Community Strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars and light-commercial vehicles (debate)
President
The next item is the report by Chris Davies, on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, on the Community strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from passenger cars and light commercial vehicles.
Chris Davies
rapporteur. - Madam President, let me start with an accusatory question to the Commissioner. Some of us have pointed out repeatedly over the years that the car makers were failing to comply with the terms of the voluntary agreement to reduce emissions. So, why is it that, some five years after this first became evident, we still do not have legislation before us requiring the manufacturers to meet the agreed targets, because with each month of delay it becomes harder to achieve the ambitions which were originally possible?
This sets the framework for today's debate. Average emissions from new cars stand now at a little less than 160 g of CO2 per kilometre - a long way adrift from the target of 140 g by 2008. Therefore, it is not surprising that Members here want car makers to be punished for breaking their commitment. Yet the fact is that the manufacturers have broken no laws and, however much we may wish it were otherwise, the level of emissions is where it is.
The Commission has announced that it wants to stick to the medium-term target setting that voluntary agreement of 120 g by 2012, but says that 10 g of this will now be achieved by complementary measures. I call this a political fudge: it has reduced the clarity of the target and encouraged some manufacturers to think that they can use biofuels as a means of avoiding significant design changes.
But, given where we are, are the target and the timetable set by the Commission still appropriate, because, of late, the reduction in average emissions has been hardly more than 1 g a year? The Commission suggests that this should instantly be transformed into 5 g a year. Well, that can be achieved - and the technology exists to do it - but at what cost?
Emission reductions must be made a priority for car makers, but they have to be achieved at the lowest possible expense. That means giving industry specific targets and sufficient time to make the changes. These improvements may increase the price of new cars but, then, reduced emissions mean improved fuel economy, so those who buy the cars will save money as they drive them. Get it right and we can take action which will be good for the environment, good for the consumer and good for the future of car making.
There is a debate in this Parliament about whether, in a pre-legislative report of this kind, environmentalists should be pressing to send a strong signal to the Commission to be tough, or whether we should try to be realistic in framing measures which might actually be those that end up close to the final form at the end of the day. That is why I am asking Parliament to break from the Commission position and recommend that the target for average emissions from new cars should be set not for 2012 but for 2015 and should be 125 g to be achieved by technical means alone.
By all means let us encourage the use of complementary measures to reduce emissions, but as an addition, not as a substitute, for these technical improvements. For those Members who say this is not sufficient, let me just say that next month we will be voting on the CARS 21 report and, in that, the recommendation is 135 g by 2015. We can end up voting for one thing this month and something else next month. If I can help bring together the different positions of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and of the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, then I believe it will strengthen Parliament's position and influence.
I believe that manufacturers should be set absolutely clear targets with no room for wriggling. This report insists that failure to comply should result in the application of tough financial penalties. I propose an internal trading mechanism to give manufacturers maximum flexibility and give incentives to the makers of low-emission vehicles. But, ultimately, it is the penalty regime that matters and that, I suspect, will test the Commission's resolve.
Equally important is the need to set long-term targets to reduce emissions to below 100 g by 2020. Given sufficient time, and an absolute requirement, I have no doubt that manufactures can achieve reductions of nearly 40% over the next 13 years.
Finally, let me just touch upon the way in which cars are promoted. The manufacturers always claim that they respond to consumer demand, but I do not believe this. I believe they shape consumer demand. Studies have shown that a very high proportion of advertising expenditure goes towards the promotion of cars on the basis of power and size and speed.
The car industry is supposed to be drawing up a voluntary code of advertising conduct but we have had our fingers burnt through voluntary codes and any such measure should be regarded with suspicion. It is time that advertisements give consumers more details of the fuel economy and emission performance of the vehicles on sale. This information should be upfront and not buried away in the small print. We need to encourage car makers to compete on the basis that their cars are safe and stylish and environmentally-friendly.
Let me finish with these remarks. Europe's car makers produce fine vehicles. The technical expertise of the companies themselves is much to be admired, but for too long they have ignored the contribution their products are making to the threat posed by climate change. For the sake of the planet, for the good of an industry that needs to stay at the cutting edge of world-class technology, it is time now for law-makers to steer them firmly in a greener direction.
Stavros Dimas
Member of the Commission. - (EL) Madam President, road transport, along with the other sectors of the economy, must contribute to efforts to reduce CO2 emissions in a bid to achieve the Kyoto Protocol targets and our future commitments for 2020 and beyond.
Road transport is the second highest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. Passenger cars alone are responsible for 12% of the EU's total emissions. It is worth noting that while total emissions in the EU of the 27 Member States fell by nearly 8% in the period between 1990 and 2005, emissions from road transport increased over the same time period by 25%. Here I should remind you that from 1995 the Commission set the target of 120 grammes, and the car industry was aware of it. Let me also remind you that there was a voluntary agreement on achieving a reduction of CO2 emissions to 140 gr per km by 2008. The Commission realised that this target would not be met by the car industry and the industry itself admitted this. As a natural consequence, the European Commission carried out a re-examination last February of the Community strategy for the reduction of CO2 emissions by new cars, with mandatory legislation based on an integrated approach through which the European aim of reducing emissions by new cars to 120 gr. by 2012 would be met.
Dealing with the problem of CO2 emissions from cars is also expected to contribute to the hoped-for reinforced EU energy protection, by reducing our dependence on imported fossil fuels. This, of course, will lead to a reduction in consumer expenditure on fuel.
Madam President, I am pleased to note that your report approves of our initiative in putting forward a legislative framework to reduce CO2 emissions by cars, and I thank the rapporteur, Mr Davies, for his efforts, as well as Mrs Harms and Mr Bulfon from the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, and the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection respectively, for their suggestions on the subject.
The report sets out ambitious targets for the reduction of CO2 and stresses that greater and more long-term progress will be needed. The challenge is now to transform this political support into practical action.
The draft report proposes various important areas of work are, two of which I should like to comment on.
Firstly, your report points to the legitimate need of the car industry to have a time limit to be able to adjust smoothly to the new legislative arrangements. Of course, as I have said before, this reduction strategy dates back to 1995. Last month at the Frankfurt Motor Show, it was clear that the European car industry had made a significant response to the challenge of our new proposal. Within a short period of time car manufacturers have managed to put forward economically affordable technical solutions, which are significantly fuel-efficient. I am absolutely convinced that with our revised strategy and the imminent legislative framework we will offer car manufacturers equal terms of competition. Environmental performance will be the motivation, not competition based merely on car size or engine capacity. We can already see the first results. Now that petrol prices are reaching record highs, we must waste no opportunity in setting ambitious targets for the reduction of CO2 emissions in the European car industry. That will act as a strong incentive for innovation and renewal; it will also allow for major exports to emerging countries, where there is a great demand for fuel-efficient cars.
Secondly, your report points to the need for certain important parameters to take into account in future legislation, such as those determined by social impact and affordable prices for consumers. Of course, fair treatment for all sides is very important. I want to stress that we firmly intend to propose legislation to assess the situation of all car manufacturers and avoid any unjustifiable distortion of competition. The overall target will be apportioned between car manufacturers in a sustainable and socially just manner. The integrated approach that we are proposing will help the sector to prepare for the challenges ahead and will avoid an unfair burden on specific enterprises or on the sector as a whole.
These preliminary comments conclude what I have to say. Thank you for your attention.
Rebecca Harms
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. - (DE) Madam President, Commissioner, may I say to Mr Davies that we should recall clearly why we have to discuss stringent binding emission limits. The reason is that, following a voluntary agreement concluded between the Commission and the car industry more than ten years ago, the latter has knowingly and wilfully failed to meet its targets. The present situation, as we know, is not down to bad luck or an unforeseeable turn of events but to decisions taken by the senior management of manufacturing groups.
For that reason, Mr Davies, I am somewhat stunned at the clear message you have now sent through your amendments - which I saw for the first time today, although they may have existed for longer - that, in spite of what was decided in the Environment Committee, you no longer have any interest in exerting pressure on the innovative potential and innovative power of the car industry in Europe
My opinion is that we can only achieve Europe's climate targets through the strict limits that were originally proposed by the Commission. It is also my opinion - and you rightly addressed this point, Mr Dimas - that we shall not be able to obtain security of energy supply for our transport needs unless we ensure without delay that cars become more efficient, because we cannot stand by and watch as oil that is valuable and hard to come by continues to be squandered on our roads.
