Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca, in discussione congiunta,

- la raccomandazione della commissione per il commercio internazionale concernente il progetto di decisione del Consiglio relativa alla conclusione dell'accordo tra l'Unione europea, l'Islanda, il Principato del Liechtenstein e il Regno di Norvegia su un meccanismo finanziario del SEE per il 2014-2021, dell'accordo tra il Regno di Norvegia e l'Unione europea su un meccanismo finanziario norvegese per il periodo 2014-2021, del protocollo aggiuntivo dell'accordo tra la Comunità economica europea e il Regno di Norvegia e del protocollo aggiuntivo dell'accordo tra la Comunità economica europea e l'Islanda (06679/2016 - C8-0175/2016 - 2016/0052(NLE)) (A8-0072/2017) (relatore: David Borrelli), e

- l'interrogazione con richiesta di risposta orale alla Commissione sull'aumento dei dazi norvegesi sui prodotti agricoli / recenti negoziati sul protocollo relativo al commercio ittico, di Bernd Lange, a nome della commissione per il commercio internazionale (O-000023/2017 - B8-0215/2017).

  Bernd Lange, Verfasser. – Herr Präsident! Herr Kommissar Hogan, schön Sie hier im Plenum zu sehen. Das ist immer wieder eine Freude für mich. Heute Abend geht es ja um die Beziehungen zu Norwegen, und da haben wir zwei Stränge, die wir zu diskutieren haben: Der eine Strang ist die Entscheidung Norwegens, ad valorem Zölle in Höhe von 200 bis 400 % auf Käse, auf Lamm, auf Rindfleisch zu erheben. Das haben die schon 2013 gemacht, und seitdem besteht unsere Forderung, da etwas zu tun. Wir haben das auch am 4. Juli 2013 in einer Entschließung des Parlaments sehr deutlich formuliert, aber bisher ist da noch nichts passiert. Insofern ist der zweite Strang, den wir heute Abend ja auch – als Berichterstatter ist ja Herr Borrelli hier – diskutieren, nämlich die finanziellen Beziehungen, der finanzielle Mechanismus von 2014 bis 2021 und ein Fisch—Protokoll, auf der Tagesordnung, obwohl wir den ersten Strang noch nicht gelöst haben. Und das hat bei uns natürlich einige Reflexionsprozesse eingeleitet. Wie kann es sein, dass wir auf der einen Seite den Konflikt miteinander haben und auf der anderen Seite dann ein Abkommen schließen, wo wir sehr eng miteinander arbeiten? Und deswegen eben auch die Fragestellung: Was werden eigentlich die Kommission und der Auswärtige Dienst tun, damit es endlich eine Lösung gibt? Wir tun uns wirklich schwer, ein consent zu den finanziellen Mechanismen zu geben, wenn die Zollfrage vorher nicht gelöst ist.

Deswegen auch die zweite Frage: Welche konkreten Erwartungen und Maßnahmen gibt es denn, um quasi im Kontext der finanziellen Mechanismen dann eine Lösung zu finden, und sind die Kommission und der Auswärtige Dienst wirklich überzeugt, dass unterschiedliche Verhandlungen tatsächlich zum Erfolg führen können? Das ist die inhaltliche Geschichte, wo wir im Handelsausschuss als federführender Ausschuss ein bisschen ins Grübeln gekommen sind, Herr Kommissar Hogan.

Und dazu haben wir noch eine zweite Sache, da geht es mehr um die formale Arbeit: Wir verhandeln ja gerade mit der Kommission und dem Rat über ein interinstitutionelles Abkommen, das sicherstellen soll, dass die Bestimmungen des Vertrags, dass das Parlament vollumfänglich gleich informiert wird wie der Rat, auch umgesetzt werden, und dass es keine vorläufige Anwendung eines Abkommens geben kann, bevor das Europäische Parlament nicht entschieden hat. Und das scheint uns beim Norwegen—Abkommen hinsichtlich des finanziellen Mechanismus und des Fischereiabkommens nicht gewährleistet. Deswegen haben wir auch hier gesagt: Wollen wir jetzt wirklich ein consent geben, wenn diese Verpflichtung, die sich unserer Ansicht nach klar aus dem Vertrag ergibt, nicht eingehalten wird?

Es gibt jetzt Anzeichen, dass es eine Besserung gibt, und wir wollen natürlich auch nicht Norwegen quasi in Haftung nehmen für einen Fall, den Kommission und Rat zu verantworten haben. Aber das Problem müssen wir angehen. Wir müssen sicherstellen, dass die gleichmäßige Information von Parlament und Rat gewährleistet wird und dass es keine vorläufige Anwendung von Abkommen irgendwelcher Art gibt, bevor das Europäische Parlament als demokratisch gewählte Körperschaft der Europäischen Union seine Zustimmung gegeben hat.

