Verbatim report of proceedings

Tuesday, 22 May 2012 - Strasbourg

14. EU trade agreement with Colombia and Peru (debate)

  President. – The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission: Trade agreement between the EU, on the one part, and Colombia and Peru, on the other part, by Vital Moreira, Bernd Lange and Mário David, on behalf of the Committee on International Trade (O-000107/2012 - B7-0114/2012).

  Bernd Lange, author. – (DE) Mr President, Mr De Gucht, I believe it is clear that trade is not an end in itself but a means of improving people’s living conditions. A glance at the situation in Colombia and Peru shows that the process of improving living conditions there involves major challenges.

Against this background, Parliament is, of course, investigating very carefully, on the basis of the rights granted to it under the Treaty of Lisbon, whether this trade agreement with Colombia and Peru meets these requirements. It is very unlikely that the trade agreement alone will be able to overcome these challenges. The issues include the extent to which civil society is included in the process of implementing the trade agreement, the independence of its involvement and the options for instigating complaint procedures. There is also the question of the restrictions placed on efforts to implement the sustainability chapter. Article 267 and Article 277 specify the possible restrictions relating to material resources. We believe it is necessary for us to enter into additional agreements with the Colombian and the Peruvian governments so that we can be certain that the trade agreement will bring about significant improvements in the living conditions of the people.

One aspect of this involves improving the employment rights of people who are working in the informal sector. Around 58% of people in Colombia, for example, are employed in the informal sector and their working conditions are quite different from those of people with formal jobs. The question of how the interests of workers are represented must be reconsidered, in particular, in the light of International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions 129 and 135. Job security and social dialogue also need to be improved in line with ILO Convention 144.

The United States and Switzerland have put in place action plans to accompany their free trade agreements and we should follow their example.

  Mário David, author. – Mr President, why (you may ask) this oral question and resolution when this Parliament has the task of voting to give or withhold its consent? Because a trade agreement is also a political instrument and we wanted to have an opportunity to discuss politics and our foreign relations with these countries which soon will be closer to us.

We think this is a good agreement for both the European Union and our Andean partners and we strongly support it. We trust this agreement will help our partner countries on their path to economic growth and development, contributing to fighting poverty, promoting social cohesion and sustainable development. We strongly believe this agreement will help to improve the general perception, here in Europe, of Colombia in particular, which has been criticised by persons who still look at it as if it was the same country it used to be in the 1990s, in the last millennium.

But the one and only truth is that Colombia has changed. It has dramatically changed for the better. We Europeans must keep on supporting these changes by approaching our friends, not by repelling them. By supporting nations, governments, and politicians, we are sharing the same values – as we do. By being nearer to our partner countries, we are helping their citizens. This is the only known way to make a better and fairer world.

We also suggest that our partner countries should create a transparent and binding road map, possibly with the support of the Commission, regarding human labour rights and sustainable development. We also want to see both in Peru and Colombia the establishment of permanent institutionalised mechanisms that guarantee the role of civil society. In an open and free society, civic organisations have the right to be heard, but then it is up to the democratically elected governments to make their choices and assume their responsibilities. The role of civic forums is not to replace governments, particularly when they are democratically elected governments, as is the case in both countries.

Two last remarks: firstly, to express our highest admiration to both Colombia and Peru for a notable improvement of the general living standards of their citizens. A special word for President Juan Manuel Santos, who is changing very rapidly a country that lived for decades with an armed conflict, violence and impunity, corruption and drug trafficking. President Santos will be remembered for what he is presently doing in Colombia, be it in the fields of human rights, labour activists, sustainable development or indigenous peoples’ rights. Nevertheless, despite these Herculean efforts, change takes time.

To conclude, a final word to express my deep disappointment at the fact that apparently, this Parliament did not accept an invitation from the Congresses of both Colombia and Peru to participate in two hearings with an MEP delegation from all political groups. I hope that it can be more than just the two rapporteurs who will go there. It would be particularly important for colleagues to see the realities through their own eyes. Some would certainly be surprised at how the reality is much better than the perception they have.

