Texte intégral 
Procédure : 2016/0308(COD)
Cycle de vie en séance
Cycle relatif au document : A8-0193/2017

Textes déposés :


Débats :

PV 31/05/2017 - 16
CRE 31/05/2017 - 16

Votes :

PV 01/06/2017 - 7.5
CRE 01/06/2017 - 7.5
Explications de votes
PV 04/07/2017 - 6.11
CRE 04/07/2017 - 6.11
Explications de votes

Textes adoptés :


Compte rendu in extenso des débats
Mercredi 31 mai 2017 - Bruxelles Edition révisée

16. Introduction de mesures commerciales autonomes temporaires en faveur de l’Ukraine (débat)
Vidéo des interventions

  Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dnia jest sprawozdanie sporządzone przez Jarosława Wałęsę w imieniu Komisji Handlu Międzynarodowego w sprawie wniosku dotyczącego rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady w sprawie wprowadzenia w odniesieniu do Ukrainy tymczasowych autonomicznych środków handlowych uzupełniających koncesje handlowe dostępne na mocy układu o stowarzyszeniu (COM(2016)0631 - C8-0392/2016 - 2016/0308(COD)).


  Jarosław Wałęsa, rapporteur. – Mr President, in recent years Ukraine has faced unprecedented challenges, both political and economic. Despite the toll taken by the illegal annexation of Crimea and the Russian aggression in Donetsk and Lugansk, the Government has been conducting reforms on a scale that the country has never experienced before. The scope of the reforms is so ambitious that it is fair to say more has been done during the last two years than over previous decades. These processes happened while enormous economic strain existed due to the Russian embargo and transit ban.

The European institutions have always been supportive of the process of stabilisation and peace in the Ukraine. This has included not only support for the reforms but also micro—financial support, trade measures and, finally, the visa—free regime for Ukrainian citizens. Only yesterday, we heard that the Dutch Senate had voted on the ratification of the EU—Ukraine Association Agreement. These are all signs that our partnership is going strong.

In September last year, the Commission issued a proposal for granting temporary additional trade measures to Ukraine in order to increase its trade flows and support the country economically. These asymmetrical preferences in the Commission’s proposal include additional tariff rate quotas for agricultural goods and a reduction in duties for industrial goods. As the Commission did not provide for an impact assessment, due to the time constraints, this proved problematic for Members of the European Parliament.

At this point it should be remembered that those preferences are on top of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement that entered into force at the beginning of 2016. As the first report on implementation is underway, we are not yet able to assess whether the preferences already granted are sufficient. In the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, concern was expressed about the timing and the choice of products. According to the opinion, the preferences target highly sensitive agricultural products that were hit by the series of crises and the Russian embargo. Furthermore, last year EU farmers experienced a record low harvest, while the opposite was true for the world’s other main exporters. I also received feedback from stakeholders regarding potentially sensitive products among industrial goods, which was reflected in their report.

Taking all this into consideration, I think we have managed to achieve a balanced outcome in the Committee on International Trade. My report proposes the deletion of two agricultural tariffs, wheat and processed tomatoes, and one industrial tariff, urea, from the annexes. The report also tackles a number of challenges to Commission proposals, such as the need for checks and inspections in order to issue a movement certificate, especially when products stem from territory not under the control of the Government, and also Ukraine’s abstention from introducing discriminatory internal administrative measures, as well as the implementation of continued and sustained efforts with regard to the fight against corruption and illegal activities.

I also emphasised the right for European industry to initiate a safeguard procedure. In the end, I believe that a detailed assessment of the implementation of these temporary alternative measures is needed.

I am hoping for a strong majority tomorrow and a strong plenary mandate. Once this is obtained, my goal is to start the interinstitutional negotiations as soon as possible.


  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, these autonomous trade measures that the Commission has proposed aim to express economic and political support for Ukraine, an associated partner and our neighbour, which is at a very difficult juncture. The Commission made the proposal in September and it is a reasonable and balanced proposal, granting better access to the EU market for certain agricultural products and certain industrial goods from Ukraine. The Commission has considered some sensitivities related to agricultural markets, for instance, and we have not included the most sensitive products such as poultry, sugar or fruits.