  David Borrelli, relatore. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io ovviamente, come Lei ha giustamente ricordato, mi tratterrò soltanto sulla questione dell'accordo. Ovviamente concordo perfettamente con quello che è stato detto poc'anzi sulla questione dei dazi, però mi concentrerò molto di più sulla questione dell'accordo.

Si tratta di un accordo sullo spazio economico europeo, detto accordo SEE, del 1994, che consente la partecipazione al mercato unico della Norvegia, dell'Islanda e del Lichtenstein, membri dell'EFTA. I paesi EFTA hanno contribuito dal 1994 a ridurre le disparità economiche e sociali all'interno del SEE mediante un apposito meccanismo finanziario, a cui si affianca un contributo ulteriore della Norvegia. Questi meccanismi finanziari, scaduti nel 2014, devono essere rinnovati così come i protocolli riguardanti il commercio del pesce.

Oggi, quindi, in questa fase esaminiamo quattro atti, ovvero due accordi riferibili ai meccanismi finanziari, uno tra UE e Islanda, Lichtenstein e Norvegia, e uno tra la Norvegia e l'Unione europea, e due protocolli in materia di pesca, uno fra l'UE e la Norvegia e l'altro tra l'UE e l'Islanda.

Questi accordi forniranno congiuntamente un contributo finanziario per la coesione economica e sociale del SEE pari a 2,8 miliardi di euro nel periodo che va dal 2014 al 2021. Questo quadro, fin qui vantaggioso per l'Unione europea, va inserito in una riflessione politica più ampia delle nostre relazioni Unione europea-paesi EFTA. Con il Liechtenstein e con l'Islanda non vi sono problemi particolari, anzi con l'Islanda presto nella commissione INTA inizieremo a discutere di nuovi accordi agricoli e qui dovremo fare attenzione al fatto che l'Islanda comunque ha un free trade agreement con la Cina, quindi vogliamo sottolineare anche questo aspetto.

Con la Norvegia, come è stato giustamente detto poc'anzi, la questione è più sensibile a causa di alcuni dazi imposti nei confronti di carni e formaggi europei. Questa pratica ha sicuramente rallentato l'iter del dossier e ha anche dato origine all'oral question che oggi è in discussione, presentata dal presidente. Le relazioni politiche ed economiche UE-Norvegia sono sempre state piuttosto buone, la questione dei dazi in questi anni, però, ha costituito un vulnus nelle nostre relazioni commerciali, come è stato giustamente detto.

La Norvegia è il quinto partner commerciale dell'Unione europea a livello di import e la settima destinazione per l'Unione europea a livello di export. Rafforzare le nostre relazioni commerciali con la Norvegia è ovviamente importante, ma questi sviluppi devono svolgersi nel pieno rispetto degli obiettivi dell'accordo SEE.

Sappiamo che sono in corso le negoziazioni fra UE e Norvegia per alcune liberalizzazioni del commercio di prodotti agricoli; sono notizie favorevoli che però dovrebbero affiancarsi alla veloce rimozione dei dazi che per anni sono stati imposti. Questa rimozione deve essere una priorità per entrambe le parti e contribuire così a rinforzare delle relazioni commerciali che sono, fortunatamente, già solide.

L'Unione europea esporta verso la Norvegia 4,1 miliardi di euro di prodotti agricoli e ne importa per 488 milioni. Di altrettanta importanza è l'import di prodotti ittici, che ammonta a 5,6 miliardi di euro.

Chiudo quindi ringraziando i colleghi per il lavoro svolto nella commissione commercio internazionale e i colleghi che interverranno ora per i loro spunti, auspicando che anche in questa sede si possa contare su un vasto consenso per questo accordo.

  Phil Hogan, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, I am here, of course, as you realise, on behalf of High Representative Mogherini, but also on behalf of Ms Mogherini and myself I wish to welcome the opportunity to contribute to this joint debate on the European Union-Norway Agreement. I am pleased to share with you our views on the agreement itself between the European Union, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway on the EEA Financial Mechanism 2014-2021 and the increase of Norwegian duties on agricultural products, which has been mentioned by both speakers.

The Financial Mechanisms have played an important role in reducing social and economic disparities in the European Economic Area since the entry into force of the EEA Agreement in 1994. In addition, as of 2004, Norway has set up a complementary bilateral financial mechanism as well. But I would like to acknowledge the positive recommendation of the rapporteur, Mr Borrelli, to the plenary, in order to give its consent to the conclusion of the relevant agreements and protocols.

In view of the continued need to alleviate economic and social disparities within the EEA, in particular after the 2008-2009 financial crisis, the EEAS and the Commission received an ambitious negotiating mandate in January 2014 not only to renew the EEA-Norway grants, but to substantially increase them. The EEA and Norway Financial Mechanism agreements were signed on 3 May 2016 and have been provisionally applied as of July and August of 2016. These grants will provide a financial contribution by the EEA EFTA states of EUR 2.8 billion for a seven-year period 2014 to 2021, which is an increase of 11.2%. This includes a special allocation of EUR 100 million for promoting regional cooperation in order to fight youth unemployment. The European Union cohesion key will be used for the distribution of the financial allocations of both EEA and Norway grants.

