Verbatim report of proceedings of 23 November 2015
Date: 2015-11-23
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, parliamentary debate








C_202301485EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C














13.12.2023







            23 November 2015
            VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF 23 NOVEMBER 2015
            
         
(C/2023/1485)

Contents







1.

Resumption of the session
3










2.

Statements by the President
3










3.

Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes
4










4.

Composition of Parliament : see Minutes
4










5.

Request for the waiver of parliamentary immunity : see Minutes
4










6.

Signature of acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure (Rule 78): see Minutes
4










7.

Documents received: see Minutes
4










8.

Questions for oral answer (submission): see Minutes
4










9.

Action taken on Parliament's positions and resolutions: see Minutes
4










10.

Order of business
4










11.

The state of play of the Doha Development Agenda in view of the 10th WTO Ministerial Conference (debate)
6










12.

Human rights in EU-Vietnam trade negotiations (debate)
19










13.

Accession of Ecuador to the EU-Peru and Colombia trade agreement (debate)
29










14.

A new animal welfare strategy for 2016-2020 (debate)
34










15.

Reducing inequalities with a special focus on child poverty (short presentation)
50










16.

Cohesion policy and marginalised communities (short presentation)
56










17.

The role of the EU within the UN (short presentation)
60










18.

One-minute speeches on matters of political importance
64










19.

Agenda of the next sitting : see Minutes
72










20.

Closure of the sitting
72




Verbatim report of proceedings of 23 November 2015
                  


VORSITZ: MARTIN SCHULZ


Präsident


(Die Sitzung wird um 17.05 Uhr eröffnet.)

1.   Resumption of the session

Der Präsident. – Ich erkläre die am Mittwoch, 11. November 2015, unterbrochene Sitzungsperiode für wieder aufgenommen.
               
2.   Statements by the President

Der Präsident. – Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Vor zehn Tagen ist Frankreich in brutalster Art und Weise attackiert worden. Terroristen, die in nie gekanntem Ausmaß mit einer nie gekannten Brutalität normale Menschen, insbesondere junge Männer und Frauen, aus ihrem Leben herausgerissen und in bestialischer Weise ermordet haben.
               

                  Wir sind heute als eine Institution, die ihren Sitz in Frankreich hat, zum ersten Mal nach diesen Anschlägen auf französischem Boden. Deshalb, meine Damen und Herren, wiederhole ich mit dem Dank an Sie alle für Ihre große Anteilnahme in der vergangenen Woche an den Beileidsbekundungen hier noch einmal unsere volle Solidarität mit der französischen Nation, unsere Zuwendung zu den Familien der Ermordeten, unsere Hoffnung für die schwerverletzten Menschen, dass sie sich bald erholen mögen.
               

                  Das gilt allerdings auch für die Opfer der Anschläge in Bamako. Das gilt auch für die Opfer der Anschläge an anderen Orten, wo unschuldige Menschen von wahnsinnigen Terroristen abgeschlachtet werden.
               

                  Meine Damen und Herren! Wir leben in einer Zeit gewaltiger Herausforderungen. Die Anzahl von Anschlägen, derer wir hier gedenken müssten, weil wir keine Hierarchie in der Liste der Opfer vornehmen können und jedes Opfer uns gleich viel wert ist – diese Liste ist lang. Deshalb ist ein Gedenken an die Opfer in Paris und in Bamako zugleich ein Gedenken an die Opfer, an die Unschuldigen an anderen Orten dieser Erde und insbesondere in Syrien und im Irak, wo dieser selbsternannte Islamische Staat alle elementaren Rechte, geradezu die zivilisatorischen Werte mit seiner Brutalität zu zerstören versucht. Jedes Gedenken ist ein Gedenken an die Opfer dieser Gewalt.
               

                  In diesem Sinne – nicht nur für die Opfer von Paris und von Bamako, sondern für die Terroropfer insgesamt – bitte ich Sie, sich von Ihren Plätzen zu erheben.
               

(Das Parlament erhebt sich zu einer Schweigeminute.)


                  Vielen Dank.
               

                  Meine Damen und Herren! Ich hatte heute Morgen die traurige Pflicht, das Europäische Parlament beim Staatsakt für den verstorbenen ehemaligen Bundeskanzler der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Helmut Schmidt, zu vertreten. Mit Helmut Schmidt verstarb ein herausragender Politiker nicht nur der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, sondern der Europäischen Union.
               

                  Helmut Schmidt war – wie Sie alle wissen – gemeinsam insbesondere mit dem früheren Staatspräsidenten Valéry Giscard d'Estaing einer der Schöpfer des Europäischen Währungssystems. Schmidt hat in seiner Zeit als Regierungschef, aber auch später als Publizist enorm zur Vertiefung der europäischen Integration und zur Zusammenarbeit der Völker über die Grenzen hinweg beigetragen. Helmut Schmidt war ein Regierungschef, der in dem Land, aus dem ich komme, in Zeiten der größten terroristischen Herausforderung einen Grundsatz bewahrt hat, von dem wir – so glaube ich – auch heute lernen können, einen Grundsatz, der am besten ausgedrückt wird in dem Satz von Albert Camus: ‘Diejenigen, die an der Versöhnung von Freiheit und Sicherheit scheitern, scheitern an allem.’ Ich glaube, das sollte uns für die nächsten vor uns liegenden Herausforderungen eine Richtschnur sein. Wir müssen die Sicherheit unserer Bürgerinnen und Bürger, auch unsere eigene, so effektiv wie möglich ausgestalten. Aber wir dürfen niemals zulassen, dass die, die uns beängstigen wollen, unsere Freiheitsrechte zerstören. Das ist die Aufgabe vor allem des Europäischen Parlaments.
               

(Beifall)

3.   Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes
4.   Composition of Parliament : see Minutes
5.   Request for the waiver of parliamentary immunity : see Minutes
6.   Signature of acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure (Rule 78): see Minutes
7.   Documents received: see Minutes
8.   Questions for oral answer (submission): see Minutes
9.   Action taken on Parliament's positions and resolutions: see Minutes
10.   Order of business

Der Präsident. – Der endgültige Entwurf der Tagesordnung dieser Tagung, wie er in der Konferenz der Präsidenten in ihrer Sitzung vom Donnerstag, dem 19. November 2015 gemäß Artikel 149 der Geschäftsordnung festgelegt wurde, ist verteilt worden.
               

Montag:
               

                  Die Fraktion der GUE/NGL beantragt, die Aussprache über die mündliche Anfrage an die Kommission zu einer neuen Tierschutzstrategie für den Zeitraum 2016 bis 2020 mit einer Entschließung abzuschließen, über die dann am Donnerstag abgestimmt werden kann.
               

Anja Hazekamp,
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group
. – Mr President, under Rule 152 of the Rules of Procedure, I urge Parliament to close the debate on Oral Question O-000141/2015 on a new animal welfare strategy for 2016-2020 with a resolution.
The current animal welfare strategy ends on 31 December and the Commission shows no sign of coming forward with a new strategy. This is unacceptable. There are many issues concerning animal welfare in the European Union which should be addressed, and we want the Commission to come forward with a clear roadmap to do that.
Also, on behalf of my colleague, Stefan Eck, I ask for your support to add this resolution to close the debate. If you think animals matter, this is the time to show it.

Fredrick Federley (ALDE). – Mr President, I wish to thank Madam Hazekamp for her initiative. There have been many bills – much legislation – passed in this House in recent years, but they are not coherent, there is no complete strategy and there is not even a cohesive legislative framework within the European Union today. That means also that the animals are suffering; it means that we have different regulations in different countries, and it also means that we do not have, when it comes to agricultural products, a joint and common market. I therefore support the proposition from the GUE/NGL Group.

Michèle Alliot-Marie (PPE). Monsieur le Président, permettez-moi simplement de faire une comparaison. Notre groupe a demandé qu'à l'issue du débat sur les attentats terroristes de Paris, le Parlement adopte une résolution dans laquelle il demanderait à la Commission ce qu'elle compte faire pour effectivement mettre en œuvre toutes les mesures qui ont été adoptées sans jamais être appliquées et qui auraient peut-être pu sauver des centaines de vies. Je serais un petit peu étonnée qu'effectivement, au Parlement européen, on estime qu'une résolution pour le bien-être des animaux – que je soutiens entièrement – passe avant une résolution pour la survie des hommes et des femmes.
               

(Applaudissements)


Der Präsident. – Frau Alliot-Marie, Kompliment, Sie haben mit einer geschickten Formulierung für den Antrag gesprochen, obwohl Sie sich dagegen geäußert hatten, und haben auch noch Ihren Protest angebracht. À la bonne heure!
               

                  Die Kollegen wünschen eine elektronische Überprüfung.
               

(Das Parlament nimmt den Antrag an.)


Dienstag: Keine Änderungen.
               

Mittwoch:


                  Die Verts/ALE-Fraktion beantragt, die Abstimmung über den Bericht Ferreira/Theurer über die Steuervorbescheide und andere Maßnahmen auf Donnerstag zu verschieben.
               

Philippe Lamberts,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE
. – Monsieur le Président, ce Parlement a décidé de faire de la lutte contre l'optimisation fiscale abusive des entreprises un sujet important puisqu'il a créé une commission spéciale chargée de cette question en février dernier. Nous allons voter cette semaine-ci le premier rapport de cette commission. Je crois qu'il sera adopté à une très large majorité et je m'en réjouis.
               

                  L'inquiétude qui est la nôtre est la suivante: lors de sa réunion de la semaine dernière, la Conférence des présidents a décidé, à la majorité, de reporter d'au moins une semaine la décision de présenter à notre assemblée une éventuelle prolongation de la commission Taxe, qui faisait en tout cas l'objet d'un consensus très large entre les forces politiques. Nous ne voulions pas donner l'impression que nous allions adopter le rapport de la commission, puis décider plus tard si nous allions prolonger son mandat. Nous pensions qu'il était important de coupler les deux décisions pour ne pas créer auprès du public l'impression que ce Parlement se désintéresse de la question. Entre-temps, j'ai reçu des messages très clairs de différents groupes politiques – et donc de la majorité, qui est en faveur de la prolongation –, selon lesquels la Conférence des présidents pouvait prendre une décision jeudi et la mettre immédiatement au vote de cette assemblée jeudi, à midi. Dans ce cas, le problème disparaîtrait et nous pourrions adopter le rapport mercredi et voter la prolongation de la commission jeudi. Il y avait un doute à ce sujet lors de la Conférence des présidents précédente, mais si ce doute est levé et si l'engagement politique est pris de prolonger la commission Taxe, il n'y a pas lieu de retarder le vote.
               

                  Voilà la position de notre groupe.
               

Fabio De Masi (GUE/NGL). – Herr Präsident! Vor über einem Jahr wurden mit LuxLeaks die skandalösen Steuerdeals von internationalen Konzernen mit EU-Mitgliedstaaten bekannt. Jeder Dorfpolizist weiß: Man kann Ermittlungen nicht abschließen, bevor alle Beweise gewürdigt wurden. Uns wurde aber systematisch Zugang zu wichtigen Dokumenten verweigert. Nur hier im Parlament ist das nicht allen so sehr klar gewesen. Deswegen hatten wir letzte Woche großes Hin und Her.
               

                  Deswegen auch mein Appell: Verschieben Sie die Abstimmung, nennen Sie das Ding Zwischenbericht, wie auch immer. Das bisherige Mandat darf nicht auslaufen und muss noch diese Woche verlängert werden. Die Tagesordnung ist entsprechend zu ändern. Sonst machen wir uns hier im Kampf gegen Steueroasen total unglaubwürdig.
               

Manfred Weber,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion
. – Herr Präsident! Ich bitte um eine Erklärung, weil ich den Kollegen, den Antragsteller der Grünen, so verstanden habe, dass der Antrag dann zurückgezogen wird, wenn es eine klare Zusage gibt, dass wir alle im Plenum uns für die Verlängerung aussprechen. Ich kann für meine Fraktion sagen: Die EVP-Fraktion will die Verlängerung um die sechs Monate, um genau die offenen Fragen, die noch im Raum stehen, zu klären. Insofern würde die Grundlage dafür wegfallen, wenn andere Fraktionen bestätigen, dass wir uns klar am Donnerstag dazu verpflichten, dass wir die Verlängerung unterstützen. Dann können wir am Mittwoch die Abstimmung ganz normal durchführen. So, glaube ich, habe ich den Kollegen verstanden. Und wir als Fraktion würden die offenen Fragen gerne klären.
               

Peter Simon,
im Namen der S&D-Fraktion
. – Herr Präsident! Ich wurde gebeten, für die sozialdemokratische Fraktion mitzuteilen, dass sie selbstverständlich – auch bei all der entstandenen Unruhe – dafür ist, am Mittwoch über den Ferreira-Bericht abzustimmen, dies am Donnerstag in der Konferenz der Präsidenten behandeln zu lassen und am Donnerstagmittag im Plenum die Verlängerung des Ausschusses hier zu beschließen.
               

                  Insofern bin ich Herrn Kollegen Lamberts dankbar, dass er den Antrag damit zurückziehen wird.
               

Der Präsident. –
(Der Antragsteller zieht den Antrag zurück.)


(Der Arbeitsplan ist somit angenommen.)

11.   The state of play of the Doha Development Agenda in view of the 10th WTO Ministerial Conference (debate)

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung der Kommission zum Sachstand der Doha-Entwicklungsagenda angesichts der 10. WTO-Ministerkonferenz (2015/2632(RSP)).
               

Cecilia Malmström,
Member of the Commission
. – Mr President, there are now only three weeks left until the 10th WTO Ministerial Conference in Nairobi. This will mark the WTO's 20th anniversary and it is the first such conference taking place in Africa.
This is a conference that is taking place at a critical moment for the WTO. Following the success of the last such conference in Bali and the adoption of the Trade Facilitation Agreement, there were high hopes that we would advance towards a comprehensive agreement on the Doha Development Agenda, and the EU worked really hard to achieve this. Unfortunately, many countries have not been able or willing to look for a compromise on cutting the trade-distorting subsidies they provide to their farmers. In Nairobi we need to free the machinery of the WTO from the constraints that have been holding it back for so many years. We need to move ahead. The Ministerial Conference needs to take decisions on parts of the Doha Round and agree on what to do next.
We are now working in Geneva intensively to create convergence around three main outcomes that are attainable and where we all see that there are development credentials. The first one is to aim for an agreement to discipline the use of all forms of agricultural export support, which is an important long-standing and pro-development issue that needs a coherent, balanced and multilateral solution. Together with the Government of Brazil and a few other WTO members, the European Union has tabled a formal proposal for a comprehensive solution addressing agricultural export subsidies, but also export credits and other similar measures.
I am convinced that this is a good basis for discussion and a compromise, and it also showcases the positive effects of the major agricultural reforms that we have been conducting here in the EU. Without them, it would have been impossible to achieve a situation where we table a joint agricultural proposal with Brazil. So we are now working on this in Geneva to gather support.
Secondly, we also need to make sure that we can deliver for the benefit of the poorest and most vulnerable WTO members: the least-developed countries. Here we are looking at, for instance, duty-free; quota-free; cotton; rules of origin.
The third item where we need to deliver is an outcome strengthening notification and transparency requirements in the WTO.
Achieving consensus on these issues will be linked to the need for an agreement on the path forward for the WTO after the Ministerial Conference. This is going to be challenging. Our interests here are very clear. The WTO needs to continue the work on unresolved issues. They can only be effectively addressed by multilateral solutions – trade-distorting domestic support in agriculture, rules or regulatory issues, for instance – but we need to approach these issues with fresh ideas, as the old approaches have clearly not delivered the result, and in this connection large emerging countries must assume greater responsibilities.
Similarly, we need to aim to ensure that the Ministerial Conference begins the process of opening the Organization to considering new issues and acknowledges the possibilities for WTO members to negotiate issues within smaller groups of interested members. This is really important if the WTO is to remain relevant and at the centre of global rule-making.
The upcoming Ministerial Conference will be a very important event. It will have a strong bearing on the future of the multilateral trading system. I appreciate very much the cooperation we have had so far and the interest that this Parliament has taken, and I am looking forward to Parliament's delegation being there so we can have close cooperation at the Ministerial Conference.

ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ: ΔΗΜΗΤΡΙΟΣ ΠΑΠΑΔΗΜΟΥΛΗΣ


Αντιπρόεδρος


Pablo Zalba Bidegain,
en nombre del Grupo PPE
. – Señor Presidente, señora Comisaria, Señorías, permítanme, en primer lugar, felicitar al coponente de esta Resolución, el señor Lange, por la fructífera colaboración que hemos tenido. También a la Comisaria y a su equipo, cuyo fructífero trabajo -como ha destacado- tiene como resultado esta Resolución.
                  

                     En la Unión Europea, en el Partido Popular Europeo hemos siempre hecho una apuesta firme por el multilateralismo y obviamente el marco adecuado para llevarlo adelante es, sin lugar a dudas, la Organización Mundial del Comercio. Un enfoque que, como demuestran acuerdos como el Acuerdo sobre Facilitación del Comercio, busca especialmente mejorar la situación económica de todos sus países miembros. Porque no tengamos ninguna duda: a mayor apertura comercial, mayor desarrollo económico. Hay multitud de ejemplos que así lo prueban.
                  

                     Aquí creo conveniente destacar que la Conferencia Ministerial que se va a celebrar en Nairobi, como bien ha destacado la Comisaria, va a ser un punto de inflexión que todos deseamos y todos contribuiremos a que sea para bien, porque necesitamos crecimiento económico, necesitamos creación de empleo, ahora más que nunca.
                  

                     Y no debemos olvidar tampoco que el multilateralismo debe no solo convivir, sino también debe ser complementado con los acuerdos bilaterales, acuerdos regionales y acuerdos plurilaterales a través de los cuales se está liberalizando el comercio en todo el mundo. Acuerdos como el ACS, acuerdos como la ATCI o el acuerdo con Mercosur son, ahora más que nunca, vitales para la agenda comercial de la Unión, porque pueden complementar y pueden también fomentar la labor de la Organización Mundial del Comercio en aquellas áreas en las que el multilateralismo no logre tener alcance.
                  

Bernd Lange,
im Namen der S&D-Fraktion
. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin! Erst einmal herzlichen Dank an den Ko-Berichterstatter, Herrn Zalba Bidegain. Ich frage mich, ob in Nairobi das Licht für die WTO ausgemacht wird. Denn es gibt welche, die wollen, dass in Nairobi überhaupt nicht mehr über die Doha-Entwicklungsrunde geredet wird. Ich kann nicht sehen, dass wir die Doha-Entwicklungsrunde und die WTO weiterentwickeln können und auch ein Arbeitsprogramm über Nairobi hinaus, wie die Kommissarin es eben genannt hat, entwickeln, wenn wir keinen positiven Bezug zur Doha-Entwicklungsrunde in diese Verhandlungen hineinbringen.
                  

                     Wenn einige sagen: ‘Doha ist tot, wir müssen jetzt nur neue Elemente angucken – E-Commerce, Investment, die Frage der Währungsspekulation’ – ja, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, dann wird der Keil weiter in Richtung Spaltung getrieben. Also lassen Sie uns versuchen, multilateral weiterzugehen, und die Doha-Entwicklungsrunde im Paket von 2008 positiv bewerten.
                  

                     Natürlich brauchen wir Schärfungen, wir brauchen Flexibilität, wir brauchen sicherlich auch das Maß an Möglichkeiten, bilateral, plurilateral weiter vorzugehen. Aber dass wir die Entwicklung in den Vordergrund stellen müssen, das ist angesichts der Migrationsherausforderung völlig klar. Es ist auch klar, dass Entwicklungsländer nicht gleich Entwicklungsländer sind. Wir müssen auch ehrlich sein: Schwellenländer haben ein anderes Maß an Verantwortung, und die müssen sie wahrnehmen. Jeder muss Verantwortung wahrnehmen.
                  

Emma McClarkin,
on behalf of the ECR Group
. – Mr President, I believe that trade reduces poverty, empowers women and provides opportunities for our young people. We live in a globalised world and our citizens and consumers want the barriers to trade removed. It is therefore difficult to hide my disappointment that we have, once again, failed to make progress within the WTO ahead of the 10th ministerial meeting next month. It appears that this meeting will be something of a damp squib, with a real danger that the parties will not even manage to produce a joint statement following the discussions in Nairobi.
It is clear that the Doha Development Agenda has failed, yet somehow we must press ahead with the multilateral agenda and the important issues contained within it. As the Commissioner mentioned, agricultural issues continue to be the most difficult problems to solve when it comes to international trade agreements. Yet it is important to recognise some of the other ambitions that Doha was looking to meet, such as efforts towards making it easier for developing countries to gain access to the international trading market, in turn providing real opportunities for economic development.
Instead, we have to make progress in areas that we are able to agree upon – but it looks likely that this will have to come under the framework of a different agreement. So we need a new reinvigorated agenda at the WTO level – one which is not associated with the failures of the past and which can build from the bottom up so that we may look upon the WTO as an organisation that works in the interests of its members. Until then, parties will be forced to work at the bilateral and plurilateral levels, which will be essential to maintain growth and jobs in this globalised world. Within this, the EU must use the influence that it has so that we can push this multilateral agenda forward to achieve real success for all.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))


James Carver (EFDD),
blue-card question
. – Ms McClarkin, is not this debate an example of how little influence the United Kingdom has, bearing in mind that all trade negotiations are currently conducted with the EU Trade Commissioner, Ms Malmström, sitting at the front? Does this not show that Britain would have greater influence in the wider world were we to decide to withdraw from the European Union following the referendum?

Emma McClarkin (ECR),
blue-card answer
. – The British people will decide whether they believe they should remain a member of the European Union or not very soon and, indeed, if we have those trading powers back, we will be able to do deals ourselves. But the reality is that if we want to work towards trade for all and improve the work for everybody, it will have to be done at the World Trade Organization (WTO) level.

Hannu Takkula,
ALDE-ryhmän puolesta
. – Arvoisa puhemies, on todellakin niin, että joulukuussa järjestettävä WTO:n kymmenes ministerikonferenssi on todella tärkeä meille, ja se näyttää lopullisesti, millä tavalla Dohan kehitysagendapaketin kanssa päästään etenemään ja saadaanko se voimaan.
                  

                     Me olemme valmiita jatkamaan neuvotteluja edelleen DDA:sta, mutta voin sanoa, että tarvitaan kuitenkin uudenlaista pohjaa, koska tämä nykyinen pohja ei ole johtanut mihinkään tuloksiin, vaan nyt tarvitaan aktiivisempaa otetta.
                  

                     Euroopan unionistahan tämä ei ole ollut kiinni. Me olemme olleet vahvasti Dohan puolella ja olemme edelleen aktiivisesti puhumassa tämän paketin puolesta, mutta meidän pitäisi myös saada muut kumppanit siihen mukaan. DDA:n voimaan saattaminen olisi kansainvälisen kaupan näkökulmasta ehdottoman kannatettavaa, sillä meidän tulisi luoda alueellisten sääntöjen sijasta kansainvälisiä sääntöjä kaupankäynnille. Yhteiset kansainväliset säännöt toisivat varmuutta tälle alalle, koska nyt useat kahdenväliset sopimukset pirstaloivat sääntelyä.
                  

                     DDA:n ratkaiseminen olisi meidän näkökulmasta tärkeää myös siitä syystä, että keskustelemme myös meille ehdottomasti tärkeistä teemoista. Vaikka emme saisi Dohan muodossa ratkaisua, tulisimme jatkamaan neuvotteluja samoista teemoista edelleen, mutta mahdollisesti erikseen useamman osapuolen kanssa.
                  