We propose to increase annual duty-free tariff rate quotas for eight agricultural products on top of what is already provided for in the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA). In some cases these additional amounts are small and will have no impact whatsoever on the EU market. In the case of other products, for example honey, the additional preference to Ukrainian exports will most likely simply displace imports from other countries, such as China, without affecting prices or import flows to the EU. Moreover, honey and processed tomatoes are examples of export products that will benefit small and medium-sized Ukrainian companies immediately. And in this context Ukraine is a net importer of EU agricultural products. By the way, neither wheat nor processed tomatoes are subject to the Russian food ban, and when it comes to urea, that will actually benefit European farmers because it will replace imports of fertilisers from Russia and give us a cheaper alternative.

Furthermore, we have recent free trade agreements negotiated by the European Union with Peru, Colombia, Central America, Vietnam and Canada. Here we already provide unlimited duty-free access for some of the agricultural products covered by the proposal, so why should we not do that for Ukraine, our friend and economically integrated neighbour?

We also have in the proposal a specific safeguard that would suspend preferences to any of the products in the event of market distortion, and we are ready to consider reinforcing that clause, should you so wish, when we go into trilogue.

So in sum, this is very much a political gesture. It is about sending a positive signal of EU support to Ukraine, helping the economy of a country which is suffering from the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol and military conflict provoked by Russia in the eastern part of the country.

That is why I am very concerned about the report that the committee has adopted because it significantly reduces the scope of our proposal.

On the impact assessment that you have requested, let me just recall that the trade preferences cover a very small fraction of the preferences already in force in the DCFTA, so it is impossible to separate the two impacts. Moreover, the last sustainable impact assessment that we did for the DCFTA in 2007 forecast a deep market opening by the EU, and that is still valid. The economic parameters have not changed much, especially not on the Ukrainian side, and the impact assessed at that time was negligible for the EU market.

You suggest applying stricter rules of origin to the products from the territories which are not under effective control of the Government of Ukraine. That would unfortunately lead to two different types of rules of origin applying to exports of the same product. It would be cumbersome, it would create legal chaos both for exporters and for the customs authority, so we oppose these amendments.

This proposal, as I said, is a political gesture. I hope that we can work together, Parliament and the Council, in the trilogue so as to send a more constructive proposal to Ukraine and help its people and its economy in these challenging times.


  Czesław Adam Siekierski, autor projektu opinii Komisji Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi. – Szanowni Państwo! Zaproponowane przez Komisję Europejską preferencje handlowe dla Ukrainy są niekorzystne dla niektórych bardzo wrażliwych sektorów rolniczych Unii.

Są to przede wszystkim zboża, ale też niektóre owoce i warzywa. Rynki tych produktów niedawno doświadczyły poważnych kryzysów i negatywnego wpływu rosyjskiego embarga. Dotyczy to w szczególności krajów Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej, które są bramą do Unii dla produktów ze Wschodu. Aby uniknąć spotęgowania trudności, z którymi już mierzą się unijni producenci sektorów najbardziej dotkniętych obecnym preferencyjnym importem z Ukrainy, w swoim stanowisku w sprawie dodatkowych preferencji Komisja Rolnictwa zaleciła usunięcie proponowanych kontyngentów taryfowych na pszenicę (100 tys. ton), kukurydzę (650 tys. ton) i pomidory przetworzone (5 tys. ton) oraz zmniejszenie kontyngentu na jęczmień z 350 do 50 tys. ton.

Pomimo problemów politycznych i ekonomicznych, jakich doświadcza Ukraina, w obliczu obecnej trudnej sytuacji w rolnictwie europejskim w komisji nie mogliśmy poprzeć tak znacznego zwiększenia preferencji handlowych dla Ukrainy w obszarze rolnym. Unia wspiera i powinna nadal wspierać odbudowę ukraińskiej gospodarki, w tym rolnictwa, ale proponowane dodatkowe kontyngenty są wykorzystywane w bardzo krótkim czasie i przez nielicznych uczestników rynku. Pomoc ta nie trafia do większej grupy producentów, handlowców, a tylko do wąskiej grupy oligarchów. Należy wprowadzić inne formy pomocy, choćby w postaci transferu know-how czy różnych projektów pilotażowych, które wdrażałyby nowoczesne technologie na rynek rolny i wzmacniałyby normalnych rolników.


