberating and deciding. Would I even go so far as to say that the Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs should chair the Eurogroup? I wonder. The one who proposes cannot be the one who presides over decision making. I think, however, that it is totally the right thing to strengthen the role of the Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs within the Commission itself by giving him or her the powers currently held by the Commissioner for Competition.

The Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs must not be bound by the consensus-seeking constraints of the Commission.

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Prime Minister, do you not think that it is all being slightly over exaggerated. We have a President of the Eurogroup. He cannot be the Commission’s Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs as he is the independent President of the Eurogroup; an important person. We have the President of the Commission who says ‘I look after economic and monetary affairs with the commissioner. We have the commissioners for economic and monetary affairs, we have the President of the European Council’. Ms Merkel and Mr Sarkozy say ‘It’s his place to preside over the euro’.

So, for now, we have at least four, maybe five people in Europe in charge of the euro. However, things have never been so bad for the euro and that is because there are five people in charge of it.

I think this is the first issue that we need to tackle. I am not one for solving all problems institutionally, but these problems need to be addressed as quickly as possible. And I think and I hope, and I am totally convinced, that Luxembourg, along with Belgium and the Netherlands, will be on the side of those wanting to defend the community method against these proposals. Perhaps you are not aware, Mr Schulz, but Mr Rutte has proposed that there be a specially appointed commissioner to safeguard the application of the Stability Pact; quite a U-turn on their part but one I welcome (inaudible).

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (FR) Mr President, in solidarity with the other Benelux countries, I feel I must correct what Mr Verhofstadt quoted Mr Rutte as saying. Just like me, a moment ago, Mr Rutte called for a different role being given in the Commission to the Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs. I totally agree with him. As for the rest, you rightly pointed out the many advantages we have acquired from the various treaties multiplying the number of people in charge of the various policies.

There was a time when you and I were young prime ministers – albeit me younger than you; as far as I am concerned, normal rules do not apply as I am still here, with the shared past experiences weighing heavily on my memory – we supported initiatives to merge the functions of the President of the European Council and the President of the Commission.

(Applause)

This idea, although supported by Guy Verhofstadt, was rejected by the Member States. I therefore have to accept the political reality ...

(DE) Politics begins by considering reality.

(FR) This idea has no chance, I am sorry to say, because I think a clever merger of these two functions would have given the European initiative greater coherence, both inside and outside the EU. We are not there anymore, however, and the next time there is a major change of treaty, you and I will no longer be MEPs ... Well, maybe me.

  Jan Zahradil, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (CS) Mr President, my question will be very simple. The European Union includes euro area members and non-euro area members. Certain rules should apply to euro area members, because the euro is simply not for everyone. The euro requires the fulfilment of certain criteria. My own country is not a euro area member, but I have no desire whatsoever to see the single European currency fail. I would therefore like to ask whether you admit the possibility that, in the interests of defending the single European currency, one or more countries may have to quit the European monetary union, so that they can devalue their own currencies and thus break free of the economic crisis, as this is not possible in the current situation. The question is therefore whether you admit the possibility of either the voluntary or involuntary departure of one or more countries from the euro area.

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (FR) Mr President, I am totally and vehemently opposed to the idea that one or two Member States should be forced to leave the euro area. That will not solve anything and will only exacerbate ...

(Applause)

It will only exacerbate problems for the countries in question. Firstly for those countries, and secondly, for the currency area as a whole; and that would entail massive risks beyond the single currency area.

Greece has no problem, nor do Ireland and Portugal, because they are members of the euro area. It was not the unemployed in Greece or workers in Ireland who brought about the downfall of Lehman Brothers. What is more, I take issue with the lectures received from the other side of the Atlantic which, oddly enough, make no mention of the real reasons why we are in this situation.

(Applause)

It is in the interest of the other Member States of the euro area – those who are weak and those who are stronger – in other words, the 27, and it is in the interest of the other European countries surrounding the 27, that the currency area remains consistent both in terms of content and geography.

  Jan Zahradil, on behalf of the ECR Group. – (CS) Mr President, thank you, I expected something like this. I would therefore like to ask a second question. The second question concerns non-members of the euro area. Do you admit the possibility that those countries which are not yet euro area members and which have not negotiated a permanent opt-out such as the UK has, for example, should, in the current situation, reconsider whether they want to join the euro area at all? Countries such as mine, for example, signed an accession agreement where they undertook to adopt the euro in a situation very different to the one prevailing today.

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (FR) Mr President, I am glad that you were not disappointed by my first answer. After all, a treaty is a treaty. Member States that had no exemption on signature and ratification of the treaty agreed to become members of the economic and monetary union if they meet the criteria.

I am aware of the fact that a Member State that had no exemption has taken some liberties regarding this treaty requirement, but I did not want to immediately exclude a Member State that meets the criteria for becoming a euro area member as the status quo and the overall atmosphere would have changed.

I will tell you this, Mr President: the European Union will only ever be complete once all Member States have adopted the euro.

(Applause)

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) My question is to Jean-Claude Juncker. Whether you are answering as the Luxembourg Prime Minister or as President of the Eurogroup, I do not care.

We need to stop beating around the bush. The problem is this: we will not solve anything by creating institution after institution. Either the Commission works – in other words, economic governance – and it is up to it to carry out the decisions of the Council and European Parliament, or you do not agree with the Commission and you are not happy with it – you proposed it, but you are not happy with it – so let us discuss changing the Commission. However, we need to stop those who may have been responsible for proposing bad presidents of the Commission from creating parallel institutions.

I do not see why the President of the Commission cannot now be in the driving seat for economic governance. Why would Mr Barroso not do as well as Mr Van Rompuy? We have heard nothing intelligent from Mr Van Rompuy since he became EU President! Why should it be Mr Van Rompuy who drags us out of the slump we all find ourselves in? My question is simple: why not reinforce the Commission’s ability to direct governance? Mr Verhofstadt is quite right: if we want economic governance in Europe, then we need to work on it continuously every day. And I mean every day! I do not really see the point of a meeting every six months. Whether they go to Deauville or somewhere else, it is pointless. They can play casino if they want but stop thinking they are going to solve Europe’s problems.

I call for the Commission to be reinforced: the Commission and the EU executive, and not Mr Van Rompuy.

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (FR) Firstly, I must say to Mr Cohn-Bendit that I have had more opportunity than him to hear and to listen to Mr Van Rompuy. It is not true that he has said nothing intelligent to date. He is a good President of the European Council and, therefore, I cannot understand why anyone would question his personality and the role that he plays with skill and, all too often – more often than you are present – great determination, where necessary.

Mr Van Rompuy is not the man that people often describe him as. He is described as being a pen-pusher for the major shareholders. That is not true – unless I have become one of the EU’s major shareholders – as he consults everybody.

As I defend one principle, others attack a principle. If we are going to look at the finer details, you will find me on the side of those who have a flair for detail. I will say one thing, however: I do not agree with those that say Van Rompuy is useless.

Furthermore, it is not the job of the Commission to govern. The general architecture and economics of the Treaty, or indeed the Treaties, makes no mention of the Commission being intended to govern. The Commission proposes. I wish it and all the others would show greater and fuller respect for the Commission’s potential monopoly on initiative and its role as the driving force behind proposals. However, turning the Commission into a government, no, I do not believe our institutional order would allow it now.

Let us go back to the Community method: you know as well as I do; the Commission puts forward the proposals, and the Council makes the decisions in consultation with Parliament as set out in the Treaties. I am all for extending the scope of codecision.

As the Treaty stands, however, we cannot do what you say. I agree that we must not increase the number of bodies, inner circles, darkened rooms where those supposed to be governing Europe can meet. The fact is, the Eurogroup is not a parallel structure. The Eurogroup, while being informal, was established under the Treaty of Lisbon having first been set up informally by us after the Maastricht Treaty and the Treaty of Amsterdam.

So, I agree that we need to discuss reinforcing the Commission. I am the first to support a Commission that is as strong as possible, but do not think for one second, do not imagine that governments will disappear completely from the decision-making process for the euro area or the European Union. Just look at the ratification debates, including in one of your two countries next Thursday, at the Bundestag: governments are accountable to their own parliaments. You cannot pull down the existing support structures.

I urge us to return to the Community method which has produced good results, and that, for the time being, we accept the intergovernmental method, mindful of the fact that at a later date, we will have to include in the Treaties what has been experienced, dare I say, at intergovernmental level. As the Treaties stand, however, the institutionally noble solutions that you mentioned, which I like, are not applicable.

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Mr President, there are moments in history where three or four minutes were better than one minute, right? Two things then. Firstly, when it comes to competition, the Commission governs. It governs and it makes the decisions. So it is not completely true to simply say ‘The Commission proposes’.

Secondly, if we have a problem with Mr Van Rompuy, it is because, until now, he has refused to explain himself to the European Parliament. I cannot imagine a solution to the economic crisis and institutions where the one who makes the decisions in a resolute, intelligent and fearless way would only be accountable to the European Council. If there is no accountability for the EU institutions, the Commission and Parliament, then it is all a waste of time; that is the problem. Getting to know a little more about both Ms Merkel and Mr Sarkozy, I think that they have rightly chosen to reinforce Mr Van Rompuy to withdraw from the Community method. That is what is at stake today and not the opposite. That is why I think that the Commission needs to be reinforced and that, if we do not agree with Mr Barroso’s Presidency, we need to discuss another Commission.

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (FR) Mr Cohn-Bendit is right to congratulate me for coming today. Some of those who support me from a distance told me that it was not expected. The reason I am here is through courtesy to the European Parliament and precisely because some tried to persuade me not to come.

  Lothar Bisky, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Juncker, tomorrow, this House will vote on the tightening up and expansion of the Stability Pact. If the package of measures goes through as negotiated, then public borrowing will be penalised in practical terms. The Member States will have to introduce extreme cuts and savings. My group believes that this is the wrong approach, however that is not important right now. My question to you is: what do you think needs to be done to improve revenue for the Member States? Do we not need urgent measures to bring to an end the ruinous race to reduce taxes in Europe with minimum tax rates for business profits and high incomes?

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (DE) Mr President, I do not share Mr Bisky’s strict interpretation of the six-pack to be decided on tomorrow, even though I certainly believe that we must press for greater growth in Europe, as well as consolidation, however important and inevitable this may be. We will never get ourselves out of this crisis if we do not stimulate European growth. The drafts to be voted upon tomorrow readily permit this, if one knows how to deal with this in an intelligent way.

Otherwise, I believe that we need a minimum standard for social supports and a basic minimum of employee rights and that we need to come together in questions of coordinating taxation. We already have a code to prevent unfair tax competition. We need to implement this; this is something that is already happening, just not fast enough. I always believed that we should have convergence on issues relating to common tax assessment and corporate taxation. I also strongly feel that it would do our domestic budgets a lot of good, as well as rebalancing a deficit in terms of justice, if we were to introduce a transaction tax in Europe.

(Applause)

  Lothar Bisky, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) I have a supplementary question. We believe that the European Central Bank is taking the right and responsible course by holding down interest rates for endangered EU States by buying up government bonds. Should we not finally abolish this taboo and approve the purchase of government bonds – provided, above all, that such purchases are subject to clear and transparent rules?

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (DE) Mr President, like group chair Mr Bisky, I also believe that the European Central Bank has acted correctly in what it has done. If I did not hold this opinion, I would not have said so here, as I fully respect the independence of the bank. With regard to the instrument that is the European Financial Stability Facility: when we finally get this in mid-October, then the function currently provided by the European Central Bank will be transferred to the European facility. A clear set of rules means that in this regard, this facility will work.

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, Mr Juncker, as President of the Eurogroup, your detachment from reality is almost unbelievable. You are behaving like a political ostrich, pretending none of it is happening. You just told us a few moments ago that Greece fundamentally has no problems because it is a member of the eurozone. I mean, that is just deluded. You wrote recently that the euro’s 13-year history is a success story. Well, it is a very odd kind of success, is it not, and actually saying that frankly beggars belief and I think hardly makes you credible.

I think it is about time that you and others in this room woke up to the fact that we are inflicting misery on millions of people through unemployment, through poverty, through a loss of democracy, and that it is an error to try and keep countries trapped inside the euro prison.

The recent proposal is that Greece should write down her debts by 50% and remain a member of the eurozone. Surely, Mr Juncker, if that happens, the same would happen to Portugal and Ireland too. Do you think it is possible for any Member State of the euro to write down their debts and stay a member of the eurozone?

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – I did not say that Greece has no problems; I did not say that. I said that, although Greece is a member of the euro area, Greece has deep problems, so do not take it the way round that you put it in the question or that you intended in putting the question.

Secondly, I do not think that it would be wise and useful for the President of the euro area to take part in all kinds of speculations of the nature of those you mentioned in the third part of your question.

Your second question was linked to my credibility, as far as I understood. I prefer mine to yours.

(Applause)

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Very good, Mr Juncker, very good. Interesting. On this very point of credibility, you yourself said back in April that, when things become serious, you have to lie. That is what you said back in April.

It seems to me that things are pretty serious and that, frankly, everything you say is a lie. The euro cannot, and should not, be held together under its current construction. It is about time that you admitted – you and all of you in this room – that you have got this wrong and countries like Greece need to be set free.

(Applause)

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Farage, because you quoted a non-political newspaper, namely a German publication, that reported me as saying that when things get serious, you need to lie, please allow me to offer you a quote using the language of the newspaper, which you quoted correctly, but which reported me quite incorrectly: In Brussels, addressing the Pan-European movement – you will be interested to know that these are people who believe in Europe and who need to hear from us because sometimes they start to experience doubts – I told my audience that in the old days, when I was just a little Luxembourg finance minister, we would be summoned to Brussels every two months to make the necessary upward and downward adjustments to the European monetary system. I then explained how if, as a finance minister, one was asked on a Friday afternoon, before the financial markets had closed, whether there was to be a meeting in Brussels on Saturday or Sunday to adjust the EMS, then one could not tell the truth. That is when I made a terrible mistake. My poor English meant that I used words that have prompted your supplementary question.

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI). – (ES) Mr President, Mr Juncker, I would ask you why investment funds domiciled in Luxembourg are not subject to any corporation tax.

However, what I am actually going to ask you, in a similar vein to other previous speakers, is this: do you not think that you, as President of the Eurogroup and the Council of Ministers, should push for the creation of a European Ministry of the Economy and strengthen the role of Parliament and the Commission in directing European policy?

You see Mr Juncker, we in Europe must be quite clear about the fact that federal states can function well or badly, but that a confederation never works.

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (FR) Mr President, first of all, I do not really see how taxing Luxembourg investment funds serves this debate. Luxembourg, which is the country I know best, applies the rules on taxation that have been coordinated or harmonised in Europe. So the question you ask is answered in the decisions that the European Union has taken to date.

As for introducing a European minister for economic affairs, I would not rule out that idea. Some months ago, my friend, Jean-Claude Trichet, called for the creation of a euro area finance ministry. I am up for all these ideas except that I am really starting to dislike this game, which comes up with a new institution every day.

(Applause)

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI). – (ES) Mr Juncker, given that you are against creating new institutions, I am utterly perplexed by your support for the creation of another body as proposed by Mr Sarkozy and Ms Merkel, who are currently like some kind of duet in a poorly-performed European opera.

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (FR) Mr President, it is all a matter of taste. I do not automatically approve some of the choreographic performances that we may see.

Having said that, when the Eurogroup meets at Heads of State or Government level, no new institution is created.

The Eurogroup draws its very existence from the Treaty of Lisbon, which specifically states that euro area members should meet at Heads of State or Government level – especially when it comes to coordinating all economic, social, financial and budgetary policies on a broader or more intimate level. I take no offence at that.

The finance ministers meet once a month, the Heads of State or Government twice a year; therefore, they cannot claim to be Europe’s economic government because that should meet more than once every six months. I am not scared, however, nor am I bothered by the prospect of euro area Heads of State or Government meeting from time to time to discuss, decide on and give impetus to the Eurogroup at finance minister level, as they bear full responsibility for the policies implemented.

  Frank Engel (PPE) . – (FR) Mr President, Mr Juncker, I agree that there is no need to invent new institutions every time, and I support this because, generally speaking, in any case, it is not us doing it here, but the European Council, or at least some of them in the Council.

However, as the spiralling crisis accelerates downwards – when proposal after proposal being put to us three times a day serves no real purpose; proposals on lifelines and new institutions – might it not be more useful to try and communicate with the markets or with those claiming to be these markets so that we can finally work on the final structure of a federal Europe, finally capable of sustaining a Monetary Union.

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (FR) Mr President, I very much doubt that we can say anything convincing that will win over the financial markets.

Having said that, you will understand, Mr Engel, that I have no mandate from the Eurogroup to pass comment on the matter of a more federal architecture in Europe. For the rest, personally, I have never believed in a United States of Europe; it will never work. I have always thought, however, that, by building on a well-thought out Community method, one that can evolve, we will ensure that the EU Member States are not seen as the sum or addition of the Member States but as a genuine European Union.

It is true that, if the markets and other observers were to see us as forming a solid and cohesive entity, the way in which we express ourselves would be easier for the markets and observers to understand.

  Antonio López-Istúriz White (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, Mr Juncker, if I remember correctly, you are currently the most senior member of the prime ministers of the European Council. You have seen my country, Spain, evolve from being part of the euro solution to being a founder member, and to today unfortunately being part of the euro problem, due to the government’s mismanagement.

The Spanish Government has undertaken some reforms, but these are clearly still not enough to regenerate confidence in our country, confidence that existed in the past and that will exist again in the future.

What advice would you give the next prime minister following the forthcoming elections in Spain? What reforms do you believe we should continue to carry out in Spain in order to recover confidence in the euro area, over which you preside?

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (FR) Mr President, I think Spain has reached a critical turning point in its recent history. I have no wish to interfere in the progress of this critical stage, set to unfold over the next few weeks, when the Spanish people will let their views be known at the ballot box.

Regarding Spanish policy, on 21 July, the European Council expressed its satisfaction with seeing the Spanish Government take the consolidation measures that we wanted.

After 21 July, the Spanish Government subsequently took further action. I am working on the assumption that, regardless of which political party is elected to power in Spain in a few weeks time, they will continue this process of consolidation. Despite having no reason to believe it will happen, I have no wish to see the current consolidation efforts interrupted, but be aware that Spain was in an awkward situation and that many steps were taken on all sides in Spain to get the country out of this mess.

What is more, as you know Mr López-Istúriz White, I never make public recommendations to governments that I see once month in a more restrained setting.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Juncker, as I come from a country which is outside the euro area but which aspires to join it, I wanted to ask whether the Eurogroup has any measures or reaction strategies in place if it transpired that a country outside the euro area with a population of 10 or even 40 million found itself in a similar situation to that of Greece or Ireland? I would like to find out, Mr Juncker, if you would advise the countries which are not members of the euro area to form something like a ‘Non-Eurogroup’, so that dialogue between the Eurogroup and the ‘Non-Eurogroup’ would be more balanced, to mitigate any negative consequences of the intergovernmental approach and to progress towards a more Community-like approach?

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (FR) Mr President, I am all for a system where euro area Member States respect non-euro area Member States. Would that the reverse were also true for the sake of reciprocity. I notice sometimes that recommendations aimed at the euro area are made publicly. Yet I am pretty sure that, if the countries making these recommendations were members of the euro area, they would not pass this type of comment.

As President of the Eurogroup, I always make sure I debrief non-euro area Member States. Each meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (Ecofin) starts with the President of the Eurogroup giving an accurate progress report of the Eurogroup’s work.

For the rest, I did not quite understand your – how should I put it – demographic and numerical question: you mentioned a country with 30 or 40 million inhabitants. For good reason, I have never really differentiated between the large and small EU Member States. I do not even do it when I am in China. I always take the Chinese Prime Minister by the shoulder, and I say to him: ‘You do realise that you, the Chinese Prime Minister, and me, the Luxembourg Prime Minister, we represent a third of humanity’. He always looks very convinced.

(Laughter)

  Anni Podimata (S&D). – (EL) Mr President, we are debating the future architecture of the euro area and, unfortunately, we have not managed, in the last eighteen months, to address and contain the current crisis. As you know, there are delays in taking decisions, as you yourself said, and when they are taken, they are called into question the very next day, as happened with the decisions taken on 21 July; as a result, we are creating a situation in which we shall start turning on each other, as certain interventions even here in this Chamber have reminded us.

I wish to ask you a question, Mr President. As you know, a fortnight ago, the Greek Government passed and adopted new, additional measures to safeguard the implementation of the programme. Apart from the uncontested internal difficulties, do you think that this climate of general doubt, with rumours of bankruptcy, with or without an exit from the euro, is creating the right conditions for overcoming the crisis? Have we looked hard enough for a solution to this problem?

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (FR) Mr President, like you, Ms Podimata, I regret the deplorable lack of verbal discipline after the Ecofin and Eurogroup European Council meetings.

What is more, having attended the meeting, when I compare the various national press conferences, I am always left with the feeling that I was at another meeting than the one described in the different national press conferences. This does nothing for our credibility.

As for the rest, and as for Greece, we look forward to the Troika report. If this tells us that the Greek Government is making the right decisions, the sixth tranche will obviously be paid. I therefore think that we need to observe the pace set by our proceedings.

I share your doubts as to whether what has been done up to now is sufficient to get Europe out of the crisis. We will need to do more. We will need to reach an agreement on a real policy for growth which is effective, especially in those countries that are subject to an adjustment programme. I repeat: consolidation is necessary, but without a real policy of growth which targets job creation, without a policy of non-inflationary growth rich in jobs, we will not get out of our current crisis.

  Andrew Duff (ALDE). – Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne have suddenly decided that fiscal union is the logical step for the EU, so suddenly we have the extraordinary experience of the British Government becoming federalist militants. What are we to make of all that?

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (FR) Mr President, progress should never be stopped once started.

(Applause)

  Raffaele Baldassarre (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, on Thursday evening, the Bundestag will vote on the agreement of 21 July, while in the very near future, we expect to receive the Troika’s report on the situation in Greece.

Essentially, Mr Juncker, a number of economists are accusing us, together with European leaders and European institutions, of wasting precious time in saving the euro. We have reached a crossroads for Europe and for our currency. In this light, what can we expect from the meeting of the Eurogroup Economic and Financial Affairs Council on 3 October? Do you believe that a solution is possible? If so, which solution and with what kind of political support?

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (FR) Mr President, at its meeting next Monday, 3 October, the Eurogroup will take no decision on paying out the sixth tranche to Greece as the Troika will not have issued its report between now and then or, at least, we will not have had the time to read it and analyse it in detail.

At the Eurogroup meeting next Monday, we will continue to iron out the details for putting in place all the instruments decided on 21 July. There are technical issues still to be resolved. I will try and persuade my colleagues to provide a response to these remaining technical issues.

I would also like to repeat to this House that it is crucial that, between now and mid-October, we put in place all the instruments used to enhance the European facility at the European Council ‘Euro Formation’ meeting of 21 July. We have no more time to lose.

I would add, however, that I would like to explain to the financial markets once more that democracies have to follow their own rules, and I will do so without bowing down to them. We have 17 governments that have been elected or, at the very least, have received national parliamentary approval. It is true that democracies are sometimes slow. This will not lead to a system that prefers irrational and hasty financial markets over the calmer waters of parliamentary democracies.

(Applause)

  Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Juncker, I just want to ask you your opinion, not as President of the Eurogroup, not even as Luxembourg Prime Minister, but as a European citizen.

How do you feel about our collective ability to take the necessary step forward – and I think it is important – towards a Europe, perhaps not a United States of Europe, as some people call it, but, in any case, towards a more federal Europe. Everybody knows that, without political union, monetary union does not work.

As a European citizen, what are our chances of success?

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (FR) Mr President, so far in this debate, I have had trouble splitting myself in two. Now you are adding a third dimension to my humble self.

As a European citizen, I do not agree with what we are doing in Europe. I think that we are lacking enthusiasm and ambition, that our efforts are failing when faced with the collapse of a great idea, and that it is down to our generation to make sure that the legacy we leave to future generations does not enable them to undo what previous generations have done, but enables them to ensure that Europe finally takes off.

Our generation bears a heavy responsibility, because we are the inter-generation; not the one that gave rise to the European idea from the ashes of the Second World War, not even one that has experienced war. At least our fathers experienced war.

We have a heavy responsibility, a duty to remember and to pass on this memory to enable future generations to do better than what we are not in a position to do today, through always having to take the populist route.

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). – (NL) Mr Juncker, you are demonstrating a great deal of courage in coming here, as you have little to be proud of, it seems to me. The European crisis just rumbles on and the situation has only got worse under your Presidency. I am thinking, for example, of the debts of various countries in the euro area that have grown steeply and are now enormously high. I am thinking of Greece, which is on the verge of collapse. I am also thinking of the European Central Bank, which has already collected more than EUR 130 billion of bonds that are worth little more than wallpaper. In short, under your Presidency, the situation has got worse. I have a specific question for you, and it is as follows: have you not considered stepping down, given that results have not been forthcoming?

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (FR) Mr President, it is true that I am not proud of the general situation in which we find ourselves. I will not say to you that I will try and do better because, to be able to do better, all parties need to agree in principle: Member States, governments and national parliaments.

As I have no mandate from you, I cannot resign. I would perhaps have done so, had you given me the opportunity to answer a question about policy content.

  Georgios Papanikolaou (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, I, too, wish to comment on Greece. There have been two very important developments today: firstly, the Greek Minister for Finance has stated that the Troika will return to Greece within a week to continue its work, which was suddenly suspended on 1 September, and, secondly, the Labour Institute of the General Confederation of Greek Workers has presented its report on unemployment. Real unemployment in Greece is estimated this year to be in the order of 22% to 23%, levels not seen in Greece since the beginning of the 1960s.

This raises two questions: firstly, why did the Troika leave, Mr President? Can you at least confirm that it will return to Greece within the week? Secondly, given that the medium-term fiscal strategy and the memorandum of understanding make provision for unemployment of less than 15% this year, 14.6% to be precise, are you worried that unemployment has been derailed? Did you expect that?

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (FR) Mr President, to answer your second question, obviously, the level of unemployment in Greece is of concern to me, as it also is in some other countries.

The overall average unemployment rate in Europe, which stands at 10%, is not a level that we should ever have to accept. It is a million miles from full employment. According to the Treaty, one of the objectives of the European Union is to ensure full employment in Europe. Obviously, this is not the case at the present time.

For the deteriorating unemployment situation in Greece, I blame the fact that the recession is greater and deeper there than what the Troika estimated last time round when it released the fifth tranche to Greece.

I am not a member of the Troika and am therefore not responsible for its movements. I believe, however, that the Troika left Athens because there were difficulties reaching an agreement between what the Troika thought Greece had to do and what the Greek Government was willing to do. Since then, the gap in their viewpoints has narrowed. My understanding is that the Troika will be back in Athens tomorrow or the day after.

  Robert Goebbels (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, I am working on the assumption that the euro will emerge stronger from this crisis, even if the coming months will be difficult, especially for our poorest citizens, who will come out worse off from the austerity measures taken here and there.

In this context, should not the European Union declare a moratorium on all so-called environmental taxes which will hit our citizens hard in the coming months: more expensive electricity, fuel duty, tax on air travel, and so on. Of course Europe wants to set an example to the rest of the world, but it is obvious that the rest of the world is not following it. Our share of CO2 emissions is down from 14 to 10%, which means that others have increased.

Do we really need to overburden our citizens?

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (FR) Mr President, despite our long and solid friendship, I cannot follow the reasoning of my friend, Mr Goebbels. I apologise (continued in Luxembourgish).

(Applause)

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, Mr Juncker, I agree with you when you say that it was not Greek workers who were responsible for the collapse of Lehman Brothers. However, the United States at least has an employment plan at the moment, and all Europeans have is austerity plans.

I would also say to you that it is Greek workers, like those of Portugal and Ireland, who are being cast into unemployment by European and International Monetary Fund plans – the principal and only objective of which is to save the banks – and are being punished every day for the indecision, for the lack of decisions, or for the wrong decisions, of Europe’s very leaders.

That is why I am asking you if it is not time for you, as President of the Eurogroup, to explain to the German taxpayer that they are not just paying for speculation on the financial markets. They are also paying for each statement made by Chancellor Merkel – or one of her ministers or one of her secretaries of state – and we are all paying for the racket that Europe’s leaders are making.

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (FR) Mr President, I believe that I must say that, while appreciating what the Obama administration has done in the framework of its job creation programme, we should not be overly dazzled by this grand gesture.

If you study the Obama programme in detail, you will see that it incorporates 90% of the measures already in place in all EU Member States. It is actually a programme aiming to make automatic stabilisers more effective, as we know that they are only making half the impact that they are in Europe. I agree with giving bonuses to the long-term unemployed, and I like the idea that the United States is finally basing itself more on the European social model. Yet these measures are already in force here. Widespread use of short-time work schemes, that is all very well, but we introduced this the moment the crisis hit Europe.

So we cannot say that the US programme is any more ambitious or different than ours. The US is moving towards the elements of the programme which has always been European.

For the rest, since you are concerned about German taxpayers’ understanding, Ms Merkel and others will need to explain to our German friends that Europe is like a tango between the solidarity of some and the stability of others.

I think I can say that I know Germany well. I am there often enough, I often give speeches there – ones that are not always interrupted – and I have noticed that, when you explain things properly, in a way that is understandable and engaging, when you are not making excuses for everything that you have done, most German citizens have no problem in understanding. They need to be told the truth. From the beginning, you need to explain your point of view. The Germans are not egotistical. Like the rest of us, they want to understand and it is true that our teaching abilities are underdeveloped, but we are learning.

