Relato integral dos debates

Quinta-feira, 24 de Maio de 2012 - Estrasburgo

7. Disposições gerais para concessão de assistência macrofinanceira a países terceiros (debate)

  Der Präsident. − Als nächster Punkt folgt der Bericht von Herrn Metin Kazak im Namen des Ausschusses für internationalen Handel über den Vorschlag für eine Verordnung des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates zur Festlegung allgemeiner Bestimmungen für Makrofinanzhilfen an Drittländer

(COM(2011)0396 – C7-0187/2011 – 2011/0176(COD)) (A7-0157/2012).

  Метин Казак, докладчик. − Г-н председател, г-н комисар, колеги, макрофинансовата помощ на Европейския съюз започна да се прилага през 90-та година за финансово подпомагане на трети държави, изпитващи краткосрочни затруднения с платежния си баланс. Досега бяха одобрени общо петдесет и пет решения в полза на двадесет и три държави в размер на 7,2 млрд. евро под формата на безвъзмездни средства, заеми или комбинация от двете.

В своята обосновка към проекторегламента Комисията и аз като докладчик преследваме две основни цели: повишаване ефективността и необходимостта от ясни правила и условия за договаряне на макрофинансова помощ. Разбира се, няма да се спирам върху всеки детайл, но бих искал да споделя и основните си идеи, които съм убеден, че защитават основните прерогативи на Европейския парламент, а именно:

На първо място, Комисията предложи решенията за предоставянето на макрофинансова помощ за всеки отделен случай да се взимат чрез актове за изпълнение, за да се ускори процесът на отпускане на такава помощ и да се направи той по-ефикасен. Но аз не съм съгласен с този подход, особено като се има предвид, че в момента всеки случай на предоставяне на макрофинансова помощ се осъществява чрез процедурата на съвместно вземане на решения. Затова и предлагам да се използват делегирани актове, защото те съчетават по-голяма бързина и ефективност с необходимостта от осъществяването на демократичен контрол от страна на Европейския парламент.

Второ, смятам, че макрофинансовата помощ трябва да носи европейска добавена стойност и че следва да се използва само когато Съюзът има какво да предложи а не да изпълнява функциите на допълващ Международния валутен фонд инструмент. Освен това, тази помощ често е твърде малка по размер, за да се гарантира прилагането на политиката съгласно Меморандума за разбирателство. По тази причина в доклада се предлага в повечето случаи вноската на Европейския съюз да не пада под определен минимален процент, за да се гарантира достъпа на големите държави до помощта и също така участието на Европейския съюз да осигури такава добавена стойност.

Практиката на обвързване на макрофинансовата помощ със схема на Международния валутен фонд следва да се прилага по правило, но Европейският съюз трябва да разполага с гъвкавост, за да работи с други европейски и многостранни финансови институции като Световната банка или Европейската инвестиционна банка.

Предложението на Комисията е малко неясно по отношение на начина на определяне на съотношението между безвъзмездните средства и заемите, като в него се посочва, че се взема под внимание равнището на икономическо развитие на държавата бенефициент, без обаче да се обяснява как ще бъде използван този анализ.

Четвърто, много важно, макрофинансовата помощ представлява и инструмент на външната политика на Съюза. С цел координация и последователност на тази политика, тясното участие на Европейската служба за външна дейност следва да бъде гарантирано по време на цялата операция по оказване на макрофинансова помощ, като по този начин ще се задълбочи съгласуваността между макрофинансовата помощ и целите, заложени във външната политика на Съюза за насърчаване на демокрацията и на човешките права.

Затова въвеждането на специален доклад на тази служба преди да се предложи всяка макрофинансова помощ би било полезно, за да се провери дали всяка държава партньор спазва правата на човека и другите политически условия.

Убеден съм, че мерките на политиката в областта на демократичните принципи и правата на човека следва да бъдат включени в Меморандума за разбирателство. Освен това считам, че влошаването на демократичните условия е причина за временното или окончателно спиране на изплащането на помощта или неговото намаляване.