The third point, to which the Committee on Industry, whose opinion I drafted, attaches such great importance is the need to ensure at long last that the knowledge and ability of engineers and developers in the car industry are brought into play, and that these good engineers are not further stifled by misguided management policies. I am firmly convinced that nothing but efficient, climate-friendly and affordable but stylish cars would be on the market within a very short time and that those who are easing the pressure for innovation today by setting what are truly very soft time limits for achieving reduction targets, Mr Davies, will bear responsibility if the European car industry proves uncompetitive in the long run and if jobs are lost in car manufacturing in Europe.
It goes without saying that the global car market will change out of all recognition - assuming we accept the underlying premises of our climate policy and our UN climate policy - and that those who are now applying the brakes to the process of reducing emission limits will then bear responsibility for the car industry in Europe going to the dogs and for a situation in which we ourselves no longer take our own climate policy seriously.
Wolfgang Bulfon
draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. - (DE) Madam President, I acknowledge the car as a universal means of transport, and I acknowledge the contribution of the car industry to the prosperity of Europeans. I do not, however, believe in the car as a fetish. For that reason it is incomprehensible to me that manufacturers should design cars to travel at speeds in excess of 125 miles per hour.
Building efficient, environment-friendly cars is a necessity, given all the evidence of climate change. In addition, Europe is duty-bound to set a good example to the booming emerging markets. It is ultimately the consumer's choice that will determine which cars are driven in the years to come. This is why I argued in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection for transparent and more easily understandable information on the emission ratings of vehicles. I call on the Commission to take this report as the starting point for the presentation of an ambitious legislative proposal and to act quickly.
Martin Callanan
on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. - Madam President, can I first of all thank Mr Davies very much indeed for all the work that he has put into this report, and for his extremely constructive cooperation. I am happy, on behalf of my Group, to endorse the target of 125 g by 2015 that Mr Davies has outlined. It is a target which, I think, is extremely environmentally ambitious, but it is also achievable by what is a very successful European industry employing hundreds of thousands of people, and we must ensure that it remains a successful European industry. I am convinced that those European car manufacturers will continue to produce some of the most environmentally friendly cars in the world, and these new targets - which, we should never forget, are the tightest in the world - will help them to achieve even cleaner cars in the future.
But the missing link in this debate is, of course, that of consumer demand. We must make sure that consumers are demanding cleaner, more environmentally friendly cars, and, there, the Member States themselves have a very important role to play through their tax systems, which is, rightly, a matter for them. They can, however, considerably affect consumer demand by introducing the correct environmentally friendly taxation schemes.
We also, in my view, need contributions to CO2 reduction from all of the related sectors: from the oil companies, from the biofuel producers, from the tyre manufacturers etc., all of whom have a contribution to make and can help us to achieve our ambitious targets.
I have also tabled some amendments to water down what I think are some very prescriptive requirements on advertisers, which Mr Davies has included in his report. I think they are grossly disproportionate to the problem, and I am sure that, given sufficient opportunity, the manufacturers and the advertisers can come up with a binding voluntary code which would be equally effective.
I have also tabled - jointly with Mr Davies - an amendment to recognise the contribution of small-volume manufacturers who do not have a huge product range with which to average out the emissions requirements. I hope the Commission will take those into account when formulating the legislation.
Marie-Noëlle Lienemann
on behalf of the PSE Group. - (FR) Ladies and gentlemen, Madam President, Commissioner, this is a matter of urgency, as we all know. Al Gore, who rang the alarm bell, has been awarded the Nobel Prize, and it is time for the European Union to stop talking and to act, because this is not a new issue. There was a voluntary agreement entered into by car manufacturers to achieve average emissions of 140g of CO2 per kilometre by 2008, and that agreement was not kept. I would remind you that the European Parliament itself fixed the target of 120g by 2005 or 2010 at the latest. There is no justification today for backing away from those targets. So what we need is an ambitious, unambiguous and binding directive and it needs to set targets in two stages.
First, in the short term, we need a target of 120g of CO2 for new cars and a 10g reduction to be achieved through complementary measures. We need to move swiftly, however, and we therefore support the vote in the Committee on the Environment for the target to be achieved in 2012, with binding steps from 2009 onwards so that by 2012 the target will be met in full for all vehicles.
As the second stage, we believe it is essential to set targets of 95g for 2020 and 70g for 2025, with an intermediary deadline in 2016 to ensure that we are on track. We therefore support the ambitious roadmap prepared by the Committee on the Environment because we think it succeeds in setting clearly visible standards, while at the same time confronting us with the technology gap that we need to overcome in order to meet our Kyoto Protocol commitments. Yes, of course, it is going to be expensive and there will have to be negotiation about the price of new vehicles. The first thing to note is that not all cars and not all manufacturers achieved the same effectiveness under the voluntary agreement.
Yes, we do need to favour small cars over large cars and we need to come up with tax measures, new practices and even bans in some cases, particularly in built-up areas, to prevent large vehicles, including 4x4s, from polluting our towns and cities all day long and producing huge quantities of CO2. This question is particularly important because the bigger the vehicles that manufacturers produce, the bigger their profit margins. We therefore need to guide the market in such a way that manufacturers producing smaller, less polluting vehicles can be more profitable than those producing big high-polluting cars and, as well as setting standards, we expect the Commission to propose strategies for moving in that direction.
The last point I should like to stress is the importance of proper information for vehicle purchasers to help them pick their way through this minefield, and specifically we need to get rid of misleading advertising. That is why my group has tabled an amendment requiring a labelling system for all cars, based on an A-G format for energy efficiency, so that all consumers can make an active choice in favour of the environment.
Holger Krahmer
on behalf of the ALDE Group. - (DE) Madam President, when it comes to discussing CO2 emissions, we are very quick to talk about cars, simply because the way to a person's guilty conscience is through their car. That is why Mrs Harms, the Greens and many environmental organisations are particularly keen to talk about cars.
We are faced with a broken voluntary pledge - no doubt about that - and we therefore need regulation. We have no alternative. What you came here and told us, Mrs Harms, about the voluntary commitment being deliberately and strategically torpedoed by the car industry seems rather far-fetched to me. Let me just remind you that a market comprises not only suppliers of products but also those who demand them. We ourselves help to create demand too, and shortly, when we are driven home by the car service, we shall be using those very cars that do not meet the targets to which the car makers committed themselves.
I should like to see an initiative from the Greens. If your intentions are honourable, please now make sure that the small cars which meet next year's voluntary target are ordered for Parliament. In future legislation, it is imperative for us to ensure that the desired reductions stand up to cost-benefit analysis. The Stern report which you and the Greens like to quote, Mrs Harms, calculates that, of 13 potential CO2-reduction measures, those targeting cars at the very top of the price range are actually the least effective. Anyone making political demands for stringent emission limits and more efficient cars must recognise that the development and production cycle in the car industry takes five to seven years. It is by failing to recognise that, Mrs Harms, that we put jobs at risk, not by recognising it.
I am therefore pleased that our rapporteur has done just this by saying that it is unrealistic to set any deadline before 2015. Tomorrow Parliament will vote in favour of one of the options on the table, and it must be said that, whatever it is, whatever year is designated and whatever average value is set, it will still be more stringent and ambitious than any other regime in the world. We should not lose sight of that. There is an extremely fine line between carrot and stick for our car industry, and at the end of the day we must take great care to ensure that we really do export the best products and not perhaps our industry.
Claude Turmes
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. - Madam President, I think this is the right moment to inform the outside world about what this Callanan-Davies deal is. So, what is it? It is delaying action from 2012 to 2015. We have calculated the CO2 impact: 125 g in 2015 is worse than 130 g in 2012. And the second part of the deal is exemptions for small-volume producers. That is 300 000 cars a year, so that is not 'small volumes'.
I think that what we are voting on this week, Mr Davies' initiatives, are from a Green Liberal climate hero who has become a climate Judas. It is really incredible: instead of using the possible centre-left majority in this House for 120 g in 2012, siding with reactionary Tories to help the car industry in Europe to win time - that is really not the way forward.
Kartika Tamara Liotard
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. - (NL) Mr President, in the past few months my fellow Members and I have met a great many representatives of the motor industry. I do not think there has ever been so much lobbying over a report. The industry has used every possible argument to prevent measures limiting CO2 emissions or at any rate to delay them. It seems that they have won over many of my fellow Members, including the rapporteur, although fortunately the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety was fully aware of its task.
Let me be clear: the motor industry is entirely responsible for this Commission proposal. Attempts to agree on voluntary regulation were a miserable failure. It seems that only compulsory standards are effective. I find complaints that it all has to be done so quickly quite hypocritical, because the industry has known for years that these measures had to come. The environment has to be cared for now, with drastic measures. We have to do that, for ourselves and for future generations.