  Sylvie Goulard (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, you are right to say that those in favour of the Community approach and those in favour of the intergovernmental approach are being played off against each other. However, when you say that the Community method is the answer, I do not completely agree on one level. How do you see the crisis being managed using the Community method? That is the question being put to us. It is not about simply going back to the good old method of making the laws, leaving it to the Commission to propose and the two others to decide.

What are you proposing to us that is not purely intergovernmental, that brings back this ability to get the northern, southern, small and large States working together again using a Community approach to manage the crisis.

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (FR) Mr President, I agree with Ms Goulard in saying that the traditional Community method has too many shortcomings, not enabling us to respond adequately. The good old method is unworkable in times of emergency when speed is of the essence. What I meant by saying that we need to rediscover the virtues of the Community method included that part of the scope that is possible – the Community method that you refer to.

I think that, when the Community method does not have the instruments to resolve an urgent problem, we need to be guided by community spirit. The Community method creates a community spirit which must apply even when the Community method does not have enough working tools.

  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE). – (DE) Mr President, Mr Juncker, you can rest assured of the support of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and of the Greens in my country, Austria, when it comes to the Community method, the establishment and strengthening of European economic governance and even the European Stability Mechanism, which is necessary in order to prevent speculation, to provide security against crises and to impose a hair cut on private creditors and banks.

However, a minor change to the Treaty is required in order for the ESM to be adopted, as well as ratification by the parliaments in all Member States, requiring a two-thirds majority in my own country’s case. The Austrian Greens are the only opposition party in Austria that intend voting in favour here, but only if the ESM is improved. The fact is that, at present, the ESM is a half-baked idea, hence the reason for the package deal. The Austrian Greens in the National Council have written to the Austrian Government, and to you, to say that we will only vote in favour if an orderly debt forgiveness and rescheduling process is put in place, if credible steps are taken in the direction of a financial transaction tax and the introduction of Eurobonds.

Mr Juncker, are you ready to use these demands, this package deal from the Austrian Greens in relation to the improvement of the ESM, as support for your efforts in precisely this direction?

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (DE) Mr President, I am very familiar with the letter from our Austrian colleagues from the Green Party. I am pleased that the Committee of the Austrian Parliament today approved the European Financial Stability Facility, so that it can now be added to the agenda.

When it comes to further reforms in relation to the European Stability Mechanism, I share some of your thoughts, as you well know. However, I do not believe that all of these elements can be included in the rapid reform of the Treaty establishing the ESM, which has only just been agreed, but is not yet ratified.

However much I favour a transaction tax and however much I am attracted by the words I hear, I nevertheless remain unconvinced that it will be possible to incorporate all of these elements in the ESM Treaty in one fell swoop. Nonetheless, I hope that the Austrian Greens will vote in favour because we need the Greens in Austria – not just in Austria, of course – but particularly in Austria, for the purposes of parliamentary arithmetic.

  Niki Tzavela (EFD). – (EL) Mr President, as a Greek, may I thank you for the excellent and hard work you have done for Greece and, as a Greek, may I say here that I accept your criticism of my country. However, I also wish to speak as an MEP. Prime Minister, we in the South started off as PIGS and now we have become guinea pigs. We accept that, if it means that we are to be the guinea pigs that demonstrate how this economic governance will ultimately work, but I would like to pass on to you verbatim something said to me by a Greek fisherman. ‘Madam,’ he said, ‘they are all sadists in the European Parliament. Every day we suffer a Chinese water torture, every day the Greek people hear that today, tomorrow, next week, Europe will tell us what is to become of us. We are a very insecure nation’. My question, Prime Minister, is this: is there a timetable for economic governance? If Greece is to crash, let it at least crash for the sake of cohesion and a truly united Europe.

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (FR) Mr President, I am very concerned about what is happening in Greece, because, when reading my mail, I often note that many Greek citizens do not understand what we are doing and that many of your citizens believe that the European Union and the Eurogroup are punishing Greek citizens.

I want our Greek friends to understand that consolidating Greek public finances is essential. I want your citizens to understand that we cannot fight debt with debt. I want the Greeks to understand that they cannot continue like this and that, apart from owing them a historical debt of gratitude, we also understand that we have a current duty to Greece to show our support for the Hellenic Republic, provided that the Greek authorities agree to carry the burden.

As for economic governance or economic government, I repeat that we need to agree the content. In the next few months, I would like the euro area or the EU, as such, to have adopted a programme for economic governance which will introduce the various dimensions of economic government and governance step by step.

When we were preparing for the advent of the single currency, as part of the Maastricht Treaty, we did so in stages. There were three stages in introducing the euro because we were going into an unknown area. Economic government is another area which we do not know all the ins and outs of, and I therefore want us to establish a programme in stages that citizens can understand, that are put together so that governments, national parliaments, Community bodies, including the European Parliament and public opinion, understand the pace at which we are going.

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, would you not agree that the treaties already allow for closer integration in the euro area and that therefore it is not necessary, and indeed would be counter-productive, to achieve it outside the EU institutions, as the current governments of France and Germany seem to be aiming for?

In particular, would you not agree that Article 136 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union makes it possible to adopt legislative measures for the euro area within the scope of the economic policy competences given to the EU by the treaties? Secondly, would you not agree that Article 352 makes it possible to strengthen the powers of the existing institutions in order to reach the objectives set out by the treaties?

Lastly, is it not the case that Protocol No 14 does not forbid the Eurogroup Heads of State or Government from meeting without having to create another institution, and therefore that it would be unreasonable for the President of another institution – the European Council – to preside over this expanded Eurogroup? Therefore, would you not agree that achieving euro area integration within or outside the treaties is a problem of political will and not of legal barriers?

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (FR) Mr President, in general, I would say that I have always thought that even imperfect treaties can produce perfect results, if the will of those responsible for implementing them is also perfect.

That is the prerequisite for us to give the treaty the legs it needs to stand on, even when the second leg does not have all the toes it needs to walk in an aesthetically pleasing way.

The articles of the treaty that you mention can be called on provided that there is unanimity each time. As for all the elements that could bring about the possible advances which you mention and point out, I cannot see how there will be any unanimity at the European Council or the Council of Ministers, or even in our national parliaments.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, Mr Juncker, I would like to return to matters concerning Greece. It appears that this year, Greek budgetary expenditure will increase by over 8%, which means that the country’s deficit will increase by the same amount. Therefore, there is no room for savings, which form the basis for the rescue package which has been accepted. The Greek Minister for Finance recently admitted that the main cause of his country’s problems in implementing the accepted reforms is the lack of an effective state apparatus and tax administration system. Taking into consideration the fact that the creation of an appropriate system could take several years, I would like to ask if there is any chance at all of success for the Greek rescue package.

You mentioned our generation’s responsibility. Would it not be worth making more mention of Irish society, which is being very responsible and is actually benefiting from the help it has been given? Would it not be worth entering into discussions with Greece and trying to explain to them that their whole society is responsible for the situation in which it finds itself?

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (FR) Mr President, I agree with you, Ms Jazłowiecka, when you say that we can only admire the resolve of the Irish people and authorities in dealing with the crisis that hit Ireland.

The Irish case also clearly shows that it is perfectly possible to combine the strength, self-reliance and solidarity of the other Member States to come up with an answer to get a country out of a situation which was, in Ireland’s case, alarming.

As for the rest, and as for Greece, it will not have escaped your notice that, on 21 July, the European Council decided to offer Greece a whole range, a whole host of measures of administrative assistance. There is a task force in Greece, divided between Brussels and Greece, which works, in particular, on the important matter of mobilising the financial resources for the Structural Funds. All euro area Member States have proposed providing Greece with their own administrative know-how, particularly with regard to tax collection – a massive weak link in the Greek administration. We are therefore more than willing to provide all the support and assistance that Greece might need.

In fact, Greece needs technical and administrative assistance, and the other Member States of the Eurogroup are quite prepared to provide these administrative elements.

  Claude Turmes (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, Mr Juncker, you mentioned the need to invest. I think that all of us in this Chamber want to invest in research and innovation. Unfortunately, however, it is usually public funds that we use. I would like to propose another sector in which to invest: I want to talk about energy.

Investing in indigenous renewable energies. Investing in building restoration in Europe. Investing in the modernisation of networks in Europe. These investments could be made by private investors. Why not organise a summit meeting between the European Investment Bank, pension funds, the big European energy companies, private banks holding citizens’ savings, which are still in abundance in many countries, and where an investment programme is drawn up that achieves two things: creating added value in Europe and reducing our energy dependence, all on the basis of private investment. This would be one way of not relying too heavily on public funds for research and innovation.

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – (FR) Mr President, I agree with Mr Turmes in believing that investment policies targeting clearer growth are necessary. I find that the European Investment Bank is a supportive funding tool that we under-utilise in Europe, not only in the euro area, but in all the Member States. I would be very happy with a synergy between public, bank and other resources organised by the European Investment Bank and private capital, which would target investments at the more underprivileged regions of Europe today. I would also like these investments to be increasingly innovative and serve the ambitions that the European Union developed elsewhere, in particular, in the field of supplying alternative energy resources and improving mobility networks within the southern part of the euro area and within EU Member States: Bulgaria, Romania and others, where additional efforts need to be made in terms of mobility.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Would it not be in Greece’s interest to withdraw from the eurozone and restore the drachma, which would inevitably fall in value, boosting its visible and invisible exports and producing an economic expansion? Whilst an effective devaluation would add to the burden of Greece’s debts on paper, this would not add to its real burden because the default would almost certainly be necessary, whether or not Greece withdraws from the eurozone.

Is Greece, in fact, being kept in the eurozone, not in the interests of that country, but as an unjust sacrifice of Greece’s interests to salvage the reputation of the single currency? It is certainly not in the interests of Greece.

Would you, Mr Juncker, tell us either now or later how much money the European Central Bank has spent buying the bonds of each of these countries – Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Italy – and, at the most recent valuation, what losses the ECB has incurred on these purchases?

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – Mr President, I am not a spokesman for the European Central Bank, nor its President, so I cannot give an answer to the point raised by the Honourable Member. Parliament has regular meetings with the President of the ECB. He is the one this question should be addressed to.

As far as the Member’s first point is concerned, advocating the exit of Greece, the answer is ‘no’. The answer to his third question is also ‘no’.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Mr President, I thank President Juncker for coming here tonight and for answering our questions openly, honestly and bravely.

Thank you for your kind words about my country and it is good that an Irish MEP has a chance to put a question. I am a person who believes in paying his debts, my country believes in paying its debts and my government believes in paying its debts and, for that reason, it has put measures in place and will continue to do so over the next two budgets to ensure we pay our debts.

My question is, though, if another country in a similar bail-out situation defaults on its debts, will the consequences for that country be so beneficial that our government will come under pressure from the people to do likewise in our own interests? Or will the consequences of default be such that we will say that that is somewhere we do not want to go? So, how are you going to ensure that the latter rather than the former would prevail?

  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Eurogroup. – I am not sure that I have got all the elements of the question. If the question is whether or not countries should be treated on an equal footing, I am strongly in favour of seeing Ireland being treated in exactly the same way, as far as interest rates and maturities and so on are concerned, as the other countries.

I said just before you took the floor that I admire the recent Irish performance. I really do admire this performance because it clearly shows that there is a way out of the situation different countries are in. Ireland is on a good track.

  President. – Mr President of the Eurogroup, Prime Minister of Luxembourg, this was a very interesting discussion. Thank you for coming to the European Parliament. Thank you, colleagues. I did not shorten a single speech in this debate because it was an unusual discussion and it was necessary to discuss deeply and widely. Thank you very much once again to our guest.

  Charles Goerens (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, let me remind you that I was here this morning from start to finish. I indicated that I wished to address a question to the three commissioners who were present, but was not given an opportunity to do so. This afternoon, I have been present from start to finish and I indicated that I had a question for Mr Juncker, yet I was not given an opportunity to ask it. For all those colleagues who are feeling left out of the dialogue with our guests, I think that you should at least state part way through the session that they will not be invited to speak. They could then make other arrangements.

  President. – Mr Goerens, thank you for this remark. I know that it is a very difficult situation. We have been debating for 37 minutes longer than expected because it was a very important discussion. I had altogether 44 colleagues on the list and it was possible to take only 24. So I am very sorry about that, you are probably right, and I will think of you next time.

The debate is closed.

  Robert Goebbels (S&D). – (FR) To follow on from what Mr Goerens has said, I would, however, like to point out that you gave the floor to Members who arrived very late and left as soon as they had asked their question.

  President. – Mr Goebbels, you are right but I am not a guard of the Members of the European Parliament, you know that very well.

IN THE CHAIR: ROBERTA ANGELILLI
Vice-President

13. Ministerial week’s activity at the UN General Assembly, in particular the Middle East peace process and North Africa (debate)

  President. – The next item is the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the ministerial week’s activity at the United Nations General Assembly, in particular, the Middle East peace process and North Africa [2011/2828(RSP)].

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, this year’s UN General Assembly took place at a time of enormous change and growing tensions in the world. The combination of the economic crisis, the Arab Spring and the stalled Middle East peace process creates a strong mix. I believe that Europe has to respond to the challenges, both at home and in the world.

Today, at your request, I am focusing my remarks on two issues: the Middle East peace process and the Arab Spring. I did, however, just want to say to Honourable Members that during the week in New York, I met with Ministers from Russia, China, the United States, Brazil, India and Mexico – our strategic partners – and participated in many key events: on counter-terrorism, and a very important women’s event led by the President of Brazil.

I want to turn first to the Middle East peace process. As Honourable Members know, I visited the region seven times this year, each time with a single purpose: to promote a negotiated settlement of the conflict and to demonstrate the importance of Europe’s role. Over the summer period, I have worked with the Quartet envoys and with the Arab League, and have been in discussions with the Prime Minister of Israel and the President of the Palestinian Authority, together with Prime Minister Fayyad.

It is clear that these efforts have succeeded in demonstrating that the European Union does have a role; that we are a player and a payer, with our financial commitment matched by our political strength. For too long, we have been on the sidelines of the peace process. I have worked to achieve a greater role for Europe because I believe we are ideally placed as a friend of both parties.

I have said before that my vision for the European External Action Service is in a conflict prevention and resolution approach. We need to put that vision into practice. The dividends of peace are crucial for the future stability and prosperity of our neighbourhood.

Prior to arriving in New York, I participated in Cairo at the Arab League Follow-Up Committee discussions as we considered how best to support our objectives: two states; peace and security for both. Exploratory talks with the Palestinians, with the Israelis and with Jordanian leaders at the end of August led me to believe that the way forward was to put together what became known in New York as ‘the package’, various actions with the key objective of getting the Israelis and Palestinians together in talks.

During my September visit, it became clear that a Quartet statement and possible General Assembly resolution, in addition to what President Abbas was seeking to do, could be part of such a package.

I met with many Arab leaders and was impressed by the desire they stated to end the conflict and their wish to bring stability and normality against a backdrop of potential unrest sparked by lack of progress. I believe this is also understood by Israeli leaders, who are fearful of seeing their country facing great uncertainty in the region, and fear for their own security.

I have impressed upon all I have met that this is a time to seek peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians on the basis, as we know very well in this House, of a negotiated agreement that will lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state as a core element of that agreement, and end the occupation that is so detrimental to the development of both peoples.

The United Nations speeches of President Abbas and Prime Minister Netanyahu certainly differed in rhetoric, but they both spoke about a desire for peace. Both speeches when you read them back focused on the need to go to negotiations and the wish to end the conflict.

In New York, we worked to achieve a Quartet response to this, immediately calling on both parties to enter into negotiations within four weeks, to agree on the issue of territory and security within three months, and to have made substantial progress within six months, with an agreement by the end of the year.

We do expect both sides to come forward and agree to negotiations. I believe that the European Union, including this Parliament, should play a central role in that process. We are well placed to do so, we are well respected in the region, and I believe we should have that commitment to stay closely involved, which, as I have made clear to all that I have met, I intend to do personally.

The Quartet has called for parties to refrain from provocative actions if negotiations are really going to resume and, more importantly, be effective. It is therefore with deep regret that I have learnt today about the decision to advance in the plans for settlement expansion in East Jerusalem, with new housing units in Gilo. This plan should be reversed. Settlement activity threatens the viability of an agreed two-state solution and runs contrary to the Israeli stated commitment to resume negotiations.

We have also called for a donors’ conference to support further the impressive achievements of the Palestinian Authority’s state building and we will consult on additional steps that will quickly lead to greater independence and sovereignty for the Palestinians over their affairs. Facilitating Palestinian trade is essential to support state building and develop the economy. We propose concrete actions to open our markets to Palestinian agricultural and fishery products. I am glad that earlier today, the European Parliament voted in favour of this important agreement, for which I thank you.

Gaza, too, remains a priority. As I have always said, the crossings must be opened to allow the flow of humanitarian aid, imports, exports and people. We need to enable children to go to school and ordinary people, and the younger generation in particular, to get on with and build the lives that they would want to have. I will continue to work to allow the economic recovery of Gaza, while, of course, remaining committed to ensuring the security of the people of Israel.

My second issue today is the Arab Spring. Since the demonstrations in Tunisia, the Arab Spring has touched every Arab state in the region. It is an event of truly historic proportions that will shape not only the future of that region, but our own future too. It is a revolution based on values: on justice, dignity and freedom.

Europe’s response to these events will speak more than any form of rhetoric about our real commitment to democratic principles. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build deep and lasting democracy and prosperity in the Southern Mediterranean. Doing so will require vision, perseverance and a team effort from all of Europe’s institutions. I look at my partner in this effort, Stefan Füle, as I speak! We need to stay focused and committed. The scale of the challenge requires a joined-up EU response. What we do on trade and mobility is as important to the overall success of our strategy as what we do on election monitoring and supporting development.

Six months on, we still need to match words with delivery, and that is why I believe we need to re-energise the process. Last May, I set out here my vision for North Africa and the Middle East, a vision of deep-rooted democracy, and the benefits of development that will come to it. My priority is delivery. After the revolutions, we face that growing sense of impatience and uncertainty, so we have to translate good intentions into results and assistance on the ground.

The process of change was never going to be easy and never going to be fast. Real change takes time and will be measured in years, not seasons. Our response, which began with the communication of 8 March, is built on the need to acknowledge past mistakes and to listen without imposing. We are doing exactly that, and it requires perseverance and sustained commitment. Success should translate into what I have called ‘deep democracy’.

Political transformation will only succeed with economic opportunity. In the short term the uprisings were motivated by economic hardships, and have perhaps made those hardships even more severe in some places. There is no single template for our support, there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’. We have to develop tailor-made policies in response to the needs identified by each country.

Engagement with Arab partners, particularly with the Arab League, is essential. We are working ‘with them, not at them’, which is why I was a prime mover in the establishment of the Cairo Group. But we are in a new era where dialogue between governments is not enough. Success requires engagement with and between societies. The European Parliament is unique in what it can offer to those in search of democracy in Tunisia and beyond, particularly now that constituent assemblies will become the key institutional actors. Building and sustaining political parties is essential. The experience in this House is unmatched.

In New York, I participated in a high-level event on women in politics. I firmly believe that the continued central role of women in the Arab Spring is a key test of the strength and the extent of the changes. Women, together with the younger generation, were instrumental in the protests that toppled repressive regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, and they must remain central to shaping the reforms that follow. Deep and lasting democracy has to be for all people, not just one gender.

There was an encouraging signal on Sunday from perhaps an unexpected place, Saudi Arabia, when King Abdullah announced that women, as from next year, will be appointed to the Shura Council. They will also be able to vote and stand as candidates in elections in four years’ time. Many of us would have hoped to see women voting in this Thursday’s ballot, but this decision, if properly implemented, marks an initial step in advancing women’s participation in the political, economic and social life of that country.

The future of the Arab Spring depends on Tunisia and Egypt becoming success stories. What happens there as they move to elections and build a system of civil rights and democratic values will send messages everywhere else. Time is important: expectations are high, and we need to see visible results.

Tomorrow, I travel to Tunisia with Stefan; we have set up a new EU task force for that country; it is taking place at a key moment to show our support just three weeks ahead of the first truly democratic elections, on 23 October. An EU Election Observation Mission is already on the ground. Given the highly political nature of the event and the key contribution from the European Parliament to support countries in transition, I have invited a delegation from this House to join me in Tunis tomorrow. I am extremely grateful that members of this House have agreed to come with me and participate fully in the work of the task force. I hope that this will be a model which we will replicate again in the future.

The purpose of the task force is to focus on some of the key issues which will have a direct impact on the lives of Tunisians: business, investment and the economy; social development and democracy. It will be unique in that it brings together not only our Tunisian partners but also our international financial institutions and private sector representatives. It will be the occasion for strong political messages, with the opening of negotiations for a new privileged partnership which reflects our shared ambition. It will also be an opportunity to better coordinate European and international efforts to focus on faster, more effective support. This tailor-made approach, based on decentralised and coordinated use of all our instruments, will then be used with other countries in transition to better identify needs and accelerate support.

In Egypt, where we expect the interim authorities will soon confirm the date of elections, it is urgent that the ruling military council continues to engage with political representatives and civil society to get a new electoral law for the new democratic era. Egyptian authorities have declined European and other international offers of involvement in direct election observation, but we will be working with them on other urgent measures, through the Instrument for Stability, to enhance the capacity of Egypt’s High Electoral Commission and help judges and poll workers to manage and effectively oversee these first free, fair and democratic elections, as well as laying the basis for the organisation of future elections.

I know that many in this House are personally involved in strengthening the work of political parties in Egypt and I will, if I may, pay tribute to that work. I had great pleasure in meeting people who are engaged directly and I think it is well understood in Egypt how much this House is engaging there.

In some other countries in the region, the authorities have sought to respond to calls for greater freedoms by intensifying their reform processes, some of which were already under way before the Arab Spring. In Morocco, a new Constitution has been developed and approved overwhelmingly. This promises increased separation of powers and greater public accountability as well as improved respect for human rights. These are important, but they now need fast and sustained implementation.

In Jordan, the Lower House endorsed 41 constitutional amendments, which included the establishment of a constitutional court and the creation of an independent commission overseeing elections. The new election laws and the political parties’ law will be debated by their Parliament in October. We urge them to continue with their reform, and we pay tribute to the work which is going on to try and achieve that within Jordan.

In the case of both Morocco and Jordan, we will continue to build on the Advanced Status. In Morocco, we are developing a new action plan focusing on the reform agenda. We will shortly launch a mobility partnership, and we will step up our financial and technical cooperation. I look to his House to help play its part in supporting the moves which are going on in both those countries.

We want to accelerate ongoing trade negotiations and prepare mandates for deep and comprehensive free trade agreements in Morocco, Jordan, Egypt and Tunisia. Approval by Parliament to the EU-Morocco Agreement on Liberalisation Measures on Agricultural Products, Fish and Fishery Products will send a signal of our desire to deepen our relationship in practical ways to the benefit of their people.

We recognise today that fighting continues in Sirte, Bani Walid and a few other pockets of resistance, but Libya is transitioning fast from a crisis to the creation of a democracy. Last week in New York, I took part in the Friends of Libya meeting, where we were able to deliver a message of strong, continuing commitment. President Jalil has pledged to build a society based on tolerance and reconciliation and to uphold the principles of human rights.

The National Transitional Council and the international community also have to establish control over the large stock of weapons that the previous regime had amassed, to prevent them falling into the wrong hands. All this and more is essential for their transition.

In addition to our office in Benghazi, our new office in Tripoli is working closely with other partners under the coordination of the UN to determine the needs there. We know that Libya is a rich country, but we also know that they need support to develop their economy back to where it was; to help bring back the workforce which left Libya at the time of the crisis; to ensure that they are able to develop transparent ways of dealing with the resources that they will be receiving and the return of assets; to make sure that they have support in the security sector and to make sure that they are able to develop the links that they want to see, for example, the trade links they want to develop further with Europe, and the links which can help them develop a civil society which deserves that name. We are preparing projects to support civil society and women in Libya in particular.

May I also take note of Anna Gomes’ excellent suggestions to organise a visit of Libyan officials and civil society to the upcoming Spanish elections.

In Syria and Yemen, we face crisis situations. I do not have to tell any honourable Member here of the brutal regime in Syria that remains unwilling to listen to its people and to change. We are pursuing our double-track approach by stepping up measures designed to undermine the regime’s support and, internationally, to achieve further isolation of the Syrian leadership. We have made many rounds of sanctions, and I was delighted to see in the Financial Times this morning the recognition that those sanctions are having an effect. But we are very clear in our message to the people of Syria, and during August, all 27 Member States joined in to send a very strong message that it was time that President Assad stood aside and enabled the people of Syria to move forward.

Finally, Madam President, a word about Yemen. We have been strongly supporting the work of the Gulf Cooperation Council. You know that the unexpected return on Friday of President Saleh led to a very coordinated response out of New York from the GCC, the Arab League, the European Union, the United States and now the Security Council, all calling for violence to stop and for a rapid and concrete transfer of power. Nobody will be satisfied with another open-ended promise.

Honourable Members, I have tried to cover so much in this short presentation of the work which we are doing and the understanding that we have for the region. I look forward very much to your resolution and I continue to thank you for the support and advice that you have given as we move forward with what, I believe, is an increasingly clear strategy in uncertain times.

We hope for real and sustained progress both in Israel and Palestine, across North Africa and the wider Middle East. Further steps were taken in New York last week. We have to work together and continue to engage with all parties to make sure that we do have real cause for celebration when the General Assembly meets next September.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (ES) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, Commissioner, a balanced approach to the problem should be based on three premises: the State of Israel’s legitimate desire for security, the frustration of the Palestinian people and the blockage in the peace process.

All of this, Baroness Ashton, comes at a time when international attention is focused on the Arab Spring, at a time when the United States is hampered by its electoral commitments, at a time when the government of Israel is divided and has almost no room for manoeuvre and when Palestinian radicals are increasingly showing their pleasure with the lack of results.

Given this situation, Baroness Ashton, the question is very simple: what can we do as the European Union? In this context, I would like to tell you that Parliament, which has criticised you so many times – and I have been the first to do so – must acknowledge your efforts to seek solutions in Cairo, Ramallah, Jerusalem, New York and Washington, and your calls for the European Union to speak with one voice.

In politics, Madam President, whatever is impossible is wrong. In the face of the United States’ announced veto in the Security Council, the President of France, as in the Georgia crisis in 2008 and this year in Libya, has proposed a compromise solution, which is the Vatican solution.

Baroness Ashton, what view should we take of this initiative? Do you think it can be supported by the Member States? What can the European Union do to make the Quartet’s solution acceptable to the Palestinians?

Madam President, if the European Union wants to be relevant and not decline in significance on the international stage, it must take a step forwards. It must move in the right direction and rouse itself from its lethargy.

I am not saying this because of you, Baroness Ashton. You have done a lot and you have done it well, but you must propose solutions that are concrete, tangible, with defined costs and a precise timetable.

You need to do this – and this is the hard part – without impinging on or harming the dignity of either side, while also recognising the inalienable rights that will enable one side to live in peace and security and the others to form their own state.

  Véronique De Keyser, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (FR) Baroness Ashton, allow me to return to what happened at the General Assembly in New York. You only touched briefly on these matters and I would simply like to tell you today that my group supports President Abbas’s legitimate request to the United Nations (UN). It is a very simple statement.

(Applause)

Having said that, I have more or less said everything. We also regret that it has taken so long for this request to be made to the UN and we hope that Europe will finally succeed in speaking clearly and with one voice on this difficult subject.

Lady Ashton, you should not suppose that the simple phrase ‘We support President Abbas’s request’ met with instant acceptance within the political groups. There were fears of a misunderstanding with Israel, whose security has always been a must for us. Fears, too, that the Palestinian initiative might fail in the Security Council, potentially resulting in an outbreak of street violence in the Arab countries and perhaps economic sanctions against the Palestinian Authority, or pressure from the United States. All of which made this a difficult decision.

Yet what eventually carried the day was a kind of honesty and political courage on the part of MEPs. Yes, the Palestinians are entitled to membership. Sixty-three years after the same General Assembly recognised the State of Israel, 12 years after the Berlin Declaration promised to recognise the Palestinian state in due course, the time has come. The time has come to support those in Palestine who have opted for peace, negotiation and the creation of viable institutions. The time has come because Palestine is being whittled away. It is no longer the Palestine defined in 1947, nor in the Oslo Accords in 1993. It has even changed in the last few years. The Israeli Government’s policy of presenting faits accomplis, with settlements, the usurpation of agricultural land, the wall – all of this is consuming Palestine from within. There is no time to waste.

This very day, the Israeli Government has decided to build 1 100 housing units in Gilo, which will soon render a two-state solution impossible. The time has come. The Arab Spring has given rise to so much hope that it would be unthinkable for Europe to tell the Palestinians: ‘This spring is not for you. Hold on. In due time, as it says in the Berlin Declaration, your time will come’. Palestinians are dying today having never known anything but occupation. For all these reasons, the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament is today unreservedly supporting Mahmoud Abbas’s request to the UN. Let their courage – some have lived through troubled times – let their courage inspire you, Baroness Ashton, when you defend our position to the European governments.

There are times when European values and commitments have to take precedence.