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, the protection of human rights is already central to our relationship with Colombia and Peru, precisely because we have long used our cooperation programmes to further human rights in the region.

Human rights is a priority area of focus under the 2007-2013 Country Strategy Paper for Colombia and we are undertaking a broad range of measures under the European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights, covering labour rights, women’s rights, the rights of indigenous people and the rights of children and youth more broadly.

For example, we have actions promoting the reintegration into society of child soldiers and street children in Colombia. We are working to support the right to join and form trade unions, also in Colombia; and we have projects to support the implementation of Convention 169 of the International Labour Organisation on the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples, in both Colombia and Peru.

In total, we have already spent some EUR 50 million in this area. But the politically relevant fact behind these figures is that, as in all areas, Europe’s assistance is demand driven. This means that we are not simply pursuing values that we cherish: we are pursuing the objectives that our partners identify as priorities. So not only the European Union but also Colombia – and Peru for that matter – have set the improvement of human and labour rights as a priority on our bilateral cooperation agenda.

However, we all know that cooperation is not sufficient. It needs to be matched by appropriate international commitments, and so it is. It is an undisputed fact that Colombia has acceded to all core ILO labour standards. The issue in the past has been about implementation of the standards on the physical safety of trade unionists, and the legal framework for trade union activity, but today it must also be an undisputed fact that the situation has improved enormously.

The incidence of violence against trade unionists has decreased considerably. The government’s protection programme for people under threat, including many trade unionists, has been completely overhauled. There are now higher levels of prosecution and conviction, and police and judicial capacities have been strengthened. The government has also moved to eliminate legal and practical obstacles to freedom of association and collective bargaining, for example, by reducing the scope for outsourcing and labour intermediation.

The legislation regulating strikes has been reformed, incorporating important international principles into the national legislation, such as making decisions on the legality of strikes the responsibility of the courts.

Peru, for its part, has implemented the key ILO conventions, and Peruvian law now provides a good framework for the right of association. The number of trade unions registered nationwide is increasing, although more effort is needed to increase their representativeness.

Although all of this progress is impressive, the situation is not yet as it should be. Indeed, the Vice-Presidents of both countries admitted as much when they travelled to Brussels to speak to the Committee on International Trade (INTA Committee) earlier this year. But I also want to make very clear that we would do no service to human or labour rights in either country by rejecting this agreement, because one of the core objectives of the agreement has been, precisely, to reinforce these positive developments. Allow me to illustrate this.

Firstly, civil society organisations and citizens have an important role in the implementation of the agreement. Both countries and the European Union will have to set up advisory groups of civil society representatives, including a balanced representation of economic, social and environmental interests. Those groups must be regularly consulted by governments about how the agreement is being put into practice, and they will also be able to make recommendations on their own initiative.

Concretely, there will be regular intergovernmental meetings, and on every occasion we will have to hold an open session where all civil society organisations and citizens can directly raise issues. All decisions and reports that governments make must be public. What this means is that civil society will help us in the Commission, and you in Parliament, to oversee the implementation of the provisions – on sustainable development in particular, but also the rest of the agreement.

Secondly, the agreement establishes a transparent, predictable and comprehensive mechanism to ensure implementation of core labour and environmental conventions. It establishes an arbitration system to deal with disagreements on trade and sustainable development. This can be triggered by the European Union, Colombia or Peru – regardless of whether the country targeted agrees. Once it has been set in motion, it will follow a fixed set of procedural steps and deadlines. A group of impartial and independent experts will study the matter to see if the country has lived up to its legal commitments under the agreement. They will then issue a full public report of their findings of fact.

I consider this system more, rather than less, effective than the general dispute settlement mechanism which applies to other parts of the agreement. True, it does not provide for the usual retaliatory mechanisms, like raising tariffs, but these would be counterproductive. They do not encourage permanent changes in a country’s policies, and too often they end up harming those they are intended to protect.