                     On tietenkin tärkeää, että voidaan käydä myös monenvälisiä neuvotteluja ja sitä kautta päästä seuraavalle asteelle puhumaan myös sisällöistä.
                  

Helmut Scholz,
im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion
. – Frau Kommissarin, Herr Präsident! Der deutsche Staatssekretär Machnig ärgerte sich öffentlich darüber, kurz vor Weihnachten nach Afrika reisen zu müssen, zur WTO-Ministerkonferenz in Nairobi.
                  

                     Es stünde bereits fest, dass dort lediglich eine Maus geboren wird. Schuld daran seien nicht die Europäer und die OECD, vielmehr bremsten wieder einmal die Inder und Brasilianer. Wer nach Nairobi reist und wirklich nur die alten Konzepte des Freihandels im Gepäck hat, verschwendet Zeit. 60 Millionen Flüchtlinge auf der Welt machen deutlich, welch gravierende Wirkung die Fehler in der internationalen Handelspolitik seit Gründung der WTO haben.
                  

                     Sie dürfen und können doch nicht Indien vorwerfen, dass wenigstens dieses eine Land die Ernährung der eigenen Bevölkerung wichtiger findet als Freihandel und die Spekulation mit Nahrung auf den globalisierten Märkten ablehnt. Nein, Pascal Lamy ist durchaus beizupflichten, wenn er fordert, die WTO müsse ihre Arbeit endlich in die Zielstellung von Regierungen, Zivilgesellschaft und internationalen Organisationen integrieren.
                  

                     Mit der Doha-Runde sollte einst Armut überwunden werden, die zur Rekrutierung der Terroristen von 09/11geführt hatte. Dass dieses Ziel zu schnell vergessen wurde, daran erinnern uns die aktuellen Geschehnisse.
                  

                     In Nairobi muss der grundlegende Kurswechsel hinsichtlich Zielen und Mechanismen internationaler Handelspolitik und ihrer Regeln diskutiert werden. Nicht mehr, aber auch nicht weniger! Es geht um die Zukunft des multilateralen partnerschaftlichen Welthandelssystems, und es geht um die Perspektiven und ein Ja zu Doha.
                  

Klaus Buchner,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion
. – Herr Präsident! Meine Fraktion steht für fair trade. Im Gegensatz zu free trade glauben wir, dass es ein gerechtes Forum geben muss, ein weltweites Forum, wo Handelspartner – starke und schwache – an einem Tisch sitzen und gemeinsam Lösungen finden, die allen Handelspartnern etwas nützen. Wir in der EU sind ohne Zweifel ein starker Handelspartner mit sehr viel Einfluss. Wir glauben nicht, dass es für den Welthandel – und für die Menschen in der EU – erstrebenswert ist, schwachen Handelspartnern unsere Free-Trade-Agenda aufzudrücken. Und wir sind mit dieser Ansicht nicht allein. Die Welthandelsorganisation hat zu diesem Zweck auch die besondere und differenzierte Behandlung für alle Entwicklungsländer als Programmpunkt. Somit erhalten Entwicklungsländer Marktzugang und verbesserte Konditionen und können gleichzeitig die heimische Wirtschaft weitgehend ohne Gefahr von Auslandsimporten aufbauen.
                  

                     Mit unserer Parlamentsentschließung fordern Sie dagegen, Entwicklungsländer in bestimmte Kategorien aufzuspalten und so diejenigen Länder, welche durch diese und andere Maßnahmen ihre Wirtschaft in den letzten Jahrzehnten verbessern konnten, stärker zu öffnen. Eine solche Aufspaltung, welche den stärksten Handelspartnern am meisten nutzen würde, lehnen wir strikt ab.
                  

                     Die Entschließung bekräftigt die Unterstützung von multilateralen Ansätzen für den Welthandel, unterstützt aber gleichzeitig plurilaterale Abkommen wie das TiSA, welche die WTO untergraben und nicht, wie behauptet, die WTO-Agenda komplementieren. Mit den weitreichenden Marktzugangsbestimmungen in diesen Abkommen nehmen wir den reichen Ländern jeden Anreiz, die Doha-Runde ernsthaft und im Einklang mit den Entwicklungsländern abzuschließen.
                  

                     Doha darf keine Friss-oder-stirb-Verhandlungsrunde werden! Wir appellieren an die Kommission, den Entwicklungsländern entgegenzukommen. Wir haben deshalb einige Änderungsanträge eingereicht, um unsere Entschließung gerechter und objektiver zu gestalten. Ich hoffe, dieser Ansatz findet Unterstützung.
                  

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’ gemäß Artikel 162 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)


Bill Etheridge (EFDD),
blue-card question
. – I noticed during your speech that you spoke about concern about weaker trading partners and developing countries. Would you not accept that one of the things that holds back developing countries is tariff controls and blocks from trading blocs such as the EU, as well as the unfair advantages given to the EU by the Common Agricultural Policy? If we had a fairer system and could trade freely, then we could have trade with developing countries, rather than aid as we have now.

Klaus Buchner (Verts/ALE),
Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                        
. – Es ist so weit richtig, dass wir unsere Agrarprodukte zu Bedingungen anbieten
                  

                     können, die in den Entwicklungsländern nicht gegeben sind.
                  

                     Das heißt, viele der plurilateralen, der bilateralen Abkommen stören hier die heimische Agrarwirtschaft ganz erheblich. Insofern muss ich Ihnen zustimmen. Aber das betrifft nicht den Rest dessen, was ich gesagt habe.
                  

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth,
on behalf of the EFDD Group
. – Mr President, to get one thing in perspective: the European Union began as a protectionist construct, it remains a protectionist construct, it will always be a protectionist construct. Doha or No Doha, the European Union is a roadblock to free and freer trade. To give one example, which was just previously touched upon, European protectionism in food production has direct consequences which harm the developing world.
First, the EU markets are closed to a greater or lesser extent to the export of agricultural products. Secondly, and more damagingly, the European Union dumps agricultural over-production, occasioned by its misallocated agricultural subsidies, onto the world market, and the effect of this is that farmers and food growers in the world outside – especially in those countries that have a large primary sector – are severely damaged. The people adversely affected are some of the poorest in the world. This is not fair trade.
There are also other consequences. EU protectionism hurts and harms consumers in the European Union itself. Consumers here have to pay the hiked and inflated European Union price for foods and other goods instead of the world price. Professor Patrick Minford and his colleagues at Cardiff University have calculated that the cost of this to the UK consumer is 8% of the cost of living. It follows that, on Brexit, the cost of living in the UK would be reduced by 8% at least. We may be sure that in other Member States the figure would not be dissimilar. And so it is not just for my country: the dissolution of the EU customs union would be a huge plus for the whole world. That, perhaps, is what we should bear in mind when we are discussing the Doha agenda.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))


Christofer Fjellner (PPE),
blue-card question
. – I would like to ask the Earl of Dartmouth if he is really so naive as to think that all the subsidies of the EU Member States would disappear if the European Union were suddenly abolished. Is it not more likely that the sum of all of these Member States would result in higher tariffs, as it is a fact that the two European countries that are not members of the European Union – Switzerland and Norway – actually have higher tariffs on agriculture and higher subsidies for agriculture?

William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFDD),
blue-card answer
. – Firstly, there are, of course, many countries which are not members of the European Union, as well as Switzerland and Norway. But the fact of the matter is that if there are subsidies – and particularly agricultural subsidies – these are much better determined at national level. If they were determined at national level, it is much more probable that the interest of the consumer would be heeded.

Λάμπρος Φουντούλης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, συζητάμε σήμερα για τον Παγκόσμιο Οργανισμό Εμπορίου και το πώς αυτός σε συνεργασία με τους υπόλοιπους παρόμοιους οργανισμούς θα μπορέσει να σώσει τον κόσμο από την φτώχεια. Μόνο που για εμάς, όλοι αυτοί οι οργανισμοί είναι μέρος του προβλήματος και μάλιστα μία από τις κύριες αιτίες του και προφανώς δεν αποτελούν μέρος της λύσης.
                  

                     Υπέρμαχοι ενός οικονομικού και κοινωνικού φιλελευθερισμού, επιθυμείτε οι παγκόσμιες εμπορικές σχέσεις να καθορίζονται μέσα από υπερεθνικούς οργανισμούς με τη μικρότερη δυνατή επέμβαση των κρατών. Οι κυβερνήσεις είναι οι μόνες που, έστω και σε μικρό βαθμό, ελέγχονται κάπως από τους πολίτες. Αντίθετα, οι υπερεθνικοί αυτοί οργανισμοί μεταβιβάζουν απλώς την εξουσία στις πολυεθνικές και στο μεγάλο κεφάλαιο ενώ προσποιούνται πως νοιάζονται και προσπαθούν να προστατεύσουν τους λαούς. Στην πραγματικότητα οι οργανισμοί αυτοί είναι που προωθούν την απελευθέρωση των αγορών από κάθε είδους εμπόδιο και έλεγχο με καταστρεπτικά αποτελέσματα για τους εργαζόμενους και για ολόκληρες κοινωνίες. Επιπλέον, οι μικρές και μεσαίες επιχειρήσεις καταρρέουν, αδύναμες να αντιπαρατεθούν στην επέλαση των μεγάλων ομίλων που υποστηρίζεται ενεργά από τον Παγκόσμιο Οργανισμό Εμπορίου, την ίδια στιγμή μάλιστα που όλοι προσποιούνται πως ενδιαφέρονται γι αυτές.
                  

                     Μη μπορώντας όμως να κρύψει το πραγματικό του πρόσωπο, δεν αρκεί στον Παγκόσμιο Οργανισμό Εμπορίου να ελέγξει την οικονομική δραστηριότητα όλων των κρατών. Επιδιώκει να επιβάλει τις απόψεις τους σε κάθε πτυχή της κοινωνίας, στη διαχείριση της δημόσιας διοίκησης, στη φορολογική πολιτική, στην εκπαίδευση, στις κοινωνικές πολιτικές και σε θεσμικές μεταρρυθμίσεις. Λοιπόν όχι, καμία διευκόλυνση για το διεθνές τοκογλυφικό κεφάλαιο, καμία παραχώρηση σε όσους καταστρέφουν έθνη και λαούς για το χρήμα. Για εμάς τους Έλληνες εθνικιστές, η μόνη θετική κίνηση που θα μπορούσε να κάνει ο Παγκόσμιος Οργανισμός Εμπορίου θα ήταν να αυτοδιαλυθεί.
                  

Davor Ivo Stier (PPE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, želim prvo čestitati kolegama Pablu Zalbi Bidegainu i Berndu Langeu na kvalitetnom prijedlogu rezolucije. Liberalizacija trgovine je važan alat za postizanje održivog gospodarskog rasta, a međunarodna trgovina mogla bi postati najvažniji vanjski izvor financiranja razvoja za najmanje razvijene zemlje. Važnost trgovine za održivi razvoj prepoznata je i u nedavno usvojenoj Agendi 2030. za održiv razvoj gdje je trgovina istaknuta kao važno sredstvo za dostizanje novih održivih razvojnih ciljeva te inkluzivnog i održivog razvoja.
                  

                     Simbolično je što se 10. ministarska konferencija WTO-a po prvi put održava u Africi čiji je razvoj od presudne važnosti za nas u Europskoj uniji. EU je uvijek zagovarala i naglašavala svoju predanost multilateralizmu, istodobno priznajući dopunske pristupe i privremena rješenja kao što su bilateralni, regionalni i plulilateralni sporazumi koji mogu znatno potaknuti otvaranje trgovine.
                  

                     No, za postizanje barem nekog pozitivnog rezultata ove ministarske konferencije WTO-a također je potrebno da se prepoznaju razlike između najmanje razvijenih zemalja i onih brzo rastućih ekonomija srednjeg dohotka. Ove potonje moraju preuzeti veću odgovornost za daljnju liberalizaciju trgovine kao i postizanje ciljeva održivog razvoja iz Agende 2030. Također, moramo posvetiti pozornost na zaključke 5. konferencije o reviziji pomoći za trgovinu koja se fokusirala uglavnom na sporazum olakšavanja trgovine, a kojim se pokušava pomoći zemljama u razvoju da poboljšaju svoje trgovinske kapacitete.
                  

                     Samo poboljšani carinski postupci bi mogli na primjer povećati svjetski BDP za 68 milijardi EUR godišnje, a najviše bi koristi od toga imale zemlje u razvoju.
                  

                     Zato pozdravljam što se u rezoluciji poziva sve članice WTO-a da hitno pristupe ratifikaciji i implementaciji ovog sporazuma kako bi taj mogao stupiti na snagu prije 10. ministarske konferencije WTO-a.
                  

(Govornik se složio da odgovori na pitanje podizanjem plave kartice na osnovi članka 162. stavka 8. Poslovnika.)


Paul Rübig (PPE),
Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                        
. – Herr Präsident! Ich möchte meinen Kollegen Stier fragen: Dass die Handelserleichterungen mehr Wohlstand in den Entwicklungsländern bringen, das ist uns klar. Aber gerade das Programm Aid for Trad ist eigentlich auch wichtig, vor allem zu fokussieren auf die Länder, wo jetzt die Flüchtlingsströme herkommen.
                  

                     Glaubt er, dass diese Diskussion jetzt in Kenia möglich ist und dass wir hier alle Unterstützung den Ländern geben, um den Menschen wieder die Möglichkeit zu geben, in ihrer Heimat bleiben zu können?
                  

Davor Ivo Stier (PPE),
odgovor na pitanje postavljeno podizanjem plave kartice
. – Poštovani kolega, naravno, slažem se s vama i onim što ste upitali, što je nešto što se možda indirektno, ali i u ovom prijedlogu rezolucije ističe.
                  

                     Kada sam govorio da se naglasak mora staviti i na ovaj sporazum o olakšavanju trgovine gdje se pomaže zemljama u razvoju da mogu povećati svoje trgovinske kapacitete, a i time bolje se boriti protiv siromaštva i osigurati ljudima da mogu i imaju pravo ostati u svojoj zemlji i tamo imati perspektivu umjesto da moraju migrirati.
                  

Inmaculada Rodríguez-Piñero Fernández (S&D). – Señor Presidente, señora Comisaria, mi apoyo total a la Resolución y al excelente trabajo de sus ponentes, Bernd Lange y Pablo Zalba.
                  

                     Quiero decir alto y claro que la Unión Europea sigue y debe seguir comprometida fuertemente con el multilateralismo, ejerciendo una función de liderazgo y de puente entre los diferentes socios de la OMC en todas las negociaciones.
                  

                     No es tiempo de lamentaciones. Ha llegado el momento de exigir a todos los miembros de la Organización la inmediata ratificación e implementación del Acuerdo sobre Facilitación del Comercio y también ha llegado el momento de exigir que se impliquen y se comprometan en concluir una larga, demasiado larga, Ronda de Doha y en la hoja de ruta que deberá seguirse después de la Conferencia de Nairobi.
                  

                     No acepto una derrota. Para ello, creo y comparto con la Comisaria que es preciso que algunos socios acerquen posiciones para reducir las distorsiones en el comercio de productos agrícolas y las subvenciones a la exportación; que las economías emergentes efectivamente ejerzan su respectiva cuota de responsabilidad en función de su nivel de desarrollo y de su implicación en el comercio internacional; y que haya mayor flexibilidad de los países avanzados en favor de los países menos avanzados.
                  

                     Por último, es necesaria una reforma de la OMC: tiene que reforzar su dimensión parlamentaria y tiene que reforzar su gobernanza para que no se admita ninguna duda sobre su utilidad y necesidad.
                  

Hans-Olaf Henkel (ECR). – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Natürlich wäre es schön, wenn die WTO-Runden so weit entwickelt wären, dass wir keine bilateralen Abkommen mehr bräuchten. Wir könnten uns den ganzen Streit über die TTIP, das CETA usw. sparen. Aber ich möchte doch mal auf etwas anderes hinweisen: Warum sind eigentlich die Globalisierung und freier Handel so wichtig? Wir dürfen nicht vergessen, dass die Globalisierung nicht nur Waren, Güter, Dienstleistungen und Investitionen um die Welt bringt, sondern auch Ideen und Werte. Es ist der Globalisierung zu verdanken, dass wir heute die Menschenrechte als globale Herausforderung und Chance erkannt haben. Wir sehen übrigens auch, dass es heute mehr Demokratien als je zuvor in der Welt gibt. Auch das ist eine Folge der Globalisierung. Also wir müssen uns für die WTO, für Handel einsetzen, weil Handel eben auch zu mehr führt als zu Wohlstand.
                  

                     Im Übrigen, meine Damen und Herren – hier kommt mein Ceterum censeo –, bin ich der Meinung, dass der Einheits-Euro nur zu Zwist und Zwietracht in Europa führt und deshalb abgeschafft werden muss.
                  

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’ gemäß Artikel 162 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)


Tibor Szanyi (S&D),
Kékkártyás kérdés
. – Képviselő Úrtól azt kérdezném, hogy ha teoretikusan vesszük, ez a sok-sok kétoldalú vagy regionális megállapodás létrejönne, akkor abból vajon Ön szerint lehetne-e globális megállapodást képezni. Szerintem nem, de kíváncsi vagyok a véleményére.
                  

Hans-Olaf Henkel (ECR),
Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                        
. – Ja, der Meinung wäre ich schon, dass, wenn wir ein ideales weltweites Übereinkommen hätten, wir uns diese bilateralen Abkommen alle sparen könnten.
                  

                     Allerdings muss man sagen, dass alle bilateralen Abkommen insgesamt mehr zum Welthandel beigetragen haben als bisher die WTO. Trotzdem bleibt für mich klar und deutlich das Ziel: Wir müssen die WTO zu einem weltweiten Erfolg führen, und dann werden wir diese Abkommen auch nicht mehr brauchen.
                  

Dita Charanzová (ALDE). – Mr President, Madam Commissioner, Europe needs a world where all doors are open to our businesses, and global free trade is the key to those doors. If we want Europe to be strong, we must support all measures to ensure the removal of barriers both within the WTO framework and outside.
Now we must draw a line under the last 14 years of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) discussion and move forward. I believe we can do this within the WTO, but only if we adopt a new strategy and a new vision for it as an institution. What do we need at this stage to reach this goal? Firstly, we must finish this round in some form, to keep the multilateral agenda moving. I hope that the European Union will continue to be at the forefront, leading this discussion. But there needs to be greater engagement of all members to bring some meaningful results from these talks, even if these are less than we originally hoped for.
Secondly, after this is done, in order to recommit ourselves to a multilateral trade agenda, we need a new plan on how to progress within the WTO trade agenda that is not just a repeat of the same old ways. The Nairobi meeting should be about achieving and accepting realistic results on the DDA on the one hand, but it should also aim at charting an ambitious way forward for the WTO more generally.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8)).


Maria Grapini (S&D),
Întrebare adresată conform procedurii ‘cartonașului albastru’
                        
. – Domnule președinte, sunt total de acord cu ce a susținut colega noastră și sunt total de acord și cu ce spun raportorii, însă eu aș vrea să vă întreb, stimată colegă, dacă nu credeți că, totuși, Organizația Mondială a Comerțului trebuie să aibă o altfel de agendă comercială, în așa fel încât, prin intrarea unor țări puternice în Organizația Mondială a Comerțului, să nu se ajungă la o concurență neloială așa cum avem acum de foarte multe ori, de exemplu din partea Chinei, cu intrarea de produse necontrolate? Nu ar trebui să revizuim anumite documente de lucru ale Organizației Mondiale a Comerțului? Nu cote, ci modul de control pentru protecția consumatorului.
                  

Dita Charanzová (ALDE),
blue-card answer
. – Thank you for your question, and I agree that we are now at a milestone in the WTO negotiations. I think we need the engagement not only of the European Union but of all the members of the WTO, because it is crucial that we move the global trade agenda forward. It is not enough to have bilateral or bi-regional negotiations. I think it is in the interests of all the players to have global trade rules.

Lola Sánchez Caldentey (GUE/NGL). – Señor Presidente, la Ronda de Doha ha afrontado grandes desafíos. El camino multilateral no es sencillo porque los intereses de los Estados ricos y pobres se contraponen y siempre se acaban imponiendo los de los grandes poderes económicos: los del Norte. Ello hace imposible lograr consensos que beneficien a todos y especialmente a los más desfavorecidos: los del Sur.
                  

                     No debemos caer en el supuesto pragmatismo del camino fácil que representan la ATCI, el ACS, el AECG o la ATP, pues estas vías no son más que la imposición de la hegemonía del rico a través de un acuerdo entre gigantes, entre soberbios.
                  

                     En Nairobi es crucial redoblar los esfuerzos para encontrar un marco democrático para el comercio donde todas las voces estén representadas; para que el comercio internacional se convierta, de una vez, en una herramienta para superar la desigualdad, la pobreza y el cambio climático; y para que sea un motor de bienestar para la gente y no un apisonadora de derechos y del medio ambiente, que es lo que suponen estos ‘macrotratados’.
                  

Tiziana Beghin (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, alla conferenza di Nairobi la posta in gioco è il futuro stesso del sistema multilaterale. Un sistema che l'Unione europea e gli Stati Uniti stanno lentamente uccidendo a colpi di accordi come il TTIP, il TPP e il TiSA. Ed è proprio questo il problema. Ancora si insiste sul plurilateralismo come soluzione, ma non si capisce che se il sistema multilaterale non funziona, bisogna riformarlo, non girare intorno alle sue macerie.
                  

                     Bisogna focalizzarsi sui paesi più poveri e aiutarli, ma bisogna anche abbandonare la distinzione così ambigua tra paesi in via di sviluppo e sviluppati: come la Cina e l'India, ad esempio, che possono mandare un uomo sulla Luna, ma che si definiscono paesi in via di sviluppo e ne approfittano di conseguenza. Dobbiamo aiutare i più poveri a ottenere dagli altri le concessioni generose che noi già offriamo e dobbiamo infine usare l'OMC per trovare un accordo sulla regola d'origine.
                  

                     Queste norme sono negoziate meglio a livello multilaterale: per questo dobbiamo impegnarci perché Nairobi sia un successo, sempre che non si sia già scelta la via degli accordi come il TTIP e il TiSA e in questo caso allora sì che abbiamo veramente perso tutti.
                  

Santiago Fisas Ayxelà (PPE). – Señor Presidente, señora Comisaria, me gustaría ante todo felicitar a sus Señorías Bernd Lange y Pablo Zalba por esta importante Resolución, donde se reflejan las prioridades del Parlamento Europeo ante la décima Conferencia Ministerial de la OMC, que tendrá lugar en Kenia en diciembre.
                  

                     Recordemos que la creación de la OMC representó un paso fundamental hacia un sistema comercial más integrado y dinámico. La OMC ha supuesto también que los países en desarrollo, con economías en transición, y los países menos adelantados puedan aprovechar el comercio para impulsar su desarrollo.
                  

                     A través de la OMC, la Unión Europea ha demostrado su interés en fomentar un marco multilateral para las negociaciones comerciales que conviva con los acuerdos bilaterales, regionales y plurilaterales.
                  

                     Nuestro entorno está evolucionando; el sistema de comercio internacional ha cambiado y lo seguirá haciendo en los próximos años. Estamos en un sistema más abierto, con nuevos países en transición que forman parte de una realidad que hay que tener en cuenta.
                  