(Applause)

  Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Palestinian Authority has caused a real stir with it candidature for full membership of the United Nations, as fine words no longer suffice. In all likelihood, all the Member States of the UN, including, of course, the Member States of the European Union, will have to determine their position on this issue in the near future, namely within a few weeks.

The United States has already said that it will use its veto in the Security Council. Israel is labelling this initiative a unilateral act that breaches the Oslo Accords. When it comes to unilateral initiatives, I would like to observe, on behalf of my entire group, that the building of settlements in occupied territories, the destruction of hundreds of Palestinian houses and the construction of a wall on Palestinian territory are also unilateral acts, and acts that, furthermore, contravene international law.

(Applause)

However, I am not here to point the finger. On behalf of my group, Baroness Ashton, I call on you and all the Member States to work in concert to ensure, through contact and discussions, that, by the end of the current session of the UN General Assembly at the latest, the Palestinians are able to obtain a better – in fact, the best possible – status within that organisation. We, too, believe that the Palestinians have a right to their own state. We also support you in your efforts to bring about a lasting peace accord between Israel and Palestine by the end of next year. The internationally accepted parameters of such an accord are well known: two states living side by side in peace, that recognise each other’s right to exist based on the 1967 borders, which can only be altered on the basis of a mutual accord, and with Jerusalem as the shared capital. There is also a need for a humane resolution to be found to the question of the refugees.

If this were not such a serious subject, I would point out at this juncture that the Belgian Members of this House, me included, are well aware that knowing the parameters of a problem is far from the same thing as being able to find easy solutions to it. Time is pressing, however. The changed political circumstances in various countries in the Middle East necessitate a rapid solution, and that is without even going into the human suffering that has been plaguing Israel and Palestine for so long. High Representative, we Belgians are working hard on finding a solution, and I hope that you, too, will succeed in that vein. We wish you every success.

  Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, the ECR Group is indeed in favour of a negotiated two-state Israel-Palestine solution, on the basis of the 1967 borders, with land for peace swaps, and agreed on by both parties under the Quartet principles. President Abbas’s unilateral bid before the UN General Assembly is rushed and will do nothing to change the situation on the ground. A lasting solution can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, which must, for its own part, stop the expansion of settlements on occupied territories. Moreover, statehood cannot be safely considered while Palestinian Gaza is governed by an EU-banned terrorist organisation, Hamas. It must also be remembered that Palestine is largely dependent on foreign aid, not only from the US and the European Union, but also from Israel, from whom it receives water and electricity, as well as assistance in collecting taxes.

Advocating unilaterally a recognised Palestinian Authority state without the UN Security Council’s approval, and only that of the General Assembly’s, risks sanctions from the US and Israel. The Israeli Prime Minister has, to his credit, now, without any preconditions, called for a return to direct talks. The ideal next step would be for the Palestinians, via the Palestinian Authority Government, to do likewise in order to achieve their state.

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, we need to be clear today. For many Palestinians – and I have just come back from visiting Ramallah and the Palestinian universities – the two-state solution is no longer on the agenda. The Israelis are not willing to accept it. Let us not delude ourselves: Israel is making a two-state solution increasingly impossible.

We are right to argue for two States, but we need to appreciate the Palestinians’ frustration. There is one thing that I do not understand. Like the Socialists, we support President Abbas’s request to the United Nations (UN). The words that he used: ‘There is not a State too many in the Middle East, but there is one State missing,’ imply that the State of Israel is legitimate but that a Palestinian state is needed. This is a wording that we can all sign up to. What I fail to understand, Baroness Ashton, is why you have come here to say that you regret Israel’s announcement today that it will be building a further 1 100 housing units. You could at least condemn that decision. Do not express regret. Say that it is not possible. Make that clear.

(Applause)

Then, even though we are in favour of immediate recognition for the Palestinian state, you should at least tell the Israelis that if they continue to build, you will push for the European States to agree to recognise the Palestinian state forthwith. Give them a taste of their own medicine. They say that they want to negotiate, but at the same time they are continuing the occupation. Take political action, Lady Ashton. Politics is not a prayer and a hope.

There are hundreds of thousands of people in Israel today who are opposed to Mr Netanyahu’s policy. The European Union, and we here today, need to be honest. Mr Tannock, let us not be cynical.

The State of Israel was unilaterally recognised by the UN in 1947, which was only right. It was right. There were no negotiations with the Arab nations. It was the right thing to do. Mr Tannock, you tell us that Israel is supporting the Palestinians by supplying water. In reality, Israel is stealing Palestinian water and selling it back to them. Do you call that support? Let us move away from this cynical attitude in Europe.

If, today, we do not all stand and say to the Israelis: ‘You understand peace to mean peace for Israel, to mean that Israel can have a place in the Middle East and even dream of a United States of the Middle East where everyone has their place’, then Israel will not understand that it is in its best interest to have a Palestinian state. Baroness Ashton, you need to tell the Israelis that they will not find other Palestinian representatives like Mr Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad and that although Hamas is currently opposed to Mr Abbas’s initiative, that is because the party knows that this initiative is the only way to have two states in the Middle East.

I think that your position is too weak. You have not said at any point how you will compel the Israelis to negotiate. This is an implausible fiction. They say that they want unconditional negotiations because, on the ground, the conditions are being changed, the occupation is continuing. Tell the Israelis that either they stop the settlements straight away – stop the colonisation and construction – or the European Union will support recognition for the Palestinian state now, at the 66th meeting of the United Nations.

If you do not do this, Baroness Ashton, you will find that there will not be any negotiations in six months’ time. A year down the line, we will be in the same position as we are now. You will come back here and say: ‘The Israelis and Palestinians need to understand that negotiation is the only way to achieve peace’. They will achieve peace, Lady Ashton, if we tell the Israelis that when it comes to defending the State of Israel, they have gone too far and enough is enough. If we take that tone with them, you will find that things will change.

  Georgios Toussas, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (EL) Madam President, the positions, policy, practices and action in general of the United States, the European Union and, in particular, certain Member States of the European Union, are strengthening Israeli aggression and fly in the face of the right and longing of the Palestinian people, the will of the people for the immediate recognition of an independent Palestinian state which belongs to the United Nations.

The European Union and the governments of its Member States, at this critical stage in the fight by the Palestinian people, are being judged by their actions, not by their hypocritical pronouncements, evasiveness and wishful thinking. They are being judged for putting the offender and the victim on an equal footing and for reinforcing Israeli intransigence. We call on the peoples of the area and on the peoples of the world in general to take a decisive stand against the games being played at the United Nations, to fight to eliminate the pressure being exerted on the Palestinian people by the US, the European Union and Israel and their imperialist allies, to demand that the governments take up a clear position in their stand and vote in the Security Council and at the UN General Assembly in favour of the immediate and unconditional recognition of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders with its capital in East Jerusalem which is a full member of the UN.

We resolutely support the position in favour of the immediate departure of Israeli occupying forces from all Palestinian territories, an immediate halt to the settlements and the departure of settlers, and the immediate recognition of an independent Palestinian Member State of the UN.

  Bastiaan Belder, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (NL) Madam President, following the Palestinian propaganda offensive in the General Assembly of the United Nations last week, a return to the harsh reality of Israeli-Palestinian relations is inevitable. One manifestation of that reality is a fundamental lack of a credible Palestinian peace partner for the Jewish state of Israel.

This is, first and foremost, evidenced by the fact that Mahmoud Abbas did not speak for Hamas in New York last Friday, nor did he act on Hamas’s behalf when submitting the Palestinian application for UN membership. It would appear that, despite the so-called reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, political relations between the two parties are not going smoothly. While the European Union is currently showing commitment, in particular, to democratisation and fair elections in the Arab world, what we are seeing on the west bank of the Jordan is precisely the opposite. What legitimacy does the Palestinian Authority still have after the third successive postponement of presidential, parliamentary and local elections?

The fundamental reason for Israel’s lack of confidence in Mahmoud Abbas as a peace partner is, above all, his systematic refusal to publicly implement the two-state solution of a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian one. Now, that is a rightful demand which has been made of Mr Abbas by my government, the government of the Netherlands, an EU Member State that I am proud of.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Madam President, we are aware of the work that the High Representative has done over the past number of weeks in the Middle East and we are grateful, High Representative, for the efforts that you have expended. You do not dwell too much on the differences that were very apparent at the UN in the two speeches from President Abbas and Mr Netanyahu, but perhaps you should not also dwell on the differences in the Quartet, with the Quartet envoy quoted in the British press last week as describing the Palestinian move as being deeply provocative. I think we all welcome your insistence on a negotiated settlement, but I would like you to explain to this House just a little further how you see that actually coming about.

Hamas has opposed the UN move with almost a ‘too little, too late’ attitude. I would like you to explain to this House, and to give guarantees to this House, that the proposed cooperation between Abbas and the Hamas movement will not be translated into their presence at negotiations, given that Hamas is a terrorist movement, dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the genocide of Israeli citizens.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – With all due personal respect for you, Ms Dodds, would you kindly confirm that this is not the position of the non-attached Members as such, but only your personal position?

I am a non-attached Member myself and I do not consider Hamas a terrorist organisation. I am for a free and independent state of Palestine on the basis of human rights and self-determination of people. What is more, as a non-attached Member, I also stand for the suspension of the association agreements between the EU and Israel while the mass human rights violations by Israel against Palestine continue.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Madam President, on a point-of-order as well as answering the blue-card question, can you confirm to this House that a blue card is a matter of asking a question to another Member and not a matter of making a political speech and putting forward one’s own view? I am very happy to confirm to this House that I do not speak for any non-attached Member other than myself. I am an independent Member in this House. I firmly stand for peace, democracy and absolute abhorrence of terrorist organisations like Hamas.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Chris Davies (ALDE). – Madam President, I am sure that, in condemning terrorist organisations, the honourable Member will also want to condemn the Stern Gang. This was a terrorist organisation in the 1940s, fighting against British troops, and whose leader killed British troops. It was the number one terrorist organisation as far as the British Government was concerned. Its leader went on to become Prime Minister of Israel. Can we just remember that, however much we may deplore terrorist organisations, if we want to make peace, we sometimes have to talk with those who do not necessarily share all our views?

  Diane Dodds (NI). – I come from Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, we have had 30 years of a terrorist campaign. We have had a terror organisation that has blown up people, killed people, including children, and gone into hospitals and tried to shoot people. We have had all of those things in Northern Ireland and, yet, some of those people who previously supported that terror organisation and that terrorist campaign find themselves in government. The reason that they were able to take part, and my party was able to take part in any kind of negotiation with those people, was the insistence that they give up terrorism and that they commit to exclusively peaceful and democratic means.

The world has changed. We can no longer bury our heads in the sand in this House and pretend that there are good terrorists and bad terrorists. Terrorist organisations should not be negotiated with.

  Ioannis Kasoulides (PPE). – Madam President, the official Palestinian demand for full membership of the United Nations will be examined in the weeks to come and negotiations will take place between members of the Security Council. Full membership status will be vetoed by the United States. If matters come to that point, the Palestinians will address themselves to the General Assembly.

The Quartet has called for the resumption of direct talks on the Middle East process, to last twelve months, the first three to be devoted to borders and security. From the above, our previous position that the issue is not a clear ‘yes’ or a clear ‘no’ to the Palestinian request is the wisest approach.

Certain principles must guide the position of Parliament: the European Union must reach a unanimous position on the developments and play an important role in the negotiations that follow; any outcome must have due regard for the dignity of both sides; it must be taken into account that the status quo is unacceptable and all efforts should be towards the resumption of direct peace negotiations, as called for by the Quartet; we oppose any unilateral actions including new facts on the ground or the expansion of settlements.

It would be wrong at the present stage for our resolution to pre-empt the outcome of these diplomatic efforts. Any partisan approach endangers the negotiating process and weakens the possibility of the catalytic role to be played by the European Union.

  Hannes Swoboda (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, much has been said here about organisations, terrorism and other things. However, sometimes the Members of this House should consider the people who are affected by political decisions. Just this once, I would like to quote from literature. I do not know which of you has read the book by Amos Oz entitled ‘A Tale of Love and Darkness’. In this book, Amos Oz describes a scene from the year 1947 that moved me very much. The vote was being held in the United Nations in November 1947 and all of the people of Israel were listening in on the radio – there was no television at the time – to see how the decision would go. He describes the jubilation that broke out throughout Israel when the decision was taken and the majority of votes were in favour of Israel. Then Amos Oz corrects himself and writes: actually not throughout Israel, but just in the Jewish part of Israel. So what about the others?

The year 1947 has already been mentioned here. I constantly find myself asking: how can anyone justify the fact that the state of Israel was founded in 1947 – thank God! – and yet we still do not have a state of Palestine, even though the decision at the time was that two states should be founded? Is there anyone in this House who would deny the Palestinians the joy that the Israelis rightly experienced in 1947? I fail to understand this to this very day. This is not a question of propaganda, or terrorism, it is a matter of people’s lives. Sometimes people ask what is the benefit of statehood? The Jews in the Israeli state, who received the news of the United Nations vote with such jubilation, benefited a great deal from this decision.

All I have to say to you, Baroness Ashton, ladies and gentlemen, is that I would like to see the Palestinians having an opportunity to experience the same joy, preferably as quickly as possible: they also deserve a state of their own after many decades of struggle and strife. The Palestinians have a right to a state of their own, just as Jews have a right to the state of Israel. This should be our common objective.

(Applause)

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE). – (DE) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, some excellent work has been done in a difficult field. I am a little surprised by Mr Cohn-Bendit, who spent five minutes berating you, describing your role as that of a blackmailer and calling on you to resolve the problems immediately, before leaving the Chamber. He could at least have waited to hear what you had to say in reply.

The fact is that some excellent work has been done in this field. There is one thing that we must not forget: what were our fears? We were afraid that the European Union would once again create an impression that our Member States would not pull together, just as we failed to act cohesively in the war in Iraq or as we are doing now in Libya. Germany and France had already made their positions clear in individual statements.

On the contrary, the European Union is pulling together. You have earned the trust of both sides in the region, the Israelis and the Palestinians. This is a diplomatic feat in itself and it is true to say that we can only play a constructive role through trust. It is also true that we, the European Union, can only play a constructive role if our Member States are united. Both of these points are on a good footing thanks to your work. Overall, you have done a good job.

There are three more important things I would like to mention: we want a united European Union – you are making good progress in this direction. As Parliament stated in its resolution, we want a negotiated solution in the United Nations. We do not want a vote with winners and losers. We regard this as vitally important.

Thirdly, we must have a timetable. We say that the Palestinians should get their upgrade during the 66th General Assembly, in other words, they must be recognised.

We should allow the Palestinians this moment of joy, Mr Swoboda. However, I should say, whenever reference is made to 1947, that immediately afterwards, in 1948, Israel found itself under attack from all its Arab neighbours. If we achieve recognition for Palestine as a peaceful state and secure borders for the state of Israel, then this will be a reason to celebrate for the Palestinians, for the Israelis and for us here in Europe who played a constructive role, thanks to your efforts.

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). – (NL) Madam Ashton, in my opinion, the unilateral step made by Mr Abbas last week was not that clever, nor did the Middle East quartet urge him to refrain from it without reason. That unilateral step will not bring us any closer to peace. Quite the opposite. We should not be heading in that direction just as a tactic to put pressure on each other.

What is essential, though, is that we return to the negotiating table without delay, which is what you have rightly been working towards. We support you in those efforts. Israel has demonstrated to you that it is going to take the negotiations seriously. Mr Lieberman has said that he wants to return to the table to resume the talks. I call upon you to make that happen as early as tomorrow! We have to get back to the negotiating table; it is only there that we can make agreements and achieve peace and real results. Peace is vitally important for the parties in the Middle East and for the world as a whole. I would like to hear from you what the chances are of a speedy return to negotiations.

  Jill Evans (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, as the UN considers Palestine’s application for full state membership, I would join the many others across Europe and beyond in urging the EU and the EU Member States to support the Palestinian request.

Talks so far have failed. Of course, peace can only be achieved through negotiation. The recognition of the state of Palestine could lead to a freeze on the building of illegal settlements on the West Bank. It could lead to the end of the occupation. That is the way to ensure that further talks take place and that a two-state solution will be possible in the future. I agree with Mr Cohn-Bendit on the need for a stronger response to new settlement building.

The Palestinians have the right to be recognised as a state and that means that they would have full rights to participate in all international agreements and treaties. Amnesty International has raised concerns that the EU is promoting a compromise which would prevent recourse to the International Criminal Court. This would undermine both the ICC’s credibility and the principle of equal access to justice and reparation for all people. I hope that this is not the case and I would like to ask Baroness Ashton for her response on this.

  Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL) . – (FR) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, there is one fact that has not been mentioned: the majority of the Israeli people, the majority of Palestinians and the majority of representatives from the states of the world support Mahmoud Abbas’s proposal that Palestine should become the 194th member of the United Nations.

Can our Parliament and you yourself, Baroness Ashton, continue to congratulate ourselves here in the calm and the warm, on what is being called the Arab Spring and yet go on prevaricating over recognising the Palestinian state? Any further prevarication is essentially playing for time to crush the very idea of a Palestinian state.

This time, we must not allow ourselves to be distracted. Those here who are calling this afternoon for the immediate resumption of direct negotiations are trying to conceal the fact that this situation has gone on for decades with no resolution, that the United States is the only one calling the shots, and that both the context and the terminology used are totally biased.

In fact, all discussions about Palestine refer only to occupied territories. This implies that the territories could be discussed and disputed for ever and that it is up to the occupied to prove that they have a right to be there. This terminology is very different to ‘occupied country’.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is an extremely important political time, an historic moment, even. A clear and unambiguous resolution from our Parliament in support of Mahmoud Abbas’s proposal would send a clear and unambiguous signal.

(Applause)

  Nikolaos Salavrakos (EFD). – (EL) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, I truly appreciate your action and initiatives within the framework of your duties in connection with this issue. We welcome the Arab Spring, in so far as it aims to create conditions for democratisation, the restoration of respect and human rights and commonly acceptable ideas in general. However, I fear that the main issue that is keeping the situation in the Middle East on the boil is progress in relations between Iran and the West, the Arab-Israeli conflict and Islamic fundamentalism, the fundamentalism which Turkish neo-Ottomanism is trying to exploit. We support ideas and I consider that the Palestinians’ request should be evaluated within the framework of the UN in good faith and with consideration for both sides. In any event, we in the West must all understand that, as a problem, the Middle East needs a solution.

  Elmar Brok (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, in the past, we have often criticised Baroness Ashton, the High Representative and Vice-President of the Commission. I must say that I support and applaud what has been achieved with the Quartet under her leadership following the failure of the US to offer an effective response. We should try to support these achievements. Admittedly, there are differing opinions in this House regarding the desired final outcome. I do believe that we agree on one thing, however: we need a two-state solution with a viable Palestinian state and a secure Jewish state of Israel.

We need movement on this question. I believe that everyone is trying to get things moving again, in order to get out of this stressful situation. I do not yet know whether this will work. However, if we were now to have a unilateral resolution, something that is not going to happen, leaving us with just a motion, because there is no majority in the Security Council and a veto would have to be overcome, then we would have reached a new deadlock that permits no further negotiation. There can be no resolution for any side; this would only be a short-term success for President Abbas, and would lead to further radicalisation. In the context of the Arab Spring in particular, this would put the US and others, including Member States of the European Union, in a difficult position. That is why I believe that the attempt to implement the proposals of the Quartet in relation to peace talks with a fixed schedule, clear conditions and clear objectives is the best approach and should receive our support. I also believe that we should adopt the path proposed by the Quartet in order to combine peace and security. In my opinion, this means that neither side should carry out violent actions, develop settlements or contribute in any way to conditions that make a resolution impossible. For this reason, Baroness Ashton, we wish you every success in the coming days.

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D). – (BG) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, today we are having another debate about the situation in the Middle East. It certainly will not be the last, but I believe that we are moving ever closer towards the solutions which will bring about peaceful coexistence between two peoples, two independent and equal states.

The request submitted by Palestine to be admitted as a full member of the UN is a step which entails great risks, but also opens up opportunities. I am sure that President Abbas would not have taken this step if he was not convinced that all the other moves and methods have been exhausted. I personally view this as a clear cry for help and no one can fail to hear this cry.

At a time when the peoples of North Africa and the Middle East are fighting for democracy and a better future for their countries, the Palestinians still do not have their own state. This, in itself, is enough to stir up discontent and new signs of radicalisation in the region.

I realise what a difficult position the international community is in. However, we should also accept this as a test of our ability to demonstrate determination and synergy. I would like to see the European Union’s Member States adopt a united stance in supporting the request submitted on behalf of the Palestinian people. The quicker we reach this position, the easier it will be for us to play a key role in the ensuing process.

In saying this, I do not want in any way for us to close our eyes to the serious risks posed to Israel’s security. However, I believe that inaction and postponing the negotiations will be increasingly costly to Israel itself.

Baroness Ashton, I would like you to share with us your view as to what the best possible future scenario is. You may want to share with us your ideas about how the European Parliament can help you achieve this.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE). – (FR) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, the Palestinian people deserve formal recognition for their state at long last. I think that everyone in the Chamber is more or less agreed on the principle of supporting this legitimate demand. I would even go so far as to say that I can understand Mahmoud Abbas’s determination to take this to the bitter end. By getting his foot in the door of the Security Council, he has put the advocates of the peace process in an awkward position. Instead of a status quo, the United States, the Quartet and European Union are faced with an uncompromising yet almost inevitable request in the light of the current stalemate in the negotiations and the current Israeli Government’s reticence, to put it mildly.

Having said that, I am wholeheartedly convinced that after 60 years of conflict, there can be no short cut to peace now: peace will have to be negotiated between those same parties that have so long disputed the same land.

Ten years ago, the Israeli Education Minister proposed including poems by Mahmoud Darwich in the Israeli school curriculum to ensure that future generations – who are now the current generation – would be able to see through the other’s eyes. It is now up to them to share their promised land in accordance with the timetable and to make urgent use of the window of opportunity as described in paragraph 2 of our resolution.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Graham Watson (ALDE). – Madam President, Mrs Ries spoke about a peace being negotiated. I wonder what her view would be, and indeed what the view of the High Representative would be, on those negotiations, including any kind of absolvement from the International Criminal Court for any crimes that might have been committed. If it is true, as Amnesty International is suggesting, that there is some idea that any negotiated peace might include excluding the International Criminal Court from any role in the future, then I think the European Union should rethink its position. I would be interested to know Mrs Ries’ position on that, and also the High Representative’s position when she replies.

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE). – (FR) I do apologise, but I made this point about the blue-card questions last time. I do not think that they are intended to be used for personal cross-examinations, which tends to be the case. I think that it is rather sad that this is now happening within the same political groups and that the question that has just been asked does not relate to my comments, which I feel were a model of moderation, not to mention indicative of a desire to find compromises and make progress, and should have been applauded.

I sometimes wonder whether, if we were to send some speakers from Parliament in person to negotiate in these countries, progress might be a little faster than it is at present. I have my doubts. So I do apologise, but I do not feel that the issue relates to the comments that I made. What is more, I am not certain that Baroness Ashton will want to respond to this question either.

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR). – Madam President, I suppose the question for us is really what can the EU contribute usefully to developments in the Middle East? Baroness Ashton, you have expressed your view on how important the role of the EU has been, but I am more interested in practical results. On this I agree with what Mr Salafranca was saying. You say you want to get Israel and the Palestinians back to the negotiating table. Well, yes, we all do. Israel says she has long been open to resuming negotiations, so what pressure have you brought to bear on the Palestinians?

The EU is the most significant financial supporter of the Palestinian Authority, with some EUR 2 billion over the past four years. What action is being taken to leverage that financial influence to bring the Palestinians to the conference table? Where is the return on this investment?

The unilateral action by the Palestinian Authority at the United Nations is a deliberate provocation. Let us not forget, by the way, that Yasser Arafat declared Palestinian independence in October 1988. What is clear is that every time Israel has made a major concession, it has been greeted with further violence and seen as a sign of weakness. Look at what happened after the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 and after Netanyahu’s ten-month suspension of settlement construction in the West Bank in 2009.

We have a small window of opportunity before the situation escalates. The EU needs to act responsibly.

  Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE). – (DA) Madam President, thank you, Baroness Ashton. I believe that we are almost all agreed that it is good that the Palestinians have made such a lot of progress, and I think that there is broad support for the Palestinians having their own state. However, Israel needs help, too. In the newspaper Haaretz today, in addition to the terrible news of the many new settlements in Gilo, there is also an article that compares Israel to the Titanic. If no one stops Israel now, it will continue to sail towards disaster. It is therefore important for us to do more than just list everything that needs to be done. Israel will indeed go on and on and on – because no one is stopping the present government.

The cry for help that I have heard from so many quarters is coming not least from the Israeli people, who are saying that this is all about to end in disaster. Therefore, Baroness Ashton, a great deal more ought to be done than simply to express regret at this, once again, disastrous decision regarding settlements. I also believe that much more can be done than to simply condemn this decision. We do, in fact, have the means to let Israel know that it is now time to stop if this entire situation is to end in anything other than violence and devastation.

  Vytautas Landsbergis (PPE). – Madam President, let me share something with you the House. Peace must be negotiated in order to achieve a negotiated peace. That peace is a priority, as it brings with it all other solutions about secure borders, settlements and refugees. That priority of peace can only be negotiated by men and women of peace. People of conflict cannot negotiate peace.

  Hans-Gert Pöttering (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, yesterday, the Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Germany told the United Nations that the defence of Israel’s security was part of state policy for the Federal Republic of Germany. I would like to express my support for this on both political and moral grounds.

However, this stance on the defence of Israeli security does not mean that we can stay silent in relation to injustices originating in Israel. What we are witnessing in the building of settlements is a continuous violation of the dignity of the Palestinians, because they are being deprived of what belongs to them.

Madam Vice-President, I hold your work in high esteem and I wish expressly to praise you in this regard. However, when we now hear that Israel intends building 1 100 new homes on the other side of the Green Line in Jerusalem, then a statement of regret is not sufficient. Instead, we must say that in this particular situation, such a move constitutes a provocation and must be condemned. In the end, Israel will achieve exactly what it does not want, namely, a unilateral recognition of Palestine. I would prefer to see a solution that derives from negotiations. However, if Israel continues to behave as it does at present, then we will see a unilateral recognition of Palestine. I must state that the Palestinians have the right to live in dignity and their dignity must be expressed in a state that is recognised by the international community. Both Israel and Palestine must live together in partnership, each with their own secure borders. We must, once and for all, stop vacillating in our response to the continued building of settlements. We must criticise and condemn such moves.

  Proinsias De Rossa (S&D). – Madam President, this Parliament must give hope to Palestinians that their long night of humiliation and oppression can come to an end – and soon – while reassuring Israelis that their security and right to peace is guaranteed. Our vote tomorrow is critical. A vote for a Palestinian seat in the United Nations is a vote for Abbas’s non-violent diplomatic political strategy. It is a vote for a negotiated settlement, to which President Abbas has repeatedly said he is committed.

As former Prime Minister Olmert said in the New York Times last week, the time for true leadership has come. Israel will not always find itself sitting across the table from Palestinian leaders, like Mr Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who object to terrorism and want peace. Indeed future Palestinian leaders might abandon the idea of two states and take a one-state solution, making reconciliation impossible.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, on the other hand, calls for negotiations without preconditions while, at the same time, establishing concrete preconditions on the ground again today by ordering new building in East Jerusalem. This is clearly intended to prevent negotiations getting under way. Regretting these actions will not stop them, Baroness Ashton. We have to make it clear that these actions carry a cost.

I welcome the efforts you have made over the last while; I welcome, too, the Quartet’s statement of last week, limited though it is. However, its success depends on our building on the positive international engagement that the Abbas initiative has brought about. To conclude, could I ask you, Baroness Ashton, to come back to the House at some point in the near future with the proposals referred to in the Quartet statement that it is looking for ways to increase the independence of the Palestinian Authority and its sovereignty.

  Chris Davies (ALDE). – Madam President, last Friday was a good day for Palestinians. They do not get many of those. With all its divisions, I do not think the European Union has exactly covered itself in glory, but I pay credit to the High Representative for her efforts in herding cats.

Collectively though, we risk being on the wrong side. Some Member States do not seem to recognise that Israel has two faces. One is liberal and democratic, and we all support it. The other, the one seen in the Palestinian territories, is one of arbitrary and unjust military rule. Of course a solution has to be reached and of course it has to be reached by negotiation, but I just see the present Israeli Government putting in place more and more preconditions – like the preconditions we have heard about, such as building settlements. It is like asking the Palestinians to share the division of a pizza, while the Israelis continue to eat the Palestinian side of it. Then there is the new precondition of recognising Israel as a Jewish state – well we recognise states, but we do not recognise the character of states.

High Representative, I just see no movement on the part of Prime Minister Netanyahu. However, you have been privy to the talks and you have been negotiating. Can you give the House any indication of where such movements will come from?

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE). – Madam President, just a short question to Mr Davies. Would he concede that, on the Palestinian side, it is fair to speak of two faces as well?

  Chris Davies (ALDE). – Madam President, it is certainly true to say that Palestine is divided. When we look at Hamas – and we always look at Hamas and the problems there – we also have to recognise that, when there has been great injustice, one side may turn to extreme measures. The way to defeat terrorism is to try to involve people in day-to-day politics. We sponsored elections which were won by Hamas. We sponsored elections, and then we refused to deal with the democratic leaders. We allowed the men of violence to triumph. We have problems with the way we have dealt with this problem in the past. We need to try to learn the lessons for the future.