In addition, the arbitration procedure does not have to wear the straitjacket imposed by the regular dispute settlement mechanism. There is no obligation to prove that problematic measures have an effect on trade. That means that we will be in a position to open arbitration procedures in a much wider range of cases. This is far more consistent with the objectives and the rationale behind our trade and sustainable development chapters.

As if all this were not enough, the procedure is, in any case, backed up by the human rights clause. The very first article of the text states that respect for democratic principles, the rule of law and fundamental human rights is an essential element of the agreement. If a government violates this essential element, the European Union, Colombia or Peru would be able immediately to suspend the benefits of the agreement to that government’s country. I do not see how this could be expressed more clearly or more strongly.

Now, I know that some in this House are in favour of establishing some sort of action plan on implementation with Colombia, as the USA has done. But the situation is not identical. The US-Colombia free trade agreement does not contain a human rights clause, which is why an action plan is necessary in their case.

Nothing that you could put in any action plan would be as effective as what is already in our agreement with Colombia and Peru, and this could have a broader impact than you might think. If we were unilaterally to impose additional binding mechanisms ex post, our partners could question the good faith of our negotiating positions.

I therefore urge you to look closely at this agreement – to examine it in great detail – because I think that when you do so, you will be fully reassured as to the balances it strikes.

  Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Mr De Gucht, ladies and gentlemen, there is no doubt that the situation relating to human rights and the rule of law in Colombia and Peru needs further improvement. However, instead of focusing our attention only on the remaining problems, we must take into account the reality of life in these countries and look at the ongoing improvements made over recent years. Colombia and Peru have been struggling for years with varying levels of success and in the face of significant resistance from within their own countries in some areas to resolve their outstanding problems and to meet human rights requirements.

I am firmly convinced that we must help the countries of South America in what they are trying to achieve and develop the flow of trade between us even further. Trade in goods and services not only brings economic benefits, but, most importantly, it also encourages people in Europe and South America to interact. This interaction is an essential means of gaining an even deeper understanding of the importance and the absolute value of the rule of law and human rights.

Therefore, I am very pleased, Mr De Gucht, that the Commission has been able to give a satisfactory answer to the questions we have asked and shares my view that the free trade agreement with Colombia and Peru, which is currently in the consent procedure, represents an important step in the right direction.

  Vital Moreira, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (PT) Mr President, I have no doubt that the trade agreement should be judged, above all, on its merits as regards the prosperity and well-being of the citizens, workers and companies of the EU. However, it is also true that external trade policy cannot be taken in isolation from the EU’s international human rights policy. I also believe the European Union cannot only conclude trade agreements with countries that observe such high human rights defence and protection policies as the EU. Nevertheless, I believe that, when we conclude international trade agreements with countries with problematic human rights situations, we should ensure that these agreements at least contribute to improving the existing situation and have a positive impact on human rights in those countries. That is why this oral question is important: knowing whether, aside from the commercial merits – which I do not consider in doubt – of this international trade agreement with Colombia and Peru, it also contributes positively to improving the human rights situation in those two countries.

  Catherine Bearder, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, at a time when we are all struggling with rising unemployment and falling exports, I understand the need for access to new markets for European companies, and I understand the need and desire to support the Commission in its efforts to achieve this. However, the European Union has always fought, and will always fight, for more than merely its economic interests abroad. Our Treaties commit us to supporting democracy, human rights and environmental protection – not just on paper, but in practice – in everything we do, both within the Union and through our external relations.

Colombia is a country where deforestation, water pollution and biodiversity loss remain serious problems. The Colombian Government has introduced environmental legislation but, as the Commission’s own sustainable impact assessment has shown, the capacity to properly enforce this is lacking. Ratifying the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) at this point, without proper environmental enforcement in place, will result in increased pressure, more damage to the environment and more destruction to the livelihoods of rural population groups in Colombia.