                     Por tanto, tenemos que maximizar las oportunidades que emanan del comercio, y eso pasa por apoyar una reforma estructural de la OMC para garantizar un sistema de comercio más abierto y más justo y que tome en consideración los intereses de las pymes, las microempresas y las nuevas empresas innovadoras.
                  

                     También sería importante suprimir las barreras comerciales en sectores altamente innovadores, como son las energías renovables, y así se daría un fuerte impulso a un sector en fuerte crecimiento y generador de puestos de trabajo.
                  

David Martin (S&D). – Mr President, as the Commissioner herself has said and other Members have pointed out, we should not miss the symbolism of Nairobi being the first time that a WTO Ministerial Conference has been held in Africa. We should see this as an opportunity to put development firmly back on the Doha Development Round and emphasise, as much as possible, development items during the course of the Ministerial Conference.
Firstly, I hope the EU will continue its support for special and differential treatment and put that at the core of some of our debates during the Ministerial Conference, particularly trying to target the least-developed countries (LDCs) to ensure that they benefit from the opening up of trade. As others have said this afternoon, we all welcome the conclusion of the Trade Facilitation Agreement. We should aim to try and get that signed before the Ministerial Conference, and I know the Commissioner is working on that. I do not pretend it is an easy task, but again, the symbolism of getting that done before Nairobi would be vital.
We should also (I think it was Mr Rübig who raised the issue) try to push our Member States to deliver on their aid-for-trade commitments. The European Union institutions have largely delivered on the commitments made at Gleneagles a number of years ago; the Member States have almost universally failed to do so. So we need to press them in this regard.
Finally, although it is not a matter for the WTO Ministerial Conference, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Commission for the position it recently took at the WTO TRIPS Council on the extension of IP exemptions for medicines for LDCs. This is a real contribution to ensuring access to medicines for the poorest countries in the world.

Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE). – Mr President, I believe this resolution comes just in time to show the EU's commitment in advancing the Doha Development Agenda based on free and fair trade for the benefit of all.
The proposed provisions support the structural reform of the World Trade Organization. This reform will, hopefully, contribute to a better and more open trade system – a more non-discriminatory trade system – based on shared and applied rules. I believe that change is necessary. I believe that the WTO system must change to be more efficient and better suited to reality – to the real problems – and better suited to fulfil its role in helping SMEs and micro-enterprises and also innovative start-ups.
I hope that this resolution will embrace the specific interest of the low-income developing countries and the least-developed countries as well, because it supports the establishing of appropriate definitions of low-income developing countries and emerging economies as well. This will help resolve the recurring problem, for example, with China in the WTO system.
Lastly, I believe the provisions of the resolution aim to ensure sustainable economic growth and development by supporting liberalisation through accompanying policies. Taking all this into consideration, I fully support this resolution. I believe that it will suit, and be beneficial for, all the members of the WTO.

Nicola Danti (S&D). – Signor presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Commissario, l'Unione europea nella prossima conferenza ministeriale dell'Organizzazione mondiale per il commercio dovrà confermare il suo forte impegno per l'avanzamento dell'agenda multilaterale. Dovrà sollecitare un ripensamento dell'OMC, che sia capace di superare le difficoltà rispondere alle sfide dei nostri tempi.
                  

                     L'Europa deve fare il massimo sforzo per concludere gli importanti accordi bilaterali attualmente in fase di trattativa. Ma occorre ricordare che l'obiettivo principale della politica commerciale europea deve essere quello di spingere verso la creazione di un sistema di accordi multilaterali che siano la base guida di una globalizzazione più equa.
                  

                     Con la ratifica dell'accordo sulle agevolazioni degli scambi, l'Unione europea si presenta con le carte in regola al vertice di Nairobi. Questo primo accordo in sede OMC prevede un approccio innovativo su misura nei confronti dei paesi meno avanzati e in via di sviluppo, che permetterà loro di scegliere i tempi e i modi di attuazione degli obblighi.
                  

                     Auspico quindi che a Nairobi si definisca una chiara ed efficace strategia che rafforzi il commercio multilaterale.
                  

Christofer Fjellner (PPE). – Herr talman! Fri handel är vårt viktigaste verktyg för att skapa välstånd och utrota fattigdom. Det är därför som ett globalt handelsavtal är så otroligt viktigt. Ändå har vi ägnat de senaste tretton åren till att harva med DOA-rundan och att försöka få den i mål.
                  

                     Det gör inte att det är mindre viktigt – att det har tagit lång tid – att vi når framgångar i Nairobi. Jag vill bara peka på tre skäl som jag tycker är särskilt viktiga just nu med att vi når framgångar i Nairobi. Det första är för att få fart på världsekonomin. Just nu är osäkerheten i världsekonomin betydande och de stora riskerna ligger på nedsidan. Det andra är att vi just nu, mer än någonsin, behöver globala spelregler och globala tullar för att möta det virrvarr av olika ursprungsregler och olika tullar som alla de frihandelsavtal vi skapat, som har exploderat de senaste åren. Detta som det enda alternativet när de multilaterala förhandlingarna inte går, som på något sätt rättar till det så att handeln inte blir dyr och krånglig, vilket den riskerar att bli. Det tredje skälet är att WTO:s trovärdighet står på spel. WTO:s trovärdighet som en arena där man sköter förhandlingar och för frihandelsvänner och inte bara en arena för tvistlösning.
                  

                     Bara för att det är viktigt betyder det uppenbarligen inte att vi kan förvänta oss framgångar. Det har jag lärt mig under mina tolv år då jag har följt frågan. Jag har, precis som kommissionären själv påpekar, inte jättelika förhoppningar om att vi ska avsluta rundan. Däremot hoppas jag på en sak – för det finns saker man kan göra – och det är att man lyckas med de sektoriella förhandlingarna, de plurilateraler som sker vid sidan av, till exempel frågan om ett frihandelsavtal för miljövänliga produkter. Där kan, tror jag, EU och kommissionären göra oerhört stor skillnad, och jag hoppas verkligen att hon kan komma hem och presentera att vi avskaffar tullar på miljövänliga produkter, för det behöver miljön, Europa och handeln.
                  

(Talaren samtyckte till att besvara en fråga (blått kort) i enlighet med artikel 162.8 i arbetsordningen).


João Ferreira (GUE/NGL),
pergunta segundo o procedimento ‘cartão azul’
                        
. – Senhor Presidente, o Senhor Fjellner fez aqui mais uma das habituais profissões de fé no livre mercado. Mas, se é tão importante o livre comércio para o desenvolvimento, como é que o Senhor Felner explica que a generalidade dos países em desenvolvimento — por exemplo, os países ACP — tenham resistido, enquanto puderam, à tentativa de imposição da União Europeia dos acordos de livre comércio, que são os chamados Acordos de Parceria Económica? Se é tão bom para eles, porque é que resistiram enquanto puderam? E, já agora, dê-nos exemplos de países desenvolvidos que o sejam, países industrializados, que tenham chegado a essa condição sem uma forte política protecionista ao longo de anos.
                  

Christofer Fjellner (PPE),
blue-card answer
. – If that were true, I might actually agree with you, but the fact is that most ACP countries are on the way to concluding economic partnership agreements with the EU. That is a fact. And we can see that, as a consequence of free trade, we have fewer extremely poor people in the world now than ever before. That is due not to communist ideals of the sort that you promote, but to free trade and nothing else.

Alessia Maria Mosca (S&D). – Signor presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissario, voglio anche io ringraziare i relatori perché questa risoluzione esprime con realismo, ma anche con forza, l'auspicio che si possa finalmente arrivare a quella spinta risolutiva a livello globale, per affrontare le sfide che premono e che su cui devono essere trovate delle soluzioni concrete.
                  

                     Di fronte alle incertezze e ai cambiamenti del nostro modo di pensare la globalizzazione, che è globalizzazione anche del male purtroppo – come stiamo sperimentando con particolare dolore in questi giorni – l'appuntamento di Nairobi acquista un'importanza ancora maggiore, perché potrebbe essere l'occasione per fare emergere il volto positivo di questa globalizzazione.
                  

                     Una globalizzazione in cui si rafforzi il sistema multilaterale, la cui finalità sia la condivisione di regole eque e inclusive e in cui si tengono in considerazione le necessità e i bisogni dei paesi meno sviluppati, e in cui ci si concentri sullo sviluppo economico, certamente, ma anche sociale, ambientale e umano, in senso lato.
                  

                     Per tutte queste ragioni spero davvero che una OMC rinnovata e rinvigorita possa essere la giusta direzione imboccata a Nairobi: questa è la nostra priorità, come espresso dalla risoluzione.
                  

Bogdan Brunon Wenta (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Jak Pani zaznaczyła, grudniowa 10. konferencja ministerialna WTO po raz pierwszy odbędzie się w kraju afrykańskim. Jako że deklaracja z Ad-Dauhy z 2001 r. wyraźnie wskazuje na powiązania pomiędzy handlem a rozwojem, to właśnie interesy i potrzeby państw rozwijających się muszą w dalszym ciągu znajdować się w centrum każdego aspektu negocjacji. Ponad dwie trzecie członków Światowej Organizacji Handlu to kraje rozwijające się.
                  

                     Likwidacja barier handlowych, a także przeciwdziałanie powstawaniu nowych jest ważnym narzędziem w kierunku zrównoważonego wzrostu gospodarczego i rozwoju. Eksperci szacują, iż pomyślne zakończenie negocjacji z Ad-Dauhy w tej sprawie doprowadzi do wzrostu globalnego PKB do nawet 300 miliardów dolarów rocznie. Większość tego wzrostu przypadnie na kraje rozwijające się oraz kraje najsłabiej rozwinięte, co z kolei pozytywnie wpływa czy wpłynie na sytuację materialną mieszkańców tych krajów i znacząco zmniejszy poziom ubóstwa.
                  

                     W trakcie zbliżającej się rundy negocjacyjnej państwa najbardziej rozwinięte powinny wziąć na siebie większą część odpowiedzialności za wdrażane rozwiązania, dostosowując je do możliwości i specyfiki państw biedniejszych. Liberalizacja handlu i zwiększenie dostępu do rynku dla tych państw zapewni większe możliwości wymiany Południe–Południe oraz z krajami rozwiniętymi, zwłaszcza w kluczowym obszarze rolnictwa. Dostęp ten powinien być ułatwiony poprzez zniesienie ograniczeń ilościowych i ceł. Należy podjąć wszelkie kroki, aby otwarcie rynków przełożyło się na realne korzyści dla wszystkich ludzi w ich codziennym życiu. Ważne jest, aby przedstawiciele Unii Europejskiej dążyli do znaczącego postępu w negocjacjach i do zakończenia dauhańskiej rundy rozwoju.
                  

Pedro Silva Pereira (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, a Senhora Comissária Malmström recordou-nos que falta menos de um mês para a 10.a Conferência Ministerial da Organização Mundial do Comércio, mas temos de reconhecer que os trabalhos preparatórios estão longe de ser satisfatórios e de perspetivar um sucesso em Nairóbi. E nenhuma agenda bilateral ou regional substitui uma agenda multilateral ambiciosa e equilibrada. Esta é uma reunião multilateral, Senhora Comissária. E não há, portanto, sucesso possível sem construir, nesta fase preparatória, as alianças certas e as alianças fortes em direção a um desenvolvimento mais justo e sustentável, que utilize o comércio na boa direção.
                  

                     O que eu pergunto à Senhora Comissária é o que é que a Comissão Europeia está a fazer e o que é que pode ainda fazer até Nairóbi para construir essas alianças certas, essas alianças fortes, para um sucesso nesta conferência interministerial?
                  

Διαδικασία‘Catch-the-Eye’
                  

Paul Rübig (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Wir sehen, dass diese Debatte dringend notwendig ist. Wir stehen mitten im digitalen Zeitalter, die Welt wächst zusammen, und wir führen noch immer Diskussionen wie am Start der Doha-Runde.
                  

                     Die Welt hat sich dramatisch geändert, und ich glaube, gerade der Bereich Aid for Trade – dass wir den kleinen und mittleren Betrieben helfen, dass wir den Selbständigen helfen in jenen Zonen, wo bittere Armut herrscht – sollte das vordringlichste Ziel sein.
                  

                     Da muss man in erster Linie Korruption bekämpfen, weil in vielen Bereichen die Zölle, die Verwaltung es behindern und verhindern, dass Handel getrieben wird. Ich glaube, dass es auch wichtig ist, dass wir uns darum kümmern, dass die Menschen wieder genügend zu essen haben. Wie können wir die zehn Milliarden Menschen mit Lebensmitteln versorgen, die 2050 leben werden? Also Handelserleichterungen, Aid for Trade und Landwirtschaft, das ist ein Paket, das dringend notwendig ist.
                  

Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il round di Doha e l'enorme lavoro preparatorio testimoniano il sottile e difficile bilanciamento tra l'opportunità per i membri dell'OMC di perseguire legittimi obiettivi di politica commerciale e la necessità di concedere il necessario aiuto ai paesi in via di sviluppo, perché soddisfino i propri necessari standard di commercio globale.
                  

                     Ebbene, il ponte che unisce queste due realtà è ancora molto fragile e parte del ruolo guida deve essere svolto dall'Unione europea, che deve agevolare il Doha Round con l'obiettivo di creare nuove opportunità commerciali e la risoluzione degli attuali squilibri del sistema. Va quindi perseguita la tutela delle regole multilaterali del commercio e non la compressione diretta in diretta, che invece proviene dagli accordi bilaterali, pur nell'utilità di questi.
                  

                     Una strada è certamente quella dell'ossequio, nei negoziati agricoli in corso, all'articolo 20, dell'accordo sull'agricoltura di Marrakesh, dove si precisa la necessità del rispetto dei principi di natura non immediatamente commerciale: protezione dell'ambiente, sicurezza alimentare, sviluppo rurale, benessere degli animali.
                  

                     La finalità non più eludibile è quella di una crescita inclusiva e sostenibile e di una riduzione dei costi commerciali che passi per la trasparenza e la certezza del diritto.
                  

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η αναπτυξιακή ατζέντα της Ντόχα οφείλει να αποσκοπεί στην οικονομική μεγέθυνση, στη θέσπιση κανόνων για τη διευκόλυνση ενός δικαίου εμπορίου και στη μείωση των ανισομερειών στο διεθνές σύστημα εμπορικών συναλλαγών. Ωστόσο, αυτό που τελικά συμβαίνει στην πράξη είναι η πλήρης και άνευ όρων απελευθέρωση του εμπορίου που οδηγεί στην αποβιομηχάνιση, στη μείωση της απασχόλησης και στις οικονομικές κρίσεις.
                  

                     Παράλληλα, ζημιωμένοι βγαίνουν και οι αγρότες, ενώ επιπλέον ο Παγκόσμιος Οργανισμός Εμπορίου, όχι μόνο χαρακτηρίζεται από βαθύ δημοκρατικό έλλειμμα, αλλά απέτυχε να συμβάλλει στην αποτροπή της χρηματοπιστωτικής κρίσης.
                  

                     Είναι, επομένως, αναγκαίο να διαμορφωθούν δίκαιοι και ισορροπημένοι εμπορικοί κανονισμοί που να υπηρετούν την κοινωνική δικαιοσύνη. Επιπλέον, θα πρέπει κάθε κράτος να διατηρεί την κυριαρχία του στη ρύθμιση των οικονομικών του σχέσεων καθώς και στην κατανομή των πόρων στους διάφορους δημόσιους τομείς, προκειμένου να μπει έτσι φραγμός στην κερδοσκοπία των μεγάλων επιχειρήσεων μέσω των ανισομερών εμπορικών σχέσεων και συναλλαγών.
                  

Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, gospođo povjerenice, svjetska trgovina mora postati instrument i pokretač razvoja. Mora postati mehanizam kojim ćemo mi koji smo bogatiji pomoći slabijima, jer zar nije bolje učiniti nešto u pravcu olakšica u svjetskoj trgovini nego donositi humanitarnu pomoć, zar nije lakše mehanizmima multilateralne trgovine učiniti nešto za zemlju u razvoju, omogućiti njihovim gospodarstvima i poljoprivredi da krenu naprijed i da im na taj način damo udicu da ulove ribu, a ne da im donosimo ribu, jer nemamo dovoljno novaca da bismo nekome mogli vječno davati ribu da bi mogli jesti.
                  

                     Moramo pomoći da se sami prehrane, ali na način da utječu na svjetsku trgovinu i da pomognu sebi i svima nama zajedno, jer kako ćemo za samo nekoliko godina nahraniti 10 milijardi ljudi koliko će nas biti na planeti?
                  

Lidia Senra Rodríguez (GUE/NGL). – Señor Presidente, señora Comisaria, señores diputados y diputadas, ustedes saben perfectamente que el éxito de Bali y el éxito de la OMC solo será a costa de las personas más desfavorecidas y más débiles del planeta: el campesinado y las clases populares. Porque, a pesar de lo mucho que han dicho aquí algunos y algunas de ustedes, la realidad es que, cuanto más comercio internacional, cuanto más libre comercio, más pobres hay en el mundo y más se concentra la riqueza cada vez en unas pocas manos.
                  

                     Y permítanme recordarles que en la Conferencia Ministerial de 2003 en Cancún, el señor Lee Kyung Hae, un campesino a quien la Organización Mundial del Comercio impidió una vida digna, se quitó la vida a las puertas de esta Conferencia para denunciar la tragedia que supone la desaparición de las economías campesinas del mundo. No es momento de avanzar en la OMC, es momento de ponerle fin.
                  

                     Ustedes hablan también en la propuesta de Resolución de que la reforma de la PAC responde a las expectativas de la OMC. La destrucción de la forma de vida de miles de campesinos y campesinas en la Unión Europea pone de manifiesto que la OMC es un fracaso para Europa y para el mundo.
                  

(Λήξη της διαδικασίας‘Catch-the-Eye’)


Cecilia Malmström,
Member of the Commission
. – Mr President, thank you for this debate, and thank you also to the two rapporteurs, Mr Zalba and Mr Lange, for the work that you have been doing. Even though there are some dissenting voices, there seems to be a great deal of support for your resolution, so congratulations on that.
Like most of you, the Commission and myself are very committed to the multilateral system. We need to do everything we can to vitalise the WTO because, yes, we do need an international forum in which we can split up international rules and to which almost all the countries of the world now belong: 161 and growing. There are so many issues that we need to discuss at global level, so we need to free energy for that in the future.
But first, of course, we need to deliver in Nairobi. The process is called the Doha Development Round, so we should not forget development: that is the reason for all the efforts made by the Commission so far. And yes, Mr Pereira, we have been working very hard to ally ourselves with other countries – like-minded ACP countries that have met many times – in an attempt to see how we can push forward a joint agenda. We need to make sure that the poorest and most vulnerable countries in the world become the beneficiaries of this agreement. And that is why we are looking at export competition. We have tabled proposals to address agricultural export subsidies because they are indeed very damaging to the poor world. We are looking at different development-related issues such as duty-free quotas, free rules of origin, cotton, services, etc. And we are also looking at increasing the transparency of the system. This is not easy. There are many different voices in there, so we are working very hard in Geneva. And I would like to say, for the benefit of the colleagues from UKIP (who have now all left), that when 28 countries speak unanimously with one voice, as we do in the WTO, then of course we have quite a lot of leverage. But that is not enough; there are 161 countries, so we need to move forward.
It is possible to have different views on how far we have reformed the CAP, but it is true that we, the European Union, are the world's biggest importer of food from the world's poorest countries. We do not use export subsidies for our food today, and that is why we are pushing for their abolition in Nairobi, together with Brazil and many others. We are working hard. There are three more weeks. We need to make sure that there is an outcome, but it is not certain yet. We will do whatever we can until the very last moment in Nairobi to achieve an agreement on the way forward. And yes, Mr. Fjellner, I hope that we can also include trade facilitation and push for aid for trade and green goods if that is possible. We are also making progress on the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), but that would have a parallel track rather than being dealt with in Nairobi. And I will be looking forward to regularly meeting the delegation from the European Parliament, who I know will be in Nairobi. Hopefully, when we next discuss this after Christmas, we can at least be happy that some conclusions were reached there. If all this fails, it will not be because of the European Union.

Πρόεδρος. – Έχω λάβει μια πρόταση ψηφίσματος για την περάτωση αυτής της συζήτησης.
                  

                     Η συζήτηση περατώνεται.
                  

                     Η ψηφοφορία θα διεξαχθεί την Πέμπτη 26 Νοεμβρίου 2015.
                  


Γραπτές δηλώσεις (άρθρο 162)



Barbara Kappel (ENF),
schriftlich
. – In knapp vier Wochen findet in Nairobi die 10. Ministerkonferenz der WTO statt. Prioritäres Ziel dieser Konferenz ist es, ein klares und detailliertes Arbeitsprogramm zum Abschluss der Doha-Entwicklungsagenda zu verabschieden. Dieses Ziel wird wohl nicht erreicht werden, da die Verhandlungslinien zwischen Industriestaaten und Entwicklungsländern in wichtigen Fragen weit auseinander liegen. Es betrifft dies den Agrarsektor, wo die Entwicklungsländer einen besseren Marktzugang, den Abbau von Importquoten und Zöllen sowie die Reduzierung der Subventionen durch die Industriestaaten fordern, weiters den Marktzugang für nicht landwirtschaftliche Produkte, die 90 Prozent der weltweiten Handelsgüter umfassen, von Bodenschätzen, Rohstoffen zur Weiterverarbeitung wie z. B. Erdöl bis hin zum Forst und zur Fischerei, ebenso Angebot und Zugang zu Dienstleistungen, z. B. die Nichtdiskriminierung von Drittstaaten bei der öffentlichen Auftragsvergabe. Die Europäische Union erwartet als Gipfelergebnis ein umfangreiches Arbeitsprogramm, welches Liberalisierungsmaßnahmen im Bereich nicht landwirtschaftlicher Produkte und Dienstleistungen sowie Exportwettbewerb im Agrarsektor vorsieht, ebenso Zollreduktionen für landwirtschaftliche und industrielle Produkte ohne Ausnahmen für Entwicklungsländer. Die USA würden sich mit einer Minimalversion zufriedengeben. Die großen Agrarexportländer fordern substanzielle Verbesserungen beim Marktzugang und Schwellenländer wie Indien beharren auf der Beibehaltung von Ausnahmeregelungen bei der Öffnung ihres Agrarmarktes.
                  

IN THE CHAIR: MAIREAD McGUINNESS


Vice-President

12.   Human rights in EU-Vietnam trade negotiations (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on human rights in EU-Vietnam trade negotiations by Bernd Lange and Marietje Schaake on behalf of the Committee on International Trade (O-000116/2015 – B8-1106/2015)(2015/2821(RSP)).

Bernd Lange,
Verfasser
. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin! In der nächsten Woche, am 2. Dezember, wird der Premierminister Vietnams nach Brüssel kommen und das Handelsabkommen unterzeichnen. Ich denke, das ist ein sehr gutes Abkommen, was zwischen Vietnam und der Europäischen Union ausgehandelt worden ist. Es hat einen sehr deutlichen, aber asymmetrischen Reduktions-Fahrplan für die Zölle, man hat sich über Standards geeinigt, 169 GIs sind akzeptiert worden von Vietnam – 169 GIs – daran sollten sich andere Partnerländer mal ein Beispiel nehmen. Über die öffentliche Beschaffung hat man sich geeinigt, und es ist im Grunde ein level playing field geschaffen worden. Insofern wirklich ein bemerkenswertes Abkommen. Und auch in diesem Abkommen ist in der Präambel eindeutig Bezug genommen worden auf die Charta der Vereinten Nationen von 1945 und auf die Allgemeine Erklärung der Menschenrechte von 1948. Also: In dem Handelsabkommen ist ein klarer Bezug zur Frage der Menschenrechte und der Sicherung der Menschenrechte.
               