  Ashley Fox (ECR). – Madam President, last week’s UN General Assembly meeting and the associated media coverage was dominated by Palestine’s move to gain full membership of the UN – rightly so – but that very important event overshadowed a little corner of the Middle East – the return of President Saleh to Yemen – and I would like to address the High Representative on this issue.

The situation in Yemen has received very limited coverage, though its importance to the Middle East cannot be underestimated. Yemen desperately needs attention and support if it is to avoid becoming a failed state. Al-Qaeda has a strong presence there and there are at least two secessionist movements trying to rip the country apart.

High Representative, I have said this before in this Chamber and I shall repeat it: if Yemen is allowed to fail, then the consequences will be dire, not just for Yemeni citizens but for all of us. I know your scope for action is very limited, but I would urge you to do all you can to work with the Saudi Arabian Government and with the Gulf Cooperation Council to do all we can to avoid Yemen degenerating into another Somalia.

  Franziska Katharina Brantner (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I would actually like to talk about Libya. A Green delegation has just returned from Libya. We spent four days there and many decisions are being taken now, at EU level as well. It is inspiring and impressive, but a daunting, task.

Allow me to pick out just two issues. First, the EU has been called upon to help with border control. Actually, Gaddafi asked us exactly the same thing a year ago. I had opposed it in the past because there was no legal framework at all in Libya for migration. There still is not. All I ask you, Baroness Ashton and Mr Füle, is to ensure that we do not do one without the other – border control without any legal framework – that we do not train border control personnel in a legal vacuum. I think it would be a serious mistake if we were to do that now.

Secondly, women have been victims of violence and they have been very active in the revolution. Now is the time to support them quickly and unbureaucratically. We met amazing young women full of hope, with a strong will and a desire for freedom. They were the only ones actually asking for financial support because they do not have access to the pots of money wandering around. Please do not disappoint them.

Finally, I am very worried about Egypt. The military has taken a very hard grip on society again. I want you to speak out on this. We need to hear you and your voice in criticising what is going on.

  Mário David (PPE). – (PT) Madam President, the fact that there is no peace process under way is jeopardising fundamental rights and has led both sides to adopt unilateral measures, which has in no way contributed to easing the tension in the region, and even less so to effectively seeking a life for the two peoples, which have the right to live harmoniously in peace, security and dignity.

The time has come for the international community to say enough is enough. The time has come for the Arab League to get behind seeking a lasting and sensitive solution, by tabling viable solutions without delay and with limited timeframes. It is clear that the United States and Russia have yet to be part of the solution.

Let us start with Jerusalem: why not relaunch the initial idea of a corpus separatum administered by the United Nations and that functions, obviously, as the capital of both states?

With regard to borders, let us begin with those of 1967. Parcels of land should be exchanged in as far as is possible and consistent. Care should be taken to protect Israel, which is a crucial issue for the Jewish people; this could be done, for example, by stationing a UN peacekeeping force comprising US, European and Islamic forces on the banks of the River Jordan.

There are 4.8 million refugees and they have the right to their dignity; to a future linked to land, preferably their own. However, this is not an exclusively Israeli problem, or a Palestinian one: it is our problem too, and that of the neighbouring Arab countries and the Arab community in general, but it is also a problem for Europe and the rest of the international community.

The expansion of the settlements must stop and that is non-negotiable. The announcement made today is shameful and translates hypocrisy and poor faith into readiness for immediate negotiations. Above all, we want negotiations in good faith, undertaken with a fixed end date, after which the international community will have to have a different attitude in order to maintain its credibility.

  Kader Arif (S&D). – (FR) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, ever since the United Nations General Assembly agreed to create two states on the territory that formerly constituted the Palestine Mandate in 1947, we have never stopped waiting for that commitment to be realised.

So how can we now accept the caution expressed in the speeches? In the light of this historic opportunity, how can we justify refusing to back President Abbas’s request fully? Let me remind you, Baroness Ashton, that sometimes caution can result in cowardice.

I would therefore like to pay tribute to the courage and perseverance of one man, Mahmoud Abbas. He is the bearer of a legitimate hope, that of a people who have a right to a land. For those who object to the fact that this initiative could provoke an outbreak of violence, let me remind you that a few years ago, the suppression of a similar initiative fostered the Second Intifada.

My message is simple, Baroness Ashton: at the time of the Arab Spring, it is your duty and ours to support the Palestinian request to the hilt. The European Union boasts of having brought down a wall and of recognising states. It will be able to stand even prouder if it recognises that the Palestinians are also entitled to statehood.

IN THE CHAIR: ISABELLE DURANT
Vice-President

  Rui Tavares (Verts/ALE). – (PT) Madam President, the question the Palestinians are posing, not just to the Member States of the Security Council, not just to the nations of the United Nations (UN), but to all of us, is very simple: will the Palestinians – occupied, colonised – have the right to see the dignity of their state recognised by the UN? Yes or no? Without calling into question the existence of the state of Israel alongside Palestine, yes or no? A delayed or evasive response is an unworthy response. The Palestinians have the right to an answer from the European Union, too: yes or no?

Moreover, instead of accepting this type of continuous delay, whilst Israel pushes ahead with its settlements, what we should be doing is talking to Israeli society – to the 400 000 middle-class Israelis who have taken to the streets – and saying to them: ‘accept the state of Palestine now, accept peace now, and the European Union will take responsibility for everyone’s security, for everyone’s dignity, and for giving everyone access to the European Union’s markets, which is access to prosperity for everyone’. This is because Israeli civil society knows very well that the route down which Mr Netanyahu is taking them is an alleyway with no way out and no friends.

We cannot continue with this fate of staying on the outside of historic occasions. A simple yes or no response, Lady Ashton: yes.

  Michael Cashman (S&D). – Madam President, I hope the House will allow me to ask it to recognise and welcome Members of the South African Parliament who are here in the gallery, led by the Honourable Joan Fubbs. I mention them in particular because Africa is affected directly by events in North Africa, and indeed by events in the Middle East. I think it is our duty, and indeed our honour, to welcome them to this debate.

(Applause)

  Mario Mauro (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, ladies and gentlemen, it was quite right of Mr Brok to say that in the past, many of us have criticised you on a number of initiatives.

We shall not do so this time and that is because we recognise that the presence of the High Representative is something of an innovation which, by helping the European Union to take a common stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, could be crucial in effecting a change for the better in the conflict.

We therefore hope that you are aware and can feel the support of Parliament and, as Mr Pöttering rightly said, we know what we want. We want an agreement based on the existence of two democratic and sovereign states, whose peoples can live within secure and internationally recognised borders. What we are still lacking are negotiations with clear dates and clear conclusions. All democratic countries know that peace will be achieved when the Palestinian state is created, but we also know that this can only come to pass through proper peace talks.

The Palestinian state cannot exist without peace, and proclaiming its existence today would only mean ending peace talks and opening a new phase of internal conflict.

  Saïd El Khadraoui (S&D). – (NL) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, we have been waiting for decades now. It is high time that we nailed our colours to the mast and offered the Palestinians a genuine prospect of a stable and economically viable future. The only way that that can be achieved, however, is by starting with recognition. The Palestinian state should therefore be recognised because, by giving the Palestinian people recognition, we will also be giving them hope.

The clock has been ticking for many years. There is a time bomb of frustration which needs to be defused. I believe that, in the context of the Arab Spring and the rapid geopolitical changes in the region, this could create a momentum which could lead to lasting peace, because that is, obviously, what we all ultimately want to achieve.

Negotiations have to be resumed, of course, but I personally believe that the stronger of the two parties should make the first gesture by, for example, ceasing to build any more settlements. That could give the process a shot in the arm.

Finally, let us be clear about one thing: the Palestinians have not exactly been keeping their intention to apply for recognition a secret. It is, therefore, regrettable that the international community did too little to anticipate it and that we waited as long as we did to find a solution that would force the parties back to the negotiating table.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE). – (FR) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, the request made by Mahmoud Abbas must be supported because it is legitimate. It appears all the more legitimate against the backdrop of the Arab Spring uprisings, in which the people are currently proving that they are so hungry for democracy and liberty that they are willing to lay down their lives for them.

We cannot respond to this request for justice with injustice. The situation that has persisted for many years in the Middle East is no longer acceptable and must end. We now need to call for a real solution, namely, the immediate resumption of negotiations with a strict timetable and based on the 1967 agreement.

The creation of a democratic, viable and peaceful Palestinian state is surely the best guarantee of Israel’s security. Baroness Ashton, I congratulate you on all your efforts, but we need to go further, because once again, the Member States of the European Union are sadly divided and do not have a common position. Unfortunately, some European governments are acting counter to the will of their citizens, the bulk of whom are in favour of the creation of a Palestinian state. As the elected representatives of those citizens, can we accept this? I can also fully endorse the comments made by Mr Pöttering.

Baroness Ashton, it is time for the wind of change that is blowing in one part of the Arab world to be felt in Jerusalem, Ramallah and Tel Aviv too.

(Applause)

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we have reached a crucial moment in the decade-long aspiration of the Palestinian people to have a state of their own and also in the rightful aspiration of the people of Israel to live in safety. This is because the latter is so intimately connected with the former, because there can be no safety without peace and there can be no peace without a democratic Palestinian state that is respectful of international law, as outlined by Mr Abbas to the United Nations.

The acceptance of the timeline drawn up by the Quartet is a victory for the European Union and one which we must salute you for, Baroness Ashton, even though some countries did try to steal the European Union’s limelight. However, the news of new settlements warns us that the path ahead will be strewn with difficulties. That is why it is important to increase the pressure on the Israeli Government and clearly express the EU’s support – despite the absence of absolute unanimity – for a possible vote in the UN General Assembly on awarding the status of non-Member State.

This House must be united in upholding and increasing this pressure, including putting aside differences of opinion on full membership, giving its unanimous backing through its resolution on the legitimate aspiration of the Palestinian people to be represented as a state at the United Nations.

  György Schöpflin (PPE). – Madam President, I think we all agree that the Middle East is undergoing a palpable transformation; the Arab Spring, democracy movements, decline of the autocrats, they all testify to this.

In this context, the bid for the full recognition of Palestinian statehood has become a reality – whether the United States accepts this or not. In this context, too, it is irrelevant that the United States has already signalled that it will veto the Palestinian application, because the idea of a Palestinian state has garnered substantial support around the world. Probably a majority of the Members of the United Nations are in favour, so this acceptance of Palestinian statehood is almost certainly irreversible as a political fact.

Legally, of course, nothing much has happened, but political realities and legal status are often at variance. What is perplexing in this context, too, is Israel’s solid rejection of the Palestinian position despite all the evidence – and we heard a lot of it this afternoon – that the much discussed two-state solution is the most likely outcome – true, a long-term outcome – of the process.

So the implication is that Israel will eventually be constrained to accept the Palestinian bid for statehood, so the sooner it does so, the better for all concerned. It is regrettable, all the more regrettable then, that Israel and its supporters are basically disregarding a new political fact, the due arrival of Palestinian statehood.

  Göran Färm (S&D). – Madam President, the Budgets Committee of the European Parliament is preparing a report on the new neighbourhood instrument as well as on the 2012 EU Budget, and I have some questions.

One, we must draw conclusions from what the EU did before the Arab Spring. We supported civil society, democratic institution building, etc., but it is obvious that many saw EU aid mainly as support for the existing, far from democratic regimes. So my question is: what will the Commission suggest in order to design the programmes, rules, conditionality criteria, etc., for the future, to avoid that?

Two, we must also draw conclusions from the fact that historically, some Member States, particularly the old colonial powers, gave priority to their national interests rather than those of the local citizens or the European Union. How can we achieve better coordination for the future in order for the Union to play a crucial and constructive role?

Three, the situation in Palestine makes it absolutely necessary to increase substantially the Commission and Council proposals for funding 2012. Will the Commission come up with a revised proposal for that?

  Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE). – (EL) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, the Palestinian Authority has applied for membership of the UN as an independent state. This is, without doubt, an historic moment. We know that, barring unforeseen incidents, this will not be approved by the Security Council. We also know that, if this request is submitted to the General Assembly, Palestine will most probably be granted observer status, similar to that of the Vatican.

I believe that, under the circumstances, this will be a very positive development for at least three reasons. Firstly, because it is a question of principle: at last, tangible steps must be taken to bring about an independent, recognised Palestinian state. Secondly, because this will not affect talks to find a solution: why should a change in the status of Palestine affect or, as has been said, prevent the procedure from resuming? I believe that this is a mistaken assessment. The third positive point is that the extreme Palestinian wing, Hamas, which is opposed to the effort being made by President Abbas at the UN, will suffer a political defeat; it will be weakened and its political clout will wane.

Finally, if the Palestinian Authority is initially given observer status and then full member status, Israel’s security will improve. Israel has an inalienable right to security and the Palestinians have an inalienable right to an independent state. Both these objectives can be achieved from a positive development at the UN.

  María Muñiz De Urquiza (S&D). – (ES) Madam President, this is your moment, Baroness Ashton, this is the moment of the European Union to consolidate the political relevance and prestige that it is regaining in the region, and which have deteriorated over recent years as a result of paralysis and blockages.

It is time for the European Union to speak out before the United Nations in a voice that is loud, clear, independent and unanimous – or if not unanimous then ambitious – in favour of the Palestinian Authority’s legitimate request to be recognised by the United Nations.

The Palestinian authorities have, over recent years, fulfilled the conditions set for it by the international community, leading to fruitful talks on the creation of a Palestinian state.

Israel has not met the only condition it was set, which was to halt the settlements.

It is time for the European Union to align itself with those who have far-reaching goals, not to side with the obstructors, to take a step forwards and condemn Israel’s continued settlement building, thereby giving the European Union a relevant role in the future talks that we hope will be held from now onwards.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, last month saw the collapse of the Gaddafi regime, after the capital was captured by rebels. At the moment, the pro-NTC forces control the port of Sirte, which means that Libya will be able to undertake the transition to democracy in next to no time. In Syria, the regime of Bashar al-Assad will also very likely endure the same fate soon. While Tunisians, Egyptians, Libyans and, we all hope soon, Syrians are discovering the taste of freedom, the scene in the Middle East is very different. While establishing democracy is on the agenda in North Africa and will succeed if a policy based on compromise is established, we see a completely different picture in the Middle East peace process. Here, there is not only a lack of constructive consensus, but a unilateral vision is seemingly being imposed. I believe that this is the meaning behind the application for admission to the United Nations submitted by President Abbas on Friday. Instead of attempting to establish proper internal autonomy before imposing it on the international stage, President Abbas has chosen what was described even by President Obama as an illusory shortcut. Palestine’s application for admission actually indicates that it has gone beyond the negotiation framework defined by the Oslo Agreements and set out by the road map presented in 2003 by the Quartet. Peace is built through negotiation and not through taking unilateral action. The lesson that should be learnt for the peace process from the Arab Spring is that democracy means seeking consensus and not a unilateral approach.

  Maria Eleni Koppa (S&D). – (EL) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, you said that you were proud because the Union is an international player on the Palestine question. In all honesty, why are you proud, given that the European Union has not managed, even today, even on the question of Palestine’s request for a seat at the UN, to dare condemn the extension of the settlements.

The request put by Mahmoud Abbas to the United Nations brings the European Union face to face with its historic responsibilities. We all have a responsibility to respect the decision by the Palestinians to apply for membership of the UN and to support that effort as a basic step and important opportunity for the resumption of negotiations. The Palestinian people are entitled to peace and security, as is the state of Israel. I believe that we should condemn the illegal settlements, which represent a huge obstacle to a peaceful solution to the Palestine question, and all work together for the recognition of a viable Palestinian state within the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its joint capital, as this will guarantee peace for everyone in the region.

  Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE). – (NL) Madam President, it is good that we are having this debate today. I, too, would like to pay my compliments to Baroness Ashton. What I am particularly pleased about is that we in the European Parliament now seem to have come up with a robust joint text, a text which recognises and states that the Palestinians have a right to their own state, based on the 1967 borders, and that Israel and its citizens are entitled to security. Madam President, we want the UN to come up with an answer to this legitimate application by Mahmoud Abbas during its 66th session – therefore, before the year is out – because we do not want to send the Palestinians home empty-handed and we cannot allow this to happen.

However, there is one thing which I am disappointed not to see in the resolution. What will Europe and the international community do if Israel continues to build settlements as, indeed, it has announced it will in East Jerusalem? Mr Pöttering has already spoken about this. What do you make of these acts of provocation? Does that mean that you will also leave open the possibility of us taking unilateral action?

  Boris Zala (S&D). – (SK) Madam President, I genuinely regret that we have failed to reach a unified position in the European Union. It is a great pity because this has been, and still is, an exceptional situation where Europe can play a significant role.

I am very interested in finding out why such a unified position on the Palestinian request for statehood could not be reached. On the other hand, I would like to inform a number of my fellow Members in this Chamber that this issue does not only involve a unilateral request or a unilateral recognition of Palestine, because the recognition of such a request, i.e. the recognition of Palestine within the 1967 borders, means, at the same time, the de facto recognition of the sovereignty and legitimacy of the state of Israel.

I would like to emphasise one more point. We have heard several times about certain measures being prepared against Palestine. I believe that the European Union should take resolute steps against this because it is impossible to employ sanctions or other measures to penalise a country that is exercising its right to submit a request for statehood.

  Sari Essayah (PPE). – (FI) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, as many fellow Members have already said here, the Palestinians’ symbolic bid for independence will, unfortunately, not solve any of the contentious issues which, for years, have strained relations between the parties in the region. Before genuine peace and an opportunity for coexistence are established, the parties must be able to agree among themselves not just on secure borders, but also on such matters as the settlements, water and the holy places of various religions.

The region’s imbalance and changes in the near future are very crucial issues. Israel must look on from the sidelines while nations rise up and revolt, hoping for the best from the circumstances, but also fearing the worst. The greatest danger in the region is that the Arab national governments will fall into the hands of extremists. That is also a danger in the Palestinian territories, because Fatah and Hamas have signed a declaration of intent to form a joint government, and it is very possible that, after the regional elections in autumn, the state of the Palestinian Territories will slip into the hands of the terrorist organisation, Hamas.

For that reason, in this situation, the EU’s sole message must be that peace talks need to continue between the parties. The EU cannot support any unilateral declaration, because then it would also be in contravention of the Oslo Accords that it actually promoted and the provision on refraining from a unilateral declaration contained therein.

  Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (S&D). – (DE) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we support the Quartet’s peace initiative and I would like to congratulate and thank Baroness Ashton sincerely for her efforts and successes in this regard.

We must prevail on both sides to return to the negotiating table, by force if necessary, and to produce successful results within the given timeframe. The treaties must be in place by the end of 2012 – there, like Mr Pöttering, I am in complete agreement with state policy in Germany, no ifs or buts. This is something that needs to be said.

However, that is not to say that I necessarily approve of this Israeli Government or that I agree with Netanyahu and Lieberman. On the contrary, I would say that this government is a disaster for the people of Israel. It is destroying people’s livelihoods and economic wellbeing. At the same time, it also poses a threat to peace in the Middle East. That is also something that needs to be stated clearly.

What is so objectionable about Mahmoud Abbas democratically tabling a motion before the United Nations? Palestine has already been recognised by 125 countries. It is probable that 140 countries within the United Nations will vote for special status for Palestine similar to that afforded the Vatican. This is not undemocratic, it is the law, and it is incumbent upon us to continue to work in this direction. Israel’s present government does not meet the necessary conditions.

  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – (ES) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, we debated the peace process here over six months ago. I stressed at that time that there was an urgent need to re-start talks because time was not in favour of either of the two parties. I can understand how the stalling of the process has prompted the Palestinians to take the initiative and to raise the issue of their admission to the United Nations.

We are now in a very complex situation. I suppose that this matter will eventually be passed from the Security Council to the General Assembly. I would like the European Union and its Member States to play an active role and for the Twenty-Seven to be united in stating an opinion on the resolution that will eventually be put to the vote.

There are no simple solutions: no simple yes and no simple no. The General Assembly’s resolution must be careful. It must not imperil the peace process or put either of the two sides, or the other players who are the main promoters of the process, into impossible situations. However, a failure to act must not be an option.

Ladies and gentlemen, today, unfortunately, just like six months ago, I cannot be optimistic about the progress of the talks. The news we have received today about new settlements in Jerusalem is, frankly, very bad. In addition, I fear that some of the 2012 elections will not help lead to a solution. The situation could be better in 2013, but I would be sorry to have lost a year, particularly given the current dynamics of change in the Arab world.

These are times of historic responsibility for the two sides, and also for the international community.

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubt that now more than ever, the peace process in the Middle East and in North Africa requires decisive and authoritative decisions, with a shared European spirit that can finally lead to a clear and agreed strategy.

Precisely because the independent initiatives of some Member States do not seem up to the current difficulties – by which I mean those experienced in Libya a few weeks ago – it is essential that the European Union and its international partners, especially the United Nations, can set out a single programme to achieve peace, which has now been absent for too long. Recognising the dignity of both Israel and Palestine is not, however, tantamount to putting up uncritically with their mistakes and specious actions.

As Mr Pöttering, among others, said just now: it is not enough to appeal to sentiment. Settlements should not be built and therefore we need to intervene with appropriate sanctions; because if there are rules, then they must absolutely be protected and respected. The events in North Africa must not be forgotten either. This new drive for freedom, peace and fundamental rights must be protected and assisted, particularly by you, Baroness Ashton.

We understand the difficulties, but we also recognise the efforts that you are making to achieve strong, effective cooperation and, above all, to give a fighting chance to those third countries that deserve our support.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Madam President, based on the good bilateral relations it has developed with both Israel and the Palestinian National Authority, Romania has always encouraged the parties to sit down at the negotiating table without any preconditions. My view on this subject is based on principle. Resuming the negotiations is the best course of action to achieving the solution allowing both states to coexist in peace and security. I think that unilateral steps are not inclined to help the process of establishing a lasting peace, which is the fundamental aim of the whole international community. I firmly believe that the only way to fulfil the Palestinians’ ideals is through direct negotiations. I will support any initiative which might serve this purpose, as I have also done up to now. A viable, long-term solution cannot be achieved if Palestinians and Israelis fail to reach an agreement. Any recognition of the state of Palestine must be based on a solution accepted by both parties, which they take along together to the UN.

Finally, I welcome the statement from the Quartet, which calls on both parties to resume direct bilateral negotiations immediately, without any preconditions. It is not too late for diplomatic efforts. On the contrary, we need to step them up.

  Othmar Karas (PPE). – (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, there are two issues at stake here. On the one hand, it is a question of a common foreign policy among the Member States of the European Union, represented by Baroness Ashton, and, hence, the establishment of conditions that will allow us to influence developments outside our continent. I am therefore very happy that there are signs of a common position shared by all EU Member States in the UN and that Parliament has agreed on a resolution.

On the other hand, we are also faced with the issue of peace in the Middle East – as well as elsewhere, but we are talking about the Middle East today. I am one of a group of politicians and diplomats who wrote a letter to the Austrian Government stating the following: we favour a two-state solution; the 1967 boundaries should provide the basis for the Palestinian territory; Jerusalem should be the capital of both states; the aim should be for Palestine to become a fully-fledged member of the United Nations. We welcome the interim step proposed by the Quartet, involving a situation similar to that of the Vatican and a phased plan. We now need to get down to brass tacks, preventing escalation, bringing settlement policy to an end, and putting a stop to the use of violence.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D). – (SK) Madam President, the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the strategic priorities of the European Union. I express my support for Ms Ashton’s efforts whereby the sole solution to this conflict lies in the efforts to help establish two independent and democratic states which are able to coexist and live in peace.

Of course, we must not forget any single person who has lost life in this war. However, this war has to end as soon as possible. I believe that the beginning of such an end could be the recognition of Palestine as an independent state and putting both parties to the conflict on an equal footing.

At the same time, when we speak of North Africa and the so-called Arab Spring, we have to note that it has on its conscience not only the two revolutions in Egypt and Tunisian and the continuing civil war in Libya, but also a number of other larger or smaller protests and a large number of human lives.

It is very difficult to judge whether all these changes will have a positive effect. Such transformations will have a fundamental impact on future generations, not only in the regions affected, but also in their surroundings.

  Kyriakos Mavronikolas (S&D). – (EL) Madam President, I too, as a contribution to today’s debate, should like to point out that our action and stand are indeed the correct ones, that it is certainly high time to recognise a Palestinian state and that the political line, with a proper proposal from our side, will be supported at the level of the UN General Assembly.

Secondly, I should like to emphasise that I truly appreciate the action being taken by Baroness Ashton at this time and to point out that at least she managed to express a unified line on the part of the European Union on such an important issue. It is a fact that continuing efforts on her part could bring about a unified foreign policy on the part of the European Union as a whole, especially on matters which are directly topical and concern huge efforts by nations for their national survival.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, Europe must adopt a joint position, in line with international law, at this definitive point in the conflict between Palestine and Israel.

If we want to see an end to the violence and human rights violations, all the Member States must support Palestine’s desire to be represented as a state in the General Assembly of the United Nations.

We must also denounce the illegality of the Israeli settlements right now, and call for the wall of shame built by Israel to be removed. Both of these are in breach of international law and are an obstacle to peace.

We must similarly demand that the Palestinians recognise the state of Israel and halt the attacks, both armed incursions and others, that are sometimes launched from the Gaza Strip into Israeli territory.

Just think how we would feel if we had to pass through a check point each day, or live separated from our families by a wall that turns 200 metres into 50 kilometres, work into a chimera, makes development impossible and uncertain, and the abuse of power a daily currency.

We are talking about justice and respect for international law, but also about humanity.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Madam President, the policy of the party that I represent towards the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is one of neutrality. We do not believe that the United Kingdom should be involved in any dispute on one side or the other. However, I would hope that this would not be a neutrality of indifference, because I, too, would like to see an enduring peace between these two peoples. But neutrality demands an even-handed approach.

The UN, in 1947, envisaged in General Assembly Resolution 181 two separate states, one Jewish and one Palestinian. If one state deserves recognition, so does the other. If a negotiated peace is not a precondition for the recognition of Israel, nor should such a negotiated peace be a precondition for the recognition of Palestine.

I believe that it would be easier for the government of a recognised Palestinian state to restrain and control the activities of its citizens than for the head of an ill-defined entity to restrain and control its inhabitants. Furthermore, it will be easier for a recognised state to negotiate peace with authority.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D). – (RO) Madam President, I would first of all like to congratulate you, Lady Ashton, for everything you have done. The conflict between Israel and Palestine can only be resolved through direct, responsible negotiations between both parties with the support of the international community. This is why I think that any unilateral action ought to have been avoided as this affects mutual trust and jeopardises the continuation of the peace process. The way to get out of the deadlock triggered by the Palestinian Authority’s unilateral action at the UN must be to resume direct negotiations immediately between both parties under the supervision of the Quartet. I believe that the time has come for the Palestinian Authority to prove its commitment to conducting direct negotiations and, likewise, Israel must be ready to make real compromises as part of these negotiations. Having two independent states based on the 1967 borders is the only viable solution for peace.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Madam President, the establishment of a new state needs to have a historical basis and be established on international agreements. As we well know, there has never been a Palestinian state in that region: instead, three times during the 20th century, the international community handed over this region to Israel, first under the Balfour Declaration and then via the League of Nations and the UN.

I would like to ask Baroness Ashton whether the European Union is a community of values. Do we actually believe in democracy, human rights, freedom of speech and the rule of law? If we do, as I want to believe, has Hamas, which, at present, is represented in the Palestinian Government, accepted the Quartet, which includes the EU, and the preconditions for ending terrorism, the recognition of Israel, previous agreements and their adoption?

In addition, I would like to ask whether the European Union is prepared to be aligned with the view expressed by Abbas that some sort of Jew-free Palestine should be created. Are not statements such as these truly anti-Semitic? In this respect, Europe should stand by its values and state clearly that we support democracy and human rights. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Madam President, can I just say to Honourable Members that we have seen the debate laid out before us. If you add up all the different views expressed in this House, you will find that they reflect, and are reflected in, many of the conversations that I have had, not just in the European Union, but with many other countries as well.

Let us start where we agree. We agree that there should be a Palestinian state. Everybody supports that, including Israel. I agree with all of you who have said that it is important to see a Palestinian state come into being as soon as possible. The question is how to support the Palestinian state into being in a way that will bring long-term peace and security to its people and to the people of Israel, who will be its neighbours next door.

I would argue that we are discussing the question of how – not if, not whether, not any other question, but how – to make sure that is achieved. It has been the view of the European Union, the view of this House and the view of Member States for a long time that the most effective way to ensure long-term stability and security for the people of Israel and the people of Palestine is through an agreement between the two on borders, on security, on the rights of refugees, on the issue of Jerusalem, on all of the issues that are very familiar to everybody here.

That is what I am determined upon. I am determined upon reality. I am determined upon making sure that the desire of the people, the desire of President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, is achieved and is achieved in a way that they can be sure is going to bring that peace and security to them and to the region. That is what drives me and what motivates me to work with the Member States, to work with you, to work with my colleagues in the Commission, and to work internationally with the Quartet and – way beyond the Quartet – with many countries with whom I have discussed this issue, not just in New York last week, but over the past two years.