И накрая, бих искал да подчертая, че Комисията предложи това да бъде временен регламент с валидност само за тази финансова рамка, което означава, че той ще трае по-малко от две години. Аз предложих регламентът да е безсрочен, като по този начин се гарантира правната сигурност и ще се избегне дублиране на работата.

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, it was a key objective of the Commission’s proposal to make MFA a more timely and effective tool, while fully ensuring Parliament’s ownership and support. That was also clearly stated by Mr Kazak, whom I thank for the report. I should also like to thank the members of the Committee on International Trade (INTA) for their work.

We welcome this report, therefore, as a good basis for further discussions. I would like to focus the Commission’s initial feedback on three points which were also addressed by the rapporteur: the use of the delegated act procedure, the issue of political pre-conditions and, finally IMF conditionality.

The report proposes using the delegated act procedure – under Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – to adopt decisions for individual MFA programmes, by introducing an annex which would be amended for each decision. It also proposes that the memorandum of understanding for each programme should be adopted by the delegated act procedure. However, we believe that the Treaty is clear on this issue: the delegated act procedure is applicable only to non-legislative acts of general application, to supplement or amend non-essential elements of the legislative act.

From the Commission’s perspective, decisions on individual programmes and on memoranda of understanding would be classic cases of implementing the legislative act, not supplementing it. The Framework Regulation should establish which countries are eligible, and the conditions for providing MFA. These conditions should be implemented in a uniform way for all operations. Therefore, in accordance with Article 291 of the Treaty, the implementing powers for decisions concerning individual programmes and for the memoranda of understanding should be conferred on the Commission.

The report also proposes using the delegated act procedure for updating the list of eligible countries. For these exceptional cases, the use of the delegated act procedure could indeed be further explored.

Concerning political pre-conditions, the Commission supports the proposal to strengthen the assessment and monitoring of political pre-conditionality. Democratic mechanisms, the rule of law and respect for human rights are important pre-conditions for MFA, and a reference to this could indeed be further strengthened in the Regulation. However, the Commission would strongly argue against the definition of specific political measures in the area of human rights or democratic institutions as conditions for the disbursement of MFA tranches. This would turn a genuinely macroeconomic instrument into an essentially political instrument; this would be, in our view, contrary to the nature and the objectives of MFA.

The Commission would like to emphasise that economic governance is already an integral part of MFA. Issues such as corruption and transparency are regularly referred to in MFA conditionality.

Finally, on the issue of IMF conditionality, softening IMF conditionality as proposed by the report raises quite a number of concerns. The IMF is the main provider of macroeconomic assistance to countries undergoing serious balance of payments difficulties. The IMF programme offers a framework for the adjustment process and, by definition, the IMF is the key institution for balance of payments support. It cannot be replaced by another European or multilateral financial institution, as no other institution provides this type of support. The fact that MFA is a complementary instrument by nature is also reflected in the size of the instrument. Giving up the connection to the exercise of an IMF programme would therefore not be advisable.

To conclude, MFA is important as a means of helping to stabilise countries close to the EU. However, decision-making procedures have become heavy and have slowed down the effectiveness of this tool. The Framework Regulation is truly a chance to sharpen it up and enable it to be used more efficiently. The Commission is eager to work closely with Parliament to achieve this goal.

  Nadezhda Neynsky, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. − Mr President, first of all I would like to thank Mr Kazak for the comprehensive report. It is important to know that AFET proposed faster disbursement of macro-financial assistance by the adoption of delegated acts for strategically important third countries only.

We were of the opinion that the European Parliament’s leverage and scrutiny role should not be undermined. Let me also remind you that the list of candidate and neighbouring countries is approved by Parliament in various legal texts. We established, in the report, clear and precise eligibility criteria for the disbursement of MFA funds, regular country analysis and monitoring as well as seizure of wrongfully appropriated assets.