                  Damit ist auch außer Frage, dass das Partnerschafts- und Kooperationsabkommen, das 2012 auf den Weg gebracht worden ist, mit dem Handelsabkommen eine rechtlich verbindliche Verknüpfung hat und damit die Menschenrechtsklausel aus dem Partnerschafts- und Kooperationsabkommen auch für das Handelsabkommen relevant ist.
               

                  Ich glaube, meine lieben Kolleginnen und Kollegen, darüber sind wir uns alle einig, dass natürlich Menschenrechte und Handel unmittelbar zusammengehören. Ich kann mir schlechterdings keine Handelsbeziehung vorstellen, wo Menschenrechte nicht respektiert werden. Übrigens: In dem TPP-Abkommen, das ja Vietnam auch unterzeichnet hat, ist explizit der Fortschritt bei der Menschenrechtsentwicklung mit der Marktöffnung gekoppelt, also ein Automatismus entwickelt worden.
               

                  Menschenrechte gehören also zum Handel dazu. Wenn man sich jetzt Vietnam anschaut, wissen wir alle, dass Vietnam ein sehr dynamisches Land ist, in einem Transformationsprozess ist und Herausforderungen mit sich trägt und viele Fragen von Menschenrechten auch zu thematisieren sind, insbesondere zum Beispiel die Frage der Meinungsfreiheit.
               

                  Als Instrument ist natürlich – im Rahmen der Klausel im Partnerschafts- und Kooperationsabkommen und verbunden mit dem Handelsabkommen – der Menschenrechtsdialog zu sehen. Und da liegt ein bisschen der Hase im Pfeffer. Die Frage, wie man diesen Menschenrechtsdialog verbessern kann, damit er vielleicht ein Stück weit tatkräftiger wirkt. Vielleicht in fünf Punkten die Frage, ob wir Verbesserungen brauchen, also die Frage der Zieldefinition für den Menschenrechtsdialog, brauchen wir konkrete milestones in den Gesprächen. Manchmal, habe ich das Gefühl, plätschern die Gespräche etwas dahin.
               

                  Zweitens: Wie kann es besser gelingen, auch die Zivilgesellschaft in den Dialog einzubinden? Wir haben das Civil Society Forum, wir haben Domestic Advisory Groups. Ich glaube, aus dem Handelsabkommen werden sich auch unabhängige Gewerkschaften entwickeln, können wir klare Regeln zur Einbindung garantieren und auch materielle Unterstützung, wo eben die Zivilgesellschaft nicht die entsprechenden Mittel hat.
               

                  Drittens können wir die Kohärenz der EU noch verbessern, sowohl was auf der Ebene der Kommission und des EADS passiert, aber auch auf den verschiedenen Ebenen der Verhandlungen und Gespräche, dass es wirklich eine Kohärenz in der EU-Politik gibt.
               

                  Viertens: Wie sieht es mit der Evaluierung des Menschenrechtsdialogs aus? Kann man da noch bessere Benchmarks, Indikatoren einziehen? Und fünftens die Transparenz – das ist ein Lieblingsthema von uns, dass man auch beim Menschenrechtsdialog sicherlich Transparenz noch stärken kann.
               

                  Also: Einige Fragen, wie man diesen Menschenrechtsdialog stärken kann, gerade bezogen auf Vietnam, aber angesichts der Handelsstrategie natürlich für weitere Abkommen auch.
               

Cecilia Malmström,
Member of the Commission
. – Madam President, the Commission is, as you know, committed to promoting and protecting human rights in all our engagement with third partners, including, of course, with Vietnam, which we are discussing tonight. With this aim, we organised a Stakeholders' Consultation in May, and the summary paper of the discussion published thereafter highlights the stakeholders' suggestions for improving the situation of human rights issues and underlines our commitment to transparency and to regular and continued engagement with civil society.
I can confirm that issues relating to human rights have been addressed in the context of the EU-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement negotiations, with the aim of embedding respect for human rights in the agreement, and also with a view to enhancing its positive impact and minimising the risk of adverse impacts. I have also personally discussed matters with the Minister.
The preamble of the agreement reaffirms the EU's and Vietnam's commitment to key international human rights principles and instruments. There is also an institutional and legal link between the Free Trade Agreement and the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Vietnam. These links ensure that respect for human rights underpins EU-Vietnam bilateral relations, including the FTA, and enable us to take measures considered appropriate in the event of a breach of the agreement. The FTA also contains provisions ensuring the transparency and inclusiveness of the decision-making process and any legal proceedings, thereby strengthening the enabling environment for the respect of human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Vietnam.
With regard to labour rights, the FTA includes an ambitious chapter on trade and sustainable development, and that includes not only respect for all core labour standards and ratification of fundamental ILO Conventions and their implementation, but it also pays special attention to corporate social responsibility and fair and ethical trade schemes.
The monitoring of human rights development in Vietnam is, of course, very important. This will continue to be done primarily through the institutions and structures set up in the PCA framework, including the human rights dialogue – and there will be a meeting in a couple of weeks again. We also have a dedicated instrument, the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, as you all know.
The implementation of the commitments undertaken will be followed up in both the EU and Vietnam through the mechanisms and institutions established therein, as well as through the existing EU civil society dialogue and with ex-post evaluations of the FTA.
I strongly believe – and I think Mr Lange said the same – that trade liberalisation and human rights can and must go hand in hand. The new Communication on trade and investment that the Commission published a couple of weeks ago makes it clear that EU trade policy must be for all: citizens; consumers; workers; the self-employed; small, big and medium-sized companies; and the poorest people in the developing countries. It must deliver growth, jobs and innovation, but it has to be responsible, and that means that EU trade policy must defend European values. It has to be effective at delivering economic opportunities and it has to be transparent and open to public scrutiny. Human rights are therefore a very important part of this trade strategy.
The Commission wants to ensure that trade policy contributes to the advancement of human rights in the EU and in third countries, in conjunction with our other policies – foreign policy and development cooperation. Let me assure you of the importance of finding this balance between engagement and conditionality. The Commission is, as you know, convinced that the policy of engagement is more effective than a policy exclusively based on conditionality, even if that can also play a role. Engagement allows us to engage and to create channels for dialogue, keeping them open with a lot of stakeholders involved. We intend to make full use of those channels to promote change on the ground in Vietnam.
Thank you very much for your contribution to this, and you can be sure that we will keep you informed very closely about the development once the agreement is finally concluded.

Santiago Fisas Ayxelà,
en nombre del Grupo PPE
. – Señora Presidenta, señora Comisaria, tres años después de la firma del Acuerdo Marco Global de Asociación y Cooperación entre la Unión Europea y Vietnam en 2012, el pasado agosto se llegó a un entendimiento sobre el Acuerdo de Libre Comercio -por cierto, con un país comunista-. Para la Unión Europea este Acuerdo tiene gran relevancia económica, pues se espera que incremente y facilite el acceso a un mercado con una previsión de crecimiento del PIB del 6 % en el año 2015 y que creará, además, nuevas oportunidades para la inversión.
               

                  El Acuerdo de Libre Comercio tiene una relación vinculante con el Acuerdo Marco Global de Asociación y Cooperación, que incluye cláusulas sobre derechos humanos. Este nexo garantiza que estos principios deben regir las relaciones entre la Unión Europea y Vietnam, abarcando también las relaciones comerciales.
               

                  Han pasado veinticinco años desde el establecimiento de relaciones diplomáticas y, en este período, hemos podido observar una progresiva mejora en la situación de los derechos humanos en Vietnam. Es cierto que aún existen deficiencias; en particular, sigue aplicándose la pena de muerte y existen acoso a activistas de la sociedad civil, restricciones a los medios de comunicación y limitaciones de la libertad religiosa. Tenemos que condenar estas prácticas y presionar para su rápida erradicación, pero no debemos olvidar que Vietnam está dando pasos en la buena dirección.
               

                  Vietnam es actualmente miembro del Consejo de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas y en 2014 ratificó la Convención contra la Tortura y la Convención sobre los Derechos de las Personas con Discapacidad. Hay que seguir vigilando la situación de los derechos humanos en Vietnam sin olvidar que el llamado mejor amigo de la Unión Europea en la ASEAN sigue siendo un aliado prometedor para la Unión Europea en Asia.
               

Alessia Maria Mosca,
a nome del gruppo S&D
. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissaria, l'accordo commerciale fra l'Unione europea e il Vietnam, che verrà chiuso il 2 dicembre, ha un'importanza fondamentale per vari motivi. Il negoziato è particolarmente importante, non solo per i rapporti commerciali tra i due paesi, ma anche più in generale, per il rapporto tra l'Unione europea e l'ASEAN e per la politica commerciale comunitaria. È un accordo strategico per queste ragioni ma anche come ha già ricordato il presidente Lange per il contenuto e per la qualità delle trattative.
               

                  Per questo, può essere un modello per futuri accordi e proprio per questa ragione è fondamentale monitorarne, con estrema attenzione, tutti gli aspetti, anche quelli riferiti al capitolo sullo sviluppo sostenibile che sta acquistando sempre più importanza anche alla luce della strategia sul commercio della Commissione europea.
               

                  È proprio per tale ragione che abbiamo formulato questa interrogazione alla Commissione: per poter disporre di maggiori informazioni, di informazioni più precise e dettagliate e ringraziamo la Commissaria, per quelle che già oggi ha voluto condividere con noi, perché riteniamo fondamentale che ci sia un miglioramento del monitoraggio, in generale, del rispetto dei diritti umani con i paesi con cui sigliamo accordi, durante la fase di implementazione e perché ci siano nuovi modelli di valutazione d'impatto, con un maggior coinvolgimento della società civile nei negoziati.
               

                  Siamo convinti del fatto che gli accordi commerciali siano ancora più efficaci se sono uno strumento utile, anche a migliorare la situazione sociale delle controparti. Ecco perché quindi riteniamo che non si possano concludere accordi che non tengano in debito conto questa dimensione.
               

Joachim Starbatty,
im Namen der ECR-Fraktion
. – Frau Präsidentin! Vietnam ist ein dynamisches, junges Land, 90 Millionen liebenswürdige Einwohner und vor allen Dingen ein Land, das nicht auf Arbeit wartet, sondern sich Arbeit schafft. Das habe ich in Vietnam immer wieder festgestellt.
               

                  Wir haben eine kommunistische Regierung, eine kommunistische Partei, die aber nicht nur den Sozialismus will, sondern über Staatsinterventionen den nationalen Wohlstand steigern will. Sicherlich, und das weiß man: Die Leute können frei reden und frei handeln, solange sie nicht die Obrigkeit stören.
               

                  Jetzt kommen die Menschenrechte ins Spiel: Ich finde es falsch, bei den Menschenrechten immer auf der normativen Schiene zu arbeiten ihr müsst es tun. Man sollte einen anderen Ansatz wählen, und zwar einen analytischen Ansatz. In einer Welt der Globalisierung, wenn man aus dem Nachmachen herauskommt und selber etwas schaffen will, dann braucht man Menschen, die nachdenken können. Nachdenken, verhandeln kann man nur, wenn es Menschenrechte gibt. Man sollte den Vietnamesen klar machen, dass es in ihrem eigenen Interesse – aus einem analytischen Grunde – wichtig ist, dass sie zu Menschenrechten kommen.
               

Marietje Schaake,
on behalf of the ALDE Group
. – Madam President, Madam Commissioner, the ALDE Group welcomes the fact that this trade agreement and trade negotiations, which are the first of their kind between the EU and a developing country, Vietnam, have been concluded. We think it is a good agreement.
Trade, as an element of the broader EU foreign policy agenda, is one of the more concrete instruments and one where Parliament plays a leading and important role. But we should also think of development policies. We see, too, that citizens are increasingly and actively getting involved with this discussion, and we welcome this. People in Europe are very clear that they want to see human rights at the top of the European foreign policy agenda.
I believe that human rights are key. I think that the EU has both the opportunity and the responsibility to lead in ensuring that universal human rights are respected worldwide. While trade must be an important lever, it cannot in and of itself be the solution to end all suffering and problems. Listening to the public debates, people sometimes have very high hopes of the impact that trade can have. But realistically, we must do what we can.
I see this ambition and vision – tying trade and values – clearly reflected in the Commission's new Trade for All agenda. Besides the anticipated boost to development and economic well-being, building on Vietnam's efforts to lift people out of poverty, I would like to know what short-term measures are anticipated. How does the Commission address human rights in the context of trade and how does monitoring look after the agreement enters into force? There is a lot that has to be improved in Vietnam. Free expression, free association, freedom of assembly are all controlled and under pressure; torture and beatings unfortunately happen too regularly; and minorities, journalists, bloggers and opposition figures suffer as a result of this.
In conclusion, these many challenges cannot be solved through trade alone. We need to work and build on the human rights dialogue and show political leadership. I look forward to continuing this discussion and monitoring the impact this trade agreement will have on human rights in Vietnam. I will continue to address it in other ways as well.

Lola Sánchez Caldentey,
en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL
. – Señora Presidenta, la Comisión ha llegado a un principio de acuerdo para un Acuerdo de Libre Comercio con Vietnam y esto nos sorprende profundamente, pues no se han seguido en absoluto las sugerencias de este Parlamento, ni las recomendaciones del propio Defensor del Pueblo Europeo.
               

                  Se ha llegado a un acuerdo sin ni siquiera haber llevado a cabo una evaluación de impacto sobre los derechos humanos en línea con la recomendación de las Naciones Unidas, que tanto el Defensor del Pueblo como esta Cámara pedíamos. Es cierto que el Acuerdo incluye el tradicional capítulo sobre desarrollo sostenible, pero todos sabemos que es insuficiente. No son más que bonitas palabras sin marcos efectivos para su cumplimiento. ¿Qué garantiza que las partes cumplan sus obligaciones? Nada.
               

                  Consideramos fundamental además que se preste atención al potencial impacto que el Acuerdo tendrá en cuestiones de género. Es fundamental que la política comercial de la Unión Europea no vaya en contra de nuestros objetivos en materia de igualdad de género. También es crucial que se aborde el tema de la responsabilidad corporativa en materia de violaciones de derechos humanos y estándares sociales y medioambientales.
               

                  No podemos seguir permitiendo la impunidad total de las grandes corporaciones en detrimento de los derechos de la gente y del planeta. Sin estos elementos, el acuerdo con Vietnam será un nuevo fracaso de la política europea, con consecuencias dramáticas, como siempre, para la gente.
               

Ska Keller,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion
. – Frau Präsidentin! Die Menschenrechte zu schützen, das liegt im Kern der Europäischen Union und des europäischen Projektes und sollte auch im Kern der europäischen Handelspolitik liegen.
               

                  Da sieht es ja in Vietnam gerade nicht gut aus mit den Menschenrechten. Vietnam liegt ganz hinten, wenn es um die Pressefreiheit geht. Nichtregierungsorganisationen sind verboten, genauso wie politische Parteien oder Gewerkschaften. Gerade hat die Kommission ihre neue Handelsstrategie vorgestellt, die ja in vorbildlicher Weise Menschenrechte ganz nach vorne stellt. Aber es geht eben auch darum, wie wir das in unserer Handelspolitik ganz konkret umsetzen.
               

                  Da haben wir bei Vietnam noch einiges nachzuholen, denn wir haben zum Beispiel keine Folgenabschätzung für die Auswirkungen des Handelsabkommens auf die Menschenrechte vor Ort in Vietnam. Da hätten wir doch als Grüne einige Fragezeichen anzumelden, gerade wenn es um die Anwendung von Investorenschutz geht. Bei diesem Abkommen haben wir solche menschenrechtlichen Vorgaben nicht gesehen. Deswegen ist ganz wichtig, dass wir konkret kucken, was wir in Vietnam mit Handel verbessern können, wenn es um die Menschenrechte geht. Da haben wir zwar bisher gute Worte, aber diesen Worten müssen eben auch Taten folgen.
               

Tiziana Beghin,
a nome del gruppo EFDD
. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissaria, la situazione dei diritti umani in Vietnam è spaventosa. Il potere è gestito con fermezza da un partito unico che sopprime tutte le libertà individuali e collettive. La libertà d'associazione, d'assemblea, d'espressione sono tutte sistematicamente violate; la tortura è diffusa e il governo fa ricorso al lavoro forzato per la produzione di beni destinati all'esportazione.
               

                  E l'Europa cosa fa? Decide di premiare questo campione di democrazia, firmandoci un accordo di libero scambio. Un accordo che poteva essere usato come strumento di pressione per ottenere vere riforme democratiche e difendere i diritti dei cittadini vietnamiti.
               

                  Invece, ci ritroviamo ancora una volta a fare accordi con dei dittatori, per giunta, usando come merce di scambio, l'agricoltura europea: i nostri agricoltori vedranno 80.000 tonnellate di riso vietnamita entrare senza dazi nel nostro mercato, come già avviene per il riso cambogiano e del Myanmar in virtù degli EBA.
               

                  Questa è la politica commerciale basata sui valori? No, signora Commissaria, io non credo.
               

Christofer Fjellner (PPE). – Fru talman! I augusti blev frihandelsavtalet mellan EU och Vietnam färdigt efter tre års intensiva förhandlingar. Det är ett viktigt och bra avtal för Vietnam. EU är trots allt Vietnams näst största handelspartner efter Kina.
               

                  Detta avtal är verkligen ett avtal för tillväxt i ett land som behöver utveckling. Jag är fast övertygad om att handel är det bästa sättet att ta sig ut ur fattigdom. Det är så Sverige och alla andra EU-länder blev rika. Kan vi erbjuda andra länder möjlighet att få göra samma resa genom att öppna våra marknader så är det givetvis bra.
               

                  Men som alltid när fattigdomsbekämpning kommer på tal i samband med frihandel så säger motståndarna att det är precis tvärtom. Att handel hotar mänskliga rättigheter, arbetstagare och miljö och att frihandeln sker på befolkningens bekostnad. Det är ju inte sant! Låt mig bara konstatera att vietnameserna själva vill ha detta avtal. Jag tycker, ärligt talat, att det är lite patetiskt när man försöker hävda att man vet bättre än vad de själva vet vad som är bra just för Vietnam.
               

                  Dessutom innehåller detta avtal starka, bindande skrivningar om just mänskliga rättigheter, miljö och arbetstagares rättigheter. Jag tror inte att det är där skon klämmer. Sanningen är att protektionister alltid hittar en annan ursäkt än att vara protektionister, för att försöka hindra frihandel och öppna gränser. Jag tror att detta är ytterligare ett exempel. Precis som vi såg när det gällde Burma, när Aung San Suu Kyi vädjade till oss att sänka deras tullar, så var man emot. När det gällde Pakistan och Malala stod här och vädjade, så var man emot. Nu är man emot när det gäller Vietnam, för man tror sig veta bättre än de fattiga vad som är rätt för dem. Dessa är den nya tidens imperialister.
               

David Martin (S&D). – Madam President, firstly, I agree with Bernd Lange that this is a very good agreement in economic terms for the European Union and for Vietnam and it should see growth in both regions.
Is the human rights situation in Vietnam perfect? No – as other speakers have said, far from it. Whether this free trade agreement will help or hinder the human rights situation in Vietnam is probably the more important question, and I happen to agree with the Commissioner that constructive engagement is the way to improve the human rights situation in Vietnam. Thanks to this EFTA, we will now have an opportunity for a robust ongoing human rights dialogue with the Vietnamese.
I hope we will also see a very effective domestic advisory group set up. That, to my mind, is a crucial point: we have to make sure that we fund a domestic adviser group, involve civil society in Vietnam and get regular reports about the situation there, particularly the labour situation. We must make sure that the ILO conventions are being implemented, that trade unions are allowed to operate, and that there are safeguards at the workplace. But we cannot do that if we do not have this FTA or the PCA. If we are not engaged with Vietnam, we will have no basis on which to speak with the Vietnamese. So I repeat: good for economics and also potentially good for human rights in Vietnam.

Julie Girling (ECR). – Madam President, respect for human rights develops; it does not just happen because a country ratifies international agreements or they are bombarded with demands from potential trade partners. Human rights evolve, and fostering trade is a vital part of enabling that evolution. ASEAN is the EU's third largest trading partner and Vietnam is growing in importance within ASEAN, with a vibrant economy. So I welcome this agreement, which I believe will lift people out of poverty in Vietnam and enable them to engage vigorously in improving their own political and human rights in their own country in good time.
I look at human rights sites monitoring Vietnam and of course I am dismayed at what I see sometimes. But hectoring and then withdrawing is not the answer. I am pleased to see this agreement finalised. Let us engage constructively continuing our dialogue, provide governance assistance and get on with seeing this FTA become successful.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))


Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D),
blue-card question
. – I would like to ask our colleague, Ms Girling, what would happen if a policy combining engagement and strong, tough conditionality had to be embedded by the European Union in the strategy for relations with all developing countries, including Vietnam.

Julie Girling (ECR). – Regrettably I did not really understand the beginning of the question, so it is difficult for me to reply.

Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D),
blue-card question
. – Let me try again. The question was: a policy of both engagement and strong, tough conditionality should have to be embedded by the European Union in the strategies of relationships with developing countries, including Vietnam. Do you understand now?

Julie Girling (ECR). – Sorry, Madam President, I still do not understand that English.

President. – I am going to ask you perhaps to speak to each after the session and try to reach an understanding.

Barbara Lochbihler (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, during my visit to Hanoi this month I saw a capital with a lively growing economy and remarkable results in achieving many of the Millennium Development Goals, but I also learned about the absence of free trade unions and increased pressure on human rights activists, and that the country ranks 175 out of 180 countries in the 2015 Press Freedom Index.
The changes that come with more trade and with free trade agreements do not automatically lead to a society without economic inequalities, without human rights violations and with strong labour rights. Therefore, I welcomed very much that the Commission already in 2012 committed itself to systematically carrying out human rights impact assessments for free trade agreements, which it expressed in the EU Action Plan for Human Rights and Democracy.
In April 2014, this Parliament urged the Commission to carry out as soon as possible a human rights impact assessment. Despite several reminders, open letters and so on, and even strong criticism from the EU Ombudsperson that the fact of not doing so would amount to maladministration, the Commission refused to follow this recommendation. The main reason recently given was the lack of time and the fact that the Commission does not want to delay the conclusion of the free trade agreement. But the Commission committed to including a human rights impact assessment in the next ex-post evaluation.
UN experts this summer voiced clear concerns over the adverse impact of free trade and investment agreements on human rights and also called for ex-ante and ex-post human rights impact assessments. I do not think that any explanation of sustainability criteria in the EU Free Trade Agreement with Vietnam will be sufficient. The Commission should do nothing less than a thorough human rights impact assessment.

Ignazio Corrao (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Commissario, io ho ascoltato alcuni interventi e devo dire che non sono per niente d'accordo con la felicità con cui si accoglie questo accordo di libero scambio con il Vietnam.
               

                  Io credo che quando si parla dell'amore nutrito da quest'Assemblea nei confronti del neoliberismo, ci si mette delle belle fette di prosciutto sugli occhi, anche davanti a violazioni dei diritti umani, che sono gravissime nel caso del Vietnam, perché stiamo parlando di un paese che è al 175o posto per libertà di stampa, dove non possono essere fondati dei partiti politici nuovi, dove non ci possono essere sindacati liberi, dove sono vietate le associazioni e le organizzazioni non governative, dove il governo utilizza dei cosiddetti teppisti per reprimere i difensori dei diritti umani.
               