The Commission will have a stronger role in strategic planning by promoting complementarity and synergies with EU Cohesion Policy. The agreements on the EEA and Norway grants have been complemented by two other separate bilateral agreements with Norway and Iceland. Their aim is to renew existing preferential trade access to EU markets for their fish and fishery products. These concessions were in place in the period 2009-2014 and have now been renewed with a modest improvement in trade access. Furthermore, Norway has agreed to continue allowing for free transit of fish and fishery products landed in Norway from vessels flying the flag of a Member State of the European Union.

The outcome of these negotiations and the provisional applications of these agreements were commended by all Member States, notably in the December 2016 Council Conclusions on the extended single market. The successful outcome of these negotiations would not have been possible without the tireless political support and interest by the Members of this House. You have regularly used the joint EEA Norway and Iceland parliamentary committees to call for an immediate and successful conclusion of these negotiations. Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway are part of our European continent and we share the same space, but also the same principled interest: to make growth in Europe more inclusive and sustainable. We have a responsibility to work together with our neighbours, strengthening a spirit of European solidarity and cooperation beyond the borders of our Union.

So I want to thank you Members for raising the issue of the increase of Norwegian duties on agricultural products, and for the very keen interest which this House has shown in it, as evidenced by the resolution that has been adopted. In order to reflect your concerns, I want to assure you and reassure you that the Commission and the EEAS have done all they can to address the situation following the changes in Norwegian duties on certain cheeses, on lamb and beef products, from 1 January 2013. The issue has been raised at a number of high-level meetings, including at the highest political level. In fact, in 2015 the Commission requested the Norwegian authorities to include this issue in the EU-Norway agricultural trade liberalisation negotiations. These negotiations were concluded just five weeks ago, on 5 April 2017. Under the negotiated agreement, the Norwegian authorities will grant the European Union tariff-free quotas to compensate for the effects of the duty switch. The Commission is convinced that the deal we reached is beneficial to the European Union and that Norway provided sufficient compensation for the effects of the duty switch.

The exact size of the compensation was detailed in the information paper that was sent to you, Mr Lange, and your committee at the beginning of April. The Agreement will formally be submitted to the European Parliament for your consent at a later stage, which I hope can be forthcoming. With that consent, the Council can then formally conclude the negotiations (it cannot do so before that) in order to allow the Agreement to come into force.

As with Norway, another additional protocol was negotiated for fisheries originating in Iceland. Both EEA partners have made conditional their contribution of funds to the last three EEA Financial Mechanisms, upon obtaining temporary fish trade concessions. No other trade concessions or considerations, such as the improved market access for agricultural products or for the solving of the pending trade irritants, have to date been linked with the Financial Mechanism negotiations. Thank you for attention and I hope that this information is useful to you.

  Artis Pabriks, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, I think that this discourse and discussion today, at 10 o’clock in the evening, could very well have been spared if cooperation between Parliament and the Commission were better. I really very much and sincerely hope that what is happening now, regarding the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) and the discussion between the Commission and this Parliament, is not a pattern of passivity on the part of the Commission, firstly in defending the interests of European nations and the European Union and, secondly, in having a respectful attitude towards this Parliament.

These are two major complaints from the European People’s Party (PPE). We were not satisfied, Commissioner, with your proposal, or the fact that you have already been going on with this agreement without prior consultation with us. You are putting us in the position, in the current political circumstances, where we are speaking about the irrelevance of Parliament and, at the same time, you are trying to drive us into a discussion where you are presenting – this evening too – everything that has already been mentioned in the explanatory statement. We already knew all that!

Secondly, I think the pattern that we see here can also be seen in the passivity of the Commission regarding activities in the Arctic area and in the Commission office responsible for international affairs. We also see that in cases where we need to defend, for instance, our fishermen, who have already been arrested for half a year in Norwegian ports. So in this regard, we really would like to see in future a much more proactive and cooperative role from the Commission side, otherwise it will be very difficult for us to cooperate.

It has nothing to do with Norway, in this case. It is to do with you not responding in a timely fashion, and not defending in a timely fashion the interests which we are asking you to defend.

  Nicola Danti, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, credo che gli accordi tra Unione europea e Norvegia, Islanda e Liechtenstein che domani siamo chiamati a ratificare rappresentino un ottimo esempio di collaborazione tra la nostra Unione e i paesi dello Spazio economico europeo.

