Ευρετήριο 
 Προηγούμενο 
 Επόμενο 
 Πλήρες κείμενο 
Διαδικασία : 2016/2980(RSP)
Διαδρομή στην ολομέλεια
Διαδρομή του εγγράφου : O-000138/2016

Κείμενα που κατατέθηκαν :

O-000138/2016 (B8-1811/2016)

Συζήτηση :

PV 22/11/2016 - 19
CRE 22/11/2016 - 19

Ψηφοφορία :

Κείμενα που εγκρίθηκαν :


Πληρη πρακτικα των συζητησεων
Τρίτη 22 Νοεμβρίου 2016 - Στρασβούργο

19. Συμφωνία για τα Περιβαλλοντικά Αγαθά (συζήτηση)
Βίντεο των παρεμβάσεων
Συνοπτικά πρακτικά
MPphoto
 

  Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Anfrage zur mündlichen Beantwortung an die Kommission über das Abkommen über den Handel mit Umweltschutzgütern von Bernd Lange und Alessia Maria Mosca im Namen des Ausschussss für internationalen Handel (O-000138/2016 – B8-1811/2016) (2016/2980(RSP)).

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Alessia Maria Mosca, Autrice. – Signora Presidente, signora Commissaria, onorevoli colleghi, il commercio e l'ambiente sono strettamente collegati. Il rapporto tra i due ambiti, però, non è univoco. Si potrebbe argomentare che l'espansione degli scambi internazionali e la crescita siano una delle cause del riscaldamento globale. È tuttavia necessario riconoscere alla globalizzazione il grande merito di aver favorito la diffusione delle tecnologie a basso impatto ambientale e di migliori standard.

È per questo che riteniamo così importante l'accordo sui beni verdi che si sta negoziando tra 17 parti, tra cui Stati Uniti e Cina, oltre all'Unione europea. I negoziati che, da quanto sappiamo, hanno avuto fasi alterne di rapidità e successo, ma che potrebbero concludersi in dicembre, presentano alcuni elementi di criticità. Abbiamo dunque presentato questa interrogazione con cui chiediamo chiarimenti relativamente alla strategia della Commissione e agli interessi offensivi e difensivi dell'Unione nell'ambito dei beni ambientali.

Alla base della nostra richiesta vi sono due preoccupazioni. La prima, concettuale, riguarda la natura dell'accordo stesso e, in particolare, l'obiettivo di contribuire alla lotta al cambiamento climatico. Temiamo infatti che a causa della mancanza di una definizione di "bene ambientale", l'accordo possa tradire i risultati della conferenza di Parigi. Ci interroghiamo su come la credibilità ambientale dell'accordo possa non essere compromessa dall'inclusione di alcuni prodotti che a fatica si possono classificare tra quelli ad uso ambientale o a maggiore efficienza energetica.

Altrettanto preoccupante è la scelta di non considerare l'impatto della produzione e il potenziale doppio uso degli articoli selezionati. L'aumento delle importazioni da paesi con una regolamentazione meno stringente potrebbe determinare un aumento delle emissioni. Ricordo a questo proposito che quando parliamo di dumping non ci riferiamo solo alla dimensione economica ma che pensiamo anche alle conseguenze sociali e ambientali. La liberalizzazione di alcuni prodotti come le biciclette, il cui processo manifatturiero in Europa rispetta i più rigidi standard, potrebbe paradossalmente avere un impatto ecologico negativo. Una tonnellata di CO2 emessa in un paese con regolamenti meno rigorosi, oltre che parimenti dannosa, è anche più conveniente.

Pensando ad articoli come le tubature, domandiamo alla Commissione come intenda regolarne l'eventuale doppio uso. Un tubo, infatti, potrebbe essere impiegato sia per una centrale per il riciclo delle acque, sia nella costruzione di un oleodotto.

La seconda preoccupazione è di natura economica. L'Europa è leader nell'ambito dei beni ambientali. Consci della crescita ininterrotta del settore e della relativa ricaduta occupazionale, ci chiediamo se gli interessi offensivi europei siano effettivamente riflessi nell'accordo. Oltre ai dazi, infatti, i maggiori ostacoli incontrati dalle nostre aziende sono di natura non tariffaria. Temiamo che una loro esclusione possa pregiudicare i nostri interessi. L'Europa non può permettersi di aumentare la propria esposizione alla concorrenza senza ottenere eguale accesso ai mercati esteri.

Un'altra importante esclusione riguarda i servizi. Ad esempio, la manutenzione e la riparazione di un parco eolico possono raggiungere il 40% del valore totale della vendita: domandiamo pertanto alla Commissione come procedano le trattative per l'inclusione di entrambi questi aspetti.