I am therefore urging a vote against Amendment 42, tabled by Mr Callanan and Mr Davies. The amendment increases the maximum amount of CO2 and postpones the agreed date of 2012 to 2015. That gives commercial interests priority over the environment and we absolutely cannot allow that. What is Mr Davies trying to do to us?
Malcolm Harbour
Madam President, on behalf of my colleagues in the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, I would like to thank Mr Davies for the way he has approached this, particularly his willingness to listen, and for a number of innovative approaches that we see in his report. I also want to thank our rapporteur, Mr Bulfon, and to thank Mr Davies for adopting a number of our proposals in his report.
We have heard a lot of debate and discussion this evening about the car industry missing targets and about how we are going to move forward. But I would like to echo what the Commissioner said and use the word 'incentive'. This programme, and to meet the programme that Mr Davies has set out, is going to need billions and billions of euros of investment in new products and is going to tie up immense resources in engineering and product development.
(Objections)
I see my Green colleagues already shaking their heads; they seem to think that the technology is there, that overnight we can change a fundamental industry in that direction. This is entirely unrealistic - where is the investment going to come from? It is going to come from the profits of the car companies. We need to sustain those profits so that they can reinvest them. This demand here will be the biggest change and turnaround we have ever seen in a major industry. Let us just remember that. Let us not just sit here and make unrealistic demands. This is a practical approach.
But, colleagues, let me remind you - and I refuse to accept this sort of crowing - I am absolutely not a lobbyist for the car industry. I have argued for a long time that we need to set demanding targets. We are moving towards a legislative approach for the first time. But you should be listening as well. And let me just make this other point. Ideas about complementary measures and other things: what we are talking about here is a complete change in the way that people approach transport and motoring. These new vehicles will come on the market over a long period of time. But actually the complementary measures we are talking about - the consumer measures, the consumer information - those are the real incentives that we need to bring in. I am sorry to overrun, Madam President, but you will admit I was interrupted by some colleagues in an entirely unnecessary way.
Matthias Groote
(DE) Madam President, Commissioner, this report, which Chris Davies has drawn up on the initiative of the Environment Committee, should signal to the Commission that the European Parliament is serious about reducing CO2 emissions. When I see the amendments on the table, I start to wonder about that.
There are three points we should bear in mind. Firstly, from 1 January 2012, new cars in Europe must not emit more than 120g of CO2 per kilometre. We should not tamper with that date or the emission limit. In 1998 the car industry made a voluntary commitment to reduce CO2-emission levels in its new vehicles. In the light of news reports about the continuing advance of climate change, I see no reason at all for us to interfere with the deadline or the ceiling.
Secondly, future legislation must spell out clearly that the CO2 emissions of all cars must be reduced. Large cars must make a greater contribution, but smaller cars must contribute too, so that we can achieve 120 grams by 2012.
My third point is that cars must remain affordable for people. I agree with the previous speaker on that. I come from a predominantly rural area, where people are dependent on cars to get them to their places of work. For this reason, future legislation must perform a balancing act to reconcile the needs of the environment with those of the economy.
What good are strict emission limits if people can no longer afford new cars and drive about in their ageing vehicles? It takes more than eight and a half years to renew the entire fleet of passenger cars on Europe's roads, and this must be in the back of our minds when we adopt new legislation. Future legislation on CO2 emissions from passenger cars should be guided by the need to guarantee better protection of the climate as well as affordable driving.
Péter Olajos
(HU) Thank you, Mr President. Ladies and gentlemen, I could begin like one of those old jokes: I have some good news and some bad news; which do you want to hear first?
I will start with the good news: the European Union is leading the battle to combat climate change; the 27 EU countries are now doing more than anywhere else in the world to halt climate change. Now for the bad news: if the thousands of scientists around the world are right, then even this is much too little. What then are we to do?
The answer leaves no room for doubt: we need a paradigm shift. It is to be commended that Mr Davies' report highlights a number of important elements. However, anyone who thinks that we will have solved anything by reducing carbon dioxide emissions from the ever-increasing number of vehicles we use to 120g or 95g is gravely mistaken.
In my opinion, we can and must vote in favour of this report, and at the same time we must compel vehicle manufacturers to produce smaller and more efficient engines. We must not stop there, however. The European Union must commit itself unequivocally to technological change in the transport sector too. Every means available must be used to promote research and development and innovation in this field, and we must stop providing any kind of support for conventional technologies.
Member States must borrow the best solutions from each other as soon as possible to provide manufacturers and consumers with legal, economic and other incentives. Furthermore, while we are on the subject, I do not believe, for example, that biofuels are going provide the ultimate solution to our problems, especially not the current, first-generation biofuels. They do seem, however, to be a necessary step on the way towards alternative fuels, as are hydrogen and electric propulsion systems and many other systems that are not yet widely used or have yet to be devised. Let us help to foster these with the present vote and future legislation. Thank you very much.
Linda McAvan
Mr President, I will not comment on this new cosying up between the British Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, as has been displayed by Mr Callanan and Mr Davies here tonight. Maybe it is the new leadership battle for the Lib-Dems that has been going on, since some of their new leaders even have lookalikes!
What I want to talk about is the importance of sticking with ambitious targets. I do not think industry can have been very surprised that the Commission talked about 2012 as a date for the targets or about the level of the target, because, of course, we know these have been mooted for many years.
Back in March, the EU leaders signed up to cut overall CO2 emissions by 20% by 2020. If we are going to get there, we need to bring forward legislation which helps us to get there. So, here we are at the very first hurdle towards that, and I do not think it is time now to fail in this European Parliament. People out there are watching. They want to know we are serious about tackling climate change.
Of course we have to work with industry, and Mr Davies talks about punishing industry. Nobody wants to punish industry because the car industry, as Mr Harbour has just said, is a major European industry; it is a major employer and we have to work with them because only they can deliver these changes that we need to see.
So we need to work with them and we need to listen and I think what we need beyond everything else is a long-term project which everybody has signed up to so that everybody knows where we are going and everybody can try to get there.
Finally, on labelling and advertising. We need a clear system, a green car labelling system, that every consumer can understand, just as they understand, when they buy white goods, how those white goods work. The white goods manufacturers of inefficient goods have actually seen their products fall off the market. We need to see the same for cars and I hope we can work together with industry to get a green labelling system that everybody understands.
Andres Tarand
(ET) So far our climate policy has focused principally on the energy sector. Aviation is the next sector which will be incorporated into the European Union's emissions trading system. Land transport, however, has a major influence on climate change and the Davies report is a thoroughly welcome initiative. The car industry needs clear, long-term targets for reducing the level of CO2 emissions in exhaust gases and I support Mr Davies' approach whereby long-term limits will be established for CO2 emissions, for example for 2020 or 2025.
The car industry has had plenty of time to reduce the level of CO2 emissions. We should not accept continued procrastination: the technological solutions already exist. Similarly, I hope that Parliament will support the amendment I tabled to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Security, under which the car industry would have to reduce CO2 in exhaust emissions to 120g/km by 2012.
Małgorzata Handzlik
(PL) Mr President, I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on the report. When discussing the whole issue of the Community's strategy to reduce CO2 emissions, it should be remembered that, in Europe alone, two million people are employed in the automotive industry, and another 10 million jobs are linked to this sector. This industry represents 3.5% of European GDP. The export value is EUR 33.5 billion and, what is no less significant, each year motor taxes generate EUR 365 billion for Member States.
The Community's strategy to reduce CO2 emissions will be successful only if it is thought through properly and provides sufficient time for producers to develop appropriate technological solutions. I am in favour of introducing an appropriate transition period because the production cycle in the automotive industry is complex and needs a long time to adapt. It would seem therefore that the best date for the introduction of the regulations would be 2015, also because the Euro 6 Regulation will come into force in that year. I also think that there should be an integrated approach to CO2 emissions. Research studies have indicated that to achieve the objective of 120g/km just through improvements in automotive technology will result in an increase of around EUR 3 600 in the average price of a car, which may result in many brands of cars becoming less accessible to the average EU citizen.
For this reason, basing CO2 emissions exclusively on engine technology is the most expensive solution. One could achieve the 120g level by introducing additional solutions, such as introducing biofuels to a greater degree than at present, as well as by introducing additional solutions in vehicles, such as signals to change gears or low resistance tyres.
Dorette Corbey
(NL) Mr President, road transport is a major source of pollution. In 2005 transport, cars and lorries, accounted for 27% of total emissions of greenhouse gases. If we want to tackle climate change, we cannot ignore the motor sector. Unless action is taken, emissions will increase, not fall.