                  E quando diciamo che attraverso un accordo di libero scambio intendiamo migliorare tali condizioni, ci sbagliamo, perché un accordo che privilegiava i diritti umani l'avevamo già stipulato nel 2012, un accordo di partenariato e cooperazione, con il risultato che le violazioni dei diritti umani sono peggiorate nel tempo.
               

                  Per questo io direi che dovremmo voltare veramente pagina quando parliamo di simili accordi.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύρια Πρόεδρε, θέλω να θέσω το εξής σοβαρό ζήτημα στην Ολομέλεια. Το έχω θέσει και άλλη φορά. Η Ολομέλεια συνεδριάζει για να μπορούμε να συμμετέχουμε στις συζητήσεις. Αφιερώνεται αυτή η εβδομάδα του Στρασβούργου στην Ολομέλεια. Δεν μπορούμε να έχουμε ταυτόχρονα συνεδριάσεις των επιτροπών και ιδίως συνεδριάσεις και ψηφοφορίες σε επιτροπές. Αυτή τη στιγμή, 7 η ώρα το απόγευμα, καλούμαι να συμμετάσχω σε ψηφοφορία σε κοινή συνεδρίαση των επιτροπών LIBE και PETI για ένα σοβαρό θέμα που είναι το FRONTEX.
               

                  Διαμαρτύρομαι, διότι εγώ θέλω να συμμετάσχω και στη συζήτηση. Δεν μπορεί λοιπόν το πρόγραμμα των επιτροπών να μας αφαιρεί το δικαίωμα συμμετοχής στην Ολομέλεια. Παρακαλώ να μεταφέρετε αυτό το θέμα στον Πρόεδρο κ. Schultz και να επισημανθεί στους προέδρους των επιτροπών ότι αυτή η εβδομάδα είναι εβδομάδα Ολομέλειας και όχι ψηφοφοριών σε επιτροπές. Οι ψηφοφορίες στις επιτροπές, σε άλλη εβδομάδα στις Βρυξέλλες.
               

President. – We take note of your comments and we will pass them on to Mr Schulz. Now we continue with our debate.

Pedro Silva Pereira (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, quero, em primeiro lugar, saudar a conclusão do acordo de comércio livre com o Vietname, que é um importante parceiro da União Europeia no contexto do Sudeste Asiático. Este é o primeiro acordo de comércio de nova geração com um país em desenvolvimento e pode, por isso, ser um modelo para futuros acordos com os países da ASEAN. Mas o comércio não é um fim em si mesmo, e a própria estratégia comercial e de investimento da União sublinha a necessidade de os acordos comerciais promoverem os valores europeus e, em particular, os direitos humanos.
               

                  Ora, nós temos boas razões para estarmos preocupados com o respeito pelos direitos humanos no Vietname, em particular quanto à liberdade de expressão. E esta casa insistiu em que a Comissão Europeia aplicasse uma abordagem baseada na condicionalidade dos seus acordos comerciais.
               

                  Queria, por isso, perguntar à Senhora Comissária que progressos houve no Vietname em matéria de direitos humanos desde o início das negociações comerciais e que lições devemos aprender com este processo — se podemos considerar, se a Comissão pode considerar que este acordo com o Vietname respeitou, efetivamente, o princípio da condicionalidade em matéria de direitos humanos numa agenda comercial?
               

Jan Zahradil (ECR). – Vážená paní předsedající, paní komisařko, dovolte mi říci, že jako stálý zpravodaj výboru INTA pro dohodu o volném obchodu Evropská unie-Vietnam jsem nepodporoval položení této ústní otázky a zařazení nebo vyvolání této debaty. Nicméně ocitl jsem se ve výboru v menšině a to samozřejmě respektuji.
               

                  Domnívám se, že otázce lidských práv byla během vyjednávání o této obchodní dohodě věnována velká pozornost, že závazky, které tam jsou popsány, jsou také dostatečné a že Vietnam je dodrží. A je také naším úkolem dohlédnout na implementaci té dohody. A jsem přesvědčen, že teď se musíme soustředit na finální fázi ratifikace dohody. Já jsem velmi rád, že dojde příští týden k jejímu symbolickému podpisu.
               

                  V neposlední řadě mi dovolte zdůraznit, že jsem také rád, že se nám tady v Evropském parlamentu podařilo založit skupinu přátel Evropská unie-Vietnam, ve které jsou zastoupeny úplně všechny poslanecké skupiny, což je skutečně výjimka, a já věřím, že tato skupina napomůže hladkému průběhu ratifikace této dohody.
               

Neena Gill (S&D). – Madam President, I welcome this FTA. It has important potential in terms of jobs and growth, not least for the EU in the current context of TPP, but also for Vietnam. But it is clear that this potential can only be realised if appropriate measures are taken to maximise positive, and prevent negative, impacts on human rights.
Vietnam does face significant challenges in this field, whether it is forced evictions of farmers or imprisonment of those seeking better labour rights. Therefore, could the Commission explain why it is not possible to undertake a proper ex-ante human rights impact assessment so we can understand a roadmap for addressing our concerns and improving the solution? It is also evident that the usual mix of instruments will not do the trick. Not only do they have their shortcomings, which have been widely documented; but can we really just blindly transpose this approach onto the most far-reaching FTA that has ever been achieved with a developing country?
Some argue that the Commission's timid approach to human rights is exactly why it is important that under the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement there is a communication mechanism between the European External Action Service (EEAS) and Parliament on the implementation of the PCA and capacity-building to enhance the settlement of complaints by the affected communities.
This is not about trying to undermine the FTA or pointing the finger at the Vietnamese Government. This is about common sense – that prevention is more effective and less expensive than cure – and about casting a successful foundation for a strong, lasting, strategic relationship with one of our key partners in south-east Asia, especially in the current geopolitical context.

Catch-the-eye procedure


Franc Bogovič (PPE). – Človekove pravice so proces in osnova za to, da lahko ljudje živijo človekove pravice, da – najprej – niso lačni, da imajo delo, da se lahko izobrazijo in da so na koncu tisti, ki zahtevajo človekove pravice.
               

                  Takšen trgovinski sporazum bo dal in daje dostojanstvo ljudem v Vietnamu do dela in prepričan sem, da bomo v tem procesu prišli tudi do večjih zahtev po človekovih pravicah. Tisti, ki prehitro pričakujejo, da se bo v nekem državnem sistemu, ki je zaostal, kjer so lačni in ubogi ljudje, da se bodo tam začele izvajati človekove pravice na visokem nivoju, naj se spomnijo, kako smo iz tega mesta in še od marsikod drugod po človekovih pravicah spraševali in zahtevali za ljudi v Iraku, Libiji in Siriji, danes se pa vprašajmo, kako imajo ti ljudje izpolnjene človekove pravice. Niti pravice do življenja nimajo.
               

                  Človekove pravice so proces, zato podpiram ta postopek, kajti pripeljal bo do večjih človekovih pravic v Vietnamu.
               

Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, dopo due anni e mezzo di intense negoziazioni, l'Unione europea e il Vietnam, hanno raggiunto un accordo di principio per la firma del trattato di libero scambio. L'accordo permetterà di aumentare gli scambi commerciali con una delle economie più dinamiche dell'Asia: un accordo che potrebbe rivelarsi utile, dunque, per entrambe le economie.
               

                  Tuttavia, restano molte e forti preoccupazioni per le violazioni dei diritti umani nel Paese. Ventiquattro organizzazioni indipendenti, per la maggior parte della società civile vietnamita, alcune internazionali, hanno elaborato e diffuso un rapporto che richiama l'attenzione sulle violazioni dei diritti umani avvenuto in Vietnam nel 2014. Il documento include abusi sulla libertà di religione o di credo.
               

                  Il Trattato conterrà una clausola vincolante in base al quale esso potrà essere sospeso in casi di gravi violazioni dei diritti umani. La Commissione deve vigilare sul rispetto dei diritti umani nel Paese e chiedere il rispetto degli impegni presi nell'accordo, in modo da determinare un effettivo e non solo enunciato miglioramento dei diritti umani in Vietnam.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, με τη συμφωνία Ελευθέρων Συναλλαγών που υπογράφηκε τον Αύγουστο 2015 ανάμεσα στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και το Βιετνάμ εξαλείφονται οι τελωνειακοί δασμοί στο εμπόριο προϊόντων, υπηρεσιών και επενδύσεων και προβλέπεται αύξηση του ΑΕΠ της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης άνω του 2%. Στα πλαίσια των μεταξύ τους διαπραγματεύσεων, Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και Βιετνάμ υποτίθεται ότι έχουν δρομολογήσει ένα διαρθρωμένο διάλογο που αφορά στην προστασία των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων που πρέπει να είναι και η βάση κάθε εμπορικής συμφωνίας, σύμφωνα με τη Συνθήκη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.
               

                  Ωστόσο, η συμφωνία αυτή δεν δίνει δεκάρα για τις παραβιάσεις των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων που λαμβάνουν χώρα σήμερα στο Βιετνάμ και κάνει όπως και οι άλλες εμπορικές συμφωνίες, η ΤΤΙΤ και η TISA, που το μόνο τους ενδιαφέρει είναι να αποσκοπούν στην κερδοσκοπία των μεγάλων πολυεθνικών επιχειρήσεων σε βάρος των μικρομεσαίων και έτσι οδηγούν στη μείωση της απασχόλησης στις χώρες που εφαρμόζονται.
               

                  Γι' αυτό λοιπόν θα πρέπει να έχουμε προώθηση συμφωνιών οι οποίες να μην πλήττουν την απασχόληση και τους εργαζόμενους και να σέβονται τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα.
               

Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospođo predsjednice, čude me argumenti nekih naših kolegica i kolega u ovoj sali danas kada govore da ne treba potpisati ovaj sporazum, jer se ne poštuju ljudska prava u Vijetnamu.
               

                  Uglavnom znamo da se ne poštuju ljudska prava u Vijetnamu, ali iste kolegice i kolege često koriste argumente da ne trebamo izvoziti naš oblik demokracije, zapadnu demokraciju, poštivanje ljudskih prava u druge zemlje i ne trebamo ništa drugima nametati.
               

                  Ja ovaj sporazum doživljavam, poštovana gospođo povjerenice, prije svega kao želju EU-a da se bori protiv siromaštva u Vijetnamu, jer je to jedna od nasiromašnijih zemalja na zemaljskoj kugli. Zato i podržavam ovaj sporazum svjestan činjenice da će tema ljudskih prava, danas i vjerojatno sutra, biti daleka tema u tom istom Vijetnamu, ali borba protiv siromaštva jest jedna od obaveza EU-a. U tom kontekstu imate i moju podršku.
               

Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Elnök Asszony, az Európai Unió ma is az emberi jogok biztosításának és tiszteletben tartásának értékein alapul, ezt az alapelvet pedig a harmadik országokkal folytatott különböző együttműködési formái során is érvényesítenünk kell. Ugyanakkor nem lehetünk elvakult idealisták sem, akik azt mondják, hogy addig nem működünk együtt bizonyos országokkal vagy térségekkel, ameddig az emberi jogi rezsimjük nem éri el az EU-ban érvényesülő szintet. Ehhez azt is hozzá kell tennünk, sok esetben mi magunk sem járunk elő jó példával, ami az emberi jogokat, jelesül a kisebbségi jogokat illeti. Az Európai Unió intézményei épp annyira tehetetlenek a tagállamok, mint a harmadik országok vonatkozó politikájának befolyásolása terén. Sőt, még mintha óvatosabb is lenne a Bizottság a tagállamok gyakorlatának bírálatával, mint harmadik országok feddésével. Azt gondolom, ez semmiképpen sem erősíti hitelességünket a világban.
               

Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D). – Madam President, I absolutely agree on the need to make sure that human rights-related issues have been correctly addressed by the Commission during the negotiations with Vietnam on a free trade agreement. Considering the concerns about the human rights situation in Vietnam – particularly with regard to freedom of expression, the right of assembly, the right of association, media freedom, the right to disagree, freedom of religion, etc. – I believe that the Commission should monitor human rights developments in Vietnam and draw on input from independent civil society in order to uphold the commitments made in the agreement. I support the negotiations, as trade agreements have demonstrated the potential for economic growth and jobs on both sides. However, it is fundamental that the Commission address the relationship between trade liberalisation and improving human rights in trade negotiations in the future, including in the new trade strategy that it plans to put forward.

Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – Dohoda o voľnom obchode s Vietnamom, ktorá nadväzuje na Dohodu o partnerstve a spolupráci, mohla byť takým čítankovým príkladom o tom, ako Európska únia môže požadovať od svojho nového obchodného partnera presadzovanie aj ľudských práv, tak ako ich my vnímame v Európe.
               

                  Myslím si, že je to veľmi dôležité, aby sme si povšimli ľudí so zdravotným postihnutím, aké tam majú práva. Že ľudia sa vôbec nemôžu slobodne zhromažďovať. Že tam neexistujú nezávislé odbory. Že Saigon, ktorý bol kedysi multikulturálnym príkladom krajiny, kde boli zastúpené aj mnohé náboženstvá, dnes sloboda náboženstva je v tejto komunistickej krajine stále pošliapavaná.
               

                  Komisia by mala byť ďaleko dôslednejšia pri presadzovaní tohto obchodného dokumentu a vymôcť na partneroch taký prístup k ľudským právam, aký by sa aj nám páčil.
               

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Cecilia Malmström,
Member of the Commission
. – Madam President, of course, trade alone cannot solve all of the world's human rights problems, but it can make a contribution by enhancing respect for human rights and fostering sustainable development. That is what we are committed to doing in our agreements, especially the one that we are discussing tonight – the agreement with Vietnam.
Nobody denies that there are severe problems relating to human rights in Vietnam. You have listed many of them, and I could add a few more. They are there and they are serious. That is why we need to address them and why we are engaging with the Vietnamese authorities. There have been some improvements – far from enough – but the Vietnamese authorities seem to be willing to engage with us.
That is why we have developed tools for doing this. We have the legal link between the FDA and the partnership agreement. We will make evaluations, especially looking at the human rights situation. We do have the human rights dialogue that the EEAS is conducting. There will be another meeting in a couple of weeks, and we will set up advisory groups with civil society in order to monitor this on the ground with people who are there and are familiar with the daily situation.
To explain all this, we will by the end of this year – in a couple of weeks – publish an ad hoc Commission paper explaining how the existing measures of the partnership agreement and the negotiated measures of the free trade agreement will contribute to human rights empowerment with the flanking measures that we will put in place and how the human rights I mentioned will be assessed once the latter agreement has entered into force.
All this will, of course, be public and transparent so that you can follow and contribute to the dialogue. There is a conditionality clause in all of our agreements to cover very serious breaches, but we prefer whenever possible to work on engagement and to try to establish forums for dialogue to see if we can make improvements. If we have no agreement with Vietnam, we will, of course, say no to all such forums. I am not sure whether that would contribute to empowering the people of Vietnam.
This agreement will be finally concluded next week. Very shortly after that it will be published so that you can read it and make your own assessment. Then, during the whole translation and legal procedure, there will be plenty of time for discussion, and the Commission is ready to enter into that dialogue with you. I can assure you once again that we will keep you informed at all stages and are always ready to take your input, ideas and views into account and to have a dialogue with you on this.

President. – The debate is closed.
13.   Accession of Ecuador to the EU-Peru and Colombia trade agreement (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on the Commission statement on the accession of Ecuador to the EU-Peru and Colombia trade agreement (2015/2656(RSP)).

Cecilia Malmström,
Member of the Commission
. – Madam President, we welcome the resolution by Parliament on the EU-Peru and Colombia trade agreement and the accession of Ecuador. The accession of Ecuador has been agreed between the EU and its Member States and Peru and Colombia and is another step forward in our effort to engage with Latin America and consolidate our position in the region. That is important for us.
The Commission considers that this agreement will be beneficial for both sides. It will enable us to consolidate traditional trade flows while also boosting and diversifying trade and investment on both sides. We also hope that it will act as an economic driver for social development in Ecuador and contribute to alleviating poverty and reducing inequalities. They are there, of course, in that country.
The text of the accession protocol results in a comprehensive and balanced agreement, fully matching the ambition reflected in what was concluded with Colombia and Peru. It also takes into account the differences in economic development that obviously exist between the EU and Ecuador by allowing Ecuador longer periods for dismantling tariffs and making some specific adjustments that it has requested.
The accession is of paramount importance for Ecuador because, as of the end of next year, Ecuador will lose its preferences as regards access to the EU market. Timely accession will not only ensure preferential access for Ecuadorian products to our market but also bring long-term stability and predictable conditions for bilateral trade and investment. And we will, as we discussed in the last item and as expressed in our trade strategy, pay special attention in order to make sure that the provisions on trade and sustainable development are implemented and used effectively, including by offering appropriate support through development cooperation.
Ecuador, as you point out in your resolution, has shown its willingness to engage in an area of trade and sustainable development and agreed to sign up to all the provisions of the trade and sustainable development chapter. This will help us to identify a common agenda in which we can cooperate and exchange best practice.
As is the case with other agreements, cooperation with you and with Member States and the input of civil society will be crucial for effective implementation, in particular of the sustainable development chapter. And to get it right, we really need your engagement and your input, and this resolution reflects your commitment.
We have taken due note of your request to be regularly informed about trends in banana imports, including those from Ecuador, once the agreement is in place. I can assure you that close monitoring of banana imports and developments in the market situation has once again been proving effective so far.
The resolution is a vital step in Ecuador's accession process, but it is not, of course, the end of our conversation. We will continue the process leading to implementation of the agreement. The Commission will continue to take your views carefully into account and continue the dialogue that we have here.
So thank you again for the excellent work on the resolution. I am looking forward to the debate and, as always, we are fully committed to cooperating with you on this agreement until and after its entry into force.

Santiago Fisas Ayxelà,
en nombre del Grupo PPE
. – Señora Presidenta, señora Comisaria, en el mes de julio del año pasado concluyeron con éxito las negociaciones para la adhesión de Ecuador al Acuerdo comercial entre la Unión Europea y Colombia y Perú. Es una buena noticia, que será muy positiva para las dos partes, pero no tenemos que olvidar que fue Ecuador quien solicitó reincorporarse a las negociaciones que había abandonado en 2009.
               

                  Hoy estamos aquí debatiendo esta propuesta de Resolución del Parlamento Europeo que, junto a la aprobación del Acuerdo en sí y del Reglamento sobre la cláusula de salvaguardia, completará el procedimiento de adhesión de Ecuador.
               

                  Quiero dar las gracias al señor Scholz por el trabajo realizado y por la buena colaboración que hemos tenido durante todo el proceso. El Grupo PPE presentó algunas enmiendas a la propuesta de Resolución que votamos en la Comisión de Comercio Internacional y que tenían como finalidad enriquecer el texto y dar el claro apoyo del Parlamento Europeo a la incorporación de Ecuador al Acuerdo. Me congratulo porque el texto final así lo refleja.
               

                  Este Acuerdo impulsará el comercio y la inversión en ambas partes, servirá para potenciar el desarrollo económico y social y contribuirá a reducir las desigualdades. No podemos olvidar que Ecuador ya no es beneficiario del sistema SPG +, por lo que la ratificación del Acuerdo conllevará importantes beneficios para las exportaciones de Ecuador a la Unión Europea.
               

                  Por último, me gustaría recordar que, en su Resolución de 13 de junio de 2012, el Parlamento Europeo, antes de dar su aprobación al Acuerdo con Colombia y Perú, pidió a los países andinos que estableciesen una hoja de ruta sobre derechos humanos, medioambientales y laborales. Me parece importante recordarlo ya que la posición de nuestro Grupo es la de dar un trato igual a todos los países que integran el Acuerdo.
               

Bernd Lange,
im Namen der S&D-Fraktion
. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin! In der Tat begrüßen wir den Beitritt Ecuadors zu dem Abkommen, weil wir ja ursprünglich auch ein Anden-Abkommen haben wollten, weil die Integration auf regionaler Ebene natürlich auch ein wichtiges zentrales Momentum unserer Politik gegenüber den Ländern in Lateinamerika ist.
               

                  Ich finde auch, wir haben mit der Entschließung eine gute Zusammenarbeit gemacht – mit Herrn Scholz, Herrn Fisas Ayxelà und den anderen Beteiligten. Herzlichen Dank dafür! Ich denke, die Ausrichtung trifft es auch: Wir wollen den Beitritt organisieren, wir wollen aber auch die Implementierung verbessern. Deswegen der Verweis auf die Roadmap, die wir bei Kolumbien und Peru auf den Weg gebracht haben – übrigens mit Mário David und meiner Person als den Händlern, die gegenüber den Regierungen diese Roadmap ausgehandelt haben, denn in der Tat, Frau Kommissarin – Sie haben hier völlig Recht –, nicht nur die Verhandlungen sind entscheidend, sondern die Umsetzungen sind entscheidend und sukzessive in der Umsetzung, auch gerade was die Frage der Arbeitnehmerrechte, der Umweltstandards anbelangt, gemeinsam einen Weg zu beschreiten, um Verbesserungen hinzubekommen.
               

                  Insofern ist Ecuador sicherlich auch gefordert, in die gleiche Richtung zu gehen wie Kolumbien und Peru, auch um hier Fortschritte zu erzielen, insbesondere was die Frage von Arbeitsinspektoren anbetrifft, weil gerade die IAO-Konvention 1929 noch nicht unterschrieben ist. Also hier werden wir – die Kommission und das Parlament –gemeinsam Engagement zeigen müssen, um die Umsetzung sicherzustellen.
               

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica,
en nombre del Grupo ALDE
. – Señora Presidenta, señora Comisaria, quiero expresar nuestro total acuerdo con la adhesión de Ecuador al Acuerdo comercial con la Unión Europea del que ya disfrutan desde el año 2013 Colombia y Perú. Lamento que se hayan perdido dos años y espero que la adhesión tenga los mismos beneficios para Ecuador que los que ha proporcionado hasta ahora este Acuerdo a sus signatarios. Solo en Colombia ha beneficiado especialmente a cuatro millones de familias agricultoras que han visto crecer sus exportaciones en un 21 %.
               

                  La Unión es ya el principal receptor de exportaciones de Ecuador. En el año 2014 las ventas de nuestro mercado alcanzaron los 2 400 millones de euros, con un superávit de 400. Algunos estudiosos creen que 300 000 empleos ofrecidos por 1 400 empresas, casi todas pymes, están directamente vinculados a este flujo comercial y que el Acuerdo puede mejorar el intercambio a corto plazo en otros 400 millones.
               

                  Esta política de concertación comercial ha demostrado ser una herramienta de primer orden para poder contribuir a la paz, la estabilidad y el progreso en la zona. Aporta crecimiento, desarrollo y garantías medioambientales y sociales. Produce justicia social en una zona del planeta estratégica para Europa por su situación, sus potencialidades, su dimensión y sus ritmos de crecimiento. Una significativa cantidad de nuevos europeos o residentes que llegaron a Europa proceden de estos países.
               

                  Las negociaciones subrayan además que opciones políticas muy diversas valoran y avalan este tipo de acuerdos, que ofrecen ventajas palpables, contantes y sonantes a miles de familias y trabajadores, que ven nacer oportunidades o consolidar sus expectativas profesionales o de negocio.
               