Questi accordi forniranno, come è stato ricordato prima, complessivamente un contributo di 2,8 miliardi di euro all'Unione europea per il periodo 2014-2021, con un aumento pari all'11,3 per cento rispetto al periodo precedente. I fondi saranno indirizzati verso quelle aree dell'Unione europea dove le disparità sociali ed economiche persistono in maniera evidente, con l'obiettivo di rafforzare la coesione economica e sociale, favorire sempre un miglior funzionamento del mercato unico, al quale l'Islanda, il Liechtenstein la Norvegia partecipano pienamente.

Tra le aree prioritarie di investimento mi preme evidenziare quella relativa all'occupazione giovanile e quella relativa alla giustizia e agli affari interni, che include quindi settori strategici come l'asilo e la migrazione. Da sottolineare, inoltre, che rispetto al periodo precedente queste risorse potranno essere assegnate anche a quei paesi che nel 2013 hanno avuto un tasso di disoccupazione giovanile superiore al 25 per cento.

Rispetto alla questione posta dall'interrogazione orale, sarà fondamentale trovare rapidamente una soluzione poiché l'imposizione di dazi maggiorati da parte della Norvegia su alcuni prodotti europei viola chiaramente lo spirito e la lettera di questo accordo.

Permettetemi, infine, una considerazione, Presidente. Nei dibattiti post-Brexit si è parlato molto della possibilità per il Regno Unito di adottare il modello norvegese di partecipazione all'Unione europea. Noi siamo d'accordo, contribuire finanziariamente all'Unione europea e accettarne le quattro libertà fondamentali sono criteri sufficienti per aprire le porte al nostro mercato unico, come avviene con la Norvegia e gli altri paesi, ma non pare che questa sia la strada che il governo inglese vuole intraprendere e presto si accorgeranno che, come ha detto il nostro caro collega all'indomani del referendum, il miglior accordo possibile per il Regno Unito è quello che abbiamo già.

  Czesław Hoc, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Protokół dotyczący handlu rybami, produktami rybołówstwa, jak i Norweski Mechanizm Finansowy są bardzo ważne i potrzebne dla krajów Unii Europejskiej, w tym dla Polski jako kraju, który jest największym w Unii Europejskiej importerem surowca rybnego z Norwegii. Zatem działania mające na celu ułatwienie przepływu towarów z Norwegii do Unii Europejskiej, jak również zwiększenie bezcłowych kontyngentów taryfowych są przyjmowane z zadowoleniem.

Polska wspiera dążenia, które przyczyniają się do zniesienia barier i tym samym zapewniają łatwiejszy przepływ produktów rybnych z Norwegii do rynków krajów Unii Europejskiej. Ponadto w ramach norweskich mechanizmów finansowych mamy nadzieję nawiązania bliższej i wymiernej współpracy w dziedzinie badań naukowych w zakresie zarządzania zasobami rybnymi.

  Jasenko Selimovic, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, allow me to start by congratulating Norwegians on their National Day: ‘Gratulerer med dagen, Norge’. But, when it comes to the topic ‘liberalisation of trade’ there is no reason for congratulations. The EEA Agreement was signed in 1994. Since then, talks on liberalisation of trade in agricultural products have been slow and with no genuine engagement by the Norwegian side.

On the contrary, during these talks, in 2013 Norway drastically increased import duties for EU products – 280% on cheese, 430% on sheep meat, and 350% on beef. So if you buy a hot dog – a lamb sausage – in Oslo, it will cost you about EUR 2, but if the lamb comes from the EU, it will cost you EUR 10, five times more. On top of that, there is a new import duty of 70% on hortensia flowers from the EU. Seventy! Do not even think of buying flowers for your girlfriend if she is Norwegian. Love has a very high price in Norway.

I have to say to my fellow Norwegians, that if you respect your commitments and decrease import duties, I can promise you that the world will not go under. The sun will still rise in the morning. The lakes will be fresh and clean – era fjorder underbara – and you will still be able to eat your brunost since we have do not have any intention of buying it, whatever the price might be. If you do not care about us as a partner, please care about your citizens, who already pay some of the highest food prices in the world. Do not make it even more expensive.

I would therefore sincerely like to encourage both the Commission and our Norwegian partners to show a more flexible, constructive and swift approach in order to settle this longstanding issue.

  Helmut Scholz, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Ich halte die Aufregung einiger Kolleginnen und Kollegen für unangebracht. Wir sollten diese Debatte anders beginnen: Zuerst sollten wir das große finanzielle Engagement Norwegens anerkennen, mit dem es Mittel zur Verringerung des Armutsgefälles innerhalb Europas beiträgt. Und wir sollten klar herausstellen, dass wir uns dieses Beitrags bewusst sind, gerade in der gegenwärtigen Situation im Zusammenhang mit den Brexit-Verhandlungen. Wir sollten Gegenleistungen beim Marktzugang und Beiträge im nun aktualisierten Abkommen anerkennen, die dort geregelt sind.