In conclusione, lo stato attuale dell'ambiente ci impone un'azione concreta contro il cambiamento climatico. Allo stesso tempo, questo accordo potrebbe offrire grandi potenzialità economiche per un settore in forte crescita. Non possiamo perdere l'occasione di dimostrare come il commercio sia anche uno strumento di sviluppo sostenibile e possa quindi contribuire al miglioramento della vita delle persone e del pianeta.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, the Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA) negotiations were launched in July 2014 and are today at a finalisation stage after two years of intense negotiations, comprising 17 rounds of talks involving 44 World Trade Organisation member countries, including the 28 EU Member States.

Building on the strong political momentum that was created by G20 leaders in early September, to redouble efforts to find an agreement by the end of this year, we now have a unique window of opportunity to conclude a deal at the ministerial meeting that is scheduled for 3 and 4 December in Geneva. If we do that, we will send out a very strong signal that trade policy can contribute positively to environmental protection and fight against climate change by eliminating tariffs on a list of environmentally sound products. It is doable, but we still have a lot to work to do. So let me address some of the questions you have posed.

First you ask whether the Commission can ensure that the EU is conducting these negotiations pursuing primarily environmental-protection objectives and not influenced by specific sectoral interests to reduce tariffs on a certain number of goods. Let me reiterate that the key guiding principle of the EGA negotiation is to eliminate tariffs on a list of goods that are environmentally sound and contribute positively to environmental protection and to fighting climate change. In the years of negotiations, EGA members have closely scrutinised all nominated products from the environmental perspective, with a view to removing those that raised doubts. On the EU side, we have supported products crucial for renewable energy generation, products that are energy efficient due to their particular role with regard to the implementation of the Paris agreement and the shared goal of limiting global warming to 2°.

The negotiations also cover imported environmental products to contribute to clean air, soil and water, products that are used for waste management, environmental analysis and monitoring. In this process the negotiators have consulted relevant international organisations such as the United Nations Environmental Programme and the International Renewable Energy Agency and we have, of course, also sought the views of various national environmental agencies, environmental NGOs and industry. Furthermore, customs officials have helped to ensure that the environmental products are clearly defined and can be differentiated from other similar products in the customs nomenclature.

Now, let me clarify too that, while environmental aspects are, of course, key in these negotiations, they are also trade negotiations, and these negotiations will be positive for us, especially for SMEs, which will be able internationally to trade environmentally sound products at less cost and with less burdensome procedures.

The final agreement will need to be environmentally credible, commercially relevant and balanced so that we can have an acceptable deal for all the parties.

Secondly, you asked how the Commission intended to tackle possible market imbalances for those European industries that would continue to face non-tariff barriers when trying to enter foreign markets. Non-tariff barriers and services related to trade in environmental goods do play an important role in the green sector and, on the EU side, we have been vocal on the need to address the market imbalances and to include a work programme to look into this. In the negotiations we, from the EU, strongly advocated a broader agenda but that has not received so much support from other parties. Efforts have now focused on crafting the list of which tariffs will be eliminated, but we have managed to obtain a commitment on a future-oriented agreement that will allow for a work programme, so we can start on non-tariff issues in the future, with a view to identifying non-tariff barriers and also related services in the green sector and consider ways to facilitate trade further.

So that is where we are. I hope very much that we can conclude this in a couple of weeks and I am looking forward to the debate.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Christofer Fjellner, för PPE-gruppen. – Fru talman, fru kommissionär! Förkortningar är kontroversiella i handelspolitik har vi lärt oss, oavsett om det är Ceta, TTIP, ISDS. Själv tror jag att ”USA” nog är den mest kontroversiella förkortningen av alla. Men förkortningen EGA – Environmental Goods Agreement – borde inte vara kontroversiell. Ett grönt frihandelsavtal som kombinerar frihandel och hållbarhet borde omfattas av alla, men ändå finns det hot mot det. Det finns åtminstone två hot som jag är orolig för. Det ena är den traditionella protektionismen, dvs. alla de som vill bevara de tullar de nu skyddas av. Det gäller oavsett om det är bilindustrier i Europa som inte vill ha sänkta tullar på elbilar eller om det är tågproducenter som inte vill ha sänkta tullar på tåg. Trots att de då och då kommer till mig i min roll i miljöutskottet och berättar att de minsann är miljövänligast i världen och bäst i världen, så gör de allt de kan för att hålla sig borta från listan över miljövänliga produkter i det här sammanhanget. Eller för den delen de 22 medlemsstater som kämpar för att behålla tullar på cyklar, det vill säga det transportmedel som har noll utsläpp. Den typen av protektionism hotar det här avtalet. Men likaså de förment gröna, de som söker efter den perfekta definitionen på vad som är en miljövänlig produkt, någonting som är så tajt att nästan ingenting passerar igenom.