  Jaromír Štětina, za skupinu PPE. – Pane předsedající, Ukrajina si vybrala cestu sebeurčení. Věděla, že to pro ni bude politicky i ekonomicky nebezpečná cesta. Upřednostnila svobodu před jistotou vazalských časů. Ukrajina za svoje právo na sebeurčení zaplatila anexí Krymu Ruskou federací a krutými boji na východě Ukrajiny. Ekonomicky doplatila také. V roce 2015 poklesl podíl obchodu s Ruskem na 16 % v porovnání s 27 % v roce 2013.

Cílem projednávaného návrhu je zvýšit stávající obchodní toky mezi EU a Ukrajinou. Obávám se však, že návrh našeho Parlamentu oklešťuje příznivější návrh Evropské komise. Ukrajina je křehká, prochází transformací a je ve válce. Musíme se jí vynasnažit maximálně ekonomicky pomoci. Ukrajině bych však přál skutečnou obdobu Marshallova plánu.


  Marita Ulvskog, för S&D-gruppen. – Herr talman! Ukraina präglas fortfarande av svårigheter och svag ekonomi. Korruptionen är fortfarande utbredd och reformarbetet pågår men behöver definitivt intensifieras. De nuvarande handelsförmånerna förhandlades under helt andra omständigheter. Det var före Krim, före Donbass. Det nya förslaget om ytterligare handelsförmåner kan, även om det är ett försiktigt förslag, vara en signal som ändå markerar att det finns en framtid.

Jag och min politiska grupp har samtidigt varit tydliga med att de ytterligare handelsförmånerna måste åtföljas av fortsatta ansträngningar och reformer när det gäller arbetet mot korruption. Här krävs tydliga insatser från EU, framför allt från kommissionen – en uppföljning som också kan visa att insatserna gör skillnad, en positiv skillnad.

Jag är nöjd med att vi har fått in ett starkare språk i parlamentets text om just arbetet mot korruption och att vi har fått in hänvisningar till behovet att uppmärksamma ekonomiska och sociala effekter samt det tydliga kravet på uppföljning. Min förhoppning är att dessa extra handelsåtgärder ska påskynda landets reformarbete och utöver det sända ett budskap till Ukraina att vi finns här som vänligt sinnade grannar.


  Zbigniew Kuźmiuk, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Zabierając głos w tej debacie, chcę podkreślić, że Ukraina zasługuje na wsparcie ze względu na, z jednej strony, toczoną na jej terenie wojnę wspieraną przez Rosję i zajęcie Krymu, a z drugiej, prowadzone głębokie reformy gospodarcze i społeczne. Takie mocne wsparcie Ukraina otrzymała już w ramach podpisanego układu o stowarzyszeniu z Unią, ponieważ w jego części handlowej znalazły się hojne kontyngenty preferencyjne, dla pszenicy, kukurydzy i jęczmienia. W tej sytuacji wniosek Komisji o przyznanie Ukrainie dodatkowych bezcłowych kontyngentów dla aż ośmiu produktów rolnych jest zdaniem polskiej delegacji w ECR propozycją zbyt daleko idącą. Dlatego też zdecydowanie popieramy decyzję Komisji Rolnictwa i Komisji Handlu Międzynarodowego Parlamentu Europejskiego o wyłączeniu z bezcłowych kontyngentów pszenicy, przetworzonych pomidorów oraz nawozu sztucznego mocznika i mamy nadzieję, że Komisja i Rada uszanują tę decyzję Parlamentu.


  Jasenko Selimovic, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, the Association Agreement between the EU and Ukraine was signed in order to support the European aspirations of the people of Ukraine. In recent years, in the most difficult conditions of war, occupation and prolonged conflict, Ukrainians have succeeded in delivering the unprecedented reforms we demanded of them. Now it is time for the European Union to show its support.