Paragraph 6 of this oral question requires a thorough response from the Commission. It must spell out the steps that it will take together with the Colombian Government to safeguard the natural environment, before this FTA comes into force. We have commitments, too, that civil society groups will help monitor the FTA, so we must ensure that those groups are free to speak out and that they represent the peoples most at threat from development, especially the indigenous peoples of the forests.

If we are to be a leader in high human and environmental standards throughout the world, we must lead with really binding resolutions, and with clear and strong actions to safeguard core European values. I will support this FTA only when I see those actions coming into force. Until then, I cannot support a treaty where actions on the environment and human rights remain just an aspiration.

  Amelia Andersdotter, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (SV) Mr President, the discussions about the agreement with Colombia and Peru show that human rights are important. I want to talk about the issues of freedom of expression, the right to knowledge and the right to education. The agreement which the EU has negotiated with Colombia and Peru, together with several other agreements that have been imposed on these countries, includes significant obligations with regard to intellectual property rights and inflexible trade regulations, while failing to put in place equivalent restrictions on the monopolies which these rights involve.

In Colombia, this has resulted in an act such as making a private copy of a document or making a limited number of copies for educational purposes becoming a criminal offence.

In our trade relationships with third countries, we must put the emphasis on freedom of expression, the right to knowledge and the right to education. We need agreements which introduce and reinforce restrictions on copyright at an international level. There is no good reason why the European Union should not initiate a change of this kind in the international arena. There is also no good reason for us to approve an agreement which does not represent a move towards a better policy in this area.

  Willy Meyer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, what is true and correct is that human rights defenders in Colombia and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights acknowledge that there has been no improvement under the government of President Uribe.

It is a situation of impasse; there is ongoing persecution of unions and of human rights defenders, and simply for that reason, this trade agreement should include a clause that could clearly assess whether the agreement effectively leads to progress towards stopping the ongoing violation of human rights in Colombia.

However, we also believe that the trade aspects of this agreement do not take imbalances into account. We are talking about a country, Colombia, which is one of the countries with the highest level of inequality in the world, and many of us fear that if the trade imbalances, complementarity and fair trade are not taken into consideration, we could create circumstances that could further increase the inequality.

For that reason, we are extremely critical of this agreement, which we hope will not be ratified.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, as we are debating an agreement between the European Union and Peru and Colombia, and speaking of human rights, Mr President, I would like Parliament to condemn the assassination of 12 members of the Colombian armed forces yesterday at the hands of the FARC terrorist organisation, 150 metres from the Venezuelan border. And I think, Mr President, that Parliament should convey its condemnation, warmth and solidarity to Colombian society as a whole and the victims’ families during these difficult times.

The Commission has made it abundantly clear, Mr President, that we should not emphasise an ongoing dynamic of demands that has not been imposed on other countries that have signed up to agreements of this type. I think we should place emphasis on the fact that this agreement is a clear and predictable framework to try to overcome a regime of unilateral concessions, which I want to remind my colleagues already exists, is in force, and is going to affect trade, investments and services.

And in this context, I am greatly surprised that many Members in this House state that they have doubts about this agreement, but that they do not have doubts about the human rights situation in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras or Nicaragua, with which the European Union has reached the same type of agreement, or in Mexico, where we all know about the rates of violence.

What is true, Mr President, is that this agreement is going to put Peru and Colombia on an equal footing with other countries that benefit from the same facilities, as is clearly the case with Chile, Turkey, Morocco, Egypt, Israel and the CARICOM nations.

I believe, Mr President, that the European Union, its 27 Member States, the Commission, Peru and Colombia have signed this agreement, and I believe that we are falling into the trap of a paternalism exercise if we tell our partner countries what is good for them or what is no longer good for them. I think they are mature enough to know that they want this agreement because the European Union is a useful partner.

And I believe, Mr President, that instead of considering introducing discriminatory and additional measures, what we have to do is to find out why, after almost two and a half years, Commissioner, this agreement has not yet been ratified.

I do not think this situation paints the European Union in a good light and that, on the contrary, we should swiftly ratify it.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Mr President, the agreement is good for the European Union, Colombia and Peru, given that it boosts development and combats poverty, and this is a good tool against social injustice, which is the best breeding ground for violence.