Zolllinien, bei denen keine Einigung erreicht werden konnte, können wie bei allen anderen Handelsbeziehungen von Norwegen legitim erhöht und wieder gesenkt werden. Es ist also Sache des Verhandelns.

Der EWR-Rat hat gerade eben erst bestätigt, dass die weitere Liberalisierung des Agrarhandels Ziel bleibt. Alle sind sich also scheinbar einig, und es gibt kein Problem. Dabei hätte ich auch eine norwegische Position durchaus nachvollziehen können, die wegen der besonders harten natürlichen Bedingungen für Bauern und Fischer in unserem Partnerland einen unbeschränkten Agrarhandel noch erheblich kritischer betrachten würde. Also: Es gibt zum vernünftigen Verhandeln keine Alternative.

  Bronis Ropė, Verts/ALE frakcijos vardu. – Ačiū, gerbiamas pirmininke, gerbiamas komisare. Europos ekonominės erdvės finansinis mechanizmas, sakyčiau, yra puikus instrumentas, padedantis suartėti naujų Europos Sąjungos valstybių ir Norvegijos bendruomenėms, skatinti sanglaudą ir tarpusavio supratimą. Tai sakau kaip buvęs savivaldybės meras, turintis šio darbo patirtį ir taikant šį mechanizmą. Lietuvoje, kaip ir kitose paramos gavėjų šalyse, sukūrėme efektyvią gaunamų lėšų administravimo sistemą, įtraukiant vietos savivaldą ir pilietinę visuomenę. Šis bendradarbiavimas yra svarbus ir kitoms Europos Sąjungos šalims, nes jo pagrindinis siekis – pažangus, tvarus ir integralus augimas, mažinantis ekonominius ir socialinius skirtumus tarp šalių, prisideda prie darnaus viso kontinento vystymosi. Todėl siūlau nekurti jam naujų kliūčių ir kuo greičiau padaryti susitarimą.

  John Stuart Agnew, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, I am giving a speech on behalf of my colleague, William Dartmouth, who has had to return to the UK. I see I am not the only person engaged in substitution, as my old friend the Agriculture Commissioner is here substituting for another Commissioner, so I am setting a trend.

In the UK, the Remain camp are obsessed with access to the single market. This is significant because this report talks about the entry fee that Norway must pay for such access. Clegg, Blair, Mandelson and other Europhiles tell us that the single market is so important that any price is worth paying to get into it. So what happens in Norway? They have been the lucky recipients of 12 000 directives and regulations. Some of these are exceeding the authority of the original agreement. A recent 56-page report by Nei til EU has found that the cost to Norway of this agreement has risen tenfold since 1992. It now costs them GBP 650 million a year for their five million people. In Norway, the polling company Sentio has found that 47% of Norwegians want a referendum on this agreement against 20% who do not. If Norway is having misgivings, Clegg and company should forget all about saddling the British with a bill that could approach GBP eight billion a year.

  Daniel Caspary (PPE). –Herr Präsident, geschätzte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir diskutieren heute eigentlich zwei Dinge: Das Eine ist ein Abkommen das Europäische Institutionen mit Norwegen ausgehandelt haben. Da gefällt uns manches inhaltlich nicht. Da kann ich verstehen, dass die norwegische Regierung bis eng an ihre Grenzen herangegangen ist, an die sie herangehen konnte, angesichts der Tatsache, dass es sich um eine Minderheitsregierung handelt. Aber meiner Überzeugung nach hat die Europäische Kommission und hat der Europäische Auswärtige Dienst vollkommen versäumt, uns im Parlament bei der Aushandlung dieses Abkommens eng einzubinden, uns mit an Bord zu nehmen und auch mal die Grenzen den Norwegern gegenüber aufzuzeigen, die wir als Parlament regelmäßig angesprochen haben.

Was mich am meisten ärgert: Wir haben eine klare Vereinbarung zwischen dem Europäischen Parlament und unserer Außenhandelskommissarin, dass kein Handelsabkommen vorläufig in Kraft gesetzt werden kann, bevor das Europäische Parlament seine Stellungnahme abgegeben hat. Wir haben so etwas nicht mit dem Europäischen Auswärtigen Dienst, und wir haben so etwas nicht mit den anderen Kommissaren, aber dass dieses Abkommen vorläufig angewandt wird, und ein Großteil dieses Abkommens ist Außenhandelsabkommen. Das ist, um es deutlich zu sagen, eine Unverschämtheit, eine Unzumutbarkeit, was uns hier der Europäische Auswärtige Dienst und die hohe Vertreterin Mogherini zumuten.

Und ich rufe die Kommission und rufe den Europäischen Auswärtigen Dienst auf: Bei allen zukünftigen Abkommen erwarten wir, dass wir rechtzeitig abstimmen können, wir erwarten, dass es keine vorläufige Anwendung gibt, und ich kann sie nur dazu aufrufen, das wirklich zu beachten.