Unfortunately the motor industry has failed to take the initiative. Years ago, motor manufacturers themselves made a commitment to reduce emissions. The industry has built better and safer cars in the past few years. A great deal of progress has been made, but unfortunately engine efficiency has been sadly neglected.
The target of 140g in 2008 will therefore not be achieved, certainly not on a voluntary basis. Legislation is unfortunately not enough to achieve efficiency. Legislation must be aimed at achieving an average emission of 120g in 2012, not in 2015. A long-term target of 80g per kilometre is needed because we have set an ambitious goal for 2020 and that must also be reflected in the motor industry.
Ivo Belet
(NL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, private cars are responsible for 12% of all CO2 emissions. We all know that. It is clear that that sector has to make a major effort to achieve the agreed standards for 2020. It is also clear that we have to be ambitious and set the bar high.
It is clear, too, that car manufacturers will not be able to do that alone. An integrated approach is needed; they should not have to take sole responsibility. Flanking measures therefore have to be taken. Better air conditioning, better roads and a change in driver behaviour - in other words, all of us. The sector deserves support from the government because the motor industry employs a large number of people, directly or indirectly.
First of all, I am therefore appealing to national governments to modify their motor taxes as a matter of urgency, so that consumers switch to environmentally friendly cars of their own accord. Secondly, I appeal to the Commissioner, the Commission and Europe to conduct an assessment of the 2009 multiannual budget in order to invest even more research funding in new research technologies for low CO2 cars. I know you recently announced an ambitious programme to invest EUR 500 million in hydrogen technology. Of course that is fantastic, but it is medium-term. Obviously solutions have to be found for the new engine technology in the short term as well.
I am sure that, whether it is by 2012 or a little later, smart car manufacturers will reach the goal of 120g much more quickly than planned. Simply because - and I do not want to be naïve - the market demands it. In that sense the context has changed completely in the past couple of years. It is therefore important that we approve the compromise proposals by Mr Callanan on marketing and advertising, because they are transparent. It is a question of giving consumers clear information.
Stavros Dimas
Member of the Commission. - Mr President, I would like to start by expressing my appreciation for the quality of this evening's debate. I would like to comment, time permitting, on three of the issues you have addressed.
Regarding the ambitious level of the strategy, the Commission has proposed its strategy on the basis of a thorough impact assessment. We have analysed the various options of a level to reduce CO2 emissions from cars, taking into account measurability, monitorability and accountability.
On this basis we have proposed to deliver the 120 g of CO2 per kilometre objective through an integrated approach. One hundred and thirty grams will be delivered through passenger car technology and ten additional grams will be provided through complementary measures, including fuel efficiency targets for light commercial vehicles and an increased use of biofuels.
This approach towards achieving the 120 g target is, in our view, the most cost-effective combination of options, and we will thus propose legislation accordingly.
Secondly, the legislative framework implementing the integrated approach will be the central pillar of our revised strategy, but it is not the only one. As underlined in your report, finding ways to encourage consumer demand for fuel-efficient cars will enable us significantly to reduce their environmental impact, along with the fuel bill of drivers in the European Union.
In the context of the review in the Car Labelling Directive, we will take into account the recommendations made by Parliament in the field of consumer information.
Thirdly, the Commission agrees that a longer-term strategy should be considered, in order to provide predictability to car makers. We will thus consider the potential for progress beyond 2012, and the 120 g objective, on the basis of an impact assessment. In this context, the Commission will take into account the recommendations made by Parliament concerning future emission targets.
I believe I have addressed some of the main concerns that have been voiced, and I hope that Plenary will adopt a resolution which strongly supports the approach proposed by the Commission.
President
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday, 24 October.


Food prices in Europe (short presentation)
President
The next item is the report by Mrs Batzeli, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the Food prices in Europe.
Katerina Batzeli
rapporteur. - (EL) Mr President, I should like to start by thanking the shadow rapporteurs in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development and the four jointly competent committees of the European Commission with which we collaborated in depth in order to produce this report.
Commissioner, I should like to start by asking a very simple question: when consumers go to supermarkets to buy milk or yoghurt, why do they buy it? For the milk and the yoghurt or for the bottle and the tub? I put this question to you because the perception and attitude have been skilfully conveyed to consumers that they are buying a foodstuff where the industry that processes it, markets it and transports it is now more important than the agricultural product, the raw material itself. About 15 years ago, agricultural produce accounted for approximately 50% of the final value of the product; today it does not exceed 20%.
Farmers, both arable and livestock, are now 'anonymous' persons for consumers. Their bargaining power, on the question not only of the final price but also of the preservation of the qualitative and nutritional elements in the final product, lags behind the role which they should have.
We are not attempting to draw dividing lines, to classify the productive sectors in the supply chain, the farmers, manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers as 'the good', 'the bad' and 'the ugly', because I do not believe that we are living in a 'Wild West' society and economy; I believe that we are living in an economy based on the regulations of the internal market of the European Union, a market which provides opportunity for growth and competitiveness when it operates transparently, but which ousts or eliminates producers and economic activities when unfair and opaque functions penetrate it.
The question we therefore have to deal with here today and in the future has two aspects:
firstly that of a rapprochement between consumers and producers through a quality policy in the food sector and by strengthening and jointly formulating ways of giving consumers more direct accessibility to productive agricultural areas and agricultural producers;
secondly that of safeguarding - and I do not mean determining - the income of producers and consumers through a transparent pricing policy which will include mandatory arrangements for controlling and supervising intermediate productive sectors along the entire supply chain.
Obviously here we mainly mean the small and medium-sized enterprises at local and national level, as well as the large parent and subsidiary companies based in Europe and the workers, which must operate on the terms of a transparent internal market and not on the terms of economic offshoots such as cartels and oligopolies.
Today, therefore, where (among other things):
real producer prices are falling dangerously;
consumer prices are nearly five to ten times farm gate prices and, despite the reduction in inflation, consumer prices remain very high;
the degree of concentration in the retail trade and in other processing companies has quadrupled over the last five years and the concentration will increase as a result of the economic crisis and the bankruptcy of small- and medium-sized and local enterprises, a state of affairs that will make negotiations between producers, companies and consumers ever more difficult;
the malfunctions in the supply chain and its practices are evidently putting terms of healthy competition at risk,
it is absolutely vital for there to be a coordinated European plan and integrated interventions in the food sector, from the farm to the fork. It would not be an exaggeration if the Commission's next intervention after the regulation and supervision of the financial system were to be in the food sector which, moreover, is also directly linked to the speculative moves of the said sector.
Citizens have the impression that it is the supply chains, the manufacturing industry and the retail trade which regulate the housewife's shopping basket and not the income policy of the state and of the European Union.
I therefore believe that, in voting for the report by the Committee on Agriculture and waiting for the final proposals of the European Union on this matter, we shall address the perennial problems of the operation of the food market, which in turn must also operate impartially for the benefit of European citizens, European farmers and developing countries and create a sense of security in the laws of the market and the institutions.
Louis Michel
First of all, I would like to thank Mrs Batzeli and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, who drew up this report. We are discussing it at a time of major difficulties, at a crucial time for the European Union food supply chain.
As you all know, the recession has led to a sudden slowdown in activity in most economic sectors in the European Union. The agricultural sector has seen a real collapse in market prices, something which puts a serious question mark over farm incomes. The situation is particularly serious in sectors of high added value, such as meat and dairy products.
In this context, it is essential for the food supply chain to work effectively if we wish to mitigate the effects of the crisis on farm incomes and ensure that consumers enjoy food products at more modest prices. That is why the food supply chain and the issue of food prices remain at the forefront of the Commission's concerns.
In addition, analysis of the structural factors leads us to fear a further escalation of prices of agricultural raw materials in the medium and long term. By improving the operation of the food supply chain, it ought to be possible in future to avoid such high rises in food prices and to curb the instability of consumer prices. I share most of the concerns raised in the report in relation to the need to improve the overall operation of the food supply chain. In particular, there is a need for increased transparency all along the chain, in order to offer consumers better information and to improve the way added value is shared out along the chain.
Since last year, the Commission has introduced a series of initiatives aimed at improving the operation of the food supply chain. As a result, the High Level Group on the Competitiveness of the Agro-Food Industry has just drawn up a set of strategic recommendations. In addition, a Green Paper on Agricultural Product Quality was presented last year.