Due to the war, occupation and trade sanctions imposed by Russia, Ukraine has been losing markets in the East and faces economic hardship. In 2014 and 2015, GDP fell by almost ten percent and the reorientation of the Ukrainian markets towards the EU has been difficult. But now the economy is growing again – by 2.3% in 2016 – and it is a crucial moment to support Ukraine’s economy and development. These additional preferences to Ukraine will support recovery and help combat the economic consequences of a war that is still going on in the eastern part of the country. Some measures are asymmetrical but my conviction is that it should be that way. The war and occupation is actually raging in Ukraine and not here. In this respect, I welcome the prolongation of restrictive measures against the Russian Federation as long as the terms of the Minsk Agreement are not fulfilled. I believe that the autonomous trade measures that the Commission has proposed are what we owe to the people of Ukraine and I sincerely hope that my colleagues are of the same opinion.


  Eleonora Forenza, a nome del gruppo GUE/NGL. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, stento a credere che in quest'Aula siano state proferite parole di questo tipo nei confronti del governo ucraino. La Commissione, il Commissario europeo, che pure dicono di fare molta attenzione al rapporto tra diritti umani e accordi commerciali, forse si stanno dimenticando di dire da chi è composto il governo di Poroshenko, da bandieristi che esplicitamente, ad esempio, si richiamano al terzo Reich.

La Commissione non ha presentato alcuna valutazione di impatto sui possibili effetti di queste misure nei confronti dell'Ucraina e non ha presentato una relazione sull'utilizzo degli enormi prestiti concessi all'Ucraina, forse finalizzati più che a finanziare l'economia, a finanziare la guerra.

Ora la proposta del Parlamento limita quella della Commissione, ma il nostro gruppo è fermamente contrario a qualsiasi forma di finanziamento al regime parafascista di Poroshenko.


  Heidi Hautala, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, the changes introduced by the committees of the European Parliament have turned this attempt to support Ukraine into a missed opportunity. This will be a great mistake. It is very hypocritical to see what Parliament is doing to the Commission’s proposal.

We should not forget that trade policy is a powerful instrument and should be used to strongly support the EU’s foreign policy objectives, especially in the neighbourhood. In this neighbourhood, relations with our partners are unavoidably closer, and the values enshrined in our Treaties also play a significant role. The importance of our values is shown by the special emphasis that we have put on the fight against corruption in Ukraine. Progress has been made on this topic, but more needs to be made.

In decisions concerning our closest partners, we should not let tariffs or quotas obscure our vision, which is to help Ukraine, a country whose sovereignty has been blatantly violated by Russia, and which now sees how Parliament turning its back on the further development of its economic and social situation.


  Philippe Loiseau, au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, après la Tunisie, aujourd’hui l’Ukraine. L’Europe continue à jouer au bon samaritain et à octroyer des préférences commerciales comme on distribue des bons points à l’école.

Cet abattement des droits de douane sur les produits agroalimentaires est subordonné au respect des droits de l’homme par l’Ukraine, à sa lutte contre la corruption et autres grands principes. Le niveau de corruption a pourtant atteint des sommets en Ukraine. En réalité, l’Ukraine est une menace pour l’Europe.

Par ailleurs, qui va payer le prix de ces décisions idéologiques, mensongères et injustes? Je pense que les éleveurs seront les dindons de la farce et que les maraîchers seront une fois de plus pris pour des pommes.

Quant à ce Parlement européen, qui a autorisé la Tunisie à exporter son huile d’olive dans l’Union européenne sans droits de douane, une étude d’impact devait sortir dans l’année. Un an après, aucune trace de cette étude. Peut-être l’impact pour les producteurs italiens et français est-il trop désastreux pour être avouable...

Je vous donne rendez-vous l’an prochain pour dresser le même constat par rapport aux céréales ukrainiennes.


  Pavel Svoboda (PPE). – Vážený pane předsedající, vážená paní komisařko, autonomní dodatečná opatření vnímám jako užitečný nástroj, který může podpořit Ukrajinu v těžké ekonomické situaci a v návaznosti na asociační dohodu podpořit její postupnou integraci s vnitřním trhem Evropské unie. Dnes projednávaná opatření vysílají silný signál, že Evropská unie je připravena Ukrajině pomoci.