Das Zweite: Was Norwegen macht, ist auch nicht im Sinn des Abkommens. Die Zölle massiv zu erhöhen, uns Handelsschranken aufzuerlegen, das Ganze ohne vorherige Konsultation, auch das muss man den Norwegern sehr deutlich sagen. Der Kollege Scholz hat Recht, formal machen sie nichts Illegales, aber das ist nicht freundschaftlich, das ist nicht angekündigt, das ist nicht abgestimmt. Auch hier kann ich sehr gut verstehen, dass sich viele betroffene Landwirte, viele betroffene Unternehmer und vor allem auch viele betroffene Bürger in unseren Mitgliedstaaten darüber ärgern.

  Eric Andrieu (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, mes chers collègues, il y quatre ans – et cela a été dit –, la Norvège a décidé unilatéralement d’augmenter ses droits sur certains produits agricoles européens comme le fromage ou encore la viande d’agneau et de bœuf, ce qui est pourtant contraire à l’esprit de notre accord avec ce pays.

Nous, le Parlement, avions demandé que la Commission entre en négociations avec notre partenaire norvégien pour trouver une solution satisfaisante pour les deux parties. Force est de constater que la Norvège a maintenu ses droits de douane en l’état.

Quatre ans après l’instauration de ces mesures, je demande à ce que la Commission nous communique précisément, pour chacun des États membres, leurs conséquences pour les agriculteurs européens.

Par ailleurs, faute d’être aujourd’hui parvenue à faire revenir la Norvège sur cette décision, la Commission doit a minima s’engager résolument pour protéger nos producteurs de cette situation préjudiciable et faire en sorte que les pertes subies par nos agriculteurs soient intégralement compensées.

Le contentieux doit certes être résolu dans le dialogue, mais l’agriculture ne doit pas, une fois de plus, être sacrifiée sur l’autel de la politique commerciale européenne.

  Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE). – Mr President, here in the European Parliament, we are outraged by the imposition of Norwegian ad valorem duties for certain products in 2013. These increases go against the spirit of good cooperation and the letter of the bilateral agreement with Norway, but this is not the only issue that sheds a bad light on relations between the European Union and Norway. I am referring to the unjustified and gradual appropriation of fish resources in the area of Spitsbergen and the preferential treatment of Norway, which does not respect the provisions of international agreements. This leads European fishermen into bankruptcy, as well as allowing Norway to disrespect and disregard the European Union as a partner.

We cannot accept this. For the sake of respecting international law, for the sake of good mutual cooperation, and to protect European Union industry from bankruptcy, I ask the Commissioner to look for a mutually satisfactory solution to be put in place as soon as possible.

  Ricardo Serrão Santos (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, os fundos associados ao mecanismo do Espaço Económico Europeu são parte da contribuição da Noruega, da Islândia e do Liechtenstein para participarem plenamente no Mercado Único da União Europeia. Este mecanismo tem resultado no desenvolvimento de importantes atividades de investigação científica e de estímulo à inclusão social em Estados-Membros da União Europeia. Até aqui, a relação entre a União Europeia e o Reino da Noruega tem trazido benefícios mútuos.

Apesar dos benefícios nos acordos relacionados com o comércio e o trânsito de pescado a Noruega tem vindo a tomar atitudes unilaterais que nos causam muita preocupação. Entre estas inclui-se o desrespeito do Tratado de Svalbard. Ouvimos o senhor ministro das pescas da Noruega no Parlamento Europeu e os seus argumentos não nos convenceram. A Comissão Europeia tem todo o meu apoio para garantir o acesso equitativo e ambientalmente sustentável dos pescadores da União às águas de Svalbard.

  Bendt Bendtsen (PPE). – Hr. formand! Kommissionen har handlet direkte imod den beslutning, vi vedtog om Norge her i Parlamentet i 2013. Det er med en arrogance uden lige. Kommissionen ikke blot kendte beslutningen, det gør kun ondt værre, men handlede altså direkte imod et politisk flertal her i Parlamentet. Det er en skandale.

Som bekendt hævede Norge toldsatserne massivt for ost, lam, bøfkød og visse blomster. Det gjorde man ensidigt uden nogen form for forudgående forhandling med EU, hvilket har skadet landmænd i Tyskland, Holland, Sverige og Danmark. Det var en handling direkte imod ånden i artikel 19 i EØS-aftalen. Det var et ensidigt protektionistisk skridt fra Norges side.

Kommissionen har mandatet til at forhandle på EU´s vegne, men det ansvar har man ikke taget alvorligt, men blot accepteret overtrædelserne og lukket en ny aftale med Norge. Aftalen trådte i kraft, uden at der er blevet taget hensyn til vores beslutning i Parlamentet. Toldproblemet er uløst.