Furthermore the AFET opinion divides eligible countries into candidate, potential candidate, neighbourhood and – in exceptional and duly justified circumstances – strategically important third counties. I am glad to see that most of AFET’s proposals have largely been included in the final report.

The instrument for macro-financial assistance is a very important foreign policy tool of the European Union. Despite having a smaller budget than other external action instruments, it brings great benefits to recipient countries by improving their balance of payments and thus stabilising their economies. It does not overlap at all, in terms of scope and goals, with other external action instruments. For this reason, and to demonstrate the European Union’s commitment to the stability and prosperity of our neighbourhood, I urge you all to support the report.

  Daniel Caspary, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, geschätzte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Auch im Namen meines Kollegen Iuliu Winkler, der für unsere Fraktion dieses Dossier als Schattenberichterstatter betreut, möchte ich dem Kollegen herzlich zu seinem Berichtsentwurf gratulieren. Ich möchte der Kommission ausdrücklich für diesen Vorschlag über die Makrofinanzhilfen danken, denn wir haben hier einen sehr guten Rechtsrahmen, um den Ländern zu helfen, die unsere Hilfe wirklich dringend benötigen.

Was uns als PPE wichtig ist, ist, dass dieses Instrument in einer sehr engen Abstimmung zwischen dem Europäischen Auswärtigen Dienst, der Generaldirektion Handel und allen anderen Betroffenen auch wirklich genutzt wird. Wir müssen dieses Instrument noch besser in unsere europäische Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik einbinden als in der Vergangenheit.

In der Vergangenheit hat das Instrument gezeigt, dass es funktioniert. Seit 1990 wurde 55-mal Makrofinanzhilfe an 23 Länder gewährt. Das sind Länder in unserer unmittelbaren Nachbarschaft, die wir dadurch unterstützen und wo wir zeigen, dass wir gerade in Zeiten der Krise, in den Zeiten, in denen diese Länder unsere Hilfe brauchen, auch in der Lage und willens sind, diesen Ländern wirklich zu helfen.

Deswegen unterstützen wir ausdrücklich auch den Vorschlag unseres Kollegen Kazak, dass wir heute die Schlussabstimmung vertagen. Wir wünschen uns eine schnelle Lösung. Wir wünschen uns, dass die Überarbeitung dieses Instruments wirklich schnell dann auch in Kraft treten kann, und würden uns freuen, wenn wir in den kommenden Verhandlungen eine gute Lösung finden könnten.

  Μαρία-Ελένη Κοππά, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας S&D. Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η ταχεία υιοθέτηση αυτού του κανονισμού-πλαισίου είναι ζωτικής σημασίας για τις τρίτες χώρες που αντιμετωπίζουν δυσκολίες του ισοζυγίου πληρωμών. Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο έχει εκφράσει επανειλημμένα την ανάγκη δημιουργίας ενός επίσημου νομικού μέσου που θα ρυθμίζει γρήγορα και αποτελεσματικά τη χορήγηση της χρηματοοικονομικής συνδρομής στις τρίτες χώρες.

Ο κανονισμός αυτός όμως άργησε πολύ να έρθει. Στο διάστημα αυτό, τα δεδομένα έχουν αλλάξει. Λόγω της χρηματοπιστωτικής κρίσης που δημιουργεί πολλαπλά προβλήματα, πρέπει να είμαστε σε θέση να αντιδρούμε γρήγορα, με συνέπεια και περιοδικότητα, αλλιώς δεν έχει κανένα νόημα η βοήθεια αυτή.

Στο σημείο αυτό, θα ήθελα να αναφέρω ότι είναι απαραίτητο, εκτός των άλλων προϋποθέσεων, να συνδεθεί στενά η παροχή αυτής της οικονομικής συνδρομής με τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα και με τους δημοκρατικούς θεσμούς. Πολλές φορές, έχουμε διαπιστώσει ότι παρέχεται χρηματοδοτική συνδρομή σε χώρες με αμφιλεγόμενη στάση απέναντι στις αξίες αυτές.