Zpráva je však méně příznivá než návrh Evropské komise. Ze zahraničněpolitického pohledu není možné, aby na jednu stranu Evropský parlament deklaroval podporu Ukrajině, ale potom prakticky zprávu obsahově vyprázdnil a tím snížil důvěryhodnost Evropské unie jako partnera. Je pro nás rovněž důležité přijmout opatření s původním zněním od Komise co nejdříve, a tím co nejvíce podpořit Ukrajinu a rozvoj její ekonomiky, a to bez ohledu na hlasy Kremlu, které zaznívají i v tomto Parlamentu z extrémní pravice i levice.


  Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Méltányolom, hogy az egyoldalú kedvezmények gondolatát az európai agrártermelők pozícióit féltő néhány kollégám fenntartásokkal kezeli. Ugyanakkor emlékeztetnék rá, hogy ez az intézkedés egyszerre bír elvi, politikai és gyakorlati jelentőséggel, és érdemes ezeket kölcsönhatásukban mérlegelni. Képviselőként magam is különösen érzékeny vagyok az európai mezőgazdaság érdekeinek védelmére, de ebben az esetben a könnyítésben érintett ukrán exporttermékek listájának összeállítását valódi hatáselemzés előzte meg, és ezt tovább is lehet erősíteni. A jogszabály tervezete már most is megfelelő garanciákat ad az esetleges piaczavarás megelőzésére, hiszen konkrét esetben saját vagy tagállami kezdeményezésre a Bizottság bármikor közbeavatkozhat.

Ebben a helyzetben az Európai Uniónak késznek és képesnek kell lennie arra, hogy a szabad, európai Ukrajna iránti szolidaritásunkat kézzelfogható formában, jelen esetben kereskedelmi kedvezményekkel is kifejezze.


  Edouard Ferrand (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, n’avancez pas trop vite. Un arrêt de la Cour de justice européenne du 16 mai dernier vous a déjà fait savoir, par un avertissement très sérieux, que l’Union européenne n’a pas de compétence exclusive en matière de commerce. Il faut apprendre à partager, et l’Union a ici un rôle partagé avec les États.

Sur le dossier aussi sérieux que l’Ukraine, je voudrais vous dire une chose, Madame: c’est la France qui vous parle, la France rurale, la France des agriculteurs. Nous avons connu une année 2016 très difficile en France, où la plupart des exploitations agricoles ont perdu plus de 30 % de leur chiffre d’affaires. L’année 2017, Madame la Commissaire, sera tout aussi difficile, parce que les problèmes de climat subsistent et que les cours continuent de baisser.

Or, pendant que les agriculteurs français et européens souffrent, vous faites vos traités, vous continuez vos accords de libre-échange. Après le Canada, la viande et les céréales, après le Mexique, le Mercosur, vous avez aussi engagé un dialogue avec l’Australie.

Aujourd’hui, il s’agit de l’Ukraine, qui est un vrai concurrent à l’agriculture européenne. C’est une très mauvaise nouvelle de voir ce traité arriver à un moment où l’agriculture européenne est en crise et à un moment où il faudrait justement, au contraire, aider les nôtres avant d’aider les autres.


  Joachim Schuster (S&D). – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich möchte zunächst betonen, dass ich zusätzliche Handelszugeständnisse an die Ukraine ausdrücklich befürworte.

Allerdings will ich auch nicht verhehlen, dass es aus meiner Sicht dringend erforderlich ist, dass die Kommission eine Zwischenbilanz der europäischen Unterstützung vorlegt. Denn, und das ist die wichtige Begründung, die Daten über die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung und die soziale Lage in der Ukraine sind keineswegs zufriedenstellend. Sicher ist das zum Teil ursächlich dem militärischen Konflikt in der Ostukraine geschuldet. Deswegen ist es politisch hoch bedeutsam, dass wir alles weiter dafür tun, dass das Minsker Abkommen umgesetzt wird.