We have also seen the willingness of the region’s governments to make progress in this area. Among the most significant indicators, I would highlight the ongoing and reciprocal dialogue about human rights, that was established voluntarily in 2009, and the ratification of fundamental International Labour Organisation (ILO) agreements.

It is also necessary to mention the victims’ law, the return of land, the protection programme for those in danger, which already encompasses 11 000 people, and the increase in resources devoted to investigating the crimes of which union members and human rights campaigners have been victims.

These actions significantly improve the quality of life of Peruvians and Colombians, although there is still a lot more left for us to do. That is the reason why I support the resolution, and I request that you assess these areas of progress and reject the risk of victimisation that the region’s citizens can suffer.

They are also shaking off terrorism; let us not also punish them with reservations based on prejudices, because we could harm their progress towards peace, democracy and social and economic development.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). – Mr President, I was very taken with the balanced nature of Commissioner De Gucht’s contribution. I realise that much progress has been made in Colombia and I think that we need to encourage and reward the effort which has been made.

Last year, I arranged for the international trade union body to come and address the Committee on Development in relation to their concerns about the murder of trade unionists and I spoke to a woman from Colombia, a young woman whose father had been murdered simply for trying to organise labour so that they would get a decent income.

None of us could object to that and none of us could stand over that. I promised her I would raise this issue; I did raise this issue and we did pursue this issue. It had some effect because the Attorney-General and some of the ministers from Colombia came here and tried to make their case. But I would like the Commissioner to take this up directly with the International Trade Union Congress, to try to persuade them that there is sufficient cover in this for them to buy into it, because the human rights situation is such that a lot of Members in this House who would like to see the agreement signed still have concerns; we want to see momentum, and protection, for people who have the right to organise.

So I want to see the situation in Colombia advanced; I want to see a reward for the efforts made; but I also want to see protection for people who are going about their lawful business in organising labour.

  Richard Howitt (S&D). – Mr President, I share the objectives of many in this debate who wish for an end to the conflict and to human rights abuses in Colombia. However, in deliberating on the draft Free Trade Agreement, I ask colleagues to base our assessment not on oft-repeated commitments, but on actual results in securing convictions for the perpetrators of human rights abuse in Colombia – in what, according to the United Nations, is a country with an impunity rate of more than 94%.

To the Commissioner, who tells us again tonight of undoubted improvement, I say that I agree there has been an improvement in language. How does he respond, however, to the International Committee of the Red Cross which says that last year, human rights violations got worse in Colombia, or to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court who says this is one of three countries in the world with the worst levels of international crime?

On the proposed action plan, I pay tribute to Catherine Bearder and the amendment she is putting forward: I hope we will support it. But I ask my friend Mr Lange, and all the Members of the House, to recognise that the American National Trade Union Federation says the Colombian Government has failed to comply with their action plan, so Europe must do better – not simply by ensuring benchmarks which are really binding, but also through the same dispute mechanism for human rights as for trade complaints and, crucially, we must see concrete implementation before, not after, parliamentary ratification.

Finally, three weeks ago after taking part in a demonstration, Daniel Aguirre Piedrahita, the General Secretary of the Colombian sugar cane workers’ union, was assassinated in cold blood, leaving a wife and three young daughters. He is one of 61 trade unionists assassinated since President Santos came to power, so I ask all colleagues, in dealing with this issue, to show proper respect for those who have suffered most.

  Daniel Caspary (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am very grateful that we have the opportunity to discuss this planned free trade agreement today. Despite all the outstanding problems in some countries and in Colombia in particular, we must not forget what the situation was like here just a few years ago. We did not start from a blank slate. Only a few years ago, Colombia was in an extremely difficult position which involved major problems with terrorism. The most recent governments have done a great deal to improve the living conditions of the people. Anyone who claims that there have not been dramatic improvements in Colombia in recent years is simply not speaking the truth.