Jag tycker att man borde ha en annan definition. Jag tycker att man borde bestämma sig för att allt som ersätter någonting som vi vet är miljöskadligt borde vi betrakta som grönare. Något som kan substituera kan bli en liten komparativ fördel genom att sänka tullarna för det som bara är lite bättre, så gör vi något bra för miljön.

Jag tror att vi efter Trump och efter våra egna frihandelsförhandlingar med Kanada verkligen behöver framgång. Detta kan vara den framgång vi behöver, men det kräver att vi nu faktiskt vågar satsa på detta i Europa och inte låter förment gröna eller för den delen protektionister sätta käppar i hjulen.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Inmaculada Rodríguez-Piñero Fernández, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora Presidenta, señora Comisaria, estas negociaciones nacieron con muy buenas intenciones: promover el comercio de bienes y servicios susceptibles de mejorar el medio ambiente y de luchar contra el cambio climático.

Yo soy consciente de los esfuerzos que ha hecho la Comisión, pero la verdad es que las noticias y las señales que llegan de las últimas rondas son muy preocupantes. Tras dos años y medio de negociaciones no se ha alcanzado un acuerdo sobre qué se entiende por un bien medioambiental, y yo me pregunto cómo es posible que se negocie un acuerdo de bienes medioambientales sin llegar a un acuerdo sobre qué son estos bienes.

La lista de productos se ha ido reduciendo progresivamente. Ahora están en menos de 300. Esta lista, como antes también ha señalado, se limita a bienes y no incluye los servicios. Se trabaja exclusivamente en rebajar las tarifas y no se puede incorporar la supresión de las barreras arancelarias de momento. Y la verdad es que la contribución a la protección del medio ambiente de los bienes incluidos en la lista cada vez está siendo más cuestionada. Yo me pregunto qué puede tener que ver en la mejora del medio ambiente una liberación de aranceles en aspiradoras o en frigoríficos, como está proponiendo alguno de los socios.

La verdad es que tengo la sensación de que las negociaciones han ido abandonando el objetivo loable que perseguían, y que el impacto medioambiental que se persigue conseguir con este acuerdo está quedando reducido cada vez a una expresión más pequeña.

Yo defiendo claramente que nuestra política comercial es un instrumento fundamental para hacer frente a uno de los grandes retos que tenemos, que es combatir el cambio climático; pero la verdad es que se han descafeinado demasiado el objetivo y el alcance del mismo.

Y me gustaría hacerle una pregunta concreta: teniendo en cuenta el resultado electoral en los Estados Unidos y la próxima presidencia del señor Trump, ¿cómo cree que puede afectar al resultado de estas negociaciones, teniendo en cuenta cuál es la posición que defiende el señor Trump respecto al calentamiento global y su poca confianza en poder, de verdad, ser efectivos en la lucha contra el cambio climático?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Hannu Takkula, ALDE-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, arvoisa komissaari Malmström, hyvät viisi kollegaa, jotka olette vielä tällä iltahetkellä täällä paikalla. Tahdon kiittää komissiota työstä näiden neuvotteluiden aikana, ja näen tämän kysymyksen myös komissiolle myönteisenä.

Laitan nyt lasit, koska ikänäkö alkaa tässä iässä jo vaivata, jotta voin käyttää tämän puolitoista minuuttia ryhmäni puolesta tehokkaasti.

Tämä sopimus voi toimia merkittävänä tekijänä myös Euroopan unionin talouskasvulle. Meillä on Euroopassa korkeaa osaamista ympäristöystävällisissä tuotteissa ja pärjäämme tällä sektorilla myös globaalissa kilpailussa. Toivon, että tätä ei ole unohdettu, siitä huolimatta, että useat teollisuuden alat ajavat vain yhden tuotteen asiaa.

Sen sijaan, että takaamme yksittäisen tuotteen markkinoille pääsyn, meidän tulee ehkäistä markkinaepätasapainot sekä varmistaa tämän sopimuksen pysyminen kehityksen mukana. Tässä tehokas uudelleenarviointilauseke on ehdottoman tärkeä, jotta voimme varmistaa, ettei sopimus vanhene jo parissa vuodessa.