Aber ich glaube, wir müssen auch prüfen, welche ökonomischen und sozialen Auswirkungen die Umsetzung des Assoziierungsabkommens hatte und hat, und zwar unter der Fragestellung: Sind die bisherigen Maßnahmen erfolgreich und zwar ausdrücklich erfolgreich, im Sinne der Förderung der Entwicklung in der Ukraine, oder gibt es weitere oder andere Maßnahmen, die sinnvollerweise ergriffen werden sollen? Dabei ist es aus meiner Sicht wichtig, dass die Unterstützung nicht alleine bei Oligarchen ankommen darf, sondern die Lebenssituation breiter Teile der Bevölkerung verbessern muss. Deswegen brauchen wir, glaube ich, eine aktualisierte Basis für die Beantwortung der Frage, welche weitere Unterstützung für die Ukraine erforderlich ist.


Zgłoszenia z sali


  Bronis Ropė (Verts/ALE). – Manau visi sutiksime, kad Ukraina yra svarbi Europos Sąjungos partnerė. Nerasime daug prieštaraujančių ir teiginiui, kad Ukrainai reikia padėti. Taip pat nesunkiai pasieksime konsensusą ir dėl to, jog Europos Sąjungos galimybės teikti finansinę pagalbą yra ribotos. Kalbant apie tai, kuo Europa gali padėti savo partnerėms, noriu priminti, kad net ir Sanglaudos šalys didžiausią naudą gauna ne iš Europos Sąjungos paramos, o iš bendrosios rinkos efekto. Būtent galimybė laisvai prekiauti didžiausioje pasaulio bendrojoje rinkoje, skatina jos dalyves modernizuotis ir didinti savo konkurencingumą. Įsileisdami daugiau Ukrainos į Europos Sąjungą, mes kartu pasieksime, kad didesnė Europos ekonomikos ir Ukrainos visuomenės dalis taps ne tik dar labiau suinteresuota prisiderinadama prie Europos, bet ir tuo, kad šalies valdžia neišsuktų iš Europinio integracijos kelio.


(Koniec pytań zgłoszeń z sali)


  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank the honourable Members, the rapporteurs and everybody who has been working on this very important issue.

We are aware in the Commission that some products in European agriculture are sensitive and that this has been difficult for many European farmers. That is why we are working, together with my colleague Commissioner Hogan, to support those farmers, and we are also trying to open new markets for farmers. That is one reason why we have such an ambitious trade agenda, in order create such possibilities. European agriculture is of a very high quality, it is in demand and there are a lot of offensive interests, as well, for European agriculture in trade.

When it comes to this specific proposal, it is – and I beg you really to read it – very modest. Fruit is not even in there and, when it comes to processed tomatoes and wheat, they are not subject to the Russian embargo. Please check your figures. I would also like to say that the urea will actually make it cheaper for European farmers to get access to fertilisers because we are lowering the tariffs there.

So this is a limited, but for Ukraine a very important, proposal. We have looked very carefully into what we think is possible. We have specific safeguards that would suspend the preferences if there were any disruption in the market and we will supervise and monitor this very closely. We can reinforce that clause when we discuss it in the trilogue that I hope will start very soon.

It is true that Ukraine has a lot of problems. Many of them are, of course, due to the conflict, but the country is also in the process of making painful reforms. They are working really hard to do that and a lot has been done in recent years. Yes, corruption is still high and, yes, there still a need to continue the reforms, but work is ongoing and we are supporting them and working with them.

Most of you say that we should support Ukraine. It is a neighbour, a friend and an ally, which has had a very difficult situation. One way of doing that would be to agree to this proposal. In July we will have an EU—Ukraine summit in Kiev, and having a political agreement on this proposal would be a great deliverable to bring with us to Kiev. It would show that we are on their side, that we do care and that we are here to support them.

I believe that this proposal strikes the right balance between protecting sensitive agricultural areas and sectors here in the EU and providing some extra market opportunities to Ukraine. So I hope that when you vote, you can take the broader picture into account – the political and the economic one – and that we can soon enter into a trilogue in order to get a balanced proposal.


  Jarosław Wałęsa, rapporteur. – Mr President, first of all, I say to the House: I would like to thank all of you for your valuable input in this debate. Your comments are very important to me, but I have to say that today’s debate illustrated exactly the conditions I was forced to work in while I was working on this report. As you could hear, we have very extreme views in this House, from left to right, from one extreme to the other, and my goal from the beginning was very simple. I always had in mind help for Ukraine, but also I always remembered that protecting the interests of European farmers and producers is also important. So finding the proper balance was not as easy as it seems.