Θεωρώ λοιπόν ότι είναι απαραίτητο να παραμείνει σταθερή η Ένωση στην προσήλωσή της όσον αφορά την ενίσχυση των δημοκρατικών θεσμών, των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων, της διαφάνειας, αλλά και του αγώνα κατά της διαφθοράς. Κατά συνέπεια, κάθε χώρα που υποβάλλει αίτημα χορήγησης μακροοικονομικής χρηματοδοτικής βοήθειας πρέπει να αξιολογείται και για τα παραπάνω.

Ο ρόλος της υπηρεσίας εξωτερικής δράσης είναι ουσιαστικός και εδώ προκειμένου να μην έχουμε στο μέλλον περιπτώσεις σαν αυτήν της Ουκρανίας που ζήσαμε πρόσφατα.

Θα ήθελα, τέλος, να ευχαριστήσω θερμά τον εισηγητή για την εμπεριστατωμένη έκθεσή του και να πω ότι η Ομάδα μου, η Ομάδα των Σοσιαλιστών και Δημοκρατών, στηρίζει απόλυτα τις απόψεις του. Εύχομαι και το Συμβούλιο να συμφωνήσει με τις θέσεις του Κοινοβουλίου στο ζήτημα αυτό.

(H ομιλήτρια δέχεται να απαντήσει σε ερώτηση με γαλάζια κάρτα (άρθρο 149, παράγραφος 8 του Κανονισμού))

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), blue-card question. – Ms Koppa, do you think that the level of corruption in a recipient country should be a criterion for whether macro-financial assistance is paid or not?

  Μαρία-Ελένη Κοππά (S&D), απάντηση «γαλάζια κάρτα» – Η κατάσταση της χώρας που λαμβάνει τη βοήθεια έχει, φυσικά, ιδιαίτερη σημασία. Εκπροσωπώντας την Ομάδα των Σοσιαλιστών και Δημοκρατών, θεωρώ ότι φυσικά η διαφθορά είναι σημαντική, αλλά ότι πρέπει κυρίως να δώσουμε έμφαση στα θέματα ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων και δημοκρατίας που συχνά, με μία λογική δύο μέτρων και δύο σταθμών, αποφεύγουμε.

  Niccolò Rinaldi, a nome del gruppo ALDE. – Signor Presidente, signor Commissario, per noi due sono gli elementi fondamentali.

Il primo è la questione democratica, il che vuol dire un pieno coinvolgimento del Parlamento europeo nelle decisioni riguardanti l'assistenza macrofinanziaria, la sua attuazione e la sua sospensione. Non trattandosi di decisioni tecniche o esecutive: è importante che il Parlamento sia sempre chiamato a dare la sua valutazione.

Il secondo è la condizionalità politica. Qualcuno l'ha già sottolineato: è inutile dotarsi di un Servizio di azione esterna se poi questo non è pienamente coinvolto in decisioni così importanti come l'assistenza macrofinanziaria; è inutile porre l'accento sui diritti dell'uomo per poi non tenerne conto al momento dell'assunzione di importanti decisioni.

Aggiungo una terza questione, per me importante: l'Asia centrale, che non figura esplicitamente fra i beneficiari dell'assistenza macrofinanziaria, anche se si tratta di paesi con i quali abbiamo importanti relazioni economiche. L'Unione europea ha una sua strategia specifica sull'Asia centrale ed è importante che l'assistenza macrofinanziaria ne sia uno degli assi portanti.

  Keith Taylor, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I should like to thank Mr Kazak for his report. The Greens appreciate that the Commission has come forward with this proposal for a general regulation on MFA. We have been asking for such a regulation for the last five years and now the question arises whether this proposal is still in time.