                  Espero que ello anime a Bolivia a sumarse a esta alianza, que será más potente si integra a toda la Comunidad Andina. En definitiva, es una contribución europea en términos de paz, justicia y desarrollo al comercio global. Por eso, señora Comisaria, nuestro Grupo estará a su lado para llevar adelante los futuros proyectos.
               

Helmut Scholz,
im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion
. – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin! Die Regierung Ecuadors hat beschlossen, dem Freihandelsabkommen der EU mit Kolumbien und Peru beizutreten. Sie hat damit auch dem wirtschaftlichen Zwang nachgegeben, der aus Zollvorteilen der konkurrierenden Nachbarn im EU-Handel und der zeitgleichen Streichung der GSP-plus-Vorzüge für Ecuador durch die EU entstanden ist. Eigentlich hatte Ecuador ein eigenes Abkommen zu Handel und Entwicklung vorgeschlagen, auch um im partnerschaftlichen Verhältnis mit der EU den begonnenen bemerkenswerten Entwicklungsweg für ein soziales und umweltbewusstes Land der Andenregion fortsetzen zu können.
               

                  Wir alle wissen, dass die Zustimmung des Europäischen Parlaments zum Abkommen mit Kolumbien und Peru lange Zeit unsicher, ja umstritten war. Sie erfolgte schließlich unter der Vorbedingung, dass konkrete Schritte unternommen werden, um die Menschenrechtslage, die soziale Situation und den Umweltschutz in der Region zu verbessern. Das sind Ziele, für die sich die Regierung von Ecuador in den letzten Jahren besonders erfolgreich eingesetzt hat. Deshalb sollen wir genau hinschauen. Der Beitritt von Ecuador zu diesem Abkommen ist ein wichtiges Moment für das Land selbst, aber auch um zu überprüfen, ob die Bestimmungen des generellen Abkommens mit den Andenstaaten und deren Umsetzung unseren Erwartungshaltungen in gesellschaftlicher wie in ökonomischer Hinsicht entsprechen. Die ersten Zahlen, die uns die Kommission zur Entwicklung des Handels mit den beiden anderen Andenstaaten vorgelegt hat, bleiben weit hinter ursprünglichen Erwartungen zurück. Und insofern, ja noch einmal: Wir müssen auch bei der Implementierung des Abkommens genau hinschauen und dranbleiben.
               

                  Mit diesem Entschließungsentwurf komme ich als Berichterstatter vor allem unserer Verantwortung als Europäisches Parlament nach, der Europäischen Kommission aufzuzeigen, wo wir Handlungsbedarf sehen, um das Abkommen wirksamer zu machen, damit es doch noch der Bevölkerung in beiden Regionen dient. In dem Sinne bedanke ich mich bei den Schattenberichterstattern für eine Entschließung, die genau diesen Zielstellungen nahekommt.
               

Gabriel Mato (PPE). – Señora Presidenta, señora Comisaria, la incorporación de Ecuador al Acuerdo de la Unión Europea con Colombia y Perú abre, sin duda, grandes oportunidades para todas las partes, pero los beneficios solo serán posibles si trabajamos de forma leal y cumplimos de forma íntegra todas las condiciones que se establecen.
               

                  Viniendo de Canarias, el mayor productor de plátanos de la Unión Europea, me gustaría centrarme hoy en la necesidad de que este Acuerdo no se convierta en una amenaza más para el ya debilitado sector del plátano de la Unión Europea, que ve con preocupación cómo ahora puede producirse una entrada incontrolada de bananas procedentes de Ecuador. No olvidemos que Ecuador es el mayor exportador de bananas a la Unión Europea y es evidente que las exportaciones crecen proporcionalmente a la bajada de los aranceles.
               

                  Recordemos que en Ginebra adoptamos una tarifa decreciente hasta 114 euros/tonelada; que mediante acuerdos bilaterales se ha llegado hasta 75 euros/tonelada en 2020. Lo asumimos como inevitable pero, precisamente por ello, hay que afrontar dos cuestiones:
               

                  la primera, la compensación a los productores de la Unión que puedan verse perjudicados; y la segunda, la necesidad de aplicar con total diligencia la cláusula de salvaguardia para el caso de que se produzcan excesos en las cantidades pactadas que puedan causar daños a los productores de la Unión.
               

                  Señora Presidenta: yo voto ‘sí’ a los acuerdos comerciales; voto ‘sí’ a que Ecuador se sume al vigente Acuerdo; voto ‘sí’ al desarrollo de este país. Pero no a cualquier precio, no a costa de los productores de plátano de Canarias y del resto de la Unión Europea.
               

                  No estoy pidiendo ningún favor, simplemente pido que se cumpla lo acordado. Hay una cláusula de salvaguardia, los límites deben respetarse y, si no se cumplen, el mecanismo acordado debe ponerse en marcha, y debe hacerse de forma automática cuando estos se excedan. Eso es lo que votamos mayoritariamente en este Pleno y es lo que hay que cumplir. Ecuador no tiene por qué tener un trato diferenciado mejor que el que puedan tener Colombia y Perú, y la Comisaria lo ha dicho: hay una cláusula de salvaguardia que hay que poner en vigor y no mirar hacia otro lado.
               

                  Creo, señora Comisaria, que no se puede mirar hacia otro lado mientras muchas familias que viven del plátano en Canarias y en otras regiones ultraperiféricas de la Unión Europea ven con temor el futuro.
               

Ramón Jáuregui Atondo (S&D). – Señora Presidenta, señora Comisaria, yo comparto con usted que América Latina es un socio muy importante desde el punto de vista comercial para la Unión Europea, especialmente a la vista de que otros grandes agentes económicos —China, por ejemplo— están ocupando una posición muy importante allí.
               

                  Creo que para la Comunidad Andina Ecuador es un país muy importante, y creo también que para el entorno político de los países de la ALBA Ecuador y su Presidente Correa son particularmente importantes.
               

                  Yo creo que tenemos una necesidad política y una necesidad comercial de hacer este Acuerdo y me sumo a las voces que así lo reclaman. Ecuador se equivocó probablemente cuando decidió no sumarse al Acuerdo multipartes con Colombia y con Perú. Pero ahora nos manifiesta, de manera rotunda y clara, su voluntad política de incorporarse al Acuerdo y nos traslada además una angustia económica comercial, porque necesita, antes de finalizar el año que viene, este Acuerdo para el futuro de sus exportaciones.
               

                  Yo creo que Europa tiene que dar este paso. No hay razones de derechos humanos, de comercio sostenible, que impidan este Acuerdo. Es un país serio, es un país económicamente importante, políticamente influyente, y creo que Europa tiene que dar este paso. Yo agradezco que la Comisión culmine esta negociación y que trabaje con Colombia y con Perú para evitar vetos a este Acuerdo.
               

Inmaculada Rodríguez-Piñero Fernández (S&D). – Señora Presidenta, señora Comisaria, muchas gracias al autor de la propuesta de Resolución por su actitud abierta al diálogo y al consenso y por su excelente trabajo. Yo quisiera resaltar también la apuesta y el apoyo firme y decidido de la delegación socialista española al compromiso de las relaciones políticas de la Unión Europea con Ecuador, y desde luego nos felicitamos y felicitamos a la Comisión por el trabajo realizado, que permite la adhesión de Ecuador al Acuerdo con Perú y Colombia.
               

                  Y además es que creemos que es importante que ese Acuerdo, como antes decía el señor Jáuregui, entre en vigor en el plazo necesario para que Ecuador pueda aprovechar todas sus ventajas. Pero esta tarde hemos tenido ocasión de comprobar lo fundamentales que son para la política comercial de la Unión Europea la democracia y los derechos humanos en las políticas comerciales y por eso defendemos un capítulo de desarrollo sostenible con condiciones bien claras en materia de derechos laborales, de libertad sindical, de lucha contra el trabajo infantil, de defensa de la igualdad de género, de protección de los pueblos indígenas y de aumento de la protección del medio ambiente.
               

                  Confiamos en que eso será así y en que haremos el mejor seguimiento del Acuerdo en favor de los ciudadanos.
               

Nicola Danti (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'adesione dell'Ecuador all'accordo siglato nel 2012 tra Unione europea, Colombia e Perù, rappresenta un passo ulteriore nel miglioramento delle relazioni commerciali con l'America Latina. In attesa che il processo di ratifica si concluda formalmente, la partecipazione di Quito all'accordo di libero scambio, amplia la portata geografica di questo importante trattato all'avanguardia sul fronte della tutela degli standard sociali del lavoro ed ambientali.
               

                  Proprio per questo auspichiamo che il Governo metta in atto al più presto il piano d'azione per il miglioramento delle condizioni dei suoi cittadini. Attraverso questa decisione l'Ecuador prosegue inoltre il percorso virtuoso di relazioni speciali con l'Unione europea, in continuità con la precedente inclusione nel cuore del sistema di preferenze generalizzate.
               

                  L'America Latina è storicamente e culturalmente un'area strategica per l'Unione europea. Ci auguriamo che l'Ecuador possa rappresentare una tappa di un percorso che vede, in futuro prossimo, la realizzazione di un accordo equilibrato e ambizioso, anche con l'area Mercosur.
               

Catch-the-eye procedure


Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – Pristúpenie Ekvádoru k obchodnej dohode, ktorú Európska únia má už s Peru a Kolumbiou, vítam. Myslím si, že je to krok správnym smerom, a je to niečo, čo prospeje ako Európskej únii, tak aj tejto latinskoamerickej krajine.
               

                  Viac som sa zapojil v poslednej dobe ako podpredseda Eurolatu do problematiky spolupráce Európskej únie a Strednej a Južnej Ameriky a páči sa mi, že Ekvádor je takým skutočným hmatateľným príkladom takéhoto napredovania.
               

                  Diverzifikácia partnerov je aj pre Európu prospešná, aj pre našu zamestnanosť. Samozrejme, nesmieme zabúdať aj na ľudskoprávny rozmer a sociálny rozvoj v tejto latinskoamerickej krajine.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ο Ισημερινός τόλμησε στη σύγχρονη εποχή να προχωρήσει θαρραλέα στη διαγραφή του εξωτερικού χρέους της χώρας προς τρίτους και αυτό αποτελεί ένα σημαντικό μήνυμα προς όλες τις κατευθύνσεις.
               

                  Σήμερα συζητούμε την ένταξή του Ισημερινού στην εμπορική συμφωνία της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης με το Περού και την Κολομβία. Για να είναι όμως επωφελής η συμφωνία για τον Ισημερινό, θα πρέπει να ληφθεί πρόνοια προκειμένου η απελευθέρωση του εμπορίου να αποβεί υπέρ του λαού του Ισημερινού και όχι των πολυεθνικών. Αυτό σημαίνει ότι πρέπει να υπάρξει πρόβλεψη για την προστασία των μικρομεσαίων επιχειρήσεων, της τοπικής απασχόλησης, των εργασιακών δικαιωμάτων και της αγροτικής οικονομίας, και αυτό δεν μπορεί να γίνει με εμπορικές συμφωνίες που προωθούν μία πλήρη και άνευ όρων απελευθέρωση του εμπορίου αγαθών και υπηρεσιών.
               

                  Απαιτείται, λοιπόν, ένα δίχτυ προστασίας για τις ευάλωτες κοινωνικές ομάδες και για τους φτωχούς και χρηματοδοτικοί μηχανισμοί αντιστάθμισης των κοινωνικών επιπτώσεων από το άνοιγμα της αγοράς του Ισημερινού στις επιχειρήσεις της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.
               

Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospođo predsjednice, ovaj sporazum kojeg očekujemo s Ekvadorom te njegovo pristupanje ukupnom našem sporazumu s Peruom i Kolumbijom pokazuje kakvu važnost EU posvećuje andskim zemljama. Zato je dobro danas rečeno da trebamo vidjeti, omogućiti i proširiti suradnju s drugim andskim zemljama te imati takve ugovore jer je to sigurno pokazatelj našeg interesa za tim zemljama.
               

                  S druge strane, ova je odluka potvrda važnosti i uloge koju EU ima na svjetskom globalnom tržištu. Zato sam siguran da ovim ugovorom možemo pomoći seljacima u Ekvadoru, onima koji se bave poljoprivredom, ali istovremeno treba uzeti u obzir i činjenicu da bismo mogli naštetiti nekim našim poljoprivrednicima, naročito onima koji proizvode banane na Kanarima i zato moramo biti oprezni te imati pravo na zaštitu naše proizvodnje.
               

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Cecilia Malmström,
Member of the Commission
. – Madam President, as many Members have expressed, we have a joint interest in deepening the cooperation between the European Union and Colombia, Peru and Ecuador. The agreement with Peru and Colombia is a good agreement, as has been said, and we are convinced that it will also be good for Ecuador. Of course there are special mechanisms for Ecuador, bearing in mind the differences in the economy, but it will be good for them in enabling them to develop their economy and also in addressing the social issues. It will also be good for the regional integration of these countries with each other.
We will, of course, monitor this very closely once it has entered into force, together with the EEAS, looking at the situation of human rights, labour rights and sustainable development, as with all other issues. The second report for Peru and Colombia is being finalised. It will be sent to Parliament very soon.
On bananas: I have heard the concerns of some Members expressed here. We have, as you know, a stabilisation mechanism. We are looking at this very closely. We will continue to observe this with a very attentive eye, keeping you informed. Of course, Ecuador will also have this safeguard mechanism; we will be amending it to make sure that Ecuador is also covered by it, and we will continue to look at it and regularly report to Parliament so that you can reassure your constituents.
So thank you very much for your general support. I will be looking forward to a positive and strong support for the resolution tomorrow in Parliament. We have read it very carefully and will, of course, study the possible amendments and so on, and I think it will be very helpful for us in concluding this work.

President. – I have received one motion for a resolution from the Committee on International Trade tabled in accordance with Rule 123(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 26 November 2015.
14.   A new animal welfare strategy for 2016-2020 (debate)

President. – The next item is the debate on the oral question to the Commission on a new animal welfare strategy for 2016-2020 by Czesław Adam Siekierski on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (O-000141/2015 – B8-1107/2015) (2015/2957(RSP)).

Czesław Adam Siekierski,
autor
. – Komisja Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi przedstawia pytanie w sprawie nowej polityki dobrostanu zwierząt na okres 2016-2020. Treść pytania: komunikat Komisji Europejskiej 2012(0006) w sprawie strategii ochrony i dobrostanu zwierząt na lata 2012-2015 został pozytywnie odebrany przez Parlament Europejski i stanowi jasną mapę drogową w zakresie działań w obszarze polityki dobrostanu zwierząt Unii na przestrzeni ostatnich lat. Parlament Europejski był szczególnie zadowolony z tego, że strategia wprowadza wiele aspektów rezolucji Parlamentu 2009/2202 — sprawozdanie z inicjatywy własnej z dnia 5 maja 2010 r. Parlament docenia poczyniony dotychczas postęp i zachęca Komisję do upewnienia się, że zaległe elementy działania zostaną na czas zrealizowane.
               

                  A więc po pierwsze, czy Komisja sporządzi nową strategię ochrony i dobrostanu zwierząt na okres 2016-2020, aby zapewnić ciągłość i jasność działań, które są kluczowe dla osiągnięcia dalszych pozytywnych przemian w polityce dobrostanu zwierząt w Unii Europejskiej? Po drugie, czy Komisja przygotuje jako kluczowy element nowej polityki dobrostanu zwierząt wniosek dotyczący uproszczenia ram ustawodawstwa Unii w obszarze dobrostanu zwierząt, do przygotowania którego wzywa Parlament w swej rezolucji w sprawie strategii Unii na rzecz ochrony dobrostanu zwierząt na lata 2012-2015, rezolucja 2012/2043 — także sprawozdanie z inicjatywy własnej.
               

                  Tyle przedstawia pytanie Komisji Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi Parlamentu Europejskiego, a teraz moje odniesienie się do problemu. Temat, który jest przedmiotem pytania, jest systematycznie podnoszony na forum Komisji Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi, w różnej formie i zakresie, przy pracy nad wieloma dokumentami i przy innych okazjach. Dobrostan zwierząt ma bowiem istotne miejsce w naszej świadomości i wartościach, które są ważne dla ludzi. Jest też elementem zrównoważonego rozwoju.
               

                  Zagadnienie to zajmuje szczególne miejsce w Unii Europejskiej, gdzie tak wiele zrobiliśmy dla poprawy dobrostanu zwierząt. Standardy i wymogi, które przyjęliśmy, są bardzo wysokie i przestrzegamy ich, pomimo że powodują one istotne pogorszenie konkurencyjności naszych produktów zwierzęcych na rynkach światowych. Do tych zagadnień odnoszą się także wcześniej dzisiaj omawiane sprawozdania. Powinniśmy zabiegać, by nasze standardy w tym zakresie stawały się standardami światowymi, co napotyka ogromne trudności. I takie wymogi powinniśmy stawiać w stosunku do importowanych produktów z krajów trzecich.
               

                  Obecnie zajmujemy się kluczowymi sprawami problematyki zwierzęcej w różnym zakresie, w wielu obszarach, w wielu sprawozdaniach. Wymienię tu tylko tytuły dokumentów, nad którymi pracujemy lub pracowaliśmy w ostatnim czasie. Są to ‘Zootechniczne i genealogiczne warunki dotyczące handlu zwierzętami hodowlanymi i ich materiałem biologicznym wykorzystywanym do rozrodu oraz ich przywozu do Unii’; ‘Klonowanie zwierząt z gatunku bydła, świń, owiec i kóz oraz koni utrzymywanych i rozmnażanych dla celów chowu’. Następny temat – ‘Zdrowie zwierząt’, kolejny – ‘Weterynaryjne produkty lecznicze czy wspólnotowe procedury wydawania pozwoleń dla produktów leczniczych stosowanych u ludzi i do celów weterynaryjnych i nadzoru nad nimi oraz ustawiające Europejską Agencję Leków’, wreszcie ‘Handel produktami z fok’ i wiele, wiele innych, których tu nie wymieniam.
               

                  Wyjątkowo ważne są problemy powiązania i wpływu dobrostanu zwierząt na jakość produktów żywnościowych, a przez to i na zdrowie człowieka. Szereg dyskusji wzbudzają problemy hormonów, antybiotyków w zakresie wyżywienia i leczenia zwierząt czy wykorzystania zwierząt w badaniach naukowych, których rezultaty często w ostateczności przyczyniają się do poprawy dobrostanu zwierząt, pomimo wcześniejszych wątpliwości i zastrzeżeń co do celowości ich stosowania i zakresu. Reasumując, chcę powiedzieć, że dobrostan zwierząt jest i pozostanie dla nas istotną wartością.
               

Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis,
Member of the Commission
. – Madam President, animal welfare is an important and sensitive issue very close to the hearts of millions of European Union citizens. I, too, share the concern of many Europeans for the proper treatment of animals. The current European Union strategy for animal welfare adopted by the Commission in 2012 is still in progress. The priority of the Commission is therefore to work on completion of the remaining actions. Furthermore, there is work to be done on the strengthening and enforcement of existing rules, on improving dialogue with stakeholders and on exploring ways to better include animal welfare considerations in our international activities.
On enforcement: the European Union has at its disposal a very extensive set of rules for animal welfare, covering many species, including broilers, laying hens and pigs; many activities, such as transport, slaughter and animal testing; and also products, for example, cat and dog food or seal products. We need to prioritise the critical issue of putting the existing rules into practice. Learning from our experience over recent years, we must focus our efforts on tackling widespread non-compliance. Against this background, I intend to work on improving compliance with a requirement to prohibit the routine tail docking of pigs and on the finalisation and adoption of guidelines on the welfare of pigs, as foreseen by the animal welfare strategy.
Secondly, I look forward to the outcomes of the ambitious pilot project on best practices on animal transport, supported by Parliament. The project runs from 2015 to 2018.
Thirdly, I would like to mention the Commission proposal to revise European Union legislation on official controls, which has the potential to improve enforcement of animal welfare requirements, for example, through our proposals to establish European reference centres for animal welfare.
On stakeholder dialogue: I would like to see this dialogue amongst the wide variety of actors concerned with animal welfare developed further. I intend to promote, or first attempt to see if there is an appetite in the Community for, this kind of exercise. On the basis of the outcome, we could decide how to structure this dialogue for the future.
Finally, on international action: clearly the concern of European Union citizens as regards the treatment of animals does not stop at our borders, and rightly so. We need to continue promoting our approach worldwide, also to protect the competitiveness of our livestock industry, which has made so many efforts on these issues in recent years. Such efforts can help us to keep European Union standards at a high level, despite the pressure that globalisation brings.
I will explore, together with my colleagues responsible for trade and agriculture, how the potential market of animal welfare could be better valorised at global level. European Union animal production must seek to profit from its advantageous position as a world leader on animal welfare to steer this trend and to further explore markets demanding ethical production.
Since the animal welfare strategy is about to end, we are evaluating further steps. In this case I would like to inform you that the Commission will launch, in 2016, a new Eurobarometer Survey on animal welfare which will represent a useful source of information, especially in the areas of consumer awareness and education. We will be ready to evaluate our next steps after the Eurobarometer Survey has been analysed.

Paolo De Castro,
a nome del gruppo S&D
. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, la commissione per l'agricoltura e lo sviluppo rurale ha espresso più volte la sua sensibilità circa il benessere degli animali, che fortunatamente in Europa ha il livello di protezione più elevato al mondo. Ora la strategia 2012-2015 volge al termine e siamo qui a chiedere alla Commissione le sue intenzioni su un'eventuale nuova strategia per il benessere animale.
               

                  Tuttavia, prima di chiedere nuove regole, vorrei sapere se e quali azioni dell'attuale strategia non sono state ancora implementate e se ci sia ancora del lavoro da fare per una piena e uniforme attuazione della strategia in atto.
               

                  Vorrei anche aggiungere che nel momento in cui chiediamo regole sempre più stringenti per i nostri allevatori, senza porci il problema della reciprocità, rischiamo di penalizzare il nostro sistema produttivo e allo stesso tempo di delocalizzare alcuni allevamenti fuori dall'Europa, peggiorando così sostanzialmente il benessere di molti animali.
               

James Nicholson,
on behalf of the ECR Group
. – Madam President, as with all European policymaking, I believe our animal welfare policy should be led by science, evidence and practical realities of farming and food production, not driven by emotion and public opinion, no matter how well-meaning it may be.
The way to create the best outcomes for the welfare of animals is to have a sensible and workable strategy that is not implemented in a burdensome way for producers. We need to recognise the practical implications that exist for producers and be wary of unintended consequences which can ultimately have a negative impact on animal welfare. For example, the Commission's proposals regarding medicated feed could potentially have implications for pig welfare by delaying the use of medication until the disease has spread and developed.
The cost to farmers – or ultimately, of course, to consumers – must be recognised. Producers where I come from in the UK, as a whole, were to the forefront in implementing measures such as the sow stall ban, while others dragged their feet. The United Kingdom banned sow stalls and certainly lost their competitive advantage at that time.
Similarly, there is a need for our animal welfare standards to be protected in any trade negotiations. We cannot allow a situation, for example, where imports from third countries have a competitive advantage over those produced within a Europe under our high animal welfare standards. Bovine TB is a problem which impacts on the welfare of cattle, and the associated restrictions place pressure on farmers and come at a cost to the public purse. The truth is, if Member States were to implement the regulations that are in place much better, there would be much better animal welfare.

Fredrick Federley,
för ALDE-gruppen
. – Fru talman! Jag ska börja med att säga att jag är väldigt glad att denna fråga har kommit så långt. Om några kollegor känner igen formuleringarna från jordbruksutskottet så beror det på att det är samma fråga som många av er skrev under strax innan sommaren och som vi nu äntligen fått upp till debatt. Jag är extra glad att kammaren idag beslutar att föra en resolution till denna skriftliga fråga och denna debatt.
               