Of course, it is important that the situation continues to develop and that further improvements are introduced. However, it is clear to all of us when we look at our position here in Europe that we cannot resolve all of our problems overnight either. Improvements take time. A great deal has already been achieved, for example, with regard to democracy and to security and the dramatic improvements in this area, with regard to the measures to combat terrorism and with regard to trade unionists, a subject referred to by the previous speaker. I believe that the protection programme for trade unionists established by the Colombian Government is unprecedented. Unfortunately, it has not yet succeeded in putting a stop to the murders. Sadly, people are still being murdered here in Europe as well. We must not dismiss the improvements that have been made. Much has been done for trade unionists and trade union officials in Colombia in recent years.

What should our response be? Should we close the door on these countries? Should we say that, despite the huge improvements over the last few years, they have, in our opinion, simply not done enough? Should we say that all the negotiations have been wasted? Should we say that we do not recognise all the improvements? Should we say that we do not want to maintain the dialogue and keep the lines of communication open in future? If we really want to work together to help the governments in both countries to improve the living conditions of their people, then, in my opinion, trade is a part of this process. We also need to open up our market in Europe to products from Colombia and Peru and give these countries the opportunity to become more prosperous. We need to lay the foundations for further improvements in the everyday lives of the people.

Therefore, given all the work still to be completed in these countries, I believe that the action plan referred to in the motion for a resolution is a positive step. However, I would like to ask all the Members of this House not to focus on the outstanding problems. We must help the people of Colombia, but, most importantly, we should also take into account the fact that in recent years, a lot has been achieved for the benefit of the people in these countries.

  Pablo Zalba Bidegain (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would first like to thank both the European Commission and the governments of Colombia and Peru for the great efforts made to successfully reach this agreement.

I give my full support to an agreement that will undoubtedly benefit both regions, both Colombia and Peru, and will help to improve human rights conditions in Colombia.

This agreement is an example for a key region for the European Union, as is South America. I am concerned about another agreement, however, one that the Commission is about to start negotiating. The Commission should show that it roundly defends the legal security of the investments that are made, which are so important in improving trade flow between both parties.

I would like to take this opportunity, therefore, to ask Commissioner De Gucht about the measures being considered when it comes to the Repsol YPF issue. As has been the case with the agreement with Colombia and Peru which we are debating here, the best guarantee to reach a possible successful agreement with Mercosur would be a strong and decisive response from the European Union when it comes to the Repsol case.

We should not allow our allies on the other side of the Atlantic to be more robust than we are when it comes to an issue that affects Europe.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, the trade agreements which the EU signs with other countries provide an important means of strengthening economic relations. At the same time, they must support democratic trends, sustainable development and respect for human rights. European citizens have expectations in this area. They are paying ever-increasing attention to the origin of the products they use and to the way in which they have been made. With regard to Colombia and Peru, the trade agreement must be able to bring about a qualitative change in areas such as economic growth and social cohesion. I, too, call on the Commission to table measures aimed at ensuring that the EU’s actions have a positive, lasting impact in the partner countries. I would like to know, in particular, whether specific measures have been implemented with the aim of protecting the rights of women and children.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Mr De Gucht, Mr Caspary, it is a fact that, despite improvements in the legislation, trade unionists in Colombia are still being murdered. The gap between the reality and the standards is widening. In 2010, 49 trade unionists were murdered. Mr Howitt has given us the figures for 2011 and there has been no improvement. Therefore, we need an effective sustainability chapter.

The free trade agreement states that the relevant international standards must be complied with. What does this mean? The agreement does not contain a list of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions in question. Furthermore, in contrast with the agreement with South Korea, there is no reference to fair and ethical trade. This is a major omission, particularly because there are no structures in place for social dialogue or for dialogue with civil society. This means that we need a mandatory action plan covering compliance with labour standards.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, we are, of course, in favour of trade agreements, but, in particular, fair and balanced trade agreements, which ensure the protection of human rights.