Given that Parliament is about to start the revision of the existing financial instruments for the period 2014-2020, and given the limited size and importance of the MFA instrument, we wonder whether it might not be wise to integrate the MFA into the new European Neighbourhood Instrument from 2014 onwards. This instrument already provides for budget support and could accommodate conditionality. We would only need to integrate the MFA elements when blending grants and loans into the ENI framework, but this should be possible.

For Greens this would seem to be the most elegant way to signal to our neighbourhood partners that we are still willing to support their balance of payments stability while solving the problem of how to make MFA more of a true EU structural adjustment programme. We sadly did not receive the support of the other political groups over this idea. Hence we will go with the rapporteur and we will be abstaining in the vote later on.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Paul Rübig (PPE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Herr Taylor, draußen wird gerade für gleiche Einkommen für Frauen und Männer demonstriert. Glauben Sie, dass man mit entsprechender finanzieller Hilfe z. B. die Förderung von Jungunternehmerinnen betreiben könnte, um neue Arbeitsplätze und Jobs zu schaffen? Was halten Sie von Programmen, um tüchtige Jungunternehmerinnen zu fördern?

  Keith Taylor (Verts/ALE), blue-card answer. – Thank you for the question, but I do not entirely understand why there should be any element of gender specificity: there should be equal rights for equal work, applying equally to men and women, and to young men and young women.

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, last year EUR 107 million was paid out in macro-financial assistance. Since the scheme began the EU has paid out EUR 9 billion, all to countries which are not even members of the EU. From the point of view of the taxpayer, the scheme closely resembles pre-accession funding, another wasteful giveaway of our money. Not to mince words, it is simply a slush fund.

Last year, Kosovo, Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina got macro-financial assistance, three countries with deserved reputations for bribery, corruption and organised crime. The term ‘macro-financial assistance’ is simply EU jargon intended to conceal what is really going on: yet more British taxpayers’ money paid out by the EU to the wrong people and then wasted.

  Helmut Scholz, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Mr President, the Policy Department’s study ‘EU macro-financial assistance: a critical assessment’ provides a useful and telling assessment of MFA operations so far. It shows the impact of both the scope and the volume of the loans and grants to be very marginal in many cases.

The new procedures under the Lisbon Treaty make the process of applying MFA more cumbersome. The consent of Parliament is now necessary for all applications of the MFA, and we understand the willingness of the Commission to simplify the procedures. Mr Kazak – whom I thank, on my own behalf and that of our shadow rapporteur, for his cooperation – proposes to apply the delegated acts procedure in respect of eligible countries and granting assistance to particular countries. As a group, we support this view. Our group is not against the imposition of some conditions but they must be the right ones. Our group considers it a serious mistake to continue to impose, within the framework of the MFA, the same conditions imposed by the IMF.

We need to address these challenges, in particular in the light of the current financial and economic crisis.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D). - Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Kazak for his work. I would like to underline two aspects of micro-financial help from the Commission.

Firstly, it is necessary to make a list of priority countries due to their geographical position. First of all, countries with a common border with European society – Ukraine, Moldova, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Turkey, Serbia and so on. MFA is important for more effective cooperation with the governments of these countries on the European continent.

Secondly, the European Parliament cannot be a co-owner of the rules. I would like to remind the Commission that the European Parliament is the only owner and founder in European society, especially in the case of fund transfers.

  Charles Goerens (ALDE). - Monsieur le Président, la Commission propose d'accélérer le processus de déboursement des fonds à allouer dans le cadre de l'assistance macrofinancière aux pays tiers. Les obstacles qu'elle rencontre dans ce domaine sont classiques: la tendance à la multiplication des précautions et contrôles fait qu'il est difficile de répondre suffisamment rapidement aux besoins des pays partenaires dépendant de l'aide macrofinancière.

Non sensible à cet impératif de prudence, je fais cependant observer qu'une aide accordée trop tard peut parfois s'avérer aussi improductive qu'une absence d'aide.