I want to be clear about one thing, namely about settlements. I have condemned it every time a settlement announcement has been made – six times this year from me, plus one local one and one Quartet one. I have checked the numbers. The announcement that was made today is an announcement of the continuation of a series of legal moves following on from an announcement that was made in 2009. I said earlier on that I deeply regretted that, having condemned that original announcement, we have now seen a move further forward. We have made that position clear, not just in this House, but also to the Israeli Government.

Can I also say that, instead of shouting about it – which is very easy to do, perhaps without listening for the response that you get – I say this to Prime Minister Netanyahu directly. Each time I have met him – and I have met him many times – I have made it clear that we consider settlements to be illegal under international law, and that he should stop announcing them and, more importantly, stop building them. I do not accept, I am afraid, what is said to me that somehow, by not using a particular word, I have moved away from my commitment, because I am the one who, on your behalf, is saying it to the person who has the power to make the difference. I will continue to do so in every conversation, not just because it is wrong.

I think that it is wrong to get people to live in a place from which, when you look at a negotiated settlement, they are probably going to have to move. That does not make any sense, to me, for the people who are moving into that area. It is not a good move if you believe – as I do – that we have to reach a conclusion and a settlement for this conflict that is going to be based upon – as we have said consistently – the 1967 borders, with agreements on moving bits of land around, but which give the Palestinians a viable contiguous state. That is going to mean that there will have to be changes. It is therefore in the interests of all the people of Israel and Palestine to get there and make sure that where people move and where people live is somewhere they can live for the rest of their lives if they choose to.

I also want to make it clear that I have said to Israel that I do believe in President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. They have people with whom they can be proud to negotiate. I believe that President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, who I have had the privilege to get to know over the last two years, are people who hold the values that we hold dear in their heart. I believe that they want to see a democratic Palestine, based on the rule of law and the values of human rights. I believe that Israel could do no better than to negotiate with them. I have also said that directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu, to Foreign Minister Lieberman and to other members inside and outside the Israeli Government and in the Knesset. I will continue to keep saying that, because I believe it to be true.

I have said many times that I think that the work that Prime Minister Fayyad has done has been remarkable in that, according not to me but to the World Bank and other institutions, he has completed the building of the institutions that will create the state of Palestine and will enable them to be able to function as a state – an important element if they are going to become a country, in the very near future I hope. I was fortunate enough to go with Prime Minister Fayyad to lay the foundation stone in Jenin, a town that has seen a lot of conflict but where they are rebuilding the architecture of the government buildings and which we, as the European Union, are privileged to be able to fund.

I said in the UN when I met with the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee under the chairmanship of Norway – to whom I pay great tribute – that I felt this was a good investment of our resources, because you can see what our money and our support has actually built and achieved. I think that we should be proud to be investing in the work of Prime Minister Fayyad. As I say, I pay tribute to him.

We have to make sure that everything that we are doing on this is actually going to help to lead to the results. That is why I have been working with the Israeli Government, the Palestinian Authority, the Arab League, the United States, Canada, Russia, and the UN especially – because I agree with what has been said about the value and importance of the UN in all this. I could not agree more. I think the United Nations are critical to all this, but what matters is what we are actually able to achieve. The point about what we did in the Quartet statement was that we laid out a timeframe and invited the parties to now come together in that timeframe. There are issues that they will have to resolve, which is why we suggested they pre-meet. There are issues that the Quartet envoys will need to discuss, which is why they will pre-meet with the parties, but the objective is to get this thing moving.

I understand the frustration in this House. I have only been doing this for up to two years. I can tell you that I have spent more time on this than on anything else I have done. I have to tell you that, today, I am actually as worried, if not more so, about what is happening in the north of Kosovo, as you would expect me to be. It is really important that whatever we do finds a conclusion that is really going to last. I am not going to do something that is just rhetoric. I am much more interested in a solution that is going to be for real.

Of course, when they come to negotiate, they will have to tackle all these issues in the conclusions. Of course, incidentally, we believe in the International Criminal Court. That has never been discussed as part of a conclusion of negotiations – nothing of that kind – but we do need to make sure that we actually get that. I will continue to do that, based on the fact that I am also trying to carry 27 Member States along the road with me.

It is really important to understand how much the unity of the European Union on this subject is valued in the region, not just in Israel, not just with the Palestinian people and the Israeli people, but with the Arab League and with the countries in the region. They really want to see us stick together and see that happen for real. You will understand that that means that I also have to be alive to the starting points, the history, the culture and the connections that all 27 countries have. I am sensitive to that.

It is an achievement for the European Union that we are still together. We are continuing to work to stay there, because what we offer, united in this process, is much more than radical positions on either end of the spectrum, or even the bulk of countries coming together in the middle. It is the fact that we are 27 speaking with one voice and one message that makes a big difference, but it is not easy. We have to work at this and keep working at it. That is why your support today is so important, because it enables me to take that away.

I have said enough on this. Let me just say one or two things about other countries because, rightly so, honourable Members raised one or two other issues. Mr Fox raised the issue of Yemen. I agree on the importance of working hard with the GCC. I mentioned that we coordinated our statements on Yemen very carefully. There is calm at the moment, but I am worried about some outbreaks of violence that have gone on in the last few days. We urge President Saleh to continue with the process and to make sure that the work that is being carried out by his Vice-President can come forward.

On Libya, as you know, we have had teams going to Tripoli. We have a team there at the present time that is setting up the long-term operation. On the specific issue of borders, we are launching a dialogue on migration, mobility and security with Tunisia and Morocco. We are ready to do the same with Libya. That specifically brings in this point on migration and mobility – not just on security, although, of course, that is very important.

Women are full of hope in the region. We have to make sure that we do not let them down. One of the key elements of the discussions in New York was women coming together to try to make sure that we are able to offer the support of the capacity building programmes already in place in Libya. Looking after women who are victims in all of this violence – and there are many of them – and also ensuring the participation of women right the way through the system is a huge issue that is of incredible importance to me.

Finally, regarding the issues of rules and conditionality, Stefan Füle has set out very well many times in this House the point about ‘more for more’. This is the idea that we make sure that reform is met with greater support, but also this mutual accountability of ensuring that we have respect for each other in what we do, that we do what we say we are going to do on both sides, and that we deliver what we say we are going to deliver to help support these communities into the future. Then, of course, there is the coordination which is so important, between not just the different European institutions, but also the Member States. In Libya, that is going to be really important if we are going to be able to offer the support that we want to.

Madam President, thank you for indulging me on time. Honourable Members, thank you very much for an important debate.

(Applause)

  President. – I have received six motions for resolutions⁽¹⁾tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 29 September, at 12.00.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (S&D), in writing. – Ever since the Arab Spring began, one question imposed itself: would those revolutionary developments speed up or delay resolution of the Middle East conflict, which is one that has the potential to ignite an international conflagration? Well, now, many months after, although things are no clearer, one can detect a slight tilt of the balance towards the latter. In that respect, I am particularly concerned at the possibility that the new revolutionary authorities in those countries, faced with the impossibility of fulfilling the high expectations of their populations, might try to deflect popular energy towards Israel.

This might be true even for the Palestinian authorities, which probably saw in the recent request for UN state recognition a way to escape possible contestation from ordinary Palestinians, emboldened by the example of their other Arab brothers. It looks as if, recently, both Hamas and Fatah have been losing ground. Irrespective of whether these suppositions are true or not, the potential implications of a worsening of the Middle East conflict would only underline the crucial importance of EU involvement and support in the region.

IN THE CHAIR: JERZY BUZEK
President

(1) See Minutes

14. Eastern partnership summit (Warsaw, 29 September) (debate)

  President. – The next item is the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the Eastern partnership summit to be held in Warsaw on 29 September.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − I am very pleased to be able to address honourable Members in advance of the Eastern partnership summit, which is to be held in Warsaw at the end of this week. Mr President, this House has been a consistent supporter of the Eastern partnership and you, Mr President, will speak at this event on behalf of the Parliament. I welcome your personal commitment, your presence at the summit, and I pay tribute to my colleague, Štefan Füle, for the immense work that he has put into the Eastern partnership in every possible way to support its development.

The strengthening of our relationship with our neighbours is a key priority and I said at the beginning of my time in office that I considered this to be the first priority for the European Union and the one on which we should be judged. Our Eastern neighbours have changed dramatically in the last twenty years, but it remains vital for us to help them sustain the process of transition, towards democracy and a market economy. This process, of course, is not only in their interest, but we would argue in our interests, as it enhances our own security and prosperity.

It was in May 2009 that we launched the Eastern partnership as a framework in which to build up political association and economic integration with six countries, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. We have made some progress in the last two years and strengthened those bilateral relationships with those partners. This year, we want to finalise negotiations for an association agreement with Ukraine, including a deep and comprehensive free trade area. We also aim to launch negotiations on deep and comprehensive free trade areas with Moldova and Georgia once they meet the requirements.

In addition, we have made progress on mobility, implementing visa action plans with Ukraine and Moldova, and visa facilitation and readmission agreements came into force with Georgia a few months ago. We want to launch negotiations on a similar basis with Armenia, Azerbaijan and Belarus in the future.

In Warsaw, we will be meeting in the context of those relationships. Our partnership extends way beyond governments to links between peoples. I strongly support this Parliament’s efforts to enhance its links with Eastern counterparts, to the creation of the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly. Civil society and business forums have been set up within the partnership and both will meet in the margins of the Warsaw Summit. Štefan Füle will participate in those.

In addition, over the last four years, more than 2 000 students and academics from Eastern partnership countries have been funded to study in the EU. We believe that this partnership is built on mutual accountability and responsibility and a shared commitment to the principles of democracy, human rights, freedoms and the rule of law.

In Poland, we will leave our partners in no doubt that the EU’s acknowledgment of their European aspirations and their European choice goes hand in hand with our expectations for their commitment to progressing towards deep and sustainable democracy.

Mr President, our partners are at different stages and our role is to give practical support to that process of political association and economic integration within the EU.

Early this month, I conveyed a strong message to Ukraine, stressing that respect for democratic principles and the rule of law, including the right to fair and independent legal processes, must remain the basis of our future relations. Štefan Füle and I are particularly concerned about the cases against Yulia Tymoshenko and other members of her government and plans to revert to earlier electoral systems against international advice. As I have already indicated, Štefan has been working closely with Ukraine over these past months to deliver these messages and to develop the relationship in order that they are able to move forward.

We have been unequivocal in the face of clear repression of democratic and human rights in Belarus in last December’s presidential elections and since that time. We have imposed sanctions against the regime and called for the immediate release and rehabilitation of all political prisoners. At the same time, we have increased our assistance to Belarusian civil society.

Following the review of the neighbourhood policy that Štefan and I undertook, a key element is that the EU applies more conditionality in its actions, linking them more closely to the efforts made by our partners towards reform. That means more financial support, closer political cooperation, deeper economic integration for those partners who embark on deep reforms. It is what is called ‘more for more’.

Another important ingredient of this new Neighbourhood Policy is that some support will now be redirected towards non-governmental organisations as we build partnerships with civil society. We have the tools to make this happen through the new Neighbourhood Civil Society Facility and we are working on the establishment of a new European Endowment for Democracy to support change in the neighbourhood. I thank honourable Members who participated in giving us advice on both of these.

But, Mr President, the conflicts in the region in Nagorno-Karabakh, in Transnistria, in Abkhazia and South Ossetia are perhaps the most concerning obstacles to progress. We expect our European partners to do the most they can to make progress towards peaceful settlement, just as we are making specific dedicated efforts to deal with the many challenges these conflicts pose.

In August, on my recommendation, the Council approved the appointment of Philippe Lefort as the EU Special Representative to the South Caucasus and the crisis in Georgia. His mandate includes contributing to the peaceful settlement of conflicts in accordance with the principles of international law, working closely with all involved.

Of course Nagorno-Karabakh remains high on our agenda. In support to the Minsk Group, we are in a dialogue with all the parties to help find a shared solution.

Mr President, we have the will and capacity to take action in support of conflict stabilisation and settlement. We established the EU Monitoring Mission after the war in Georgia and we are co-chairing the Geneva international talks. In Transnistria, we have played a part in ensuring a decision on the resumption of the official negotiations in the ‘5 + 2’ format was taken on 22 September and we are looking forward to a negotiating process in which all parties will act in good faith and the spirit of cooperation.

Mr President, we are all committed to making this summit in Warsaw a success, to give renewed momentum to building the closest relationship with our Eastern partners and neighbours, and to give strong messages on the need for them to act appropriately to develop deep democracy and to make sure that we have the rule of law in action.

  Elmar Brok, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I wonder why Baroness Ashton is speaking from the Council bench. After all, the Eastern partnership is part of Community policy. Perhaps we should discuss this at a later stage.

There are a few comments I should like to make. I hope that the Warsaw Summit will be a substantive success and will also improve the climate of relations. I hope that, despite the different developments in the various countries – in particular Belarus, of course – it will prove possible to combine increased efforts in a multilateral approach and that the Member States of the Eastern partnership will come to recognise their mutual interests, making it easier to resolve the ‘frozen conflicts’ you referred to earlier – Nagorno-Karabakh, for example – because a commonality of interests has been established.

I believe that the Eastern partnership needs a much stronger structure in terms of this multilateral approach for economic and political reasons if progress is to be made on the economic front as well as in the political context. It is important for us to concentrate on increasing our cooperation with civil society and with the opposition parties in countries like Belarus and, until the European Endowment for Democracy is finally put in place, that we should use the already established European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights to ensure the implementation of the appropriate supports for democracy and human rights independently of the state apparatus.

Baroness Ashton and Mr Füle, please allow me to comment on today’s events. I have heard that the Ukrainian Attorney-General today called for a seven-year gaol sentence for Yulia Tymoshenko and a fine of USD 1.5 billion on the basis of an article of the Ukrainian Penal Code introduced in 1957 by Joseph Stalin and strengthened once again by a number of changes in 1962. It has also come to our attention that this situation applies not just to Ms Tymoshenko, but also to 15 or 16 representatives of the opposition.

I would be very interested to know how we are to respond and what we are to do if there is no explanation forthcoming in regard to this question by Friday, contrary to the impression gathered by Mr Füle, Mr Bildt and myself in our meeting with President Yanukovych. I believe that we need to make progress here. An association agreement, or a free trade zone as Ukraine sees it, is also in our interests. We want to seal the deal. However, it must be made clear that another country that seeks a European perspective must also observe a minimum number of rules in relation to democracy and the rule of law.

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, I would like to thank Baroness Ashton for her commitment to the Eastern partnership and for her praise for Mr Füle. He has genuinely earned these kind words because he is working extremely hard, not just on behalf of the Eastern partnership as such, but also in support of the necessary democratic change in the various countries.

Let me start by saying that the Eastern partnership is not an alliance against Russia. It is an alliance that supports the countries of the Eastern partnership and their right of self-determination and how they wish to cooperate with Europe in the context of the European Union, with Russia, and with other countries.

This is particularly true of Ukraine. Ukraine is an important partner for us and we are aware that this has a lot to do with the situation in Ukraine, which is why we wish the Polish Presidency every success at this summit conference. The people of Ukraine rightly wonder how this agreement with Russia in relation to gas prices was ever reached. How has Russia suddenly switched from an enemy of Tymoshenko to a Tymoshenko supporter and why has Russia suddenly started defending Tymoshenko? What I do know is that the price negotiated was not a very good price for the people of Ukraine, but rather, on the contrary, can be seen as a negative factor. However, my group is very clear on its position: such questions should be dealt with in the political arena rather than in the criminal courts. That is why we would urge Ukraine, the Ukrainian Government and the President to find a way out of the current situation. A judgment against Tymoshenko on this basis – I believe that Stalin was already dead at the time mentioned by Mr Brok, so that cannot be completely right ...

(Heckling from Mr Brok)

You mentioned a date of 1957, but it does not really matter as Stalin was certainly dead by this time. Whatever the legal position may be, it is not acceptable for political objectives to be pursued using the courts. For this reason, I hope that, together, Baroness Ashton, the Commission and Parliament can make it clear that we want the closest possible relations between Ukraine and the European Union. Yet we also want a democratic Ukraine that pursues political objectives by political means. I hope that Ukraine understands this and that the responsible parties in Ukraine also choose this path.

  President. – You were right, colleagues, to mention Commissioner Füle. I would like to thank him for being with us during the discussion, being responsible for our closest neighbours.

  Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (NL) Mr President, Baroness Ashton, Commissioner, it takes two to tango, as the saying goes, and after a somewhat tentative opening dance with our partners in North Africa and the Middle East, we need to recognise that we share a dance floor with our partners in the Eastern partnership as well, and that the party is really starting to swing in one or two places.

The atmosphere on the eastern edges of Europe, however, is generally one of awkward and icy reserve. Apart from Poland and Sweden, amongst the Member States, there is little genuine political will or interest in improving relations between the EU and our eastern partners. That is short-sighted, because we actually stand to benefit from stable neighbourly relationships, if only because of our dependence on energy from that region.

The summit’s draft statement confirms this picture. I would therefore ask Madam Ashton, Commissioner Füle and all Member States to show more initiative in genuinely deepening the political dialogue. The EU should not behave like a dance teacher to these countries, but like a flexible and sympathetic partner. I am deeply concerned by the show trial in Ukraine and the continuing arrests of activists in Belarus and Azerbaijan. It is, therefore, important right now that we hold out our hand to our partners and step onto the dance floor in the East, ready to attempt some ambitious and creative moves. We need deeper economic cooperation and fewer barriers to travel for us and our partners there. Obviously, there will be conditions attached to this, but continually postponing the dance will not do anyone any good. I wish to thank Madam Ashton for her willingness to intensify the dialogue with progressive social movements, such as the Public Chamber in Azerbaijan.

Relations in the Eastern partnership are also changing. After Russia, Turkey is the next dancer to take to the floor. New dance partners may feel uneasy in each other’s presence, but what we need is clear vision and commitment. A fortnight ago, we had the chance to attend our first ball with our partners from the five Euronest partnership countries. It was felt that it was a little too early to send an invitation to Belarus. Although we did not produce a statement that everyone could endorse, I do believe in this process and am confident that, if we continue to practise our dance steps and, in particular, listen to each other, it could lead to something beautiful.

  Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, whilst the eyes of the EU are understandably focused on the Southern dimension of the European Neighbourhood Policy and the Middle East and North African countries, we must not lose sight of the importance of the Eastern partnership and our support for closer relations with the six countries to the East.

Ukraine is going through a very difficult phase with deterioration, clearly, now in its democratic structures and the rule of law, as we have seen over the selective justice applied to Yulia Tymoshenko. This is happening just as it wants to sign a deep and comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with the European Union. Belarus is still in the grip of a dictator, Lukashenko. The situation in the Caucasus is worrying, with continued Russian occupation of Georgia and the escalation of tensions between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh (NK).

I welcome the new European Union Special Representative appointment for the ‘frozen conflicts’ from the High Representative, but at the inaugural meeting of Euronest, which I attended two weeks ago, the impasse over EU membership prospects under Article 49 for the six countries, including the three Caucasus republics, and also the NK dispute, basically paralysed the day’s proceedings, which does not augur well for Euronest parliamentary cooperation.

I hope that the Warsaw Summit does not get bogged down in the same way on 29 September. The EU should primarily focus on a pragmatic basis on issues like trade liberalisation and visa facilitation as the way forward, not the intractable issues like NK.

  President. – I would like to apologise to Mr Dowgielewicz. I have noticed that you are present with us as well, in the second row. Welcome to the Polish Presidency in this Chamber. Thank you for being present.

  Werner Schulz, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the newly established principle of ‘more for more’ should be brought to bear on the Eastern partnership, in particular, when it comes to the development of civil society. The Civil Society Forum is doing an enormous amount of work in this area. At present, it is one of the very few areas in which we have contact with the Belarusian opposition and cooperate with it. Hence, my urgent call on you, Baroness Ashton, and to you, Commissioner Füle: press for the establishment of a secretariat in Brussels for this forum, so that its work can be supported. At present, everything is done on a voluntary basis and the people involved are overwhelmed with the organisational tasks involved. This has a negative impact on substantive content, the area where we wish to see progress.

The importance of this issue and the extent to which regional conflicts obstruct mutual trust and cooperation have been brought home to me by the controversies in the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly. It is for this reason that conflict resolution should play a central role in our Eastern Neighbourhood Policy, particularly in the case of Transnistria, where the EU has observer-only status in the 5+2 talks and does not have the necessary acceptance or mediating powers.

I am very hopeful that we can press for the release and rehabilitation of all political prisoners in Belarus at the Warsaw Summit and that we can make it clear that all other questions are dependent on this point. In future, the aim should also be for Russia to be more involved in the resolution of these problems.

IN THE CHAIR: LÁSZLÓ TŐKÉS
Vice-President

  Jiří Maštálka, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (CS) Mr President, in my opinion, we should support everything which assists the development of peaceful relations and cooperation in Europe. Even though I am not sure that the architects of the Eastern partnership plan have a clear set of motives, I would like to believe that the planned summit will strengthen European unity, and will not lead to the creation of a new cordon sanitaire around Russia. I would like it if, before setting out for Warsaw, the EU negotiators could include in their luggage a determination to unify Europe from Ireland to the Urals, and an aspiration to help address problems such as the slow growth of some partner state economies, as well as a determination to resolve disputes such as the one in Nagorno-Karabakh. I would very much appreciate it if the EU negotiators could learn to listen to their partners and abandon the urge to keep giving them advice.

  Juozas Imbrasas, on behalf on the EFD Group. – (LT) Mr President, the Eastern partnership summit, due to be held in Warsaw, will be a good opportunity to assess the progress made and further improve the strategic guidelines of this policy of partnership.

During this summit, it is important for particular attention to be paid to nuclear security, among other issues. Above all, the question of the security of the construction of new nuclear power plants on the European Union’s borders should be examined. Russian and Belarusian plans to build new nuclear power plants near the European Union’s eastern borders may significantly weaken the nuclear and environmental security not just of eastern countries, but the whole of Europe.

We must do our utmost to ensure the continuation of the visa liberalisation process with Moldova and Ukraine and of negotiations on free trade agreements. I also welcome the thoughts expressed by Mr Swoboda and Mr Brok on the Yulia Tymoshenko issue.

The Eastern partnership policy is very important and meaningful for Lithuania. It will also be one of the priorities of the future Lithuanian Presidency. We will make every effort to ensure that we strengthen the rapprochement of Eastern partnership countries with the European Union during the Presidency. I propose that an Eastern partnership summit should be held in Lithuania during the Lithuanian Presidency.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). – (DE) Mr President, there is little doubt that Russia is quite opposed to our objective of supporting the six former Soviet Republics in achieving political and economic reform. We are aware of this. In the final analysis, the countries that are members of the Eastern partnership are also possible candidates for accession to the EU.

While the planned free trade agreement with Ukraine will finally depend on whether Ms Tymoshenko receives a fair trial under the rule of law, negotiations with Belarus have been placed on hold. We are aware of that too. An EU perspective in itself is not enough to engender democracy, human rights and internal peace, as we see in the example of Turkey and once again in the case of President Lukashenko, Europe’s last dictator.

He seems to release imprisoned opponents of his regime every time he needs Europe. The latest announced release of political prisoners has a lot to do with the immense need for financial support, which even a loan of several billion from China has been unable to satisfy. Lukashenko continues to reject democratic reforms, however, despite the fact that these are a condition of financial aid from the West. This is a major criterion for us.

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE). – Mr President, the summit meeting in Warsaw must give strong support for, and reaffirm the priority of, the Eastern partnership, which is an important means of influencing the development of those societies. All of these countries are balanced between two different options: either authoritarian structures, or the path towards democracy and open societies.

That is going on just now. The opportunities we lose today will be extremely difficult to regain in the future. I think that it is important to state that this is about Europe, and it is about democracy and the rule of law. Ukraine is an example of that, with what is happening with Yulia Tymoshenko. They are undermining the rule of law and strong support for human rights and an open society.

I think that it is of the utmost importance that the European Union should use all its tools. We are the biggest economy of the world, with the opportunities provided by association agreements, scholarships, and visa liberalisation. At the same time, the strong message is that the preconditions must be fulfilled if you want closer cooperation.

I think that the focus of the summit meeting must be to take the concrete actions which make both of these tracks credible and worthwhile.

  Marek Siwiec (S&D). – (PL) Mr President, the Eastern partnership has proved its worth. It is a policy which has been in operation for several years now. Today, we can say that after the review, and after all the Commission’s work – thank you, Mr Füle, for your excellent report on the subject – we are on the right track. It is true that the Eastern partnership is a policy which must be diversified. It is a policy which includes Belarus and Moldova, and the European Union is using two completely different approaches to what is happening in these two countries. This explains the principles of ‘more for more’ and ‘less for less’ – this is how we are going to shape this policy. We want to build a strong democracy based on interpersonal relations; we want everything which concerns future relations with the European Union to have strong foundations in society.

On the eve of the summit, which is an occasion for celebration, there are three things I wish to mention. Warsaw has earned the right to host the summit because Warsaw and Stockholm were the two capitals which promoted the Eastern partnership, so this is a cause for celebration for us and for all Poles.

Firstly, Ukraine and everything that is taking place in connection with the association agreement is a truly great historical process. Knowing about the terrible things that are going on in Ukraine with its justice system and bearing this in mind, let us not confuse historical matters with the short-term situation.

Secondly, visas will be a great encouragement for the people of these countries, something which will show that it is worth trying for and working towards a closer relationship with the European Union.

Thirdly, membership. We should give a clear signal that this is possible. For many countries, membership provides the motivation for change in their country and it should always be stressed that the Treaty of Rome is binding for European countries.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). – Mr President, civil society and pluralistic political culture is vital to all nation states. Therefore, I welcome the idea of a civil society facility introduced in the review last May. The concept is not, however, completely clear for me. That is why, Vice-President/High Representative Ashton, I would like to ask you how the civil society facility will be developed, and what is its role within the neighbourhood policy and in relation to the much discussed idea of European Endowment for Democracy?

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, Baroness Ashton, firstly, I would like to thank you, Ms Ashton, on the eve of the Eastern partnership summit, for your words of support for Georgia. On the eve of the summit, I would like it to be said in this Chamber that the territorial integrity of Georgia is a matter of honour for the West – this is certainly my opinion. Of course, a very large part of our debate today is on the situation in Ukraine and I would like to say that however far I may be from being a supporter and admirer of President Yanukovych, I feel it is completely inappropriate to compare today’s situation in Ukraine with the Stalinist period, as this comparison is simply dishonest, especially from those who are silent on human rights in Russia.

I would like to say that if our colleagues in the Chamber are showing a very justified interest in the issue of human rights in Ukraine – I repeat, very justified – I would expect my colleagues and their political groups and chairs to show the same amount of care for human rights in the Russian Federation, in which, I would like to remind them, yet more parties are being banned and others are not being allowed to take part in the upcoming elections to the Duma, while almost half of the Ukrainian Parliament consists of members of the opposition.

  Fiorello Provera (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Eastern partnership is an important political dimension for the European Union, but the obstacles to its future development are currently rather concerning.

Dialogue with Belarus remains difficult, while in Ukraine, the Tymoshenko case confirms a relapse on respect for human rights as well as rampant corruption. Parts of Georgia and Azerbaijan are under military occupation and the tension between Azerbaijan and Armenia is increasing, with a risk of ensuing armed conflict.

Without losing hope on the future of the Eastern partnership, we must remind these six partner countries of their responsibilities: respect for the fundamental rules of democracy and the resolution of territorial conflicts. Here, I am referring in particular to Nagorno-Karabakh and to Georgia. Europe cannot accept violations of international law guaranteeing territorial integrity as, moreover, this House has already appealed for in its resolution on the South Caucasus, and we cannot repudiate our basic principles on respect for human rights.

  Dimitar Stoyanov (NI). – (BG) Mr President, first of all, on the issue of the Eastern partnership, I would like to draw your attention to the Caucasus region. It is extremely important to view this region as a single whole because, at the moment, this region is actually split into two groups of states, basically one group and one other state.

At present, Georgia and Azerbaijan are conspiring with Turkey to isolate the third state in the region, Armenia, economically, in terms of transport links and in any other way. This is totally unacceptable. The European Union must oppose any external interference from a country outside the EU which is basically attempting to wreck everything that the Eastern partnership is aiming to achieve.

Secondly, with regard to Ukraine and the case involving Ms Tymoshenko, I think that Ms Tymoshenko is, indeed, entitled to a fair trial. This is a basic human right which has slightly been brought into question due to her excessively long period of detention. However, the Ukrainian people are also entitled not to get hurt and to be governed for their benefit. If Ms Tymoshenko has violated the interests of the Ukrainian people, she must be held to account for this.

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (PPE). – Mr President, when I compare this hemicycle during the debate about the South and the debate about the East, I am less optimistic and less able to be as optimistic as my predecessors. I approve the course of policy, Mrs Ashton and Mr Füle, all the texts and documents and declarations, but I am worried about the capacity to deliver.

The summit is happening – and let us not hide this – in a very difficult context. We have negative dynamics in the EU due to the crisis and the South, we had an example of the failure of Euronest to agree a message to the summit, and we have negative dynamics in the East because of the retreat of democracy. Does our offer, what is on the table, create sufficient leverage for our policy in the East?

We have been taken by surprise in the South. We do not want the same to happen in the East. We need to have a good answer or another Tahir Square will happen in Minsk, Baku and in Yerevan.

I have a question about Ukraine that must be asked. Commissioner, Madam High Representative, do you exclude the possibility that Yanukovych is playing a double game by declaring himself for the European cause and, at the same time, sabotaging it in terms of the abuse of democracy standards displayed in the Tymoshenko case? He is blackmailing us by saying that if not, he will turn to Russia and he is blackmailing Russia by saying that he will turn to the European Union. But Ukraine is the test.