Kommissionen behandler Parlamentet som et simpelt gummistempel. Margaret Thatcher har en gang kaldt Europa-Parlamentet for et Mickey Mouse-Parlament. Kommissionen har som vogter af traktaten behandlet Europa-Parlamentet som et Mickey Mouse-Parlament. Kommissionen har vist sig at være fløjtende ligeglad med dette Parlament i denne sag. Havde en dansk minister opført sig sådan i mit land mod Parlamentets flertal, var han blevet smidt af. Var det embedsmænd, var de blevet hældt ud af kontoret. Jeg har ikke oplevet noget lignende gennem 25 år i mit politiske liv. Der sidder folk i Kommissionen, som nok egner sig til noget andet end at behandle sager om udenrigshandel.

Hvad vil Kommissionen gøre for, at dette ikke gentager sig? Hvorfor har Kommissionen ignoreret ønskerne i dette hus? Erkender man i det hele taget, at man har begået fejl? Det synes jeg ikke, når jeg hører taleskriveren.

  Christel Schaldemose (S&D). – Hr. formand! Ligesom hovedparten af kollegaerne her i aften vil jeg tilslutte mig kritikken af EU-Kommissionen. Det er selvfølgelig fint, at Norge skal betale mere for at få adgang til EU’s indre marked, men prisen for det har været alt, alt for høj. Reelt har EU-Kommissionen nu accepteret, at Norge godt må have deres meget høje toldmur rettet mod europæiske landbrugsprodukter. Det er uacceptabelt. Det betyder, at Norge kan holde fynske hortensia ude og nordjysk ost, kød, og hvad vi ellers har hørt om her i aften. Det er til stor skade for samhandelen, og det er fuldstændig i strid med det, der er ånden i EØS-aftalen.

Det er altså en ommer, Kommission. Der bliver nødt til at blive gjort noget ved dette. I bliver nødt til at sætte en stopper for Norges toldmur. Den er ulovlig. I bliver nødt til at levere, for dette er uacceptabelt, og dertil kommer, at I også har valgt at sidde dette overhørig i adskillige år. Det var ikke i 2013, det var allerede i 2012, at dette skete. Min opfordring til jer er krystalklar: Tag nu lige og få løst dette problem. Det er uacceptabelt, at en nær allieret som Norge kan lave denne slags tricks mod EU, når landet er en nær allieret og en stor samhandelspartner.

Procedura "catch-the-eye"

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η Νορβηγία το παίζει σε διπλό ταμπλό, αυτό αποδεικνύεται. Από τη μία είναι εντός του ΕΟΧ, όπου κερδίζει, όπου έχει τη δυνατότητα να εξάγει αλιευτικά προϊόντα, ουσιαστικά χωρίς δασμούς, ύψους 5,6 δισεκατομμυρίων ευρώ. Το έκανε κατά την περίοδο 2009-2014 και από το 2014 έως το 2021 έχουμε την ίδια συμφωνία, και θέλει να πάει και παρακάτω.

Από την άλλη πλευρά, επιβάλλει μονομερώς και παράνομα δασμούς. Δασμούς ad valorem, όπως λέγεται. Στα τυριά 277%, στο αρνίσιο κρέας 429%, στο βοδινό κρέας 344%. Απίθανη συμπεριφορά! Νομίζω λοιπόν, ότι θα πρέπει να λάβει τα μέτρα της η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Δεν πρέπει ουσιαστικά να θυσιάζουμε στο όνομα του διεθνούς εμπορίου τον ίδιο τον αγροτικό τομέα της Ένωσης. Αλλά, απ’ ό,τι ακούσαμε, γίνεται και σφετερισμός αλιευτικών πόρων.

Θα υπάρξει σοβαρή αντιμετώπιση από πλευράς Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης; Για την Ισλανδία και το Λιχτενστάιν δε νομίζω ότι υπάρχει θέμα.

(Fine della procedura "catch-the-eye")

  Phil Hogan, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, first of all, the specific issue that was raised by Mr Pabriks, and others, in relation to interinstitutional engagement is something that I certainly understand. A misunderstanding did happen, and it should not have happened. The interinstitutional discussions that are ongoing at the moment will hopefully ensure that this will not happen in the future. I acknowledge the criticism of the Commission that a number of speakers have made and we will try to make sure that there is no repeat of that.

With regard to the specific issue that Mr Pabriks mentioned in relation to a territorial dispute which emerged in relation to a Latvian vessel which was brought into port in northern Norway, this matter is very much part of the discussions that the Commission has been having with Norway over the last couple of months. Discussions are ongoing to try and resolve it on an amicable basis. We want to assure Mr Pabriks that our efforts are continuing to find a mutually acceptable solution.