Sans vouloir voir dans les actes délégués, tels que définis dans le cadre de l'article 290 du traité de Lisbonne, la panacée, cette pratique a cependant l'avantage de pouvoir concilier les impératifs d'efficacité de l'exécutif avec les besoins de contrôle du Parlement européen.

  Janez Potočnik, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, honourable Members, macro-financial assistance is, without doubt, a truly important instrument, and we should use it in the best possible way. I would like to thank Ms Neynsky for the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the point about the use of the implementing act for the most eligible countries.

I can provide some clarifications and some answers to your questions. On the question concerning the level of corruption in recipient countries, this is already a criterion. The same goes for public-finance management, a key condition for disbursement. On the 20% minimum share, which was mentioned by the rapporteur, the Commission has sympathy with the aim of ensuring that MFA is seen to offer added value, but we believe that fixing an indicative minimum share for it is quite difficult. Economically, it would be difficult to justify the precise figure of 20% and, as with the maximum share which is an aspect of the general criteria, there are also difficulties in calculating residual financial gaps in an unambiguous way, in particular given the differences in the reference periods due to the delays in the MFA decision-making process.

On the role of the European External Action Service in the decision making, I can say that it is already consulted before any MFA proposal is adopted by the College of Commissioners. The EEAS participates both in inter-service consultations at staff level and in the College decision itself, through the Vice-President/High-Representative, as well as before every disbursement, of course. However, given that the EEAS is an autonomous body and not an institution, and given the Treaty provisions, the EEAS cannot be singled out and put in a legal act in the same manner as the Commission. However, we have sympathy for strengthening its role in the regulation, as I have already mentioned.

Finally, on the question of whether the regulation should be prolonged, what do we think about that? This regulation is, as you know, being proposed under the current Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). Given the delays and the parallel discussions on external instruments under the MFF, it might make sense to extend it into the next financial framework period. However, deleting the expiry date and any reference to a specific financial framework would be contrary to all common budgetary practice. Also, this regulation includes numerous specific conditions for MFA which might need to be reviewed in eight years’ time. Therefore, it would make more sense to limit its application, as was done in the case of all the other external instruments, and link it to the 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework.

I would like, once again, to thank all of you who have participated, and especially the rapporteur, Mr Kazak.

  Метин Казак, докладчик. − Г-н председател, уважаеми колеги, аз искам да благодаря на всички вас, които от името на политическите групи подкрепихте в много голяма степен основните стратегически идеи на този доклад.

Най-вече благодаря за подкрепата във връзка с моето желание Европейският парламент да запази своята важна роля, която получи, особено след Лисабонския договор, да осъществява демократичен контрол върху политическите решения, които се взимат по отношение на търговската политика.

Смятам, че наистина имаме поле, върху което можем да работим с Комисията и със Съвета, за да постигнем компромис по отношение на използването на делегираните актове като една конкретна възможност, която да помири необходимостта от ускоряване на процеса на вземане на решения за предоставяне на макрофинансова помощ с тази от запазването на този демократичен контрол на Европейския парламент.

Благодаря също за разбирането за ролята на Европейската служба за външна дейност като допълнителен гарант на съгласуваността с тези решения с общата ни външна политика и изискванията за съблюдаване на демократичните принципи и правата на човека.

Смятам наистина, че имаме възможност да постигнем съгласие. Смятам, че ако всички институции подходят с разбиране към изискванията, тази макрофинансова помощ наистина ще изпълни ролята, за която е предназначена. Призовавам в следващите разговори, които ще имаме по този въпрос, към конструктивност и успешно постигане на този компромис.

  Der Präsident. − Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet heute um 12.00 Uhr statt.

(Die Sitzung wird von 11.55 Uhr bis zur Abstimmungsstunde um 12.00 Uhr unterbrochen.)

PRÉSIDENCE DE MME ISABELLE DURANT
Vice-présidente