In the communication on food prices adopted in December, the Commission also proposed, in the form of a road map, several solutions for improving the operation of the food supply chain in Europe. It is absolutely essential to make progress in the implementation of this road map. In particular we must make progress in the introduction of a permanent European Observatory on the food supply chain and food prices. By supplying reliable information on prices from one end of the chain to the other, we will be able to help combat the lack of transparency, whilst improving our understanding of how the chain operates.
We must also make progress in analysing how added value is shared out along the chain. I attach particular importance to this issue. As is recognised in the communication on food prices, imbalances between the negotiating power of agricultural producers and the rest of the chain are having a serious effect on producer margins in the agricultural sector. It goes without saying that an effort to bring clarity and understanding to the question of how added value is shared out would be a first step towards restoring the balance of negotiating power all along the chain. In this regard, it should be stressed that the competitiveness of the European Union's food chain cannot be built to the detriment of some of its component parts. It is essential for food producers and retailers in the agro-food sector to be able to continue to rely on a sustainable, competitive agricultural production platform within the European Union.
I am convinced that once it has been fully implemented, the road map proposed by the Commission will allow us to answer most of the questions and concerns raised in Mrs Batzeli's report.
President
The presentation is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 26 March 2009.
Written Statements (Rule 142)
Roselyne Lefrançois
The report on which we must reach a decision on Thursday attempts to respond in practical terms to the difficulties of millions of our citizens who are suffering increased food prices.
In a context of decreased purchasing power in Europe, it was important that Parliament reach a decision on a problem for which the solutions are, nevertheless, known. In fact, the difference in prices between the beginning and the end of the food supply chain can be as high as a one to five ratio and, even if the liberals still refuse to admit it, the problems of the market need tackling to ensure reasonable prices for consumers and decent revenues for farmers. I myself have proposed that the importance of market-regulation instruments - more necessary than ever in the face of the crisis that we are going through - be reaffirmed in the text.
However, to ensure that 'accessible price' does not become another way of saying 'poor-quality product', I have also asked for the notion of incentives for organic sectors to be inserted into the report. It is desirable for consumers to be able to access quality products at reasonable prices, and this thanks to an ambitious policy of financial incentives aimed at this type of agricultural production.
Maria Petre
Food prices have seen a very sharp rise recently. There are two reasons for this: firstly, the global agricultural and food product crisis and secondly, market concentration, which has increased from 21.7% in 1990 to over 70% at the moment.
The prices paid by consumers are on average five times higher than those paid to producers. Supermarket chains very often impose unfair conditions and make it difficult for farmers and small suppliers to access the market.
I support the European Commission's idea of creating a European market monitoring system. I also support the idea of a European competition network.
The funds from the Rural Development Programme should provide larger allocations in favour of producers.
The idea of revamping the 'local products' concept and more effective support for traditional food markets are solutions which I strongly support.
Theodor Dumitru Stolojan
I welcome the Batzeli report which highlights the large discrepancies between the prices of food products in supermarkets and the prices paid to producers. This is, unfortunately, the reality too in countries with a standard of living far below the European average, like Romania.
If we reject any proposal for price controls, we cannot then fail to notice that the supermarkets' negotiating power is excessive in relation to the producers. This is also an area where we can take more firm action as part of the policy for protecting competition and consumers.


Conclusions of the EU/Russia Summit (31 May - 1 June) (continuation of debate)
President
We shall resume the debate on the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the conclusions of the EU/Russia Summit (31 May - 1 June).
Helmut Scholz
Madam President, Baroness Ashton, in the European Parliament, we frequently discuss the relationship between the European Union and the Russian Federation. I have signed Parliament's joint motion for a resolution on behalf of my group, despite the limited nature of the statements relating to the results of the recent EU/Russia Summit.
However, I would like to make the following additional point. This was the first summit after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and, for this reason, the Russians hoped that the European Union would take a more determined approach. For Russia, the EU is a natural strategic partner with which it has links as a result of our shared values. I would like to remind everyone at this point that in February 2010, the Russian Federation was the last of the 47 members of the Council of Europe to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights. This was a clear indication that Russia shares the common values of the Council of Europe. Russia was hoping, in particular, to make progress on the issue of lifting visa requirements. The negotiations have been ongoing for seven years and have still not produced any concrete results.
I very much share the view that the proposed Partnership for Modernisation is a step in the direction of a strategic partnership agreement. However, in my opinion, it does not go far enough, because, according to the Centre for European Reform, European technologies are not supposed to be transferred to projects in which the Russian state is taking part, for example. The European Union is being too short-sighted in this respect and missing out on many opportunities for cooperation, particularly in the case of small and medium-sized businesses, and therefore also on opportunities for building trust.
Why are these meetings, which have been going on for years, so lacking in substance? In my view, we should bear in mind that the most important challenge faced by both sides continues to be overcoming the lack of mutual trust. There is too much rhetoric and very often a lack of serious projects which could make a genuine contribution to building trust in all areas of political, economic, social and cultural life.
Energy and the environment are key aspects of a constructive relationship between the EU and Russia which aims to solve existing problems. We talk all too often about energy policy being a strategic tool for cooperation and a positive example of the development of trust, but there are frequently misunderstandings and omissions in the area of energy in particular. We must take decisive measures to resolve this.
Fiorello Provera
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Russia will be an extremely important strategic partner for the European Union, and it is therefore vital to reach a broad partnership and cooperation agreement.
This agreement is a priority for our foreign policy because it would create the appropriate forum for comprehensive collaboration with Moscow. I am thinking of bilateral trade, liberalisation of visas, control of illegal immigration, the fight against terrorism, organised crime and climate change, through to particularly urgent issues such as Iran's nuclear programme, pacification of the Caucasus and the Middle East peace process.
With regard to energy, the European Union should cast off certain prejudices and assume a more pragmatic and consistent approach. If we want to resolve the issue of security of energy supply, we should acknowledge the added value of the South Stream project which guarantees a secure route and abundant energy, necessary for economic recovery over the coming years.
In relations with an important partner such as Russia, Europe should operate on two distinct levels: on the one hand, discussing ideal and ideological values, and, on the other, taking the practical approach required for relations between states.
Jean-Marie Le Pen
(FR) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, I am pleased at the new dynamic that has been created by the launch of the partnership for modernisation, and I am pleased at its pragmatism. This new partnership, if nothing else, would at least have the benefit of emphasising the extent to which Russia is an inevitable geopolitical partner of the European Union. I am also pleased at the positive comments on cooperation with Russia concerning the management of the crisis.
However, I have some comments to make. While the demands of the Union are always highlighted, the interests or positions of its partner seem to be systematically underestimated or dismissed, whether in the field of energy or in the way in which it analyses the Eastern Partnership and the Atlanticist aspirations of its closest neighbours.
I would also comment that the firmness that most Member States show in their views, and the virulence with which human rights violations are condemned, seem to be reserved for Russia alone. The comments are more civilised, and the diplomacy more muted, when it comes to China, for example, and its systematic violations of the rule of law, if only in the context of the Laogai, of that vast factory, from the point of view of European minimum social requirements, while our French or European workers are unemployed.
Allow me to remind you of the adage ad augusta per angusta - through trial to triumph - because this is how I view Russia's efforts today, free from the Marxist criminal poison which, over so many decades, bled and imprisoned that country. The current Russian Federation has managed to make an entire nation walk tall again despite the considerable difficulties and challenges to which it still needs to respond.
Therefore, I would ask for a little modesty from ultra-Europeans, especially when the European superstate is not achieving any of its objectives, despite more and more costly methods and the progressive domination of the Member States of Western Europe and of Central and Eastern Europe.
I have to remind you also that this Parliament had more indulgence for the communist Soviet Union than for Russia. Furthermore, it is often the same people who previously agitated for the unilateral disarmament of the West and for Mr Gorbachev's participation in the Community who today feel the most righteous indignation and the greatest prudishness towards the partnership between the European Union and Russia.
On this subject, I must inform you, if you do not know already, of new historical facts which will be appearing as a result of the ongoing translation of the secret Soviet archives which the courageous Pavel Stroilov has been able to obtain. These archives have already given and will, in the future, give some unpleasant surprises to those who propagate the only permitted opinion on the reality of the end of the Cold War: who Mr Gorbachev really was, and the abuses by the ultra-European powers of today who, at that time, enthusiastically wanted to make certain Soviet projects possible.
At the risk of repeating myself, Russia is an essential strategic partner for the European states, and we must strengthen relations for the benefit of all parties. This country is closer to us in terms of culture, civilisation, history, geography, mutual interests and shared risks than certain states that you are about to allow to join the European Union.