We should conclude an association agreement by the end of the Polish Presidency and then refuse to ratify it if matters continue in Ukraine as they are.

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D). – Mr President, I think we should not expect too much from this summit but, at the same time, we have to admit that a lot has been achieved since 2009, when the Eastern partnership summit launched the new initiative. Two years is not very long, but, at the same time, we were able to shape a policy which is now starting to produce results. I cannot be so pessimistic about the dynamics because I can see with my own eyes that more and more people from the eastern countries, from the eastern partners, see their future in a family with us. They want to work in the same way that we work, with more transparency, with more responsibility, and this is something that we should encourage.

I think that with the ENP review in May this year, the Commission’s communication gave the policy a new impetus towards the east as well. Here, we should say that we can only achieve results if we coordinate more and if we support each other’s initiatives at different levels – Commission, Council, Parliament and the Member States.

We need to pay equal attention to the East and South. This is a message we got from all our partners. We need as a common goal visa-free travel, and this is important for the people as well. We also need to open more programmes for the partners, especially those in education and science. Finally, an association agreement with Ukraine is something that could be a good example for all the others, and I must say that the fact that the penal code dates from Stalinist times only shows how much reforms are needed, and also that Ms Tymoshenko failed to change this code when she had this opportunity.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Paweł Robert Kowal (ECR). – (PL) I have a question for Mr Vigenin concerning his statement and that of Mr Saryusz-Wolski. Based on your experience, do you think that Euronest has been and still is sufficiently attractive and interesting to our Eastern partners? Based on your experience and that of your country, do you think it deserves greater consideration?

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D). – Mr President, I am grateful for the question, because I did not really have the opportunity in this short time to say a few words about Euronest. It is true that we were not able to adopt the report that was presented.

This was due to a very small disagreement on very small issues – I say small, because it is only one small part of the whole range of issues that have been discussed in the Euronest Assembly. This is something that we will take into account for future meetings, but my experience is that all five countries are interested in continuing this cooperation under Euronest. This is a lively structure. They are all very happy with the possibility of working with us and they will invest great effort in the future work as well. This is the message I got from my recent visits to Armenia and Azerbaijan after the first plenary session of Euronest two weeks ago.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Mirosław Piotrowski (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, the Eastern partnership is one of the priorities of the Polish Presidency. The partnership summit’s final report should contain practical proposals including the future introduction of visa-free travel for the countries involved. The European Commission has not made nearly enough funds available to achieve this, in view of the importance of the area. We should seriously think about recapitalising the eastern border regions of the European Union, including the Lublin region, which could, to a greater extent, take on the practical aspects of facilitating contacts within the framework of the project.

We have noted an asymmetry in the neighbourhood policies of the European Union towards the South and the East. The political turbulence in Belarus and Ukraine should not be allowed to hamper the whole project. The Eastern partnership should become a platform for cooperation to prevent, among other things, a repetition of the ‘Arab Spring’ scenario in the form of a serious conflict immediately outside the eastern borders of the EU. Destroying the idea of the Eastern partnership due to a lack of funds may give the impression that we do not have a vision for the European Union’s future.

  Traian Ungureanu (PPE). – Mr President, the Warsaw Summit will acknowledge the European aspirations of our East European partners. That is true, but is it enough or is it a ritual phrase unfit for the political realities developing along our eastern borders? At a time when Tymoshenko is subjected to a Stalinist trial, at a time when Putin and Medvedev swap places like interchangeable tsars, our message should reaffirm the democratic alternative, as a counterweight to the Putinist contagion that threatens the whole area. And yet our messages are not exactly convincing.

Membership prospects are almost taboo. Liberalisation and trade agreements are moving forward, but at a slow pace. The focus on the events in the South has generated frustration in the East. Our partners have reason to believe that they have been downgraded. The Nabucco project is less visible than it used to be. The mediation capacity of the Union cannot properly deal with so-called frozen conflicts. As a result, the frozen conflicts are ready to ignite.

To sum it up, all is quiet on the eastern front. This deficit of political will does not encourage our partners to pursue democratic reforms. This could add a strategic and an energy crisis, which would multiply the economic crisis that we already know. The eastern dimension of our policies is ours to develop.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). – (SK) Mr President, it is understandable that recently, we have paid more attention to the southern borders of the Community than to its eastern borders. However, we should not forget our partners to the east of the European Union. After the enlargement in 2004 and 2007, we have new neighbours. I believe that mutual cooperation can benefit not only the six participating countries but also the European Union. The opportunity provided by the Warsaw meeting should not remain unused. A number of observers consider the year 2011 to be a key one for the partnership and its future.

One of the priorities is, of course, the financial aspect. Although the annual financial volume is to be increased by three quarters in the period from 2008 to 2013, a key role will be played by the discussions on financial support for the period from 2014 to 2020. This is a key challenge not only for the Polish Presidency, but for all of us. From the diplomatic and political perspective, it will also be important to address at the summit Russia’s role in the policy of the European Union vis-à-vis the six former countries of the Soviet Union. Although Russia is not involved in these initiatives, such a partnership cannot be interpreted in any way whatsoever as anti-Russian activity.

Finally, I would like to emphasise that an initiative of this type must not miss an opportune moment in 2011 under the Polish Presidency. On the other hand, such an initiative should be built systematically and in a long-term perspective with the participation of all EU Member States.

  Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, I remember how, in the 1990s, the prospect of Poland’s membership of NATO and the European Union gave us discipline and helped us to comply with democratic standards. If our partners from the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) are so justifiably concerned today about human rights in Ukraine, for example, to the point that they have added four years to Stalin’s lifespan, I am sure they will also agree that the clear prospect of membership for countries of the Eastern partnership is the best thing we can do for these countries and their human rights. This means that we are appealing to the Commissioner and, of course, to the Polish Presidency, for the Warsaw Summit to be a celebration, not because it is taking place, as Mr Siwiec would have it, but because it will provide these countries with a clear prospect of membership. As a result, we will be of help to them both in their geopolitical situation and concerning respect for human rights in their countries. So I appeal to Ms Ashton to ensure that a clear signal is given at the Warsaw Summit concerning integration of these countries with the European Union.

  Michael Gahler (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, the Eastern partnership is important both for us and for our Eastern European partners. The level of rapprochement with the EU depends on how our neighbours develop in terms of the rule of law and democracy. The EU has thus chosen the right approach by demanding ‘more for more’. However, the corollary of this is ‘less for less’.

This is particularly evident in our relations with Ukraine. I hope that Mr Yanukovych understood the words clearly expressed by all three bodies in Yalta last week, formulated by Carl Bildt, Elmar Brok and Štefan Füle.

To date, the Stalinist paragraphs from the Criminal Code, on which the political cases against Lutsenko, Tymoshenko and others are based, have still not been abolished. Yanukovych must be measured in terms of the rule of law and democracy. Anyone seeking to associate himself with the EU should not provide grounds for the united opposition to come together in a committee to prevent the re-establishment of a dictatorship. The opposition parties are doing this because they hope their country can have a shared European future. I agree with Mr Kamiński’s criticism of the situation in Russia in relation to human rights. He mentioned the elections. We should not send a team of election observers because, sadly, it is already evident that the elections to be held there will not be democratic. Naturally, the criticism we express against Ukraine must be expressed equally vociferously against a large country like Russia.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, I must admit that I did not understand the last sentence. Did you mean, Mr Gahler, that you do not want us to send our delegations and observers to countries we suspect of rigging elections? I do not understand. I believe that the point of sending observers is solely for them to fulfil their role in monitoring and informing us of any possible irregularities. This is why I believe we should send our observers to Russia, even if we suspect that their elections might be staged or fraudulent.

  Michael Gahler (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, as someone who is also acting as chief observer in Tunisia at present, I would like to say that we should send election observer missions to those countries where the hope exists that the overall process could lead to a democratic result. In the light of recent events, I am afraid that it is unfortunately already clear that this process will not lead to democratic elections in Russia. This is because not all the parties who wish to contest the election are to be allowed to stand and the media and the entire state apparatus lacks a structure that allows us to assume that Russia will have elections to the Duma that deserve the name ‘democratic’, in even the most fundamental terms. For this reason, we should save ourselves the expense. I would point out that we did not travel to Russia for the last elections either.

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (S&D). – Mr President, the Eastern partnership has been our response to the interruption of gas supply from Russia and to the conflict in Georgia. We wanted to reassure the Eastern countries that they were not forgotten and their hope to get closer to the EU is a tangible expectation. The fact that all these countries belong to the former Soviet space has inevitably brought Russia into the equation, complicating it from the very beginning. Moreover, since then, the current problems in the EU created by the crisis, and the unexpected developments in North Africa, have complicated matters even further, while not deterring Russia from taking advantage of these difficulties. I would only hope that when the negotiations on the association agreements are completed, there will not be any last-minute political change of heart, on our part, in honouring them.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, the Eastern partnership summit is undoubtedly the most important foreign relations event of the Polish Presidency. A clear final declaration from the summit may become a lasting element in the dynamics of developing and intensifying cooperation between Brussels and its Eastern neighbours.

Bearing in mind the crisis which is raging in Europe and the stronger engagement in relations with the south, the decrease in interest in the Eastern Neighbourhood Policy raises serious concerns, because – and this is worth stressing – the next enlargement will, in fact, take place in this region. This is why we should already be building solid foundations, and this is why I am hoping for speedier progress in negotiations on the association agreement with Ukraine. There is still a possibility that this agreement will be signed before the end of the year. Equally, free trade with partnership countries is also an excellent way to improve economic conditions in the whole of the EU. Acknowledging the membership ambitions of Georgia and Moldova will be a significant step forward, and introducing visa-free travel, especially in view of the fast-approaching Polish-Ukrainian European Football Championship, will bring significant benefits to Member States.

In our relations with our Eastern neighbours, we must not forget constantly to promote the idea of freedom. In Belarus, political persecution is a daily fact of life. The long-running conflict in the Caucasus does not help in building stable and positive relations. European countries must present a clear position in these matters.

  Anna Ibrisagic (PPE). – (SV) Mr President, it is true that the countries in our Eastern Neighbourhood are currently at a crossroads where there is a choice between development towards fully functioning democracies or stagnation. Civil society, non-governmental organisations and freedom of the media are extremely important, but we cannot start on anything else until we have ensured that there is peace and stability.

Several fellow Members have previously mentioned Nagorno-Karabakh and, fortunately, the tension that we all felt during the spring has not erupted and developed into something worse. It also showed that when we work together – that is to say, we in this House along with Baroness Ashton and Mr Füle – we can control the situation.

However, the fact that it is calmer at the moment does not mean that we can rest on our laurels. Instead, I would like to send out two messages from this Parliament: firstly, that Baroness Ashton should explain to us more often and more regularly what is being done in these frozen conflicts in particular and, secondly, that we must treat all frozen conflicts in the area in the same way.

This does not only apply to Nagorno-Karabakh. It also applies to South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria. The EU must take the same approach to all frozen conflicts and treat them all in the same way.

What is accepted as a solution in one country must also be accepted by others, both when it comes to terminology and when it comes to actions.

  Evgeni Kirilov (S&D). – Mr President, the Eastern partnership offers many opportunities for fruitful cooperation between the EU and its eastern neighbours, but its greatest added value lies in its multilateral dimension. Therefore, it is very important to keep the balance in the relations with all the eastern partners, not to focus on separate countries but rather to develop the potential of this neighbouring region as a whole.

Regional cooperation is crucial in this regard, particularly the development of the transport and energy corridors, which is not only indispensable for EU security but also an important element of the partners’ economic integration with the EU. Unfortunately, this cooperation is impossible in a situation of conflict and closed borders. Therefore, we need to create an atmosphere of peace and trust and to step up our efforts to find a peaceful solution to the still unresolved conflicts in the region.

The EU is playing a stabilising role in Georgia but should be much more active as far as the conflicts in Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh are concerned. It should put more focus on these issues in the framework of the EU-Russia dialogue, which is very important. Clear EU commitments are also needed for post-conflict participation and stabilisation. I think this is the way forward for the increasing role of the EU as far as the Eastern partnership is concerned.

  Paweł Robert Kowal (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, Ms Ashton, Mr Füle, I do not agree that we have done everything we need to do concerning the Eastern partnership. I have the impression that from the very beginning, Europe has been half-hearted towards the Eastern partnership, whether on matters regarding membership or relating to funding. However, I do appreciate both your commitment, Ms Ashton, and yours, Mr Füle, in ensuring that the Warsaw Summit is a success. I would like to ask you both, and especially you, Ms Ashton, not to look at the partnership from the point of view of the situation today, but from the point of view of the future, from the point of view of young people and education. This is a great opportunity, and we in Central Europe know what is meant by the opportunity to improve our civilisation. I would like to call for a comprehensive education programme, a new initiative from the Eastern partnership aimed at those who, when they reach adulthood, when they grow up and have completed their education, will be part of a shared Europe together with us.

This is why I am daring to propose something new – an Eastern partnership university. We need your new initiatives on membership, on funding, but also on future generations. The whole North African experience has clearly shown us that future generations are something we should think about in the context of partnership.

  Andrzej Grzyb (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, it is very optimistic of Ms Ashton to say that the Eastern partnership summit will be a success. However, I do wish you, Ms Ashton, Mr Füle and especially the Polish Presidency, this success. I hope that, in anticipation of the summit, we will not succumb to the same mood that was prevalent in Parliament after the last Euronest session which failed to adopt any conclusions. Nevertheless, it is also worth saying that it is a great success that this Parliamentary assembly has managed to meet and has begun its work.

What am I expecting from the Eastern partnership summit in Warsaw? Firstly, a unanimous decision to finalise the association agreement with Ukraine. I believe that the Ukrainian Government and President will do everything possible to release members of the opposition, in particular, Prime Minister Tymoshenko. Secondly, the summit should encourage work on association agreements with Moldova and Georgia to begin. I would also like it to support change in Belarus. Thirdly, the summit should encourage the countries of the partnership to cooperate within the context of the Eastern partnership, and this is one of its most important tasks.

What sort of incentives might encourage future cooperation within the partnership? Amongst other things, relaxation of the visa regime. There are no visa requirements for Russia, but the European Union has the Schengen barrier. There is no incentive for the people in the countries of the Eastern partnership. So this is where we must make the most effort. Ukraine, and Moldova in the future, are definitely both on this path. I would also like to see support for civil society, support for border infrastructure, and support for any project which brings our citizens closer to each other.

  Marietta Giannakou (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, the second Eastern partnership summit in Warsaw is a first class opportunity to send out a stronger political message about the European Neighbourhood Policy and the conclusions of the summit will be of crucial importance to the future application of the Eastern partnership.

The neighbourhood policy certainly needs review and, of course, the Commission communication entitled ‘A new response to a changing neighbourhood’ is also important and is a move in the right direction. However, there are sectors in which the steps needed have not been taken. The neighbourhood policy has proceeded in a fragmented manner and we are not always to blame. Of course, the commitment to human rights must remain very strong on our part and, at the same time, support must be given, subject to conditions and depending on the progress made in each individual country. The approach to civil society is, of course, also of vital importance and is a positive development.

Finally, Baroness Ashton, Commissioner, the proposal to create a European Fund for Democracy is clearly welcome. However, this will take time to set up and, at the same time, there are funds and instruments that have not been utilised as they should, which have only been partially utilised, and I think that, until such time as the European Fund has been set up, this is what the Commissioner should focus on together, of course, with the Council’s political decision of decisive importance which, I am sure, will come out of the Warsaw Summit.

  Eduard Kukan (PPE). – (SK) Mr President, the Warsaw Summit is undoubtedly one of the key events of the Polish Presidency and I believe that it will also become a significant milestone in the relationship of the European Union with its eastern partners. In a situation where the European Union has the ambition of playing an important role in global politics, it should define clearly its stance towards its nearest strategic partners. It needs to send a clear signal that it is determined to play a key role in this region. To ensure the success of the eastern partnership, it is necessary to create a real political partnership through a strengthening of relations, taking clear decisions, and promoting values and objectives leading to reforms and a strengthening of cooperation with the European Union.

The summit offers an opportunity to set up an agenda for these relations and to determine their intensity for the next period, which may be crucial. Otherwise, these countries, which are to be our partners, may begin to view their relations with the European Union from an instrumental perspective and may get stuck halfway between democratic reforms and the Soviet past. This is not in our interest. Therefore, we have to respond decisively to problems such as visa liberalisation, the strengthening of democratic institutions and civic society and, last but not least, issues such as trade, economic cooperation and security. Thus, the European Union should get closer to these countries and should offer them, at the same time, an opportunity to get closer to the European Union. I hope that the Warsaw Summit will be successful in this respect.

IN THE CHAIR: ANNI PODIMATA
Vice-President

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – (SK) Madam President, the forthcoming summit in Warsaw brings hope for a revival of EU relations with its eastern partners. However, such dynamics require a clear definition of the strategic interests and objectives of the European Union, as well as the development of a robust strategy for their achievement. I believe that the eastern partnership should become a useful instrument for mutual benefit based on common interests and the respect of each other’s obligations.

The Warsaw Summit should primarily bring more clarity into the negotiations concerning the association agreement and free trade with Ukraine. At the same time, it will be necessary to accentuate the EU’s interest in the strengthening of economic and democratic reforms in that country. We cannot remain indifferent, for instance, to the treatment of ex-Prime Minister Tymoshenko in this neighbouring country, a country which shows much promise.

Besides economic issues, the key areas that will have to be discussed should include energy, investment projects, security and environmental issues. A number of sensitive issues are still open. We are well aware that the Nagorno-Karabakh issue has been left unresolved for a long time from the European side too, and I believe that the tension there is rising. On the one hand, there are certain claims on the side of Azerbaijan; on the other hand, there is Armenia of course, which is supported by Russia. We must find a prudent political solution.

  László Tőkés (PPE). – Madam President, the Eastern partnership summit in Warsaw will take place this September. Similarly to the preceding Hungarian Presidency, enlargement is high on the agenda of the Polish Presidency, the two being partners in the organisation of the upcoming summit.

I would like to congratulate Poland, the driving force behind the launch of the Eastern partnership, along with Sweden. As a Member from a state from the former Soviet bloc, Romania, I would like to stress the solidarity that the Hungarian Presidency expressed vis-à-vis Croatia before accession, just as Poland is now showing towards Ukraine. On the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Soviet Union, it is my firm conviction that the EU, divided to the extreme, can be reunited with its region on the other side of the Iron Curtain only through this kind of solidarity, and thus complete its integration process.

We well know what happens in our neighbourhood; it affects the entire Union. So our neighbourhood policy is essential for a stronger Europe. The Eastern partnership countries are carrying out reforms in order to come closer to the EU. We continuously ask for further reforms, and stress the need to respect human rights in Belarus and Ukraine. We need to remain united in our commitment to establishing closer ties and to use the summit to send the right political signal of our will to play a leading role in the region.

  Krzysztof Lisek (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, Ms Ashton, Mr Füle, of course, as a Pole, I am very proud that we are hosting the summit. I think that Poland, Sweden and the whole European Union can be proud, as this is a step in the right direction. This is something, maybe the most important thing of all, that the citizens of the six countries which are members of the Eastern partnership have been waiting for. These are people who have also been wishing for economic development to take place in their countries – and we can certainly help here – and for political stability, democracy and, finally, for security.

Speaking of economic development and the help we can give, a positive move would undoubtedly be to bring talks with Ukraine on the association agreement to a conclusion before the end of this year, and another very positive move would also be to send a clear signal concerning the opening of talks on free trade agreements with Georgia and Moldova.

  Monika Smolková (S&D) . – (SK) Madam President, the eastern partnership policy is a very good policy, which is mutually beneficial for the six eastern European states and the EU. This policy requires a longer process; its results will not be achieved immediately, but will only appear after several years. Through this policy, the European Union is offering a helping hand to these states to follow a democratic path and to improve the living standards of their citizens.

This morning, we have talked about a new trade policy for Europe. This is an area that can also be boosted by the eastern partnership and free trade agreements. The advantages of a single common market will make it possible to gain more from the free movement of capital, goods, services and people. An improvement in economic cooperation will definitely make room for a change in the visa system and the development of tourism, and will also support security and stability in the states of Eastern Europe.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE) . – (RO) Madam President, the Eastern partnership offers a particular opportunity for the European Union’s eastern neighbours and can become a real driving force for these countries’ political and economic stability, security and prosperity. This is why I think that this initiative, launched in 2009, must not only be continued, but, above all, consolidated. I am pleased that the Polish Presidency regards the Eastern partnership as a priority. I firmly believe that Thursday’s summit will give new impetus to cooperation with these countries.

We must take into account the conclusions from the implementation report and the various country reports, and therefore come up with solutions to suit the progress made by and specific needs of each country. In addition, in future, the actions taken as part of this cooperation must deliver the most tangible benefits possible to the citizens of these countries, which will encourage them in their efforts towards democracy and economic development.

Last but not least, we need adequate financial resources and it will be important for us to allocate an impressive proportion to the Eastern partnership for the 2014-2020 period.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Madam President, the Eastern partnership summit in Warsaw should be an opportunity to give new impetus to cooperation between the European Union and the countries of the former Soviet Union. For the representatives of the eastern partnership, Warsaw will be an illustration of what has been brought by democratic changes in a country that was recently in the same political bloc as them. Despite the fact that the closest neighbours of the Poles – the Belarussians and the Ukrainians – have political representations which we can legitimately criticise for their democratic deficits in the administration of their countries, we have to keep in mind in particular the citizens of these countries, who should receive a clear signal from Warsaw that Europe respects them and is interested in friendly coexistence with them, irrespective of the political leadership ruling their countries. More openness to the possibilities of travel for young people and other citizens of these countries would definitely be a good sign for the future.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – (HU) Madam President, to hear the European Parliament chastise Stalinist-type unfair criminal proceedings is music to my ears; however, this music is unfortunately out of tune, as it is once again third countries that are being criticised.

I wonder if Baroness Ashton, High Representative for Foreign Affairs, is aware that in Hungary, an EU Member State, Judit Szima, one of the most renowned and perhaps the most active trade union leader, was taken into police custody on the day before a country-wide demonstration and has been under house arrest ever since, which has been months now.

Is Baroness Ashton aware that in Hungary, two opposition leaders, György Budaházy and Endre Szász, have been in provisional custody for three years in unfair trials that are now consistently being held in camera, barring even the principal accused, that is, opposition leader György Budaházy, from attending his own hearings. Even Stalinism hardly went this far, as back then, efforts were made to at least keep up appearances. How will Baroness Ashton respond if the Ukrainians, Belarus or others enquire about this? Would it not be better if the European Union finally conducted investigations into these matters and put an end to these disgraceful infringements?

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, in spite of the scepticism of some Member States due to the regime in Belarus and the trial of former Prime Minister Tymoshenko in Ukraine, I believe that the Polish Presidency should continue to intensify cooperation with the countries of the Eastern partnership, primarily in order to sign an association agreement with Ukraine. I believe that the contribution of the Warsaw Summit and the Civil Society Forum and Conference will be to provide a greater impetus to the process of bringing the Eastern partnership countries and the European Union together. I would also like to mention the importance of strengthening the regional dimension in this integration. An example of this could be the inauguration, on 8 September in Poznań, by the Committee of the Regions of the Conference of Regional and Local Authorities for the Eastern partnership.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, congratulations on your election.

Members have raised a range of different issues and I begin with the one that our colleague Mr Brok raised, which is: why am I sitting here and not there? I move between the two places each time; if you build me a bench in the middle I would be very happy to sit there. I am trying to fulfil my obligations!

The most important question that I think has been raised in our discussion has been: do we have the political will to put the amount of energy and effort into our partnership in the east in the way that we have spent a lot of our energy looking to our southern neighbourhood? From the commitment of honourable Members and, I hope from what I have said in this debate and the number of times Štefan has discussed these issues from his perspective and from our joint perspective, I believe the answer is very clearly ‘yes’. The summit that we have this week in Warsaw is really important and I want to thank the Polish Presidency very much for the enormous amount of work that they have put in. I can bear witness to that work and I thank them very much for all the effort that they have made.

It is because of the work that they have done and because of the commitment that I think you will see from Štefan and myself that we see a strong representation from the European Union and, I hope, a successful summit in the making. However, I do not underestimate all the challenges as we look at our six partners in our eastern neighbourhood. Our relationship with each one of them brings with it some challenges that need to be addressed and concerns, all of which have been expressed in this House this evening, in terms of frozen conflict, the potential for new conflict, the need to espouse the value and principles that we must hold within the European Union. However, we expect those we wish to collaborate with also to take these on, so it is important to make sure that how those concerns are dealt with is clear and transparent.

This brings me to the case that has been raised most often in our discussions, which is that of Yulia Tymoshenko. I want to be clear that the issue that we have raised is this apparently selective use of criminal judicial measures, and to say that the criticisms come not only from us but from many others, from independent experts. I think it is very important they be taken very seriously. This is the issue that I have raised with them, the issue that Štefan has raised with them. When we see judicial process, we wish to see due process. We wish to see people dealt with fairly and properly, within the way in which we operate as a European Union. Having once been a justice minister, I know how important this is as part of that journey in the development of the European Union and how important it is that we stand absolutely by those principles.

We are going to continue with our discussions on the deep and comprehensive free trade area and the association agreement because we believe that an association agreement provides stronger guarantees on some of the issues with Ukraine that we think are so important. As Members have pointed out, it goes without saying that any agreement has to be ratified, that national parliaments and the European Parliament will want to make sure that they are comfortable with the spirit in which this is done.

Specifically, too, Members raised the issue of the civil society facility. We have already identified EUR 22 million for this facility. Its purpose is to focus on the empowerment of civil society and increase public accountability, which is a really important issue. Coming back to my point about transparency and openness, the value of the Endowment for Democracy proposal is to enable us to do things that we cannot already do. It is not to duplicate what the instruments that we have do, but to look at some of the questions that have been raised in our discussions with our partners across the east and the south. How do we support the processes more effectively? How do we support young people? How do we support the growth of the political process? That will enable us, we hope, to work in a slightly more arms-length way, which can be of great value to those who wish to get support and help but do not meet the criteria that we quite rightly have for our instruments.

I want to end by focusing again on what I think the deliverables will be at this summit. First of all, the clear timeframe for the signing of the Ukraine Association Agreement and the free trade agreement, and for the start of those negotiations with Moldova and Georgia. If we are able to move forward on these, that would be important. Mobility is a big issue for many countries, and the importance of looking at what we can deliver on mobility over the coming months will also be a big part of this.

There is also the question of some cooperation between different sectors, particularly energy and transport, and, of course, political cooperation and dialogue. If we are able to use this opportunity to bring together the leadership with the European Union and with our eastern partners, and develop a stronger relationship, being clear about the commitments that we expect as well as the commitments that we give, with ‘more for more’ and mutual accountability being the watchwords of how we operate, I think it will have been an enormous success and it will give new energy to our work with our eastern partners.

As I began, may I thank the Polish Presidency especially, and the Hungarian Presidency for the groundwork that they put in. I look forward very much to what I am sure will be a successful Presidency event in Warsaw.

  President. – The debate is closed.

(The sitting was suspended for two minutes)

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – (PL) I am pleased that the forthcoming Eastern partnership summit will be taking place in Warsaw, which will, without doubt, be one of the most important events of the Polish Presidency. European Union and Eastern partnership Heads of State or Government will be taking part in a meeting planned for 29-30 September, giving a strong political signal for greater integration and involvement on the part of the EU and its Eastern partners in joint action.

The first Eastern partnership summit took place on 7 May 2009 in Prague. Today, the promotion of democracy throughout the neighbourhood of the EU is one of the priorities of the Polish Presidency. The aim of the summit is to stabilise and increase the prosperity of our Eastern neighbours, and although the Eastern partnership does not promise membership of the EU, it does foresee progressive and far-reaching integration with EU policies and the EU economy and legislation.

The Eastern partnership intends to strengthen cooperation by improving bilateral and multilateral cooperation in the regions, by creating a free trade zone, introducing visa liberalisation in the long term and extending the Erasmus programme. The European Commission is preparing to implement, before the end of this year, an institutional development programme for Eastern partnership countries, with a total budget of EUR 173 million. The Commission is also holding discussions with partner countries on regional development pilot programmes, for which over EUR 150 million has been earmarked for 2010-2013.

These are important first steps in strengthening cooperation with our Eastern neighbours. Involvement in joint efforts to promote democracy and remove borders in the whole of the EU’s neighbourhood should be a priority for us all.

  Kinga Göncz (S&D), in writing. – (HU) Countries in the EU’s eastern neighbourhood should also be brought closer to Europe. A deepening of these relations is in our interest as well, because an EU neighbourhood comprising countries that adhere to democratic principles enhances economic development and the stability of the region. Although the events of recent months rightly drew our attention to North Africa, we must keep in mind that just like the masses that ignited the spark of the Arab Spring, citizens of the countries in the European Union’s eastern neighbourhood are driven by democratic motivations. We have a great responsibility in this situation: Are we able to offer an alternative that can make these countries remain faithful to the European Union and the values it represents in the long term? I support the efforts of the Polish EU Presidency to give an impetus to the European Union’s Eastern Neighbourhood Policy and to conclude the relevant agreements and begin negotiations about tightening economic and commercial relations – from free trade agreements to visa liberalisation – as soon as possible, once the partner countries are ready. In the future, the European Union should assume a greater role in the management of deadlocked conflicts that are poisoning relations between our eastern neighbours. I am pleased that according to the plans, the Eastern partnership summit to be held in the second half of the week will see all EU Member States represented at the highest level except for three large countries. This indicates both the importance of the event and the prestige of the organising country’s government.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. – (RO) I think that improving relations with our eastern neighbours is of paramount importance, and we must strengthen democracy in these countries. The Prague Declaration, followed by the launch of the Eastern partnership, includes an initiative containing the following phrase: ‘we will take steps towards visa liberalisation’. We cannot talk about the countries in the Eastern partnership drawing closer without taking this important step seriously.