Tämä sopimus voi toimia myös työkaluna globaalien tavoitteiden saavuttamiseksi ja on hyvä osoitus siitä, että kauppa ja ympäristöystävällisyys eivät ole toisiansa poissulkevia tekijöitä. Neuvotteluissa on mukana suuria talouksia ja tämän sopimuksen myötä voimme viedä eteenpäin ympäristöstandardeja globaalilla tasolla. Tätä tavoitetta ei pitäisi sivuuttaa ainoastaan neuvotteluiden nopean päättämisen vuoksi.

Odotan innolla viimeisen neuvottelukierroksen tuloksia ja toivon tuloksen olevan tasapainoinen sekä tarjoavan mahdollisuuksia ympäristöystävälliselle talouskasvulle.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Anne-Marie Mineur, namens de GUE/NGL-Fractie. – Voorzitter, mijn collega’s Lange en Mosca vragen of de Commissie met deze overeenkomst over milieugoederen wel echt de bescherming van het milieu nastreeft en niet de financiële belangen van bepaalde sectoren. Ze vragen verder of dit verdrag wel in staat is om mogelijke marktverstoring te voorkomen. Dat zijn terechte vragen, maar waarom moeten we deze vragen in dit stadium nog stellen? Deze vragen hadden aan het begin van de hele procedure moeten staan en niet aan het eind. Ze hadden de alfa en omega van deze onderhandelingen moeten zijn.

Een handelsverdrag inzake milieugoederen moet de bescherming van het milieu nastreven. Een handelsverdrag van welke aard dan ook moet zorgen dat de handel tussen twee of meer partijen tot eerlijke handel leidt, in wederzijds voordeel, en niet tot marktverstoringen. Als de commissaris niet kan beloven dat dit verdrag aan de verwachtingen voldoet op die punten, legt ze het dan aan ons voor? Goed, we accepteren op dit moment niet meer zowat elk product en de lijst met milieugoederen is alweer een beetje korter geworden, ze bevat niet meer elk wild idee. Want hoe kwam u er nou bij om asbest op de lijst te zetten? In welke wereld is dat goed voor het milieu? Maar ook dit verdrag is weer een levend verdrag, en dat betekent dat de regels weer gewoon gewijzigd kunnen worden.

De onderhandelingen waren weer hoogst geheim en onttrekken zich ook nu weer aan de openbaarheid en aan controle. Hoe weten we bijvoorbeeld dat biodiesel niet weer gewoon op de lijst komt te staan als we even de andere kant op kijken? Misschien dat u met de huidige momentopname van het verdrag wel de bescherming van het milieu nastreeft, maar wie garandeert ons dat dat zo blijft? Bovendien veroorzaken handelsverdragen per definitie schade aan het milieu. Het doel van vrijhandel is om het comparatieve handelsvoordeel volop ...

(De Voorzitter onderbreekt de spreker)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, at this late hour I would indeed think that many people are interested in these negotiations, and it should be easy to support this. We are trying to show that trade policy can be value—based and that trade policy can make its contribution to the Paris Climate Agreement. It is absolutely unique and something that I think many support. It is good for the environment and it is good also for our green industries. It will not be a perfect agreement – absolutely not – but this is the first time we are trying to do something like this, and we are doing our utmost to ensure that it is environmentally credible and future-oriented.

We have 44 countries – 28 EU and the others – and we need to find a balance. We are trying to learn from past successes and failures and base ourselves on the end—use of products that can be agreed by the members. There is no internationally—accepted definition of green goods. I deplore that, and, of course, it would have been much easier if there was. So we are trying to work ourselves through here, with the involvement of all the countries which are there, to try to establish a common determinator to agree on this.

It is the first attempt ever in the World Trade Organization (WTO) to cut tariffs on products that contribute to environmental protection and climate mitigation. This will, of course, be a living agreement. We will have a review mechanism where we can add new things to the list and also, as I said, we are pushing very hard to add non-tariff barriers (NTBs) and services, the people who provide the services to these environmental agreements.

It is not easy to speculate about the incoming presidential administration in the US. Everybody does that, but nobody really knows. What we do know is that the American current US chair will be at the meeting in Geneva at the beginning of December; we have had confirmation of this. He is very committed to finalising things, and from what we hear this is not something that the President-elect and his administration is opposing either. So we hope very much that we can have the US on board here, and hope also that other big countries, such as China, are willing to grasp this as an historic possibility to break new ground and to do something. It will not be perfect, as I said, but it is a start that we can build upon, and I hope very much for your support on this.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

 
Ανακοίνωση νομικού περιεχομένου - Πολιτική απορρήτου