Here in the European Parliament a majority of us strongly support the reforms in Ukraine, and I believe that by introducing these additional trade measures we are helping Ukraine to develop, not only in the economic sphere but also politically. Keeping that in mind, I understand that we are going to have a very difficult time in the Council. I understand that the Council will present additional deletions of additional tariff lines, so we may have a problem with that, Madam Commissioner, and I hope that we can find a middle ground.

Tomorrow I hope that I will receive a very strong mandate, because this is the proposal of this House, and this is the starting point of the debate. I hope that we will be able to start the trilogue negotiations very soon, and I hold that we can conclude them as soon as we can. I am going to strongly defend the position of the European Parliament and in the end I hope that the position of Parliament is going to prevail.


  Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.

Głosowanie odbędzie się w czwartek 1 czerwca 2017 r.

Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 162)


  Andrea Bocskor (PPE), írásban. – Az Európai Unióval kötött szabadkereskedelmi társulás által Ukrajna új lehetőséget kapott a fejlődésre. A vámliberalizációval bővülhet az Európai Unió és Ukrajna közötti jelenlegi kereskedelmi kapcsolat. Ennek köszönhetően új kapuk nyílhatnak meg a tőke Ukrajnába vonzására és a külföldi vállalkozók előtt, lehetőség nyílik Ukrajna Európai Unióval, szomszédos régióival történő együttműködésre, a határokon átnyúló közös projektek megvalósítására. Ezáltal új munkahelyek jöhetnek létre, gazdasági, infrastrukturális fejlesztések vehetik kezdetüket, melyek javítanák a lakosság életszínvonalát is. Az európai jó példát kell átvenni a gazdaság revitalizálására, mint amilyen például a 2015-ben alakult Tisza ETT, mely egy EU-s megye (Szabolcs–Szatmár–Bereg megye) és egy ukrajnai megye (Kárpátalja) között jött létre területfejlesztési célokkal. Az Európai Unióval történő kereskedelem beindításához elsősorban a határ menti infrastruktúra és a logisztikai, fuvarozási feltételek javítására van szükség. Sajnos az országban eddig megvalósított reformok számos társadalmi és gazdasági feszültséget idéznek elő. Így kiemelten fontos, hogy a kereskedelmi reformok és az ország gazdasági fejlesztései párhuzamosan történjenek. Fontos célkitűzés kell legyen az ukrán piacgazdaság megvalósítása és az uniós belső piacba történő további integráció. A gazdasági támogatások, reformok csak a korrupció teljes felszámolásával érhetik el maximális hatásukat.


  Nicola Caputo (S&D), per iscritto. – Ritengo opportuna la scelta dell'Unione europea di concedere ulteriori misure di sostegno all'Ucraina, sotto forma di preferenze commerciali supplementari. L'Ucraina sta portando avanti riforme senza precedenti e le riforme spesso, comportano anche difficoltà a breve termine, sul piano socioeconomico. Le misure proposte, garantiranno un reale sostegno economico e politico all'Ucraina, in una fase particolarmente delicata, pur con le dovute attenzioni e incentivi equilibrati, risultando al contempo ponderate nella copertura dei prodotti selezionati e nei rispettivi volumi e quote aggiuntive, oltre ad essere dotate di tutte le necessarie salvaguardie, per supplire ad eventuali distorsioni del mercato. È tuttavia essenziale, assicurare che qualsiasi misura di sostegno, serva agli obiettivi dell'accordo di associazione, di ottenere un'economia di mercato funzionante in Ucraina e di integrarla ulteriormente, nel mercato interno dell'Unione europea.


  Mireille D'Ornano (ENF), par écrit. – Ce texte porte sur un ensemble de concessions commerciales en faveur de l’Ukraine dans le cadre de la “zone de libre-échange approfondie” qui s’applique provisoirement depuis le 1er mai 2016 du fait de l’accord d’association entre l’Union européenne et cet État.

Le rapport souligne le caractère asymétrique des concessions consenties par l’Union européenne, qui réduit les droits de douane plus rapidement que l’Ukraine. Cette asymétrie se justifierait par la situation difficile de l’économie ukrainienne, laquelle s’est contractée de 9,8 % en 2015.