Norway did unilaterally raise tariffs in an unacceptable fashion, and I agree with all the speakers’ sentiments on that. This is why the European Union intervened and, whilst we did not get a reversal of the tariff lines that were actually increased, we did get compensation in other areas and the best possible deal that we could get at this time. I am sure there will be other occasions where we will have to negotiate with Norway again and we can improve on this. The compensation that we received will be provided directly as a part of the additional quota that Norway grants for particular products. The negotiators in the Commission have estimated that the monetary value of the compensation required from the Norwegian authorities for these measures is EUR 9.8 million in terms of loss of duty, and EUR 5.3 million in terms of trade value. If we deduct these sums from the value of the tariff rate quotas (TRQs) that Norway will now open for the European Union, the remaining value of the Norwegian TRQ concessions will still be higher than the value of the quota concessions for the EU. So I hope that this is seen as a step in the right direction, and that the European Union acted on your behalf against this unilateral decision by the Norwegians to increase tariffs. We got compensation in a particular way and I am sure that in the future we will be able to revisit some of these issues when Norway will be looking for some nice gesture or some particular issues to be resolved by the European Union. It is unfinished business.

I reject the notion, though, that the Commission are passive in relation to trade negotiations generally, because I think Mrs Malmström, as Commissioner for Trade, has done all that she possibly can to be as transparent as possible in the context of negotiations with all countries around the world. I expect that she will continue to do that. She has been more transparent in trade matters than any previous Commissioner, in my view, but I have to bow to your superior knowledge in these matters. I was not a Commissioner before now, but I see that she is trying to keep all institutions fully informed.

I would say to Mr Serrão Santos that there was a particular issue that affected a flowering plant in the Azores that I am sure was also of particular interest to you and to your constituents with regard to the interference of our Norwegian friends in relation to the reclassification of that plant. We continue to make representations on your behalf, and others, in relation to reversing this decision as well. I know you did not specifically mention it, but I know it to be very firmly on your mind, and I want to assure you that we are not neglecting our duties in terms of continuing to make representations on your behalf in relation to this.

I would like to conclude by saying to Mr Andrieu that as far as I am concerned, as Commissioner for Agriculture, I will continue to find open markets and new markets for EU products anywhere we can around the world, from a competitive agricultural industry. I do not agree with Mr Andrieu that trade is bad in agriculture for our farmers, for our businesses and agribusiness. We have now a record level of exports of agricultural products right around the world and we hope we will be able to build on that. This is genuinely creating a lot of jobs in rural areas that would not otherwise be there and also contributing a lot to the economic surpluses of many of our Member States. I hope my good friend Mr Andrieu will not mind if I mention the fact that we disagree on this occasion in relation to our attitude to agricultural exports.

  David Borrelli, relatore. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, penso che la posizione del Parlamento questa sera sia uscita piuttosto chiara. Se dazi non sono previsti, dazi non ci devono essere, non si può lavorare sulle compensazioni, devono sparire i dazi, quindi mi auguro che le promesse che abbiamo sentito qui dal Commissario diventino presto fatti.

Da parte mia aggiungo più che altro una speranza, ovvero che la vicinanza geografica, le affinità di valori e principi e la già buona cooperazione economica con i paesi dell'EFTA sono già una realtà e una solida base, sicuramente, per futuri sviluppi. Futuri ambiti di riflessione tra noi e i paesi dell'EFTA non mancano e spaziano dalla politica artica all'impatto della Brexit, dal futuro dell'area Schengen ai futuri accordi in materia agricola e ittica, quindi sono sicuro che un'attitudine positiva da entrambe le parti possa portare benefici comuni a tutti i nostri cittadini.

  Presidente. – La discussione congiunta è chiusa.

La votazione si svolgerà giovedì 18 maggio 2017.

Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 162)

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne. – Nórsky finančný mechanizmus a finančný mechanizmus Európskeho hospodárskeho priestoru na obdobie do roku 2021 predstavuje príspevky Nórska, Islandu a Lichtenštajnska zamerané na zmierňovanie hospodárskych a sociálnych rozdielov v prijímateľských krajinách a posilňovanie vzájomnej bilaterálnej spolupráce. Celkovo má 15 prijímateľských krajín v prebiehajúcom programovom období k dispozícii 2,8 miliardy eur, čo znamená viac ako 11 percentný nárast oproti minulosti. Jedným z týchto štátov je aj Slovensko, ktoré má bohaté skúsenosti s implementáciou daných fondov z období 2004 – 2009 a 2009 – 2014. Využiť budeme môcť 113 miliónov eur, čo je približne o tretinu viac ako poslednom ukončenom období. Tieto príspevky sú súčasťou dohody, vďaka ktorej majú Nórsko, Island a Lichtenštajnsko plný prístup na jednotný európsky trh. Pomôcť by mali pri napĺňaní cieľov Stratégie Európa 2020 a podpore udržateľného hospodárskeho rastu. Na Slovensku sa budú zameriavať na ekologizáciu podnikov a vytváranie tzv. zelených pracovných miest, protipovodňové aktivity, boj s domácim násilím či sociálnu inklúziu Rómov.