A positive development has been noted in Chişinău where, during the extended meeting of the working group dealing with coordinating the visa liberalisation process with the EU, the latest progress in the implementation of the Action Plan on visa liberalisation was presented, along with the first Progress Report published recently by the European Commission.

The EU should remove the phrase ‘long-term objective’ from all the relevant documents concerning visa liberalisation, including the draft association agreements with Moldova and with other Eastern partnership countries. By promoting citizens’ mobility and contacts with the EU, we are also supporting the development of the countries neighbouring Europe, such as the Republic of Moldova. Visa liberalisation promotes good understanding, links with civil society and intercultural exchanges. This would be the first sign that the Eastern partnership is sincere and serious in its intentions.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. – This summit should mark the EU´s will and commitment to its eastern neighbourhood. The EU has to demonstrate that its eastern neighbourhood is of the highest strategic and political importance. It is crucial that we show our Eastern neighbours the same dedication as we do to our Southern neighbours. An increased budget is a must to ensure sufficient tailored assistance. I especially would like to underline the importance of the new association agreement with Ukraine which is about to be signed in December this year. Ukraine has demonstrated its willingness and readiness to be part of Europe and, despite backlashes, has pursued its policies towards deeper European integration. We need to fully acknowledge this fact and make sure these developments will continue by signing the association agreement as soon as possible. I call also upon our Eastern neighbours to step up their efforts towards respect of human rights, democracy, and freedom of speech, media freedom and rule of law. The EU is based on these values and it is crucial that our Eastern neighbours fully implement and respect these values in order to pursue further European integration.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The Eastern partnership summit marks an important occasion for strengthening and highlighting the European Union’s relations with the countries in the east. I welcome the approach presented by the Commission and High Representative Catherine Ashton in Communication COM(2011)303 for treating each country in the EU’s neighbourhood policy according to their merits (‘more for more’ principle) and on the basis of clear criteria.

The Republic of Moldova is a model for the Eastern partnership. During the last two years, the Alliance for European Integration has initiated major reforms in constant consultation with the EU. I welcome the European Parliament’s explicit reference to the prospect of the Republic of Moldova’s accession to the EU, in accordance with Article 49 of the Treaty (the recent resolution on the association agreement). The prospect of accession is important to the reformers in this country, providing them with motivation and encouraging their efforts to continue with implementing the necessary reforms.

The European Parliament has also called for negotiations to be initiated with the Republic of Moldova on a Free Trade Agreement by the end of 2011, and for greater efforts to be made to resolve the conflict in the Transnistrian region, while respecting the Republic of Moldova’s territorial integrity. I welcome the announcement made recently by Prime Minister Vlad Filat on resuming the official 5+2 negotiations. I consider relevant his idea of replacing the troops in the Transnistrian region with a civilian mission. It is important for the EU to play a greater role in these negotiations.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), in writing. – (RO) The Warsaw Summit provides an important occasion for examining the progress that has been made among the European Union’s eastern neighbours, using this as a basis for devising specific policies for a common future. The European Union must support the transition to democracy in the countries of the Eastern partnership. This is why I think that a key step in doing this is to present a clear prospect of the partner countries joining the EU, as well as to implement the structural reforms required to bring them into line with European policies and regulations. I would like to stress the need for the EU to assume specific commitments regarding the signing of association and free trade agreements, as well as the importance of visa liberalisation for Eastern European partners.

We should not overlook either the role played by local and regional authorities in harmonising relations within the Eastern partnership. Their contribution is vital and must be focused, in particular, on territorial development, supporting mutual contacts and improving economic relations. Furthermore, Eastern partnership countries need to take important steps towards increasing respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. The EU’s objective in its eastern neighbourhood must be to focus on creating a democratic, stable region to ensure respect for freedom, dignity and fundamental rights.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. – I look forward to an ambitious Eastern partnership summit in Warsaw. A far-reaching Joint Declaration should outline concrete goals to be achieved for the next two years until the EaP summit in 2013. The main pillar of the EaP should remain the European perspective for partners who are willing and able to perform according to the values enshrined in Article 49 of the European Treaty. Next steps should be: fast-forward towards increased mobility for EaP countries – mutual commitments to start up remaining visa dialogues (Georgia) and negotiations on VFRA (Armenia, Azerbaijan and with Belarus); start of DCFTA negotiations with Moldova and Georgia. Conclusion of the negotiations with Ukraine by the end of 2011 would make a much needed success story. Building lively and strong EU and EaP relations is needed for both sides; its success lies in the coordinated actions of all EU institutions and all EU Member States. If we want to create an area of stability, shared values and progress surrounding Europe, it is important to consider carefully and strike the right balance between both ENP vectors.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE), in writing. – I would like to underline three main ideas. First of all, I consider that the perspective of membership should be the silver thread that guides our relations with the Eastern neighbours. Not only do these countries belong geographically to our continent, but they are deeply interlinked with the EU through both history and culture. Enlargement has been the most successful foreign policy tool of the EU and can serve as a strong incentive for internal reforms aiming to reach deep democracy in these countries. Nevertheless, we all understand that membership of the EU will not be accomplished tomorrow. Not only because of the enlargement fatigue, but also because these internal reforms take time and sometimes steps forward can be followed by steps backwards, as the case of Ukraine proves so clearly. This is why we should pursue firmly the objective of visa liberalisation in order to provide people-to-people contacts. A democratic evolution of these countries through emulation of already set standards can only come along in this way. Finally, we should apply the principle of ‘more for more’, encouraging countries such as Georgia or Moldova, that have made significant progress lately and whose willingness for reform must be wholeheartedly welcomed.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D), in writing. – (HU) The Eastern partnership cannot be a substitute for candidate status among our neighbours who are seeking EU membership. We cannot ignore the efforts made by Georgia, Moldova and, in particular, Ukraine in building relations with the European Union that are tighter than a free trade association. The Eastern Neighbourhood Policy must, however, be based on mutual trust with Russia. Without this, Russia may resort to drastic steps. Although not a participant in the Eastern partnership cooperation, Russia is an unavoidable actor in the EU’s Eastern Neighbourhood Policy. This is clearly demonstrated in the case of Ukraine. The Ukrainian Government was recently faced with a choice between preserving its good economic relations and favourable gas supply treaties with Russia or entering into a Free Trade Agreement with the European Union. In this delicate situation, it is of great significance that it is Poland, a Member State intimately familiar with relations with Russia and within the eastern partnership, that is holding the EU Presidency. I hope that the Polish Presidency will be able to handle the matter with impartiality and neutrality. However, it would have been even better if the Eastern partnership summit had been held on its original date in February, while the Hungarian Presidency was still holding office. It is unfortunate that, at that time, the summit had to be postponed due to scheduling problems and a poor willingness to participate. As it is, Hungary has lost an opportunity of prestige value, and the European Union has lost valuable time.

  Boris Zala (S&D), in writing. – The Eastern partnership policy will deliver its first major success: the association agreement with Ukraine. It is undoubtedly great news. But, when looking at the way this success was achieved, it also raises some concerns for the future. The Yanukovych government had to withstand enormous pressure from Russia which was meant to deter Kiev from a European path. This time around, we may have successfully snatched Ukraine from Russia’s embrace. But European integration cannot be this three-way strategic game. It is not a model of integration that is viable in the long run: because the closer our Eastern partners come to the EU, the more confrontational the process will get. So, looking ahead, our challenge is to create a more benign geopolitical environment context for our Eastern partners to move closer without being subject to such pressure and dilemmas. This, of course, means a more open and honest dialogue with Russia. But it also implies coordinating and interlinking – strategically, as well as practically – our neighbourhood policy and our Russia policy. This, I believe, is one of the lessons we should learn from the Ukraine negotiations.

  President. – The sitting is resumed.

15. Sexual orientation and gender identity at the UN Human Rights Council (debate)

  President. – The next item is the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on sexual orientation and gender identity at the UN Human Rights Council.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Madam President, honourable Members, today I reaffirm my own commitment and the commitment of the European Union to the entitlement of all people, wherever and whoever they are, to enjoy the full range of human rights and to do so without discrimination or the fear of discrimination.

Around the world, the issues of gender identity and sexual orientation continue to be used as a pretext for serious human rights violations: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people are still subject to persecution, discrimination and ill-treatment, and that ill-treatment often involves extreme forms of violence.

There are 80 countries which still criminalise same-sex relations between consenting adults, and seven which apply the death penalty. Let us be clear: this is incompatible with international human rights law. It is a cause for which I was proud to fight in my native country, and it is a cause which I take up now on behalf of the 27 Member States of the European Union. We continue to protest against these abuses and to offer practical support on how to end discrimination and to encourage inclusiveness.

Through the channel of the United Nations, the European Union takes this message to the world: 15 of our Member States were part of the group which prepared the statements on ending acts of violence and other human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity, which was agreed by 85 countries at the UN Human Rights Council in March this year. We also welcomed the resolution on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity tabled by South Africa and adopted at the Council three months ago.

Elsewhere in the UN system, the EU has supported LGBT rights in the NGO Committee of the UN Economic and Social Council, and, in December 2008, we were instrumental in delivering a UN General Assembly statement on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity which had the support of nearly 70 countries on five continents. That statement reaffirmed the principle of non-discrimination and condemned all executions and arrests made on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. It calls on all states to decriminalise homosexuality, especially including capital punishment.

The EU is an organisation of values, and it brings those values into the heart of its relationship with its partners beyond its borders. With its African, Caribbean and Pacific partners, for instance, we proposed the amendment of Article 8 in the Cotonou Partnership Agreement. We wanted to adapt that non-discrimination clause to the language of the Lisbon Treaty by introducing a reference to sexual orientation. The ACP side could not accept the proposal, and a compromise was agreed which uses the language of the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights. This says that the dialogue shall focus on discrimination of any kind such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. We knew that a matter of principle had to be raised, and we will keep raising it.

Madam President, I want to set out briefly some of the practical examples of how we work. Over the last year, we have raised the same principles in Uganda and Malawi: in Uganda, against a proposed parliamentary bill further criminalising homosexuality and raising serious human rights issues, and in Malawi against the long prison sentences imposed on a gay couple. We spoke out and made public statements together with Members of this House and NGOs, and we worked behind the scenes with our delegations to argue the case for justice and human rights with these two governments. In this we succeeded.

The EU also uses our regular human rights dialogues with individual countries to promote tolerance and non-discrimination for LGBT people. In countries like Moldova, those dialogues have resulted in expert-level follow-up, and in countries like Russia, Croatia, Turkey, Montenegro and Brazil, the Union has used its instrument for democracy and human rights to support local and international NGOs in their campaigns against discrimination.

Our action has ranged from physical protection, which we offered to LGBT people who had received death threats in the wake of the assassination of David Kato in Uganda, to the practical promotion which saw 4 000 people attend a gay pride march in La Paz, Bolivia.

We can always do more to promote awareness throughout our delegations worldwide and guide them in their work. In June, we adopted a guide called ‘a toolkit to promote the enjoyment of all human rights by lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-gender people’. I much appreciated the support of this House and joint working in order to produce this toolkit. It sets out ways to bring about decriminalisation, promote equality before the law and in society, and support and protect those who campaign for LGBT human rights. It also gives guidance on taking this issue onto the international stage in the UN.

So we stand by the principles of human rights and we articulate that view. So, too, do we give practical support to establishing those principles. We cannot allow discrimination over sexuality and gender anymore than we can allow it over colour and creed. Human rights are as indivisible as they are universal.

  Michèle Striffler, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, sadly, the adoption of the resolution on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity did not receive much coverage in the press, yet the adoption of this resolution marks an historic moment. I am glad that the European Parliament now has an opportunity to comment on this question. Indeed, it is important that the European Union should vigorously defend its values in international bodies and in its relations with third countries, but it is also important for us to be vigilant in defending the values of the European Union within our borders.

I am therefore calling on the Member States and on the High Representative to ensure that the Union is consistent in its internal and external actions in the field of human rights, as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty on European Union. In fact, I have observed that homosexuals are still the victims of extreme prejudice and the subject of discrimination in certain Member States of the Union. We also need to take action in response to the criminalisation of homosexuality around the world. We have already condemned this within Parliament on numerous occasions, but we must continue our efforts by engaging in regular, respectful and frank dialogue on questions pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity.

Let me close by saying that we have a financial instrument for combating discrimination based on sexual orientation and identity in the form of the European instrument for democracy and human rights.

  Michael Cashman, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, may I thank the High Representative Catherine Ashton for her statement. Cathy, may I also thank you for your personal commitment to this issue of non-discrimination. It is always a pleasure to follow Michèle Striffler who equally has been outspoken in the defence of people who have been discriminated against because of their difference.

You rightly, Vice-President, mentioned David Kato, a man who, because he sought to end discrimination in Uganda against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, was ultimately murdered; the three Iranian men who, only days ago, were hanged by their neck until they were dead because they were gay; Jamie Rodemeyer in the United States of America who committed suicide because he was bullied to death. They are the real examples of what discrimination does. Those who speak out using either their belief or their religion or their politics on behalf of such discrimination support those who would murder and those who would discriminate and by so doing, they demean themselves.

The Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948, yet that was what we had to settle for in the Cotonou Agreement. It was shameful that our Cotonou partners would not accept our definition, a wider definition, and it is a wonderful example that 63 years after the Universal Declaration in 1948, people still feel that we can find others to discriminate against in order to reinforce our position in society.

That is why we in the Socialist and Democratic Group welcome the resolution at the UN. It is a historic time; it is a turning point in the history of human rights. Sexual orientation and gender identity are at last increasingly understood to deserve equal protection.

The EU does not have a perfect track record on human rights in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity. The Parliament is aware of this and has made it clear in the resolution which lists outstanding issues within the EU. This is vital because, if we are to be taken seriously in the defence and the promotion of human rights, we must hold the same mirror up to ourselves and examine our own record.

The work and the commitment of the High Representative and the External Action Service and Member States’ diplomats are outstanding. They have worked in partnership with countries from around the world, and I emphasise ‘in partnerships’. This is not cultural imperialism because human rights know no boundaries and no borders. They are universal and indivisible. Therefore, the Parliament is equally respectful of the ongoing progress at the UN and does not seek to dictate to it or influence its process. But, with this resolution, this House wishes to encourage positive developments for universal and indivisible human rights, both at home and in the world.

I am pleased with the lead that both South Africa and Brazil have given in their sponsoring and their promotion of the resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva. It is ground-breaking work, we need to do more to support them, but equally can I please give a plea on behalf of trans people. We need to depathologise their right to health, we need to end the fact that being trans is to be seen to be suffering from an illness or a sickness. To be yourself is no illness and no sickness. It is to demand that your unique place in the world is respected. That is why we must do all we can to support this resolution, and I so move.

  Marietje Schaake, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, Madam High Representative, we spoke about the Middle East today as well as the turnarounds in North Africa. We touched on the urgent need for the EU to be a partner in ensuring that reforms on human rights are inclusive, deep and meaningful. The exact same goes for LGBT rights.

My party, the Dutch liberal D66 party, was the initiator of same-sex marriage, which we established ten years ago. Unfortunately, the challenges, both within the EU and in the rest of the world, are often much more elementary. In our Union, and unfortunately also in this House, there are too many who discriminate, exclude and even attack sons, daughters, fathers and mothers, neighbours and colleagues simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and it is much worse elsewhere. Iran and Uganda were highlighted.

Let us work together towards solid and inclusive respect for human rights in the EU so that, along with our (hopefully) more effective and ambitious policies, we are a credible global player. In the EU, North Africa, the Middle East or elsewhere in the world, LGBT rights are human rights. We must use the toolkit that is available. Our Group, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, wants to highlight the need to include asylum for those who were prosecuted for their sexual orientation or gender identity so that they can find a safe space in the EU.

  Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, human rights are universal and indivisible and apply to all equally, regardless of a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The UN Human Rights Council, despite its significant shortcomings, has done some useful work in this area. Holding an open and respectful dialogue on sexual orientation and gender identity amongst UN Member States is indispensable in achieving a world where equality and non-discrimination against LGBT people is the international norm.

The safeguarding and promoting of the universality of human rights is a fundamental part of the EU’s common values. Regrettably, on gay rights, these laudable principles are not yet fully upheld by the entire European Union. We still see unfortunately, although rarely, cases of discrimination against gay and transgender people in the European Union. Member States should also reaffirm their commitment to protect LGBT rights in the conduct of their foreign relations, both bilaterally with third countries – in particular, in the Arab world and in parts of Africa where criminal sanctions are still widely applied, including, disgracefully, the death penalty in some cases – and also multilaterally in all international fora, including the United Nations.

  Ulrike Lunacek, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, I should like to thank Vice-President Ashton for her support for LGBT issues. We already knew from other cases that you are very strong on that and support us on that. I also agree with those who have already said that the resolution at the Human Rights Council really was a turning point for LGBT rights worldwide, with countries like Brazil and South Africa and others in southern countries supporting it. This is something that we have not had that many times before, and it was the first time at the Human Rights Council.

It is a fact that this Parliament has been very outspoken on LGBT rights, not only on the very tragic assassination of David Kato just recently, but also on the cases of so many others who are not so prominent in their struggle: human rights defenders who are assassinated, who are beaten up and tortured, who are ousted from their families, from their schools, just because they fall in love with a person of the same sex. Love is like a human right: every one of us is happy when we have it, and when we have it in our lives. As a lesbian woman myself who has been fighting for these issues for almost 30 years and met so many people who have been active in very difficult situations, I am happy that we have this resolution today in order to support and push the External Action Service, the foreign minister of the European Union, Member States in terms of internal matters, and all other EU institutions to press ahead with doing away with violations of human rights against lesbians, gays, bisexual and transgender people.

I would like to ask Lady Ashton two specific questions. Do you support what we have in this resolution by six groups (which I very strongly appreciate) a comprehensive road map against homo- and transphobia by the European Union? And do you support the Commission helping to withdraw gender identity from the WHO catalogue of mental disorders? Because that is what is at stake at the WHO.

  Cornelis de Jong, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (NL) Madam President, homophobia is continuing to prey on our minds here in the European Parliament, and for good reason. Despite the debates here in Strasbourg, homophobia is not really in decline in the European Union. As long as we fail to put our own House in order, we will continue to lack a certain amount of credibility with third countries.

The best remedy against homophobia is to ensure full equality of rights. My group has made a number of proposals that would make the resolution even more specific in this respect. The fact remains that, in practice, we still do not have full equality of movement for same-sex couples in the EU. Obviously, they are allowed to seek and get jobs in other Member States, but that does not mean that their partnerships or marriages are recognised. That is why they are missing out on all kinds of rights which married couples take for granted. The best action against homophobia is ensuring equal rights and that can only be achieved through mutual recognition of partnerships and marriages.

Outside the European Union, the situation is even more serious, of course. I am thinking of the developments in Africa, where many LGBT people fear for their lives. What support is the European Union giving to the movement founded by David Kato, the murdered Ugandan activist, and to similar movements in other countries? What is the European Union doing to support gay rights movements in neighbouring countries? What initiatives is the European Union taking within the framework of support for the Arab Spring? Do they include an element for combating homophobia in these countries? This is a long list and I hope that, with this resolution, the European Parliament will ensure that these issues are given maximum priority.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Madam President I can be brief and only because I want to make one remark which is that, in answer to Ms Lunacek’s questions and to the comments that have been made, I will support anything anywhere that helps to remove discrimination against people whose human rights are being violated because of who they are. I think, as Mr Cashman put it, to be yourself is core and fundamental to the values that I hold and upon which I stand. One of the greatest privileges of my life was when I was awarded the Stonewall Politician of the Year award for the work that I have done on equality. It sits in my home as a reminder of sometimes being able to achieve something on behalf of people. I stand fairly and squarely in support of everything that we can do to prevent people’s rights being violated in all circumstances and, in this case particularly, those people that we have been discussing this evening.

  President. – I have received one motion for a resolution⁽¹⁾tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), in writing. – (FR) It is truly shameful that so-called gender identity is at the heart of the discussions on human rights within both the European Union and United Nations. Seeking to impose the nebulous gender theory across the globe and in all cultures – a theory devised in extreme left-wing feminist circles in America in the 1960s, which is based on nothing more than sociological and pseudo-philosophical fantasies – is not acceptable. It is monstrous that the European Union is taking part in this charade. What do you think that this will convey to the rest of the world, other than decadence and amorality?

We are not all born the same. We are men and women, with different skills and sensitivities. Whether you like it or not, this is a fact which is not dependent on either our personal choices or our socio-cultural environment. If you want to talk about gender discrimination, you should focus on the fate of women in some countries, and even in some European neighbourhoods, where they are seen as second-class citizens who can be exploited, coerced and sometimes killed merely because they are women. However, you would see that as ‘stigmatising’ certain communities and therefore remain remarkably quiet on this subject.

(1) See Minutes

16. Tensions between Turkey and the Republic of Cyprus (debate)

  President. – The next item is the statement by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on tensions between Turkey and the Republic of Cyprus.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Madam President, the honourable Members will have noticed that I have moved. That is because of the way we wish to conduct this discussion.

I want to begin by saying that one thing that is very obvious to me is that we are seeing a much more proactive Turkey in terms of its foreign policy. If we were looking at some of the issues regarding the position of Turkey in the Arab world, there is much we could spend time discussing. I am particularly, of course, talking about the issues in regard to the flotilla dispute with Israel – a situation that is a real source of friction and which spills over into other aspects of foreign policy and relations.

Turkey is both a candidate country and a NATO member. It is, of course, in our interests to try and seek to calm tension and, from my perspective, to bind Turkey into the delivery of our foreign policy objectives. I spent time talking with Foreign Minister Davutoğlu on a whole range of issues, but it will surprise no one in this House that the issue that he and I spoke about when we met bilaterally at the United Nations was the issue that is before us this evening. I, of course, worked closely with the Foreign Minister of Cyprus, who is new to our deliberations on the Foreign Affairs Council, but follows in the footsteps of her predecessor. We are well aware that the current tensions over the drilling issue concern us because they also involve a candidate country.

My services have been working very closely with Štefan Füle, and continue to do so. Because of the nature of this debate, I am now going to hand over to Štefan to continue from this side of the House.

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, as soon as tensions appeared over this issue, we followed developments very closely and with increasing concern. The Vice-President/High Representative and I made it very clear right from the start that threats are not an option when it comes to solving problems between neighbours. Disputes need to be settled by peaceful means. This is a guiding principle in international relations and in the European Union, and Baroness Ashton has made that point a couple of times during this afternoon’s debates.

We regret and reject any statement or action that runs counter to this approach. Moreover, as the Council has stressed on several occasions, our Member States have the sovereign right to conclude bilateral agreements with third countries in accordance with the European Union acquis and international law, including the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea. Let me recall that, under international law, the European Union and its Member States only recognise the Republic of Cyprus on that island.

The European Union has also repeatedly underlined the importance of progress in the normalisation of relations between Turkey and all European Union Member States, including the Republic of Cyprus. I firmly believe that Turkey and the European Union have much more to gain through integration and dialogue than through tensions, especially at a time where the stakes in the region following the Arab Spring are so high. Turkey and the European Union need to support jointly the aspirations of the people on the southern flank of the Mediterranean for democracy, human rights, stability and prosperity.

The European Union is based on a number of core principles and values including good neighbourly relations and the peaceful settlement of disputes, resorting, if necessary, to international arbitration. We are, and remain, committed to this approach, which is the best guarantee for peace and stability. We assure you that both the Vice-President/High Representative Catherine Ashton and I made all these points very clearly in our recent contacts with all our interlocutors.

At the beginning of July, the United Nations Secretary-General met the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot leaders in Geneva. They decided to enter into an intensive period of negotiations towards a comprehensive settlement. Since then, we have all been looking forward to a crucial phase of settlement talks in the autumn and the resolution of an issue that would be to the benefit of all Cypriot citizens, the European Union, Turkey and the entire region. This phase is ongoing and I understand the leaders are intensively discussing the substance of several core pending issues. This is a chance not to be missed under any circumstances. I therefore urge all parties now to focus all energy, efforts and minds on the comprehensive settlement.

During this crucial ongoing phase, it is essential that all parties concerned exercise restraint and do their utmost to ensure a positive climate that will facilitate successful completion of the process. Let us give the settlement talks the best chance to succeed. I trust that all European Union institutions, including the European Parliament, will send the same messages and encouragement towards this end to all the parties concerned.

  Georgios Koumoutsakos, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (EL) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, Commissioner, the use of threats, including military threats, has always marked Turkey’s foreign policy. Turkey resorts easily to threats when things do not develop in line with its geostrategic ambitions, regardless of whether or not such developments are legal under international law or international practices. This is also confirmed by the escalation in the reaction and threats by Ankara to the exercise of the legal, sovereign right of the Republic of Cyprus to explore its exclusive economic zone in accordance with the Law of the Sea.

Obviously, the utilisation of serious wealth-producing resources by the Republic of Cyprus will improve energy security in the European Union and support the policy to diversify energy sources. In addition, the prospect of benefits to both Greek and Turkish Cypriots is a strong incentive, rather than a deterrent, to progress with and finding a solution to the Cyprus question and, of course, the Republic of Cyprus should not pay for the illegal occupation of part of its land by suspending the exercise of its rights.

Baroness Ashton, Commissioner, Turkey is, I fear, trying to foster controlled tension in the area in order, among other things, to acquire the status of regional force and locum tenens which it has constantly sought in the Eastern Mediterranean. However, the dividing line between controlled and uncontrolled tension is extraordinarily fine. Turkey is literally playing with fire.

(The speaker continued in English)

Turkey is more a security consumer than a security provider in the Eastern Mediterranean.

(EL) Baroness Ashton, Commissioner, the European Union needs to send a clear message of condemnation and rebuttal of the Turkish threats and of solidarity with our partner, the Republic of Cyprus. This is primarily a question of the Union’s credibility and sense of decency.

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Madam President, we in the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament want to see Turkey taking a strong role, particularly in the region of the Eastern Mediterranean. We wish to have Turkey as a partner. However, a partner must behave like a partner. Unfortunately, what we are witnessing at present is far from partnership. We were very pleased to hear foreign minister, Mr Davutoğlu, say that Turkey was interested in politics that did not involve conflict with its neighbours. However, when I think of Israel and Cyprus, conflicts between Turkey and its neighbours seem to be growing in number. This is unacceptable to us.

Turkey must accept that Cyprus is a Member of the European Union and enjoys our full solidarity. When, as is the case at present, Turkey tries to put Cyprus under pressure with its warships, when Turkey makes a foreign policy statement saying ‘We will not talk to Cyprus when it holds the Presidency of the European Union’, then this is unacceptable to us. We are faced with policies that do not just target the Greek population of Cyprus, but also the Turkish population, because they make it increasingly difficult to reach an agreement within Cyprus itself. What we want is for the island, the country and the population to be united. We want both parts of Cyprus to cooperate and insist that negotiations must take place. However, this also requires a willingness on Turkey’s part to act in partnership.

On behalf of my group, I would like to state that we stand in complete solidarity with our colleagues in Cyprus and with the Cypriot population. Cyprus is doing the right thing. I would urge Turkey to respect the fact that Cyprus is an independent Member of the European Union and has our full solidarity.

  Marietje Schaake, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, as the High Representative and Commissioner Füle are aware, Turkey’s foreign policy is guided by a doctrine called ‘zero problems with neighbours’ but, unfortunately, today, Turkey is experiencing problems with almost all its neighbouring countries.

The mounting tensions with Cyprus are of special concern to this House. The Commission has rightfully urged both sides – the Greek Cypriots as well – to show restraint. Turkey’s role in the region is important and could be a great vehicle for more intensive cooperation between Turkey and the EU. I hope the Commission and High Representative will find active support from Turkey in their efforts to find a negotiated solution to the Middle East conflict, and I hope that they will seek closer cooperation with Turkey to end the ongoing hell that we see in Syria.

However, EU-Turkey relations are, formally, predominantly about domestic affairs and reforms: the Copenhagen criteria. A focus on foreign affairs and Turkey’s important role in the region neither compensates for nor replaces the relevance of making reforms to meet these criteria. Similarly, it seems that Turkey’s economy is doing better than all its neighbours, with truly remarkable figures. Yet economic success cannot replace good governance, respect for civil rights and a functioning rule of law.

A press release I recently received from the Turkish Government aimed to explain that the rule of law is not violated in Turkey, but accepted that there are approximately 70 journalists in prison. Official charges are not always filed and pre-trial detention periods can last years. To make matters worse, indictments that are presented are often supported by something called ‘secret evidence’, which makes a transparent judicial process impossible.