                  Jag vill också tacka kommissionär Andriukaitis för ditt engagemang i frågorna och för att du också under ditt inledningsanförande öppnade några vägar framåt som vi kommer att kunna diskutera också framöver.
               

                  Jag vill hålla med kollegorna som har pratat innan om att vi först behöver göra en ordentlig utvärdering av det som vi har haft i den tidigare strategin. Därefter skulle jag vilja att vi gemensamt från kammaren kunde efterfråga en ny strategi för den kommande tiden. För precis som kollegan Nicholson sa så är det oerhört nödvändigt att vi tar det i ett paket, att vi har det balanserat och att vi också får det – vilket jag tycker är oerhört viktigt – i ett arbete som sker tillsammans med Europas bönder och inte att det blir ett arbete som är emot Europas bönder. Det är själva grundkärnan.
               

                  Jag skulle också vilja se att vi i den strategin, som ger oss ett bredare perspektiv och ett bredare spektrum av olika instrument att arbeta med, också har en del som är att arbeta mot en gemensam djurskyddslagstiftning inom Europeiska unionen. Många gånger i den politiska debatten sägs det ju att vi har en gemensam jordbruksmarknad i Europeiska unionen, och det har vi till stor del. Men det är också väldigt mycket nationella regleringar som skiljer sig åt. Vi kan se hur väldigt många olika direktiv har implementerats på väldigt olika sätt i de olika länderna. Om vi tar det som i Sverige populärt kallas för grisdirektivet, till exempel, där vi fick tio års implementeringsprocess från 2003 till 2013, så kan vi se i en undersökning från det svenska lantbruksuniversitetet att det fortfarande är bara åtta av tjugoåtta länder som fullt ut har implementerat detta.
               

                  Vi har också tidigare i den viktiga Animal health law kunnat slå samman sambandet mellan hur mycket antibiotika som vi använder i vår animalieproduktion med hur det också påverkar vår hälsa som människor. Här har vi en möjlighet att faktiskt få mer av Europa, bättre regler. Ett trettiotal lagstiftningar som har passerat denna kammare är nog sannerligen inte så samstämmiga. Här har vi chansen att göra det bättre och enklare och att få en bättre och fungerande inre marknad, samtidigt som djuren i Europa får det betydligt bättre.
               

Anja Hazekamp,
namens de GUE/NGL-Fractie
. – Het leed dat wij dieren aandoen is enorm en met een nieuwe dierenwelzijnstrategie kan Europa daar wat aan doen. De basis daarvoor is al gelegd in artikel 13 van het Verdrag van Lissabon, dat zegt dat dieren wezens zijn met bewustzijn en gevoel, waarmee wij ten volle rekening moeten houden.
               

                  Maar wat zijn die woorden waard als de Commissie geen enkel initiatief toont op het terrein van dierenwelzijn en de dieren aan hun lot en aan de marktwerking overlaat? Wat zijn die woorden waard als Europa bescherming biedt aan wrede stierengevechten of zelfs aan het in brand steken van stieren? Wat zijn die woorden waard als het onverdoofd slachten van dieren nog mag, terwijl er alternatieven zijn? En wat zijn die woorden waard als het eindeloze gesleep met dieren in overvolle veewagens door en uit Europa nog toegelaten wordt? Wat zijn die woorden waard als wij de pijnlijke dwangvoedering van dieren voor de productie van foie gras niet verbieden?
               

                  Voorzitter, de Commissie kan deze misstanden aanpakken en dan niet met een Eurobarometer-onderzoek maar gewoon met een nieuwe dierenwelzijnsstrategie. Maar vorige week heeft zij al aan verschillende NGO's laten weten dat zij niet van plan is om met een nieuwe strategie te komen en dat was nog voordat dit debat met het Parlement had plaatsgevonden. Dat kan toch niet waar zijn, Voorzitter! Ik hoop dat de Commissie vandaag bewijst respect te hebben voor de brede oproep vanuit de maatschappij en het Parlement om op te komen voor dieren. Zij hebben er recht op. Voorts ben ik van mening dat de Europese landbouwsubsidies moet worden afgeschaft.
               

Albert Deß,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion
. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich muss mich entschuldigen, aber ich habe gemerkt, was offene Grenzen wert sind, und heute war die Grenze von Deutschland nach Frankreich dicht. Ich bin über zwei Stunden an der Grenze gestanden.
               

                  Ich begrüße für die EVP-Fraktion, dass hier der Antrag gestellt wird, dass die Kommission eine neue Tierschutzstrategie für den kommenden Zeitraum erstellen soll. Wir alle, gerade als Landwirte, wissen, dass das Wohlergehen der Tiere oberste Priorität hat. Nur gesunde Tiere, nur Tiere, die gut gehalten werden, bringen auch Leistung. Wir wollen alle, dass nicht nur die Tiere in der Landwirtschaft gut gehalten werden, sondern auch die Haustiere. Das sollten wir auch mit in die neue Tierschutzstrategie hereinnehmen.
               

                  Eines möchte ich aber zu bedenken geben: Man darf bei der ganzen Sache auch nicht übertreiben. Wenn es dazu führt, dass Produktion von Europa weg in andere Erdteile verlagert wird, dann versündigen wir uns am Tierschutz. Von 1976 bis 2008 ist die Tierproduktion, die Fleischerzeugung in Europa nur um 6 % gestiegen, im asiatischen Raum um 385 %. Das heißt, wenn wir unsere Landwirte zu stark knebeln, dann wird in Erdteile verlagert, wo nicht unsere Tierschutzbestimmungen gelten. Deshalb bitte ich darum, dass wir das mit Augenmaß machen, dass wir das Wohlergehen der Tiere im Auge behalten, aber doch so durchführen, dass Produktion bei uns erhalten bleibt und nicht vor allem die kleinen Betriebe gefährdet werden. Strenge Vorschriften führen dazu, dass gerade die kleinbäuerlichen Betriebe als Erste ihre Betriebe schließen. Ich kann nur ein Beispiel bringen: Wenn wir wirklich das Anhängeverbot für Kühe bringen, werden im Alpenraum viele kleine Bergbauern ihre Betriebe schließen. Deshalb bitte ich darum, dass wir etwas Vernünftiges finden. Da bin ich auch sehr zuversichtlich.
               

Keith Taylor,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group
. – Madam President, this resolution of the Animal Welfare Intergroup, of which I am a vice-chair, is both timely and welcome, and my Group wholeheartedly supports its objectives. Particularly welcome is the checklist on the existing strategy, where it is noted that only nine out of 19 actions that were called for have so far been implemented by the Commission. That is why any new strategy should urgently and loudly call for a comprehensive and clear animal welfare legislative framework law which improves animal welfare standards and does not dilute them. It is a concern of ours that when some people talk of simplification of rules, it is a dilution. What we need is better implementation.
There are too many elements of the proposed resolution to talk about in the time allowed, but special mention should be made of calls to embed the sentient status of all animals; the EU-wide ban on mistreatment and suffering of animals; to study the animal health dairy cattle standards against our own and correct any differences found; and finally, to review the transport of animals and the regulations and how they are implemented. Animal welfare issues are regularly in the top three subjects in my constituents' e-mail bag. Citizens care about animals and are looking for their Parliament to protect them.

John Stuart Agnew,
on behalf of the EFDD Group
. – Madam President, when we are talking about animal welfare in Europe we have got a real clash of cultures, haven't we? Because in Mediterranean countries they still find it fun to watch bulls fighting one another and bulls being baited. Now, you could say: when in Rome, do as the Romans do, and I might take that attitude. Unfortunately, because of the way the CAP works, British taxpayers are subsidising this activity. They are subsidising it because they are paying area aid on land that is being used to rear bulls for bullfighting and bull-baiting.
I realise that this has been in the legislation – there have been amendments about it – but as yet, as far as I know, there has been no concrete legislation that says British taxpayers' money must not be used for this – not that I suppose that would ever happen. But I should just warn you that there is a referendum coming up in Britain fairly soon on EU membership, and there is nothing that makes Europhiles squirm more than being reminded that they, with their taxes, are supporting bull-baiting and bullfighting.
Now we move on to another subject, and that is wild stray dogs in Romania, which are apparently being shot and killed one way or another. That is an animal welfare issue, but I am more concerned about what happens to these dogs once they have been killed in whatever ways they are being killed. Are they buried? Well that would upset the EU because of the environmental rules about burying dead animals. Are they being incinerated? Well that will upset all you global warmers because of the CO2 that is going into the atmosphere. Are they being rendered down with abattoir waste to be spread as meat and bonemeal fertilizer, or are they actually being put into animal rations as a protein element? I mean, I would not put this past anybody, because it goes on in south-east Asia.
But these dogs carry rabies; we understand about 20% of them have got rabies. That is zoonotic – that means human beings can get it, and those human beings could come to Britain because the borders are open. So, what better reason to close the borders than rabies?

Dominique Bilde,
au nom du groupe ENF
. – Madame la Présidente, alors que la stratégie pour le bien-être animal 2012-2015 arrive à son terme, je me félicite de voir cette question mise à l'ordre du jour et j'espère que nous établirons une nouvelle stratégie pour la période 2016-2020.
               

                  Si l'article 13 du traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne nous indique que l'Union et les États membres tiennent pleinement compte des exigences relatives au bien-être des animaux en tant qu'êtres sensibles, il nous faut aller plus loin dans la défense animale et lever toutes les ambiguïtés qui demeurent dans nos stratégies en la matière.
               

                  Ainsi, en matière agricole justement, la multiplication des élevages intensifs en France et en Europe conjuguée à la menace du TTIP me font craindre pour le bien-être animal et l'environnement, mais aussi pour la santé humaine.
               

                  J'ai condamné, par exemple, les élevages comme la ferme des 1 200 taurillons en Alsace, les 1 000 vaches dans la Somme, les 1 000 veaux dans la Creuse ou encore la porcherie industrielle de Poiroux, en Vendée.
               

                  Autre point important: l'expérimentation animale. Je déplore que l'initiative citoyenne sur la vivisection n'ait pas été suivie par la Commission. J'estime aussi qu'il est nécessaire, au vu des moyens actuels de la science, mais aussi des résultats peu probants de l'expérimentation sur les animaux, que celle-ci soit définitivement interdite et remplacée progressivement par des méthodes alternatives.
               

                  Je voudrais aussi attirer l'attention sur les effroyables souffrances des animaux mis à mort sans étourdissement préalable avant l'abattage. Il est primordial, dans un premier temps, de rendre obligatoire un étiquetage détaillé sur les modes d'abattage des viandes. Il en est de même pour les fourrures. Puis il faut rendre obligatoire l'étourdissement des animaux avant la mise à mort ou l'abattage et supprimer les dérogations dans le cadre de l'abattage rituel. D'autre part, il faudra veiller particulièrement à mieux lutter contre tout trafic d'espèces animales et de produits tels que l'ivoire. Les auteurs de ces actes devront être plus sévèrement punis avec des sanctions qui ne donnent vraiment plus envie de récidiver.
               

                  Enfin, je crois nécessaire de veiller à ce que les États membres suivent les meilleures pratiques existantes pour la gestion efficace et humaine des chiens errants et des chats sauvages.
               

Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Auch ich darf diese Aussprache über eine mögliche europäische Strategie zum Tierwohl nach 2015 ausdrücklich begrüßen, weil ich es – wie auch viele Vorredner vor mir – ich es für sehr wichtig erachte, dass Tierwohl nicht an Grenzübergängen endet und dass es vor allem hier in Europa hier eine harmonisierte Vorgangsweise braucht, zum Wohl der Tiere, aber auch vor allem zum Wohl und zum Schutz der Produzenten.
               

                  Mein Heimatland Österreich hat im europäischen Vergleich wirklich vorbildliche Standards in sehr vielen Bereichen der Tierhaltung, beispielsweise bei der Umsetzung der Käfighaltung von Legehennen, aber auch im Tiertransportbereich. Während dabei unsere heimischen Nutztierhalter streng kontrolliert werden, gibt es in Europa noch immer einige Mitgliedstaaten, die die EU-Vorgaben gerade zur Legehennenhaltung nicht umgesetzt haben. Auch bei den Tiertransporten ergibt sich öfters noch ein größerer Wettbewerbsnachteil.
               

                  Auch ich darf mich den Vorrednern anschließen, die bereits darauf hingewiesen haben, dass wir überhaupt nichts zum Tierschutz beitragen, wenn wir tierische Produktion in Europa einfach nicht mehr möglich machen. Das gilt vor allem eben auch für Drittstaaten, wenn wir im Bereich der Handelspolitik nicht darauf Rücksicht nehmen, zu welchen Standards tierische Produkte nach Europa importiert werden. Sehr oft werden hier auch noch EU-Gelder verwendet, um beispielsweise Ställe außerhalb der Europäischen Union mit weniger Tierschutz zu bauen. Diese Produkte werden dann billiger nach Europa importiert. Das ist zum Teil an Schwachsinnigkeit nicht mehr zu überbieten!
               

                  Ich möchte hier wirklich an all jene appellieren, die sich für noch mehr Tierschutz und noch mehr Auflagen einsetzen: Bitte belassen Sie es nicht bei dem reinen Aktionismus, informieren Sie die Konsumentinnen und Konsumenten auch darüber, dass damit gesteigerte Produktionskosten verbunden sind. Ich hoffe daher wirklich auf Ihre Unterstützung bei der konsequenten Umsetzung der Kennzeichnungspflicht bei Lebensmitteln, weil ich glaube, dass wir das den Konsumenten und vor allem den Produzenten in Europa schuldig sind.
               

Jeppe Kofod (S&D). – Fru formand! Hr. kommissær! Vi taler gerne og meget her i EU om dyrevelfærd, men det kniber med handling. Jeg mener, vi har en forpligtigelse til at sikre, at vores dyr kan leve gode, trygge og smertefrie liv. Det skal vores love sikre, det skal vores dyrevelfærdsstrategi fremme. Alligevel ser vi hver eneste dag, at dyrevelfærdslovgivningen bliver overtrådt i EU af medlemslandene. Det gælder f.eks. i Danmark, hvor op imod 99 % af alle smågrise får klippet halen af pga. dårlig dyrevelfærd.
               

                  Hr. kommissær, jeg er træt af at vente! Jeg spørger derfor lige ud af posen: Hvornår vil der blive anlagt sag mod de lande, der systematisk overtræder EU's dyrevelfærdslovgivning? Hvornår fremsætter Kommissionen lovforslag om otte timers maksimal transport for levende dyr, hvilket over en million borgere her i Europa har krævet? Og endelig: Hvad nytter en dyrevelfærdsstrategi, hvis ikke Kommissionen er klar til at skride ind og anlægge sag, når dyrevelfærdslovene overtrædes?
               

Janusz Wojciechowski (ECR). – Madam President, during today's voting of the agenda, one of our colleagues said that we have a problem with terrorists in Europe and so it is not a good time to adopt a resolution about the animal welfare strategy. Fighting against terrorism or animal protection: this is an absolutely false alternative. Animal welfare is a European value; it is a part of European heritage. We can be proud of having one of the highest – maybe the highest – animal welfare standards in the world.
The majority of European citizens want to continue the process of improving animal welfare standards. The majority of European citizens understand the significance of animal welfare and animal protection for our humanity in the 21st century. The lack of a new animal welfare strategy for 2016-2020 is treated as a very bad signal that the European Union does not want to continue the policy of the improvement of animal welfare standards. It is a very bad signal for public opinion. This is the reason that we call on the European Union to continue animal welfare policy and to prepare the new animal welfare strategy. Mahatma Gandhi said that the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged on how its animals are treated. By adopting the new animal welfare strategy, we can give good evidence of our humanity and our moral progress in the European Union.

Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospođo predsjednice, kada govorimo o politici dobrobiti životinja moramo početi od toga da te životinje imaju svoje osjećaje, osjećaju bol ili sreću, gotovo sve ono što i mi. Od toga moramo početi kada govorimo o dobrobiti životinja i onda tek možemo razumijeti sve ono što tim životinjama činimo kada ih uzgajamo, nažalost kloniramo, transportiramo onako kako to ne smijemo činiti, i sve ono što se na kraju krajeva dešava pri uzgoju životinja, njihovom transportu i nažalost, često kloniranju.
               

                  Ono što želim naglasiti svakako je činjenica da nam je potrebna nova strategija koja bi trebala uzeti u obzir i naš odnos prema divljim životinjama, kao što je na primjer korištenje divljih životinja u cirkusima ili nažalost, trgovina na način na koji to nije primjereno.
               

                  Također, trebalo bi uzeti u obzir i činjenicu da domaće životinje, pogotovo psi i mačke, često nisu tretirane na odgovarajući način i trebali bi, kada govorimo o azilima za te životinje, uzeti u obzir njihovu dobrobit. Ove godine ističe strategija koju je Komisija svojedobno ponudila i sada nam treba nova strategija do 2020. koju željno očekujemo na našem stolu.
               

Stefan Eck (GUE/NGL). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar Andriukaitis! Die EU hat sich im Vertrag von Lissabon verpflichtet, den Erfordernissen des Wohlergehens der Tiere als fühlende Wesen Rechnung zu tragen. Aber die Tiere leiden extrem in der Massentierhaltung, bei Langstreckentransporten und in den Schlachthöfen. Sie leiden in Tierversuchen, und Hunderttausende Streunertiere werden in Europa jedes Jahr umgebracht.
               

                  Die Einhaltung bestehender Regeln wird zu wenig kontrolliert, und Verstöße werden nicht genug verfolgt. Es gibt nicht einmal eine Haltungsverordnung für Mastkaninchenbetriebe. Ich frage mich: Wo ist der Wille der EU-Kommission, an dieser Situation etwas zu verändern? Die Tierschutzstrategie, die dieses Jahr ausläuft, wurde absolut unzureichend umgesetzt, denn fast die Hälfte aller dort formulierten Punkte ist noch offen. Wir müssen beispielsweise aus Käfigsystemen aussteigen und Verstümmelungen in der Tierhaltung den Kampf ansagen. Im Bereich Tierversuche müssen wir die Übernahme bereits validierter Testmethoden verbindlich vorschreiben, und wir müssen auch auf die Einhaltung unserer Tierschutzstandards in Handelsabkommen drängen.
               

                  Ich appelliere an die Kommission, sich für eine ambitionierte Tierschutzstrategie einzusetzen. Eine Verschiebung ist einfach inakzeptabel! Die Bürger Europas wollen nicht länger warten! Wenn ich an Tiere denke, kann ich nur sagen: I can't stand the pain anymore.


                  An die Kommission: Bitte, bitte, werden Sie nicht zu Schreibtischtätern, wenn es um Tiere und Tierquälerei geht! Zeigen Sie jetzt moralische Größe! Handeln Sie jetzt! Das erwarten die Bürger Europas von Ihnen.
               

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’ gemäß Artikel 162 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)


Albert Deß (PPE),
Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                     
. – Herr Eck, ich hätte eine Frage an Sie: Wie erklären Sie sich, dass dort, wo Ihre ehemaligen Parteifreunde in Deutschland regiert haben, die größten Massenbetriebe geschaffen worden sind?
               

                  Im Westen Deutschlands gab es eine bäuerliche Landwirtschaft. Im Osten Deutschlands, wo die Kommunisten 45 Jahre regiert haben, dort sind die Massenbetriebe geschaffen worden. Da hätte ich gerne eine Erklärung von Ihnen, wie das möglich war.
               

Stefan Eck (GUE/NGL),
Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                     
. – Das Kapital geht immer dahin, wo es die einfachsten Möglichkeiten hat, sich auszubreiten. Im Osten Deutschlands war diese Möglichkeit gegeben. Bitte erinnern Sie sich aber, woher die Investoren gekommen sind: sehr viele zum Beispiel aus Holland. Das muss man also auch sehen. Es hat nichts mit dieser Partei zu tun. Es hat nichts mit unserem Thema heute zu tun, wo wir über eine Tierschutzstrategie zu sprechen.
               

Pascal Durand (Verts/ALE). Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, la stratégie 2012-2015 se termine sur un bilan très mitigé et il semblerait que votre Commission ne propose pas, pour la période 2016-2020, de nouvelles mesures, une nouvelle stratégie, et vous nous parlez d'organiser un grand sondage. Il serait totalement incompréhensible – à un moment où votre Commission négocie le traité transatlantique et que nous allons donc parler des conditions d'élevage intensif observées outre-Atlantique – que nous ne légiférions pas sur cette question essentielle.
               

                  L'univers concentrationnaire, dans lequel les animaux sont enfermés dans des conditions de captivité insupportables, ne doit pas être toléré en Europe; ces méthodes qui sont importées et que l'on voit mises en œuvre maintenant en France doivent être interdites.
               

                  Je vous le demande donc, Monsieur le Commissaire, et les citoyens sont en droit de se le demander, défendons-nous les grands acteurs industriels et les groupes agroalimentaires, ou voulons-nous protéger les animaux et la santé humaine?
               

Marco Zullo (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'articolo 13 del trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione europea, lo abbiamo ricordato già prima, prevede che l'approccio nei confronti del benessere degli animali va fatto con rispetto e tutela di esseri senzienti. Purtroppo, noi a questo approccio disattendiamo molto spesso, per motivi di ipocrisia, dal mio punto di vista, e per le troppe eccezioni.
               

                  Siamo ipocriti per ragioni scientifiche, quando sottoponiamo migliaia di animali a sperimentazione praticamente inutile – questo ce lo dice la scienza stessa. Siamo ipocriti per ragioni culturali: mi riferisco, per esempio, agli animali nei circhi e alla sofferenza che procuriamo loro con delle vite che sono totalmente innaturali. Siamo ipocriti per ragioni religiose: per esempio, con pratiche di macellazione con cui, anche in questo caso, causiamo loro delle sofferenze atroci e completamente inutili.
               

                  Allora, signor Presidente, signor Commissario, io mi auguro che la nuova strategia, che è necessaria, debba mettere al centro della sua azione il benessere degli animali in quanto esseri senzienti.
               

Daniel Buda (PPE). – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, doamnelor și domnilor colegi, sănătatea fiecăruia dintre noi depinde în cea mai mare măsură de sănătatea animalelor pe care le consumăm. Aceasta este strâns legată de bunăstarea animalelor generată evident de condițiile de creștere și de hrănire. Tocmai de aceea, salutăm și apreciem eforturile făcute de Comisie în aceste direcții în ultimii ani subliniind încă o dată necesitatea ca acestea să continue cu o și mai mare intensitate.
               

                  Comisia și structurile responsabile din domeniu trebuie să se asigure că există permanent o comunicare care să aibă în vedere necesitățile consumatorilor și nevoile fermierilor. În mod obligatoriu trebuie să se asigure un echilibru între interesele celor două entități, astfel încât fiecare dintre acestea să aibă garanția că drepturile lor sunt respectate.
               

                  De asemenea, apreciez că la nivelul Comisiei trebuie să existe o preocupare nu doar în ceea ce privește adoptarea unei legislații coerente, simplificate și eficiente la nivelul Uniunii Europene în acest domeniu, dar este obligatoriu să se urmărească îndeaproape implementarea acesteia în statele membre unde, din nefericire, se înregistrează deficiențe serioase sub acest aspect.
               

                  În momentul de față există, din păcate, dezechilibre majore pe parcursul lanțului alimentar care îi dezavantajează în mod clar pe fermieri, ceea ce poate constitui un factor limitativ al investițiilor în acest domeniu.
               