Ria Oomen-Ruijten
(NL) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mrs Ashton, I should like to start by thanking the fellow Members who have cooperated with me to bring about a good, clear resolution. Our resolution contains many strong criticisms of the summit in Rostov-on-Don. Like some commentators, we attribute the paltry result to Russia's preference for dealing bilaterally with Member States as opposed to the European Union; the reason being that they believe we still do not speak with one voice. What was your perception of the cooperation at this summit? In your view, did you really manage to come up with a European voice there?
I now have four specific questions. Was the partnership agreement even discussed at the summit? I believe it is of the utmost importance that we conclude a wide-ranging, legally binding agreement that goes beyond mere economic cooperation or new agreements on energy. Yet democracy and human rights must also form an integral part of the partnership agreement. Is this new partnership agreement even a priority for you, or for Russia?
When it comes to the Partnership for Modernisation, I feel excluded as an MEP. There is nothing wrong with concluding cooperation agreements, but the new modernisation agenda is a shining example of vagueness. That was not the only initiative I should have liked to discuss with you beforehand, as the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the Energy Charter and the fight against corruption strike me as far more important when it comes to the modernisation of the Russian economy.
Then there are the four common spaces: is the new modernisation agenda not the same as our previous agreement about the four common spaces?
In this resolution, we must focus heavily on human rights policy no matter what, and you have both done so. A number of amendments have also been tabled; in my opinion, it would be better to address them in the report on Russia.
Hannes Swoboda
(DE) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, I would like to thank you for your clear and open report which demonstrated how important it is to enter into a partnership with Russia. I would like to see a strategic partnership developing. However, I must also say that Russia is a partner which unfortunately does not always comply with all the treaties and agreements, for example, with regard to Georgia. As one of the people who was highly critical of Georgia's activities during the last war, I regret that Russia is not keeping to the agreements with Georgia, because this weakens Russia's position and its opportunities to play a peacemaking role in this region.
Russia would normally also be involved in helping to resolve the very critical situation in Kyrgyzstan. Thank goodness it has made it clear that it only wants to become involved as part of the United Nations. This is an area where we must make our views clear to Russia. We want Russia to be our strategic partner, but it must follow the joint rules that have been drawn up in the United Nations and the agreements that have been made with the European Union.
I am very pleased about the positive developments in the relationship between Ukraine and Russia. However, this does not and must not prevent the European Union from constantly improving its relationship with Ukraine. These two things are not mutually exclusive.
Alexander Graf Lambsdorff
(DE) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, my group agrees with what Mr Swoboda has just said. We would like to have a strategic partnership with Russia. However, we are also of the opinion that we do not have a partnership of this kind, simply because it is not yet possible to develop one on the basis of the values which we currently do not share with Russia. Nevertheless, I believe that there are some signs of hope. I think these signs represent a major opportunity during your term of office, Baroness Ashton, which was perhaps not available to your predecessor.
What I see in Russia is a 'western policy' which is more constructive than past policies. The settlement of the border dispute with Norway in the Arctic, which concerns major deposits of raw materials, represents a remarkable step forward. The agreement with Ukraine about the base in Sevastopol and the supplies of gas is another surprising step which will hopefully also bring some stability to gas supplies to the European Union. Yet another highly significant move is the reconciliation with Poland over the tragedy at Smolensk. All of these things are genuinely remarkable. I must also not forget to mention something which was genuinely unexpected. Russian state television has shown the film 'Katyn' by Andrzej Wajda on two occasions during prime time. This is an indication of a new attitude in Russia which gives me hope for the future.
It is also due to this 'western policy' that Russia has come to recognise that its real problems lie in the south and the east. Kyrgyzstan and Iran have both been mentioned in this respect. Perhaps Russia's voting habits in the UN Security Council with regard to the sanctions against Iran are part of this 'western policy'. The agreement on a new START treaty is definitely a result of it. It is true that there is hope. We can hope for an improvement in relations and for continuing progress towards a strategic partnership.
Heidi Hautala
(FI) Madam President, I would sincerely like to thank the High Representative who travelled to Rostov-on-Don and the whole of the EU's Working Group on Human Rights. I am very pleased that you raised these issues, because, as you said, there are positive signs but also causes for concern. In my view, the European Parliament should clearly state these problems in its resolution tomorrow, as you said. There has been excellent cooperation between Parliament, the Commission and the Council, and that is how we must also continue when it comes to issues of human rights.
In this connection, I would also like to thank Commissioner Malmström for raising the matter of a very important human rights case in her discussions with her colleagues in Russia. She mentioned the case of the lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, which is a shocking example of how someone standing up for human rights can end up losing his life.
Nor must we close our eyes to the fact that when the EU-Russia Summit was in Rostov-on-Don, NGOs were prevented from assembling and demonstrating. They were only upholding Article 31 of the Russian Constitution, which should guarantee freedom of assembly.
Jacek Olgierd Kurski
(PL) Moscow has realised that without modernisation and wide-ranging access to Western technology, it has no chance of approaching the European average in terms of development. The European Union should take advantage of this. However, this is not happening, as is testified by the rather poor result of the EU-Russia Summit in Rostov-on-Don. It will always be like this, until the Union risks taking a hard line in negotiations with Russia on values and principles. Therefore, we need to say clearly that the new agreement on partnership and cooperation between Russia and the Union needs to include a binding section on human rights, and to say clearly that there can be no modernisation of Russia without its democratisation.
Therefore, in its resolution, Parliament should express regret at the lack of reaction of the European Union's representatives who took part in the summit with regard to the brutal action of the police in Moscow and Saint Petersburg on 31 May. It is not enough to applaud the Russian human rights organisation Memorial in this Parliament and award them the Sakharov Prize. There are some values which should also be defended by taking action.
(Applause)
Bastiaan Belder
(NL) Madam President, ever since the time of Tsar Peter the Great, Russia and Europe have interpreted and applied the concept of modernisation differently: a material approach versus a more comprehensive interpretation involving both material and immaterial aspects.
This became clear once more following the most recent EU-Russia Summit, held in Rostov-on-Don at the start of this month. After signing a Partnership for Modernisation, President Medvedev stated that he understood this mainly in a technocratic sense. This leaves the European institutions with the important task of continuing to call the Russian leadership to account regarding the essential immaterial aspect of real social modernisation: preserving basic fundamental rights in a free civil society.
Presidential Human Rights Commissioner Vladimir Lukin has expressed the worrying criticism that the new mandates of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) point in the other direction, i.e. the wrong one. Rightly, he issues a warning about the boomerang effect on the country's own State institutions. His position deserves considerable support, as the model of Prime Minister Putin must not be imitated in the region or by Ukraine.
Krzysztof Lisek
(PL) It is very good that we are talking with Russia. We need to conduct a dialogue with Russia, and all sensible people will support this. The European Parliament, too, will support dialogue with Russia.
Russia is changing, at least this is what we hope. We hope - as President Medvedev has said - that in Russia there will be a dictatorship of the law, and that businesspeople from the European Union who invest in Russia or trade with Russia will be able to count on a legal situation there which will help and not hinder them. Unfortunately, hitherto, there have been many examples of problems of a legal nature in Russia. In discussions with Russia, we must remember this and talk about it.
We are glad, of course, that Russia is working with the Member States of the European Union, the international community, NATO, the United States and the UN on combating terrorism and for world security, but it obviously worries us that not everything has been dealt with - not everything in Russia's relations with her neighbours. It troubles us that there are still politicians in Russia who think about rebuilding the Russian Empire. In particular, the case of Georgia requires our intervention and constant reminders.
Knut Fleckenstein
(DE) Madam President, Baroness Ashton, ladies and gentlemen, the EU-Russia Summit has produced reasonable results, in particular, as far as specifying the details of the Partnership for Modernisation is concerned. I very much welcome the fact that dialogue between the civil societies has been seen as a priority in this partnership.
As the chair of the European Parliament delegation for relations with Russia, I led a working group meeting in Perm a few days ago specifically on the subject of developing the civil society. We have once again seen how much progress has been made in Russia in recent years, but also how much still remains to be done and how much we can contribute to the discussions on the basis of our experiences, both good and otherwise.
Exchange and movement are key concepts for me. There can be no Partnership for Modernisation without the movement of people. For this reason, I am rather disappointed that the EU has not really made much progress in the area of travel without visas. We must now set specific objectives which the EU and Russia can work together to achieve. This is not about meeting schedules and certainly not about following certain sequences of events. It is all about ensuring that we take a predictable approach to these issues, that the criteria are clearly defined and that everyone, including Russia, can be sure that when these conditions are fulfilled and when the specific problems are solved, visa liberalisation will be possible.