Ces concessions consistent en des octrois de contingents exonérés de droits de douane pour certains produits agricoles: blé, orge, avoine, miel naturel, tomates transformées, jus de raisin et maïs. Certains produits industriels font également l’objet d’exonérations partielles.

Ces concessions menacent l’équilibre économique de certains secteurs. S’agissant du maïs, notamment, ce quota complémentaire de 650 000 tonnes par an pourrait provoquer une baisse des prix, puisque l’Union européenne est déjà déficitaire avec l’Ukraine sur ses importations de maïs.

Notons que l’accord d’association Union européenne - Ukraine est le symbole d’un déni de démocratie. Rejeté par le peuple néerlandais par référendum en avril 2016, l’accord a été, néanmoins, adopté le 30 mai dernier par la chambre basse des Pays-Bas.


  Ilhan Kyuchyuk (ALDE), in writing. – There is no doubt that the EU and Ukraine should cooperate more extensively in order to achieve a full implementation of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area between them. In light of this, the proposed additional preferences to Ukraine may further support the country’s economic recovery efforts and the reorientation of its markets towards the EU. This is really needed, particularly in view of the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine, Russian trade sanctions on Ukraine, the unfavourable global economic environment and the economic hardships which Ukraine faces nowadays. Here, it is important to note that I fully support further trade liberalisation with Ukraine but I cannot hide my concerns that additional trade preferences to Ukraine in practice have the potential to destabilise EU agricultural markets. Recently, I asked the Commission about Ukrainian sunflower oil, which is a product of unfair competition and which significantly threatens sunflower oil producers in the EU, notably those in Bulgaria and Romania. In conclusion, I call on the Ukrainian authorities to initiate and implement deep political and economic reforms in order to decrease negative sentiment for the developing integration process with the country both within the EU and Member States.


  Eva Maydell (PPE), in writing. – Although some would like to see Ukraine as an example of a failing state, the government has conducted considerable reforms in the past two years, bringing concrete results and improvements for their citizens. Civil society has been instrumental in bringing those reforms forward. Two aspects have been of particular concern to both politicians and civil society in Ukraine – the visa free regime, which we already established, and the full implementation of the DCFTA. I welcome the very mature position of the Dutch Government and the vote in the Dutch Senate yesterday, confirming the ratification of the Association Agreement with Ukraine.

I hope that the outcome of the trialogue on the introduction of temporary autonomous trade measures for Ukraine will be constructive and balanced. Increasing the trade flows with our neighbour is a step towards a closer cooperation – an economic but also a political gesture. The EU should, however, maintain its conditionality to be able to foster reforms in the country. Measures to eradicate corruption should be part of this conditionality for further accessions in trade.


  Urmas Paet (ALDE), kirjalikult. – Kestva konflikti ja Venemaa kaubandussanktsioonide tõttu on Ukraina majandus jätkuvalt raskes olukorras. Maailmamajanduse keeruline seis on samuti riigi olukorda tõsisemaks muutnud. EL saab Ukrainat majanduse turgutamise osas aidata, suurendes kaubavooge ELi ja Ukraina teatud ühepoolsete kaubandusmeetmete kehtestamisega. See annab Ukrainale võimaluse oma turge ELi suunas ümber korraldada (Venemaa turgude ära langemise tõttu). Positiivne on, et varasem sarnaste kaubandusmeetmete kehtestamine on praeguseks ELi ja Ukraina vahelisi kaubavooge juba suurendanud.


  Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Regarding the situation in Ukraine, where the Russian Federation has occupied the Crimean Peninsula and is constantly engaging in active warfare in Eastern Ukraine, there is definitely a need for Europe to support Ukraine in one way or another. Regarding this report on the temporary autonomous trade measures for Ukraine, and the idea to increase the trade flows concerning the import of certain agricultural products and to grant concessions in the form of autonomous trade measures in selected industrial products, this seems to be positive for the acceleration of the elimination of customs duties on trade between the EU and Ukraine. One must also reiterate that Ukraine must continue strengthening the rule of law, human rights and the separation of power in their country and actively fighting corruption and organised crime.

Avis juridique - Politique de confidentialité