The Turkish Government asserted that these journalists are in prison on terrorism charges and that those of us who believe press freedom is under pressure are wrong. This House, the Commission and the External Action Service have assessed the press freedom issue in Turkey with great concern. Would the High Representative and the Commissioner agree that it is time to broaden the scope and assess whether counter-terrorism laws are being abused and whether the rule of law is still functioning in line with the Copenhagen criteria, so that we can move towards the much-needed accession of Turkey to the EU?

  Sajjad Karim, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, can I firstly welcome the Vice-President of the Commission to this side of the House. Madam Vice-President, I am right behind you over here. It is always good to see you, and I welcome your commitment to this House, both on an individual and a collective basis.

This is, of course, a very sensitive issue that we are dealing with at a very sensitive time. Can I firstly give my support to Commissioner Füle’s statements and calls for restraint from all involved. As we move towards a crucial phase in the Cyprus reunification talks, it is essential that we encourage all sides to roll back from their respective positions.

Commissioner Füle, what are we doing to encourage Cyprus to stop the exploration whilst we await the reunification talks? As a Member State, it owes a duty to this Union not to push when we ask for time. It is not a question of sovereignty. We have already clearly established that. It is simply a question of strategic planning. Cyprus should provide us with time and space for the betterment of our Union and in our joint interests.

  Hélène Flautre, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (FR) Madam President, I am not sorry that we are having this debate, because at the end of the day, there has not been any discussion of Turkish-Cypriot relations nor of the situation in Cyprus since 2004. So this is the first time since then that we have had an open discussion about a European Union Member State in which there has been a United Nations international peace-keeping mission since 1964 in relation to a conflict with a country engaged in the accession process.

Stating the facts naturally highlights the fairly ludicrous nature of the situation. As far as I am concerned, this debate is not about whether Cyprus is exercising its sovereign right by deciding to drill in its exclusive economic zone. That is beyond doubt. International law clearly says that Cyprus is in the right, but equally we could envisage a situation whereby, under a future agreement, the benefits from that drilling would be shared fairly between the two communities.

Having said that, I feel that the timing of the operation is reprehensible because, at the end of the day, this decision is prejudicial to the negotiations due to begin in the coming days under the aegis of the United Nations.

In my view, the role of our Parliament – as has already been demonstrated – is not to engage in one-upmanship but rather to make a constructive contribution to achieving overall peace within the framework of an agreement for a federal country made up of two zones and two communities. What is more, the substance of a future agreement is known and almost – I nearly said for the most part – on the table.

The question that we need to ask ourselves as Europeans is what Member States and the European Union are doing to bring a political agreement into the world and to encourage all the stakeholders to take constructive confidence building measures. However, sometimes I feel that the question of Cyprus is intentionally left to one side, to be used when the need arises in the context of relations between the European Union and Turkey.

I would like practical measures to be taken today by the Union and the Member States to support and encourage a rapid resolution to what is essentially a European problem.

  Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Madam President, the Republic of Cyprus, acting according to international law and having signed agreements with its neighbouring countries, has initiated an official exploration within its exclusive economic zone for hydrocarbons.

Turkey has never accepted this legitimate fact. In 2008, Turkish warships repeatedly harassed the vessels conducting oceanographic research in Cyprus’s exclusive economic zone. In the light of the drilling process, Turkey, at the highest governmental level, has repeatedly threatened Cyprus, demanding that it abandon its lawful rights. The threats are becoming facts. Warships have been dispatched, and a so-called agreement with the occupied part of Cyprus for exploring the exclusive economic zone of Cyprus concluded.

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea was ratified by the European Union and is thus part of the acquis which Turkey, as all European Union candidate countries, is expected to respect and be bound by. Instead, it chooses to ignore it. Turkey is undermining the sovereign rights of an EU Member State and Community law. It is escalating its unilateral action, jeopardising the peace process for the solution of the Cyprus problem and endangering stability in the Mediterranean Sea.

My group strongly believes that any further instability in the region would be to the detriment of the people of the region and of the EU itself. The EU must send Turkey a very clear and strong message that its action is violating international and European law and that it has to stop. This behaviour is unacceptable. There is now an even greater need for EU solidarity with Cyprus, and we call upon the UN Council to demonstrate similar solidarity in a very clear manner.

  Niki Tzavela, on behalf of the EFD Group. – (EL) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, Commissioner, I greatly fear that Europe is going too far. Here we sit, being told that we need to advise restraint on both sides. Why on both sides? The Republic of Cyprus is carrying out explorations of its economic zone in due form and in accordance with international law and Mr Karim, if I have understood correctly, says that they should stop. How can that be? It is their economic zone, why should they not carry out explorations? Why are we putting the offender and the victim on an equal footing? This is unfair treatment of the Republic of Cyprus. As things stand, to say that both sides should demonstrate self-restraint means that all of us here are ignoring international law and are ignoring sovereign and national rights and the contractual obligations which the European Union has towards Cyprus. I consider this unacceptable and we need to take a bold and fair stand in keeping with international law.

The second point I wish to make is this: Bismarck said that the only stable factor in foreign policy is geography. Baroness Ashton, do you have geographical borders on the scope of EU foreign policy? As we have you to represent the single foreign policy of the EU, should we not know where these geographical borders lie? Geographically, do we know where Europe starts and ends? We need to know and to defend it. I will go one step further: when gas reserves are found in Cyprus, who will benefit? The European market will benefit. Should we not therefore defend these European interests and products?

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). – Madam President, the Republic of Cyprus is an independent state, and a member of the EU and the UN, and therefore has the right to independently determine its interests, alone or in cooperation with other countries in accordance with international laws. Cyprus has signed and ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, just like 161 other countries. Therefore, the offshore oil and gas drilling in Cyprus’s own exclusive economic zone and its continental shelf are within the law.

Turkey has to accept that it has to comply with international laws. We, the EU, have to stand up and speak clearly with one voice, and under no circumstances can we tolerate any further violation of EU borders. What do we have international laws and UN conventions for if they are not respected?

  Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE). – Madam President, up till now, the Commission has assessed the tensions and the potential conflict between Turkey and Cyprus as a bilateral conflict. I disagree. The conflict is between an EU Member State and a country that has been accepted as a candidate for the EU club. Therefore, the Commission must not be silent.

The planned exploration is in Cyprus’s exclusive economic zone. This extends to the south of the island and in no way limits exploitation in the northern part or the rights of Turkey. For me, it is crystal clear that these rights follow from the UNCLOS Treaty, where economic zones are described, followed by bilateral agreements. The fact that Turkey did not sign UNCLOS does not mean that it rejects it. In the 1980s, Turkey declared an exclusive economic zone in the Black Sea and reached an agreement with Romania, Bulgaria and the former Soviet Union. It used the same median line method then.

I therefore urge Turkey to refrain from all threats. I also have a question for the government of Cyprus. I would ask it to give an assurance that the move towards the exploration and possible exploitation of natural gas and oil reserves in the exclusive economic zone will not in any way impinge on the possibility of an agreement between the two Cypriot communities on reunification, and that this will be to the benefit of both communities. I think that this should be done – or could be done – for instance, by pledging to earmark reserves, or part of the future revenue, for the benefit of the whole Cypriot community once reunification is achieved, and also by pledging to provide electricity, generated by natural gas, to northern Cyprus.

  Libor Rouček (S&D). – (CS) Madam President, I would like to talk about the mounting tension between Turkey and the Republic of Cyprus from my position as Coordinator of the High Level Contact Group for Relations with the Turkish-Cypriot Community in the Northern Part of the Island of Cyprus, which is still sadly divided. As Commissioner Füle said, negotiations on reunification have been ongoing – without success, so far – between top-level representatives of the Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots for more than two years now. The negotiations carrying on with the active assistance of UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, and his special adviser, Alexander Downer, are entering the final phase at the moment. There is much at stake. Either it will be possible to find a solution that is satisfactory to both of the parties to this long-running dispute, or, influenced by the changes in the Middle East, there will be a definitive and permanent division of Cyprus, with fatal consequences both for Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots. I would therefore like to make an appeal again from this place to the representatives of both communities, President Christofias and Doctor Eroğlu, to focus on a successful conclusion to the negotiations and not to take any steps that would lead to a further escalation of tension. It is in the interests of both communities to reach a permanent and sensible compromise, so that Cypriots can decide jointly on the fate of Cyprus, including its mineral wealth in offshore waters.

  Theodoros Skylakakis (ALDE). – (EL) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, Commissioner, in a period in which, under pressure from the crisis, the Union is seeking and moving towards ever closer fiscal and economic integration, the undersea wealth in economic zones which, under international law, are exploited by individual Member States, is an issue which concerns us all and our economic future and the energy security of the Union. Injustice cannot create rights. The fact that Turkey has occupying forces in the northern part of Cyprus does not imply that it has acquired rights to the exclusive economic zone of the Republic of Cyprus in what is, moreover, a completely different geographical area, especially when we all know that the Republic of Cyprus has abided by all the provisions of international law to the letter and when we also know that it will take a great deal of time, perhaps several decades, for the benefits from current exploration to trickle down to the citizens of the whole of Cyprus, time which more than suffices to find a solution to the Cyprus problem – which would be useful sooner rather than later – and to share the benefits of this exploration fairly between all the citizens of Cyprus, regardless of their ethnic origin.

We are in the 21st century. Turkey is making a mistake if it thinks that gunboat diplomacy can be exercised against a Member State of the European Union. To conclude on the subject of negotiations: negotiations on the Cyprus question have lasted for thirty years. If we take the line that the Republic of Cyprus has reduced sovereign rights during the period of negotiation, then it would be as if we were withdrawing sovereign rights from the Republic of Cyprus. It is wrong for us to say so and wrong for us to argue so; the solution must be found elsewhere and the solution is to apply international law logically and judiciously and for us to seek a solution to the Cyprus problem within that framework.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL). – (ES) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, Commissioner, I would firstly like to remind Commissioner Füle that Turkey does not accept arbitration because it does not recognise the Hague Tribunal; and that this is not about international arbitration, but rather about threats made by a candidate country against a Member State of the European Union.

This is not about tensions between two countries, but rather threats by Turkey against Cyprus, which have taken shape in the movement of Turkish naval ships. Threats that Turkey makes against a Member State are threats against the whole of the European Union. They unnecessarily increase tension in the region, and Turkey’s behaviour is intolerable when compared with that of the government of the Republic of Cyprus, which is making every possible effort to find a viable, peaceful and lasting solution to the Cyprus problem.

I would like to stress the statement made by the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Demetris Christofias, to the United Nations, in which he stated that any potential oil and gas exploration in the exclusive economic zone of the Republic of Cyprus would benefit both the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities. In addition, one of the conditions set by the European Council in order for Turkey to become a member of the European Union was that it must abide by and sign the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, something that Turkey has not yet done.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Turkey today is characterised by oppressed ethnic minorities, Christians forced to practise their faith in secret, priests brutally killed without the authorities lifting a finger, and an anti-Western foreign policy.

My party, Lega Nord, has always been against Turkey’s becoming part of Europe because it represents a potential Trojan horse of radical Islamism in our continent. Now more than ever, we are convinced that the EU should finally put a halt to accession negotiations. The endless threats that Turkey has made against Europe must receive an immediate response. It is not acceptable for a third country to tell Europe what it has to do.

Cyprus is a fully-fledged Member State of the EU and has the indisputable right to take over the rotating Presidency. Europe must give a clear sign and show that it is ready to defend Cyprus with any means necessary against Turkey’s arrogance and its political and military bullying. We should interrupt accession negotiations immediately and also be ready to suspend trade relations.

  Eleni Theocharous (PPE). – (EL) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, with all due respect, the policy of sitting on the fence which you have presented to us today, without acknowledging the aggressive and unfair behaviour of one of the two parties, is out of line with the system of principles and values which we are obliged and have undertaken to defend.

Mr Füle, why have you called on the Republic of Cyprus to demonstrate self-control? Was it Cyprus that sent the sixth fleet out to patrol the Eastern Mediterranean? You should be calling on Turkey, Mr Füle. What do you expect Cyprus to do? Whatever it has done, it has done within the framework of international law and international conventions, like every other state in the world. The Republic of Cyprus is the only recognised state on the island of Cyprus. That is why, Baroness Ashton, if the crisis escalates, what happens in the Eastern Mediterranean will be on your head alone, yours and the Commission’s. Instead of looking at the risks to which Cyprus is exposed, at security in the Eastern Mediterranean, and at the system of values which we have undertaken to defend, you are taking a neutral position and saying nothing that has to do with the subject of this evening’s debate.

  Kyriakos Mavronikolas (S&D). – (EL) Madam President, may I start by endorsing what Mr Swoboda has said in connection with this crisis. I shall make certain points which have not been made by previous speakers. First of all, the crisis does not concern Turkey and Cyprus; it concerns Turkey and the European Union, and the eastern borders of the European Union. We all know that, in a bid to exploit and expand its own exclusive economic zone, Turkey has also contested the right of Greek islands, specifically Kastellorizo and the other islands in that vicinity, to an exclusive economic zone.

Thus, in its effort to foment trouble, Turkey has given notice of its own exclusive economic zone, because it has not signed the Law of the Sea, which has been signed by the whole of the European Union, and it is claiming no more and no less than about half the Eastern Mediterranean. As regards the area in which exploration is being carried out, it is off Egypt, at the southern point of the exclusive economic zone of the Republic of Cyprus. Apart from that, Turkey has linked this specific episode to the talks, to the Presidency of the Republic of Cyprus and to the fact that it does not recognise the Republic of Cyprus. More importantly, the presence of the Turkish navy in the area is, unfortunately, currently being verified by other states; there are reports of US aircraft flying out of Sicily to monitor for the presence of Turkish submarines. Israel is doing the same while, for our part, unfortunately, the facility for the European Union itself to act is very limited.

Baroness Ashton, I will close with this: we still have a long way to go before the European Union has a real common foreign policy and common defence policy. We must all help to resolve this incident.

  Graham Watson (ALDE). – Madam President, the musical chairs at the front of the hall, and the lack of any real statement from either of the representatives, is perhaps at least recognition that exclusive economic zones are not a matter of EU competence; they are a matter of international law. Quite apart from the dubious wisdom of drilling for hydrocarbons on a planet whose temperature is increasing far too fast and in countries which have huge resources of renewable energies, this is a challenge the European Union cannot ignore.

We are in this situation partly because we failed to insist on a peace deal prior to Cyprus’s entry to the Union and partly because, since entry, little progress has been made on a solution for the island and the Union has gone cold on Turkey’s adhesion.

I note the speech of Cyprus’s new Energy Minister, Praxoula Antoniadou Kyriakou at the Energy Council last week, and I welcome her commitment to the opening of the energy chapter for Turkey, which Cyprus blocked in 2007. But I note, too, that exploratory drilling has begun. Knowing Turkey’s objections and knowing its offer of 24 September for a UN mediator on hydrocarbon resources, aware that drilling will be seen as more than an economic activity, and at a time when UN negotiations are entering a very delicate phase, what Cyprus is doing may be defensible legally but it is bound to be inflammatory politically, and we should not be surprised at Turkey’s reaction.

Now, of course, we must urge Turkey to show restraint, but we must also give some hope to the Turkish Cypriots that they might have a share in the wealth of an estimated 20 billion barrels of oil.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Georgios Koumoutsakos (PPE). – (EL) Madam President, Mr Watson, I listened very carefully to what you said. Obviously, I disagree with most of it, but I have a question to put to you: is Turkey making threats that conflict with international law in this specific case? Yes or no? If it is, what should the European Union be doing?

  Graham Watson (ALDE). – Madam President, of course the EU has a duty to defend its Member States and, of course, what Turkey is doing is wrong under international law. My point is that we should not be surprised at Turkey’s reaction. I agree with the very wise comment made by Mrs Oomen-Ruijten earlier in this debate. If we really want to find a solution, then it has to be a solution that gives all Cypriots a chance of sharing in the wealth that will be generated from the drilling.

  Ioannis Kasoulides (PPE). – Madam President, the key for this debate is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Law of the Sea does not suit Turkey. To the detriment of all Cypriots – Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots alike – Turkey is trying to serve her own interests and not the interests of the Cypriots, with threats and faits accomplis devoid of any legal basis. It is the same Turkey that ignores the rules of the European Union. Yesterday, it was the extension of the Ankara Protocol; today, it threatens to freeze its relations with the EU during the Cypriot Presidency. Turkey abides by no rule.

I subscribe, Commissioner, to your call for a successful outcome of the talks for a settlement, but I urge you to study the statement by Mr Erdoğan in Cyprus that leaves no room for Mr Eroğlu to have a conciliatory stance. The drilling will not affect the talks unless somebody is looking for an excuse. Turkey should not be encouraged, Mr Watson, by your saying that you are not surprised by it behaving like a bully.

  Emine Bozkurt (S&D). – Madam President, while the governments of the Republic of Cyprus and Turkey are busy with their moves in the eastern Mediterranean, Turkish and Greek Cypriots are sitting and waiting on the sidelines. They have most to lose from this present situation. Our priority should be to ensure negotiations are carried out successfully to realise the unification of Cyprus.

However, it is extremely worrying that the tensions in the region have been raised just before the start of the next round of negotiations. Both the Republic of Cyprus and Turkey are responsible for doing their utmost to establish a positive climate for negotiations to make sure a historic window of opportunity will not close down. The people of Cyprus need all parties involved to work together to reach a comprehensive settlement. The people of Cyprus – Greek and Turkish – who are all European citizens, deserve a stable future in the EU. It is about time that the European Union works for both of them.

  Antigoni Papadopoulou (S&D). – (EL) Madam President, I condemn the Turkish threats against Cyprus. Ankara is in breach of international law and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which forms part of the European acquis. It has not signed, it does not respect, and it is not applying this convention. It is creating tension by sending gunboats into the Eastern Mediterranean and it is using the unrecognised state to illegally endeavour to create an exclusive economic zone. Although it is a candidate country, it does not recognise the Republic of Cyprus, which is a Member State of the United Nations and of the European Union and which has the sovereign right to explore and exploit its natural resources. Turkey is acting as a terrorist state in the Eastern Mediterranean. I call on the European Parliament, the European Union and, especially, Baroness Ashton and Mr Füle, to stop this policy of sitting on the fence and, more importantly:

- firstly, not to open any chapters, especially the energy chapter;

- secondly, to warn Turkey that, if it continues its threats, its accession prospects will immediately be suspended;

- thirdly, I call on Ms Oomen-Ruijten to include in this year’s evaluation report on Turkey that, if these threats continue, its accession prospects will stop.

Mr Rouček, do you not think that, when you talk about self-restraint on both sides, you are basically sitting on the fence and putting the offender and the victim on an equal footing? Do you not think that you are blackmailing Cyprus when you say that any breakdown in talks will result in division and permanent partition? Mr Watson, why have you not condemned Turkey for blatantly infringing the Law of the Sea, while Cyprus is respecting and applying it? I want clear answers.

  Maria Eleni Koppa (S&D). – (EL) Madam President, the Arab Spring shifted the geostrategic balances in the Eastern Mediterranean, causing volatility and instability. The European Union has every reason to safeguard stability and to prevent any escalation of tension in this rapidly changing region. Unfortunately, Turkey, a candidate country for accession to the European Union, has opted for a slippery slope, by contesting the sovereign rights of Member States enshrined in international law and defiantly threatening to use military violence, deploying its gunboats in international waters and taking openly hostile action.

The traditional balance in the region appears to have been overturned and the path which Mr Erdoğan has chosen, in basically ignoring Europe, is causing a great deal of concern right across the continent of Europe and in the United States. Clearly, anyone who invests in tension for internal consumption and in order to become a regional leader is playing a very dangerous game. Turkey’s words and deeds are putting peace and stability in the area in danger. We call on Turkey to assume its responsibilities honestly at this very critical time.

  Cecilia Wikström (ALDE). – (SV) Madam President, it makes me very sad to see that solidarity with Cyprus and our brothers and sisters there is currently being set aside.

This is one of our Member States that is being attacked by a foreign power, and the seriousness of this cannot be emphasised enough. At the same time, the security of us all is being threatened by the Turkish aggression that is increasing by the day.

In these circumstances, we need to unite and speak with one voice. It is totally unacceptable that laws and regulations are not being respected and, in this regard, every one of us has a responsibility to stand up and defend our brothers and sisters in one of our Member States.

That is what I would expect if Sweden was attacked, but here we have allowed the conflict to go on interminably. We must put a stop to it immediately.

I appeal to you, Baroness Ashton, to make it very clear that the Turkish aggression and hostility must cease, and must do so immediately.

  Andrew Duff (ALDE). – Madam President, I think we should try to keep calm. I have two specific questions. Firstly, what are the Council and Commission planning to do, should the UN withdraw its good offices from the talks on the island? Secondly, what precisely is your reaction going to be to address the problem of the Turkish boycott of the imminent Council Presidency from July?

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). – (SK) Madam President, the Republic of Cyprus is part of the European Union and behaves accordingly. It is circumspect and responsible in the standpoints it adopts and the measures it takes. On the other hand, Turkey has now been occupying for a considerable time a large part of the island of Cyprus and thereby part of the European Union.

In this context, it is really ridiculous that the European Union should permit a discussion tabled by Turkey on restricting the right of the Republic of Cyprus to exploration drilling in its territorial waters. I understand that the Turks would also wish to benefit from the wealth located in the coastal waters of Cyprus and thus also of the European Union. However, international law is clearly on the side of the Republic of Cyprus, so, we need to begin to restrain this expansionist appetite in a calm but determined way.

I believe that we will find support for this legitimate public criticism of Turkish military threats with our partners in the United States and in the international community. We only have to try and find it.

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, to start with, I can assure you of my understanding for your emotion and your concern, although some of the statements have rather crossed the line. Let me assure you that the last time I checked the news, no one had been attacked.

I think we can clearly say that we all agree that increased tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean are in nobody’s interest. We can also agree that we stand by one of our Member States when its rights are called into question.

Let me make a remark here, because there was a question of the extent to which the Commission considered this to be a volatile issue. What is volatile is the disagreement on the delimitation of borders: exclusive economic zone. What is not volatile, and never will be, is an approach based on threats, which violates the United Nations Charter.

But we all also acknowledge that the most important issues right now are the Cyprus settlement talks. The United Nations and the Secretary-General, but, in particular, the leaders of the two communities, have invested enormous effort in making them succeed, and it is our responsibility and duty to support these efforts in any way we can.

A united Cyprus would bring peace, stability and security within the European Union, in our close neighbourhood, and in one of the most troubled regions in the world. It would also have a positive effect on relations between the European Union and Turkey.

I am well aware that the European Union and Turkey are in a delicate phase in their relations; the pace of the accession process is disappointing, with no chapter opened since June 2010. The European Union is expecting more and faster reforms in Turkey to address urgent issues under fundamental rights and freedoms. Turkey, too, is frustrated by what it perceives as a lack of commitment from the European Union to negotiations. I believe the fresh tensions around the whole drilling issue partly result from this frustration.

Let me make a couple of remarks here in reaction to a very important debate and adding to a number of the statements I made at the beginning and also during the Question Time we had earlier today in this House.

I have no problem with assertive foreign policy – if that policy is responsible. I have a huge problem with irresponsible policy. Threatening a Member State, talking about the role of the navy, is irresponsible and needs to be condemned. It is being condemned, and it will be condemned.

Another point: the issue has never been doubts over the rights of one of us. No one has indicated that there could be a problem. The only point was timing. Most leaders made a personal commitment to the Secretary-General of the United Nations that they will not be distracted by anything and that all their efforts will be focused on finding a comprehensive settlement, in such a way that the settlement is found before Cyprus assumes the Presidency of the European Council.

I agree with those who made the point that what is really of the utmost importance is to send, at this point in time, the clear message that, as far as the benefits of this hydrocarbon project are concerned, they belong to all citizens of Cyprus, in both communities.

I wish I had an answer to the question of what our contingency plan is if the United Nations decides to withdraw. I do not have one, and I am not aware of anyone having a Plan B. This is one more reason why we all need to support the United Nations and the Secretary-General and special representatives. President Barroso recently sent a special envoy who at this point in time, with the talks being intensified, is fully committed to the talks and is available to the special representative Alexander Downer, on a 24/7 basis.

Let me also address the issue of the statement that Turkey is going to boycott the Cyprus Presidency of the European Council. I was confronted with this statement when I visited Turkey soon after the elections, a couple of hours after the new government had been formed. My immediate reaction was that, instead of sending this strange ultimatum, all our efforts needed to be focused on finding a comprehensive settlement before that time. This is exactly the angle which, I understand, has been used by the Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu, speculating on what is going to happen if no settlement is reached on the Cyprus issue. I shall not continue his speculation on what is going to happen. I think we all need to use the time between now and the beginning of next year – not the end of June – to move the settlement talks forward.

I disagree, with respect, with those who try to say that we have been talking for thirty years. There have been a number of phases and a number of efforts. We do not have anything better than the current plan, with which we are moving forward and making progress. The Secretary-General of the United Nations made this clear during the last meeting with both leaders. There is commitment on the part of these two leaders; there is a kind of road map that they have both committed to. So expectations are high.

I was talking about frustration; that frustration is unfortunate and largely unnecessary. What we need now is constructive engagement; we do not see any other option. Turkey and the European Union need each other more than ever in addressing jointly the challenges of the day. They are already closely linked by trade, investments, 50 years of association and now, accession negotiations. There are real benefits to working closely together with Turkey in our common neighbouring countries.

Most importantly, however, the European Union accession process with Turkey has proved a powerful instrument to force reforms in this country. Turkey today is a more democratic country than it was ten years ago thanks to the European Union accession perspective. Even though reforms should be accelerated and broadened, they nevertheless continue, as demonstrated over the summer by significant steps such as the return of confiscated property to the non-Muslim religious communities or strengthening of civilian control of the military. And yes, I am aware of the increasingly troubling issue of press freedom.

I am concerned about the current legislation: particularly the anti-terrorist law, which has an ambiguity which is unfortunately being used to put a huge number of journalists in unnecessary detention.

But my approach is that we need to open chapters and engage with Turkey, rather than closing chapters. Let me remind this House that, as far as the accession process is concerned, we have only three chapters to open. Three chapters are available to us to open. Their nature and substance makes them rather difficult, and if you looked at the accession process of some other countries, you would see that those chapters which are available for the EU-Turkey relationship are being addressed only at a late stage of the accession process. The truth is that part of these chapters are being frozen on the basis of the Commission recommendation – some of you mentioned the Ankara additional protocol, the Ankara agreement. But there are others which are being blocked unilaterally by Member States, thus limiting the area of engagement. I do not want to speculate whether, if we open the chapter on energy, we will be facing a similar situation to today’s.

I will address a different issue. If we open Chapter 23, on fundamental rights and the judiciary, it will give us an opportunity to keep abreast of the Turkish reforms in the most important area – the rule of law. It is a pity that this chapter is not available for the accession negotiations. Turkey and the European Union need to develop a renewed positive agenda, building on the achievements of the accession process and our joint interest, and give a new momentum to our relations. This supposes renewed efforts in a number of key areas, including support for political reforms in Turkey, alignment with our acquis, addressing important trade issues, closer cooperation on visas and migration and a closer dialogue on foreign policy.

Honourable Members, I believe this is the only way forward, and I look forward to discussing these matters further with you in the coming months starting in October, once the Commission has adopted its enlargement package.

  President. – The debate is closed.

The sitting will resume at 09.00 tomorrow.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Corina Creţu (S&D), in writing. – (RO) The Turkish-Cypriot conflict, which is unresolved due to the international community’s inability to make the parties reach a negotiated settlement, is flaring up again in an extremely charged global environment, especially in the Mediterranean region. Indeed, Turkey shares some of the responsibility for escalating tensions in the region. In the wake of the deterioration in its relations with Israel, the Turkish Government, committed to a policy of aggression in recent years, decided to oppose the Cypriot Government’s intention to explore for gas reserves off the island by launching its own exploration activities in the eastern Mediterranean. This policy of force threatens the negotiations between the Turkish and Greek communities aimed at reuniting Cyprus. There is also the risk of tearing apart a region already affected by political changes and economic problems.

I think that the European Union has a duty to reject categorically these acts of provocation and show total solidarity with a Member State which is a victim of threats from a third country. We vociferously call on Turkey to refrain from any hostile actions if it wishes to remain a reputable partner. The threat of freezing relations with the EU if Cyprus takes over the EU Presidency next year casts doubt on both the prospect of Turkey joining the EU and the future of bilateral relations.

  Jean-Marie Le Pen (NI), in writing. – (FR) The problem with the partitioning of Cyprus should have been resolved before beginning accession negotiations with Turkey, as was promised on numerous occasions. As it was not resolved, Turkey takes everything as a pretext for reiterating that it does not acknowledge the Republic of Cyprus’s sovereignty and for supporting the north of the island, which is under Turkish military occupation. At present, tensions have been rekindled in relation to oil and gas drilling in the eastern Mediterranean within the island’s exclusive economic zone. The European Union has limited itself to refusing to come out in favour of either side, calling for moderation and respect for international rules. It has not even had the decency to express solidarity with one of its members, nor even to confirm that, in this matter, Cyprus is clearly well within its rights. It refuses to recognise that for months, Turkey has been declaring that it is willing to resist European constraints on internal reform and to return to a foreign policy that is more in line with its own geostrategic interests. They are entitled to do so. However, the action must be noted and Brussels and Ankara must accept the consequences: quite simply, that it is no longer credible to pursue the accession negotiations.

17. Agenda of the next sitting: see Minutes

18. Closure of the sitting

(The sitting closed at 21.50)