Ryszard Czarnecki
(PL) Madam President, the Union's relations with Russia have to be a two-way street. It is obvious that we are giving Russia essential know-how for technological development, while they have to guarantee us an improvement in the climate for EU business to invest there, as well as legal stability. I greatly regret that during the summit we are discussing, it was a one-way street. It was we who gave to them, but they did not do much for us. In this joint resolution, and let us say this frankly, reference to specific cases of human rights violations is missing. It would be better to mention names and specific cases, and there have been many of them. Finally - if Mrs Merkel and Mr Medvedev are coming to an understanding on establishing an EU-Russia Political and Security Committee, this should be said specifically - is the Union really going to speak there with one voice or is it going to be the voice of particular Member States?
Francisco José Millán Mon
(ES) Madam President, the importance of relations with Russia for the European Union is obvious: it is a powerful neighbour, a strategic economic and energy partner, and a permanent member of the Security Council.
Russia now seems to be more peaceful and settled, thanks to the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the United States, overcoming its disagreement with the anti-missile shield and the agreements that it has reached with the new Ukrainian Government. Furthermore, the tension caused two years ago by its intervention in Georgia has decreased. In this new context, we all welcome Russia's support of the recent Security Council Resolution 1929 on Iran. This is therefore a good time to improve relations with Russia.
Consequently, Baroness Ashton, I regret the fact that there has not been any progress in the negotiation of the new partnership agreement with Russia that first requires Russia to join the World Trade Organisation, something that has also still not been clarified.
Ladies and gentlemen, there needs to be an ambitious agreement that includes and regulates energy, investment and trade issues. Clear, legally binding rules are what is needed.
Also, I do, of course, agree with the European Union supporting and helping Russia in its desire to modernise, but the Partnership for Modernisation, which was the framework for the relationship established at the recent summit, should not be an alternative to the aforementioned agreement.
I certainly welcome the fact that the Presidency is including the effective functioning of the judicial system and stepping up the fight against corruption in that partnership.
I will conclude now: what I also want is a single, efficient and coherent EU policy, and I hope that the new instruments of the Treaty of Lisbon - you yourself, High Representative, and the permanent President of the European Council - will help us to achieve this aim of a single, coherent policy.
Kristian Vigenin
(BG) I appreciate your efforts to call the Chamber to order, but it is not going to work. It is clear that the volume of noise is only going to rise. Madam Vice-President of the Commission and High Representative, I wish to thank you for appearing at this meeting before our Parliament. We followed the results with particular interest. According to our assessment, the summit was conducted in a constructive manner, with less tension, more realism and more mutual respect from both sides. I think that this new atmosphere will inevitably start to bear fruit in our relations.
The fact remains that even though we still have a discrepancy in our values, there is an ever-increasing number of common objectives shared by the European Union and Russia, which means that, in this respect, we have a broad field of cooperation. I cannot but agree with my fellow Members who say that the resolution which we are tabling and will adopt is weak. On the other hand, it is a balanced resolution, something which we have not had for a long time, and it reflects the outcome of this meeting.
Lastly, I believe that this in-depth dialogue with Russia is of great importance to the Eastern Partnership because it will offer us the opportunity to resolve together some of the long-standing problems in the countries participating in this partnership.
Inese Vaidere
(LV) Ladies and gentlemen, undeniably, we must continue and develop our cooperation with Russia, but the new European Union partnership agreement must be much more precise and legally binding. Cooperation in the area of modernisation must be bilateral and proportional. As the coordinator of the Subcommittee on Human Rights, I should like to emphasise that in almost all of the 115 cases brought against the Russian Federation before the European Court of Human Rights, Russia has been found guilty. Regardless of the fact that the guilty parties have occasionally been identified by name, they have not been brought to justice, and no compensation has been paid to the innocent. Quite the contrary. This year, for example, a USSR army officer, V. Kononov, who, in 1944, pitilessly murdered and burnt alive peaceful Latvian villagers, including a pregnant woman, and who was found guilty of war crimes by the European Court of Human Rights, was awarded a decoration by Russia. What is more, prominent Russian politicians even issued threats against the European Court of Human Rights in this connection. This illustrates the differing conception of human rights between us and Russia, and these questions must definitely be resolved in the new agreement. Thank you.
Ioan Mircea Paşcu
Madam President, to my mind, in terms of results and consequences, the German-Russian Summit of 5 June 2010 could prove to be more substantive than the Rostov-on-Don EU-Russia Summit. Certainly, security matters, Transnistria included, should be discussed between the EU High Representative and the Russian Foreign Minister in a more coherent and permanent framework, provided that the two parties mean the same thing when they speak, one about the dispute resolution mechanism, and the other about the EU-Russia Security Forum for exchanging views on current international affairs and security matters.
But even as I admit and respect, being a professor of international politics myself, that grand strategies are reserved for the big powers, I cannot forget that the details, wherein resides the devil, have usually been left to the lesser powers to deal with.
Andreas Mölzer
(DE) Madam President, many things were not achieved at the EU-Russia Summit. The Partnership for Modernisation which was agreed upon exists only on paper and it is unclear whether it is based on a partnership agreement or a cooperation agreement. Not to mention the fact that no timeframes and no specific projects were identified. However, as we all know, it is essential for us to deepen our relationship with Russia, because Russia is Europe's most important partner, in particular, with regard to energy policy.
I believe it would be counterproductive, however, to link visa liberalisation with Russia to visa liberalisation with the countries covered by the EU's Eastern Partnership. Momentous decisions of this kind cannot be made en bloc for several states at a time. This is where we went wrong in the 2004 expansion. It is important to ensure that all the conditions are met by every individual state.
Given that the Gaza conflict, Kosovo and the reduction in the number of crisis areas were discussed during the summit, the question arises as to why the politically unstable situation in Kyrgyzstan was not also covered. If state structures collapse in Kyrgyzstan, there is a risk that it will pull down the neighbouring regions along with it. This would bring problems in many areas, including the Nabucco project.
Catherine Ashton
Vice-President of the Council/High Representative. - Madam President, I hope that those who want to listen to the conclusion of this debate are able to do so.
I am going to just concentrate on the few key points that I think a number of honourable Members have raised and, to begin with, the relationship between the partnership for modernisation and the political cooperation agreement. I would stress that they are not mutually exclusive. I want to see significant progress on the cooperation agreement. We have some issues, particularly concerning the sections on trade and economic matters, but there is no doubt in my mind that we do need to complete this agreement, alongside the launching - and it was only the beginning - of the Partnership for Modernisation approach.
I accept that there are some really serious challenges within that, as I think Mr Severin said but, as Mr Lambsdorff also said, it is a real opportunity for us to try and build on this. Mr Kurski, it does include issues of human rights. It is certainly not just about the technical advantages that Russia would like to see. It is much broader in terms of judicial reform. If I can refer honourable Members to the statement from the summit, I think you will find the breadth of what we are discussing is well captured within that. Mr Belder, you may also find this of value when you look at that.
In terms of the ability to speak with one voice - as Mrs Oomen-Ruijten particularly mentioned - we are in a position where we are beginning to see the EU operating much more coherently and consistently in a range of areas. I think Russia enjoys and prefers to be able to speak with all 27. That will never deflect from the strong bilateral relationships that Russia has - nor should it - but there are many issues, not least trade and economic issues, when the EU as 27 is much more capable of having the influence that we would wish to see in Russia than individual Member States would be.
Mr Tannock, Mr Le Pen and Mr Swoboda referred to two things. Firstly, regarding the links on crisis management, I have been talking to Sergei Lavrov about how we collaborate more effectively on issues around the world. Mr Mölzer, Kyrgyzstan had not been an issue of the significance it has become in the last 48 hours; but certainly, we do keep in touch with Russia on those issues and are now in touch with a range of partners. I have spent most of this weekend on the phone, in contact with Kazakhstan and with others, to try to take that forward.
Secondly, a number of Members, particularly Mr Swoboda and Mr Tannock, talked about Ukraine. Yesterday, I met the Ukrainian Prime Minister specifically to discuss ways in which we can further the relationship between the European Union and Ukraine. I am very conscious that Ukraine is an important state for us. It is very important in the context of what we are doing, for example, on visas and the regional dimensions - that Mr Brok mentioned at the beginning of our debate - that we are working absolutely coherently with our neighbours in the Eastern Partnership, ensuring that we move forward in a way that does not create an inappropriate imbalance for them.