If we consider the sustainable development chapter, it looks extremely weak and is not binding. The exception is the conflict resolution mechanism, and civil society can only give an opinion on its contents, but not on the Free Trade Agreement as a whole.

Colombia and Peru first need to fulfil certain conditions prior to ratification, among which are: proven improvements in human rights; to return lands to the farmers; effective demobilisation of the paramilitaries; cooperation with European justice; abandonment of the military justice reform, which writes a blank cheque for impunity; and, of course, protection of indigenous villages.

There is also a need to revise the financial services chapters, which are allowing authorisation of what is being restricted in Europe.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, the questions that have been drafted by the authors are very apt and to the point. However, I would have added another question: how does the Commission intend to reduce the number of children used as farm labourers in both countries? The latest statistical surveys available indicate that in Peru, more than 2 million children aged between 6 and 14, amounting to 29% of all children in this age group, are used to carry out different types of work. Of these, 70% – 1.4 million children – work in agriculture. Colombia has also seen a sharp rise in the number of children used to do work. In fact, a minimum of 1 million children were employed in 2009, most of them in agriculture. Therefore, this issue should feature on the agenda of the official discussions with the two states, in addition, of course, to the other issues raised here.

  Ulrike Lunacek (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I would like to reiterate what some colleagues have already said, which is that the human rights situation in Colombia has not improved as it should have done. We have had, this year alone, 13 assassinations of human rights defenders, which is almost half as many again as in 2011. So we cannot really say that the situation is good. I am in favour of a dialogue and I do not mind having agreements with countries, but we really have to see what we can do as the European Union to improve the human rights situation, specifically.

What I am concerned about is that, according to a recent study by the German unions, in comparison with the EU-Korea agreement, this free trade agreement with Colombia we are negotiating only makes recommendations on certain criteria and there are no obligations. For example, labour and environmental conventions only have to be implemented when there are enough resources. I would like to know from Mr De Gucht whether he is in favour of an action plan, which many people here are calling for, prior to ratification of the agreement.

End of the catch-the-eye procedure

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I will try to go as quickly as possible because we are already over time.

Let me take as a starter the question of whether I agree that we should have another agreement before we can vote on the ratification of the trade agreement with Colombia and Peru. I do not think so, because what some are, in fact, asking the European Commission is to restart negotiations with Colombia on a road map which would probably take another six months. We would then have to translate it into 23 languages, which would take another six months.

The agreement was, in fact, concluded with Colombia more than two years ago; we now have to come to terms with this. I have outlined in detail the provisions of the agreement, I am not going to repeat them. There is also a very clear human rights clause in the agreement.

I expect the European Parliament to follow up what happens once the agreement has been ratified; the Commission will do the same. We have a lot of possibilities to steer the process; it would not be a good idea to restart discussions at this point.

Is everything perfect in Colombia and Peru? It is not, but I have the conviction that much has changed for the better. Secondly, the politicians in both countries are serious when they claim that they are trying to resolve sometimes very difficult and long-standing situations. I think we have an honourable partnership with them in this enterprise for the better. I hope that the Parliament will give its assent to what we have proposed.

  President. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Maria Badia i Cutchet (S&D), in writing. – (ES) I would first like to make it clear that I consider this trade agreement between the EU, Colombia and Peru essential for optimising the relationships between those countries and the Union.

However, and as stated by the oral question we are debating today, there are still some issues that cause a certain level of concern, especially when it comes to respect for human rights. Colombia has undoubtedly made significant efforts in this area, such as the closure of the controversial DAS (intelligence agency) or the approval of the Law for Victims and Return of Lands, which is viewed favourably in Parliament. All the same, there are still threats to the exercising of labour rights and union representation.

For all those reasons, we think it would help tremendously if the Commission proposed mechanisms to ensure that the trade agreements lead to real progress in terms of development, human rights and workers’ rights. In this sense, the most demanding clauses allow for immediate and unilateral suspension in the case of severe violations of human rights. This new agreement will help to contribute to strengthen our strategic association with Latin America, one of the most similar regions to Europe in terms of culture and politics.