Mr Fleckenstein, the civil society dialogue is reflected in the statement. It is of enormous significance, as too is, in my view, the move of Russia with the World Trade Organisation to now consider again the possibility of joining the WTO without the full customs union, whether that is just with Kazakhstan or on its own. I met recently with Deputy Prime Minister Shuvalov to see what more we can do to further that.
Georgia is a very significant issue. It is raised consistently. We raised it in our bilateral meetings at all levels. It is very important that we continue to work in Geneva to find a resolution on this and I pay tribute to Pierre Morel for the work on our behalf.
Finally, energy is, of course, a deep, significant, underlying issue where we need to retain a strong partnership with Ukraine and a strong partnership with Russia.
President
I have received six motions for resolutionstabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on 17 June 2010.
Written statements (Rule 149)
Elena Băsescu
The partnership for modernisation agreement signed during the summit held in Rostov-on-Don lays the foundations for better cooperation between the European Union and Russia in the areas of the economy and investments. This may give some impetus to continuing economic reforms and establishing democracy in Russia. On the one hand, we support the position where the modernisation of Russia in the 21st century must be based on democratic institutions and values. On the other, we cannot agree with the draft European Security Treaty proposed by Russia. This would undermine the role of NATO and the OSCE. I think that it will only be possible to waive the visa scheme after Russia has met all the necessary conditions. At the same time, I wish to draw attention to the fact that if Russian citizens will be able to travel in the European Union without requiring visas before citizens in the states of the Eastern Partnership, this will send out a negative message to them. I wish to emphasise that the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine have made considerable progress in meeting the conditions for waiving the visa scheme. The European Union must continue to be involved in supporting the countries in the Eastern Partnership.
Cristian Silviu Buşoi
I welcome the outcome of this EU-Russia Summit as I feel that things are heading in the right direction. Russia has adopted a more constructive attitude than in the past, while, on the EU side, Baroness Ashton and President Van Rompuy of the European Council have successfully represented the EU. However, I would like us to be somewhat more circumspect in our relations with Russia. Russia is unquestionably a strategic partner of major importance generally from an economic, energy and commercial perspective. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that Russia does not regard the EU as a real partner and prefers to deal with more serious problems on a bilateral basis with the various Member States. We need to be consistent and show Russia that the EU can be coherent and that Russia needs to conduct discussions on an equal footing with the EU and not with Member States, which will avoid the possible risks of Russia adopting 'divide and rule' strategies. Furthermore, while I acknowledge that significant progress has been made, it is essential for the EU to insist on its values, especially the rule of law, democracy and human rights. Letting these values play second fiddle is tantamount to abandoning them and our identity.
András Gyürk
Questions of energy security were less prominent on the agenda of the EU-Russia Summit that took place two weeks ago than had been the case in the past. This does not mean that there have been no developments worthy of mention in recent months. Not long ago, the question of the merger of the Russian Gazprom and the Ukrainian Naftogaz gas enterprises was raised once again. The Ukrainian president suggested that representatives of the European Union take part in future discussions concerning this merger. The European Commission, however - as we learned from the news - sees no reason to take part in these negotiations. Contrary to the European Commission, we believe that if we are invited, representatives of the EU should take part in the discussions on the merger, first and foremost because it is through Naftogaz networks that the gas representing one-fifth of our total energy consumption is imported by the Member States. Therefore, the merger of the two companies would fundamentally affect the operation of the European energy market, and thus price competition as well. We cannot regard the merger of Gazprom and Naftogaz as the purely internal affair of two companies, since we are well aware that national governments are also intensively involved in the negotiations preceding such transactions. Thus, if it is invited, the EU should also be at the table. If the EU is unable to have a say in decisions that affect its own role as an importer, then the common energy policy is nothing but useless, parroted empty rhetoric.
Sandra Kalniete
The development of relations between the European Union and Russia is hampered by those serious problems associated with the fundamental principle of democracy and adherence to human rights in Russia, the independence of the courts and the mass media from the political executive, repressive measures taken against representatives of the opposition and the selective application of laws. At the same time, it seems that the emphasis in EU policy is shifting from strategic partnerships founded on common values towards a pragmatic policy based on interests. For this type of policy, the strong and united support of all the Member States and its consistent implementation is especially essential. I welcome the Partnership for Modernisation between the EU and Russia launched at Rostov-on-Don and the gradual progress in relations. However, I should like to place particular stress on the need for the partnership to include a powerful chapter on values, to include adherence to the rule of law, democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms. We must not forget the constantly growing interdependence of Russia and the EU in the field of energy, nor the important problems caused in previous years by interruptions to energy supply. To overcome these problems, we need not only legislation in the European Union on the security of gas supply, but also cooperation between the EU and Russia based on the necessary, but yet to be concluded, EU-Russia agreement on the early warning mechanism for energy security. I should like to stress that cooperation between the EU and Russia in energy matters must be based on the Energy Charter, which must be incorporated into the new EU-Russia framework agreement, so that we can secure visible and mutually honourable preconditions for investment and equal access to the market.
Tunne Kelam
in writing. - The Rostov Summit seems to lack any significant result. The modernisation programme looks like a nicely packaged substitute for the absence of substantial long-term cooperation. None of the official results addresses directly Russia's notorious failure to apply the rule of law. True, President Van Rompuy raised the human rights issue; however, this was not reflected in the joint statement. The conclusion, sadly, is that 'soft values' upon which the EU is officially based still remain on the unofficial level when dealing with influential third parties. While the joint statement refers to building a civil society and developing people-to-people contacts, the question remains: how can civil society be connected, if many of its activists face imprisonment or harassment just for voicing their opinion? That is why the EU needs to strongly react to the citizens' demonstrations in 40 Russian cities on 31 May that called for implementation of the constitutional right for freedom of assembly. Right after the summit, Germany and Russia issued a statement on creating a joint EU-Russia security committee. Such improvised bilateral agreements are bound to undermine the EU's role and credibility in the eyes of third parties to conduct common foreign and security policies under the Lisbon Treaty.
Jiří Maštálka
The 25th summit between the Russian Federation and the European Union provides an opportunity to ask whether the regular rhythm of such meetings does not lead to them being undervalued and poorly prepared. I do not want to undermine the importance of meetings between top EU and Russian representatives in terms of developing cooperation and eliminating the inherited habits of confrontation. What benefits did the last summit bring? It was the first such summit to take place following ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon and the adoption of the Europe 2020 strategy. However, I did not notice any new approaches from Brussels. There were a few vague promises about helping Russia to modernise and a declaration that the EU, in contrast to the US, had no need to 'restart' relations with Russia - it had only to proceed along a well-trodden path. The proposals from Moscow for the introduction of visa-free relations for Russian and EU citizens fell on deaf ears. Brussels said nothing, despite the fact that experience shows there is no risk of a hunger-driven migration from the East, and that the current system presents no obstacle to international crime. I note that an agreement was signed on visa-free relations between Russia and Turkey during the recent visit of the Russian president to Turkey. It is the same with the Russian application to join the WTO. The European Parliament should remind the people preparing these summits for the EU that the fulfilment of the Europe 2020 strategy requires better preparation. I would like to recommend that we consider arranging joint meetings between Members of the European Parliament and Members of the Russian State Duma, which would contribute to better mutual understanding and to the better preparation of summits.
György Schöpflin
in writing. - Russia still sees the West as primarily responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the chaos of the Yeltsin years. However, Russia faces a number of intractable problems, which ought to impel it towards the West, but Moscow's dislike of the EU persists. First, Russia's leaders have converted it into an energy-producing state, but, as energy resources are depleting, its economy is in serious trouble. The world financial crisis has led to a collapse of energy prices, resulting in a loss of revenue for Russia. Russia's population is collapsing demographically; it can barely mobilise enough soldiers to defend the country. In the mostly Muslim Northern Caucasus, Russia is experiencing an upsurge of violence. This violence is being met by repression, which means the conflict will continue. China has begun to challenge Russia in Central Asia, which Moscow has long regarded as its own sphere of interest. Finally, one area where Russia continues to perform well is in intelligence operations, as witness the rapid restoration of Russian power in Ukraine this year. This is a signal for the West. Russia will do what it can to enlarge its western security zone, regardless of the interests of the EU.
Indrek Tarand
I am astonished at the conformism of the compromise resolution on the conclusions of the EU-Russia Summit, which talks so little about the subject of human rights. I fear that this way of dealing with the problems regarding Russia brings nothing of use to future EU-Russia relations. Furthermore, France has sold a Mistral class warship to Russia, and I am convinced that it will regret its action.