                  Producătorii sunt copleșiți de obligații administrative iar încercarea permanentă de simplificare a acestora nu trebuie să îngreuneze și mai mult acest sector. Considerăm așadar că fermierilor care și-au asumat responsabilități în acest domeniu trebuie să li se garanteze o stabilitate și o previzibilitate în privința investițiilor, ca și o garanție totodată a unei concurențe loiale la nivel internațional.
               

                  Statele membre trebuie astfel să utilizeze mai eficient oportunitățile de sprijin oferite de fondurile europene de dezvoltare rurală pentru a promova cercetarea aplicată și a investi în soluții inovatoare și moderne destinate bunăstării animalelor, astfel încât cetățenii Uniunii Europene să beneficieze de o hrană de calitate și la preturi accesibile fiecăruia.
               

Marlene Mizzi (S&D). – L-annimali huma ħlejjaq li bħalna jħossu, bħalna jweġġgħu u bħalna jsofru. Insibha diffiċli biex nifhem kif persuni jaslu biex jabbużaw min kreatura li ma tistax tiddefendi lilha nnifisha. Issa, sfortunatament, ħafna nies jemmnu li l-annimali għandhom jintużaw biss għal skopijiet ta' qligħ ta' flus, għall-ikel, għax-xjenza, għall-kaċċa, u modi oħra ta' sfruttament.
               

                  L-annimali m'għandhomx jiġu abbużati u għandhom jiġu ttrattati b'dinjità u rispett. L-annimali la għandhom vuċi u lanqas għandhom vot biex jipprotestaw il-mod kif il-bniedem jittrattahom. Għalhekk għandna l-obbligu li nitkellmu u niddefendu lil dawk li m'għandhomx vuċi.
               

                  Hekk kif l-istrateġija preżenti dwar il-welfare tal-annimali ser tiġi fi tmiemha din is-sena, inħeġġeġ lill-Kummissjoni biex timplimenta, mingħajr dewmien, il-punti pendenti mill-istrateġija attwali kif ukoll tfassal strateġija ġdida li tkun ta' benefiċċju mhux biss għall-annimali, iżda wkoll għal kull min iħobb u jirrispetta l-annimali. Ejja nuru kemm aħna verament ċivili billi nagħtu l-vuċi u protezzjoni lil dawn il-ħlejjaq - li ħafna drabi huma ħniena u jafu jħobbu ħafna aktar mill-bniedem.
               

Julie Girling (ECR). – Madam President, more enforcement in coordination of the regulations that we already have is key to improving the welfare of animals. We know how important the health of livestock is to the success of European farming. It is vital for animal welfare that we continue to support European meat production and do not promote what I call ‘animal welfare leakage’ by putting our own farmers out of business and ending up with more imports.
This does not mean, of course, that there should be no control. Mistreatment of animals must be prevented and care standards must be maintained, and indeed improved. Issues such as transportation are, of course, best dealt with at a European level, as trucks move across borders in the single market – notwithstanding Mr Deß's experience today. But many issues can be dealt with at Member State level. Many Members here have suggested that there is a lot of talk about animal welfare and little action. That is simply not the case. We have the highest standards in the world. Let us stop talking ourselves down. We just need to make sure that Member State governments enforce them.

Josep-Maria Terricabras (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, to ensure a real new animal welfare strategy, we should include in it the fundamental idea which lies behind the protection and welfare of animals. This idea is a philosophical and ethical principle which we usually do not mention, namely this: we have to protect animals because they have rights. Certainly, according to the necessary correlation between right and duties, the fact that we feel obliged to protect animals implies that we recognise the right to be protected and that they have rights. This should be explicitly included in our document, since it is the basis on which we construct our protection and welfare strategy.

Annie Schreijer-Pierik (PPE). – Wij spreken over de voortzetting van de dierenwelzijnsstrategie. Ik ben daartegen en wel om de volgende reden. De richtlijnen en verordeningen moeten worden uitgevoerd en die instrumenten hebben wij in dit Parlement. Verschillende ministers hebben tijdens het debat in Nederland dan ook vaak gezegd dat dit vanuit Europa moet. Heel veel boeren in Nederland hebben deze richtlijnen en verordeningen al uitgevoerd.
               

                  Nu hebben we een ongelijk speelveld, hoge kosten voor de boer en de burger betaalt niet. De praktijk wijst dit uit en recentelijk hebben wij in dit Parlement nog gesproken over de crisis in de landbouw. Voortzetting betekent in dit Parlement dan ook vaak zwaardere eisen voor de boeren en daar kan ik op dit moment echt niet in meegaan. We spreken nu over dierenwelzijn. Maar het zou eigenlijk moeten gaan over mensenwelzijn. Vluchtelingen laten wij in Europa uren in de kou lopen - daarbij denk ik aan ouderen en kleine kinderen - terwijl dieren tijdens het transport verwarming, ventilatie en drinken hebben. En dan hebben wij het nu over een rijtijdverkorting van acht naar zeven uur.
               

                  In Nederland zegt het kabinet: als er geen plek is voor vluchtelingen moeten de mensen maar buiten in de kou slapen, in de sneeuw. Bij de dieren zijn verwarming, hokoppervlakte en licht aan zware eisen onderworpen en men heeft daaraan al voldaan. Hebben wij in dit Parlement niet wat anders te doen? Een resolutie over Parijs van de EVP werd niet gesteund. Laten we aan de slag gaan met het agendapunt van vandaag. Laten we de mensen helpen en oplossingen zoeken voor de echte crisis in Europa en dat is asielbeleid, goede opvang en gezamenlijke aanpak van de terreurbeweging ISIS. Daarom zou nu mensenwelzijn hoger op de agenda moeten staan dan dierenwelzijn, waar ik overigens altijd keihard achter heb gestaan.
               

[De spreker gaat in op een ‘blauwe kaart’-vraag overeenkomstig artikel 162, lid 8, van het Reglement.]


Peter Jahr (PPE),
Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                     
. – Frau Präsidentin!
               

                  Ich denke, unsere Kollegin Frau Schreijer-Pierik hat die Situation aus Sicht der Landwirte richtig geschildert.
               

                  Mich beschäftigt zunehmend die Frage: Sollten wir uns als Europäisches Parlament nicht auch einmal mit dem Tierschutz von Heim- und Haustieren beschäftigen, weil dort wenig festgelegt und wenig kontrolliert wird? Ich meine, Tiere leiden auch im Haus- und im Heimtierbereich. Wäre das nicht ein Thema für das Europäische Parlament?
               

Annie Schreijer-Pierik (PPE),

                        ‘blauwe kaart’-antwoord
. – Een totaal bekend punt. Dit hebben we in Nederland in het parlement al vaak uitgesproken. Maar dezelfde burgers die met 10 honden of katten op een flatje acht hoog zitten, zeggen dat mijn varkens geen goede plek hebben en niet goed verzorgd worden. Daarom vind ik ook dat je alle sectoren en alle dierenaangelegenheden hierbij moet betrekken.
               

Clara Eugenia Aguilera García (S&D). – Señora Presidenta, señor Comisario, estamos finalizando la segunda estrategia sobre bienestar animal, que concluye a finales de este año. Es la segunda estrategia que llevamos.
               

                  Tenemos una normativa amplia que ha significado una diferente aplicación. Se decía en los objetivos de esta estrategia —cuyo resultado yo estoy muy interesada en conocer-que era necesario abordar los problemas de una forma más integral, con una armonización más integral de un marco común sobre el bienestar animal. Ese era el resultado que se esperaba de esta segunda estrategia.
               

                  Yo estoy muy interesada en conocer el resultado. Por lo tanto, esperemos a ver el resultado de esta segunda estrategia. Además, yo también quiero conocer el Eurobarómetro y ver qué opinan los ciudadanos europeos, ver cuál es su preocupación y si están dispuestos a pagar más por mejorar el bienestar animal.
               

                  Pero, sobre todo, quiero decir que, después de esa evaluación, habrá que ver cuál es el resultado. Yo creo que tenemos una normativa acorde. Hay que ver si los Estados miembros la están abordando por igual y, además, espero que seamos conscientes de si en los acuerdos con terceros países somos tan exigentes o no somos tan exigentes.
               

PUHETTA JOHTI ANNELI JÄÄTTEENMÄKI


varapuhemies


Zbigniew Kuźmiuk (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Na początek chciałbym przypomnieć, że zaledwie dziewięć spośród dziewiętnastu działań zawartych w strategii na rzecz ochrony i dobrostanu zwierząt z lat 2012-2015 zostało do tej pory zrealizowane. W związku z tym Komisja powinna nie tylko odrobić opóźnienia w tym zakresie, ale także zaproponować nowe, zharmonizowane, zaktualizowane i kompleksowe normy prawne w celu pełnego wdrożenia wymogów 13. artykułu Traktatu o funkcjonowaniu Unii. Takie ogólnounijne normy prawne w tym zakresie zapewnią hodowcom zwierząt gospodarskich w Unii równe szanse produkcji, a tym samym przyczynią się do poprawienia funkcjonowania rynku wewnętrznego.
                  

                     W takiej sytuacji Komisja powinna także, podczas negocjowania dwustronnych umów handlowych z państwami trzecimi, zapewnić przestrzeganie przez nie europejskich zasad dobrostanu zwierząt przy eksporcie zarówno zwierząt gospodarskich, jak i produktów zwierzęcych przeznaczonych do obrotu w Unii Europejskiej. Bez przestrzegania takich reguł przez eksporterów z państw trzecich unijna produkcja zwierzęca będzie niestety coraz bardziej zagrożona.
                  

Angélique Delahaye (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, je me félicite que cette question soit mise à l'ordre du jour. Il est important que le Parlement puisse en débattre en amont du travail de la Commission européenne.
                  

                     Le bien-être animal est un sujet important aux yeux des Européens. Nos concitoyens cherchent en effet, de plus en plus, à consommer de manière responsable. Ils exigent aussi de connaître l'origine des produits alimentaires et les conditions dans lesquelles ceux-ci arrivent dans leurs assiettes. Dans ce sens, il est nécessaire à mes yeux de saluer les efforts et les progrès réalisés par les différentes filières. De plus, les éleveurs sont impliqués dans le bien-être animal, indissociable d'une production de qualité.
                  

                     Si la Commission entend poursuivre son travail avec l'élaboration d'une nouvelle stratégie, celle-ci devra être pragmatique et objective, en incluant l'ensemble des acteurs, professionnels et consommateurs. En d'autres termes, elle ne devra pas pointer du doigt les acteurs des filières de l'élevage mais promouvoir les bonnes pratiques et encourager les progrès.
                  

                     Par ailleurs, comme je l'ai déjà souligné à maintes reprises, on ne peut plaider, d'un côté, en faveur du bien-être animal et imposer, de l'autre, des contraintes disproportionnées à nos éleveurs. Il est essentiel de veiller à une cohérence entre les législations que nous mettons en place et les conséquences qu'elles peuvent avoir sur les modèles d'élevage en Europe. Il faut tenir compte des demandes déjà faites aux éleveurs.
                  

                     L'exemple de la directive NEC sur les plafonds d'émissions des États membres pour les principaux polluants est révélateur de la difficulté de mise en cohérence des objectifs avec la réalité du terrain.
                  

                     En effet, le consommateur souhaite, à la fois la réduction des gaz à effet de serre et l'élevage en plein air. Cependant la captation du méthane exige soit d'enfermer les vaches, soit de les intuber, situation contradictoire et incompatible. Je vous laisse imaginer la difficulté…
                  

Karin Kadenbach (S&D). Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! ‘Trotz der Krise, trotz der Wirtschaftskrise müssen wir über Tierschutz reden.’ So habe ich vor einigen Jahren, als es um die Strategie 2012-2015 ging, meine Ausführungen begonnen. Denn auch damals hat man aufgrund einer Wirtschaftskrise versucht, uns zu diktieren, dass wir uns nicht mit den Angelegenheiten des Tierschutzes, der Tierwohlfahrt beschäftigen dürfen. Noch weniger dürfen wir unsere Tagesordnung – unser Denken und Handeln – durch terroristische, durch brutale mörderische Übergriffe diktieren lassen. Wir müssen hier in diesem Haus zu unserer Tagesordnung stehen und diese Anliegen, die uns wichtig sind, auch im Anblick der Krise, auch im Anblick des Terrors formulieren.
                  

                     Heute geht es darum, einen wichtigen Punkt des Europäischen Vertrags, nämlich den Artikel 13, umzusetzen. Der sagt: Tiere sind fühlende Wesen. Wir dürfen sie nicht ignorieren, und ich bin felsenfest davon überzeugt, dass Sie gemeinsam mit Ihrem Team eine Strategie für die Zukunft auf den Tisch legen werden, weil Sie davon überzeugt sind – und das weiß ich aus Ihrer Tätigkeit auch im Zusammenhang mit dem Gesundheitsausschuss –, dass Tierwohl und Menschenwohl, Tiergesundheit und Menschengesundheit nicht voneinander zu trennen sind. Wir werden nur gemeinsam ein Europa für die Menschen haben, wenn wir auch ein Europa haben, in dem Tierwohl und Tierrechte groß geschrieben werden.
                  

Daniel Dalton (ECR). – Madam President, we have the strictest animal welfare rules in the world, but if they are not enforced, they are worthless. Therefore, enforcement is key. There is no point in having another animal welfare strategy unless we recognise that the existing rules are widely ignored and that they are often only given lip service in many Member State ministries. We see this problem across animal welfare legislation, for example in animal transport rules, where spot checks have shown that the reality is miles away from the legislation. The case of puppy-smuggling is another example: here, existing regulations to prevent unhealthy animals being transported across Europe are not being respected and the pet passport scheme is being abused. We do not need new legislation; more new legislation which we cannot enforce will just make a mockery of all animal welfare legislation. We need existing legislation to be properly enforced, and to do this, the Commission needs to be much stronger with those reticent Member States; we need to share best practices between Member States; and we need to foster a culture of animal welfare throughout Europe. Only by doing this will we reach common standards at the highest level, not at the lowest.

Franc Bogovič (PPE). – Evropski kmetje, prav tako evropska kmetijska politika, so lahko ponosni na to, kar je bilo na področju dobrobiti živali narejeno v zadnjih desetih, petnajstih letih.
                  

                     Sam sem podrobno spremljal ta razvoj dogodkov v svoji državi, v Republiki Sloveniji, kot kmetovalec ali pa – če hočete – tudi kot kmetijski minister. In poznam prizadevanja kmetov, kako so spreminjali hleve, tako v govedoreji, prašičereji, kakor tudi v perutnini, in mislim, da je bil res narejen zelo velik napredek in znatna sredstva so bila prispevana tudi iz evropskega kmetijskega denarja.
                  

                     V naslednjih korakih je potrebno zagotovo najprej videti, kaj od tega, kar smo si zapisali, je že storjeno, o korakih, katerih še kdo ni naredil, se je potrebno pogovoriti, da jih naredi, da bo kmetijstvo v Evropi enotno in da bomo imeli zagotovilo, da je za evropskim kmetijstvom tudi enotna politika na področju dobrobiti živali.
                  

                     Za naslednje korake je zagotovo potrebno skupaj s kmeti, kakor tudi s potrošniki, spregovoriti in trezno, premišljeno iti korak za korakom naprej, ne biti prehiter.
                  

                     Na drugi strani pa mislim, da je nujno potrebno, da smo zelo kritični in damo pod drobnogled tudi tiste države, od koder uvažamo mesne izdelke, kajti lahko se nam zgodi, da bomo ob brezkompromisnem in nekritičnem uvažanju takšnih izdelkov zelo ogrozili tudi evropsko kmetijstvo, evropsko živinorejo, in kot je bilo že danes rečeno, najprej bodo propadle male kmetije v območjih s težkimi pogoji pridelovanja.
                  

                     Zagotovo pa bo potrebno biti pozoren pri teh standardih za dobrobit živali tudi pri vseh trgovinskih sporazumih, kajti tam je pa nova past, da lahko zaradi neenotnih pravil evropski kmet zopet potegne kratko plat.
                  

Paul Brannen (S&D). – Madam President, European citizens are looking to the Commission for decisive action to safeguard animal welfare. The new animal welfare strategy should be a starting point to introduce European framework legislation on animal welfare, supported by a one-stop-shop for animal welfare within the Commission – the only guarantee that animal welfare issues will be dealt with in a coordinated and efficient manner.
Animals, as we have heard tonight, are sentient beings, and this principle must underpin the thinking around the new animal welfare strategy. Only having realised this basic truth can we address the most pressing animal welfare issues across the EU and beyond: to improve the welfare of farm animals, to end live exports to third countries and to curb the illicit trade in puppies and exotic pets. These, and many other issues, demand attention. It is time for a new and robust strategy.

Maria Noichl (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar! Für mich stellt sich die Frage: Warum nicht? Warum soll es keine neue Strategie für den Tierschutz geben? Was ist der Hintergrund? Nicht nur in diesem Ausschuss, wenn es um die Strategie für den Tierschutz geht, sondern auch in anderen Ausschüssen müssen wir als Parlament erfahren, dass Strategien nicht mehr auf den Weg gebracht werden. Ich möchte als weiteres Beispiel die Strategie für die Gleichstellung der Geschlechter in Europa nennen. Warum nicht? Warum sperrt sich die Kommission dagegen, ganz klare Ziele zu benennen, einen ganz klaren Weg zu benennen, einen Aktionsplan mit Daten, sodass man wirklich auch erkennen kann, wie die Fortschritte in Europa sind? Es ist für mich überhaupt nicht vorstellbar, dass diese vielen Themenbereiche, die von meinen Kolleginnen und Kollegen angesprochen worden sind, einfach so dahinplätschern. Wir brauchen einen klaren Rahmen, und wir brauchen eine Strategie.
                  

                     Ich muss ganz ehrlich sagen, dass ich den Bereich der Humanmedizin, den Sie bearbeiten, sehr schätze. Ich fordere Sie hier noch einmal auf, in ähnlicher Weise, in ähnlich klarer Ansage im Bereich des Tierschutzes zu agieren. Wir brauchen eine Strategie, und zwar sofort!
                  

Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Elnök Asszony, az állatjóléti intézkedések valóban nagyon fontosak, és ezek folyamatosságát biztosítani kell, noha ennek jogi vagy eljárási formáját illetően nyilván lehetnek viták. A stratégia kialakításánál azonban kiemelt szerepet kell kapjon az innováció, az oktatás és a különböző pénzügyi alapok közötti koherencia. Megjegyzem, hogy az állatjóléti előírások az EU-ban már kiemelkedőek, amint azt De Castro kollégám is elmondta, így csökkenteni tudjuk az intenzív állattartás negatív hatásait. Ezt a magas szintet persze nagyon nehéz tovább emelni, és ne felejtsük el, hogy a haszonállatok nagy része háziasított, természetes közegben immár meg sem tudnának élni. Inkább az EU-n kívüli országokat kellene ösztönözzük arra, hogy vegyék át a gyakorlatainkat.
                  

                     A stratégia viszont a kedvtelésből tartott állatokra is tartalmazhatna referenciákat, a Parlament, az Európai Parlament már 2012-ben rámutatott ennek szükségességére, de ennek ellenére a mai napig nincs koherencia a jogszabályok között. Ne legyünk engedékenyebbek az ő esetükben pusztán azért, mert nem esszük meg őket.
                  

Michela Giuffrida (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la strategia per il benessere degli animali 2012-2015 ha avuto un impatto positivo sulle misure e le azioni intraprese a favore del miglioramento delle condizioni di vita degli animali. La mentalità per fortuna sta cambiando e l'attenzione e la sensibilità per il benessere degli animali sono sempre maggiori. In verità, l'opinione pubblica è molto più avanti delle istituzioni e noi abbiamo il dovere di ascoltare chi ci pone casi e situazioni di perpetuata violenza ed enorme crudeltà.
                  

                     Quest'anno siamo riusciti ad approvare il regolamento sulla salute degli animali, in cui abbiamo chiaramente scritto che la salute non può prescindere dalle condizioni generali in cui versano gli animali: un animale maltrattato non può essere mai e poi mai un animale in salute. Un primo grande passo l'abbiamo fatto e oggi chiediamo alla Commissione di continuare in questa direzione.
                  

                     Bisogna elaborare una strategia che affronti le situazioni e i casi di crudeltà e violenza, su cui incidere e da fermare: penso alla mattanza delle isole Fær Øer, che deve finire e al più presto.
                  

Ricardo Serrão Santos (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, até onde devemos ir em termos de legislação para o bem-estar animal? É uma questão que tem sido baseada num compromisso entre melhorar as condições de sanidade física e psicológica dos animais e o impacto financeiro sobre os produtores. Com a intensificação da produção, não poderemos nunca ceder nos objetivos de melhorar de forma contínua o bem-estar animal. Quanto ao bem-estar dos animais aquáticos, é preciso garantir que as produções em aquacultura, e especialmente as intensivas, têm as condições adequadas. Sabemos que algumas condições de estabulação são no mínimo questionáveis.
                  

                     Assim, solicito à Comissão a indicação dos resultados da investigação científica, obtida sob a égide da estratégia 2012-2015. Há ainda questões relacionadas com o sofrimento animal durante o processo de pesca. Realço que esta questão estava omissa na Comissão de 2012 e valia a pena iniciar a sua reflexão para o futuro.
                  

Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot


Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). – Máme dnes tému dobré životné podmienky zvierat a myslím si, že je to veľmi dôležitá téma a musíme sa ňou zaoberať. Či už máme na mysli zvieratá, ktoré sú chované vo veľkochovoch, ktoré sú chované v podmienkach, ktoré nie sú celkom vyhovujúce, ale aj spoločenské zvieratá. Viacerí z kolegov to už spomínali. Aj pre nich by sme mali vedieť nájsť tú správnu mieru chovu.
                  

                     Rád by som sa dotkol aj takých otázok, ktoré nie sú doriešené, a to sú rôzne nevhodné spôsoby porážky alebo rôzne zbytočné niekedy až pokusy na zvieratách. I keď, povedzme si zase otvorene, keby išlo o nový liek, ktorý by vďaka testovaniu bol pre ľudí, naše deti trebárs, potrebný, tak by sme našli správnu mieru.
                  

                     Na druhej strane, napríklad, robíme veľké chyby pri transporte zvierat. Rád by som sa dotkol aj otázky – klonované zvieratá. Veľmi trpia, majú veľké bolesti, veľké ťažkosti a som rád, že Parlament odmietol výrobu mäsa z klonovaných zvierat.
                  

Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il raggiungimento di un elevato livello di benessere degli animali è un elemento imprescindibile per proteggere la loro salute e garantirne la produttività. La strategia dell'Unione europea per la protezione e il benessere degli animali 2012-2015 è stata sicuramente un passo avanti ma molto si deve ancora fare.
                  

                     La Commissione è chiamata a elaborare una nuova e più ambiziosa strategia per la protezione del benessere degli animali nel periodo 2016-2020, presentando una proposta di quadro legislativo semplificato: le attuali norme nazionali in materia di benessere degli animali, a causa della loro complessità e delle interpretazioni divergenti, creano infatti incertezza giuridica e uno svantaggio concorrenziale per i produttori. Una maggiore armonizzazione a livello comunitario è dunque necessaria.
                  

                     Allo stesso tempo l'auspicabile proposta della Commissione deve essere orientata a dare un forte sostegno agli allevatori che rispettano le norme e le buone prassi dell'allevamento degli animali e che investono in migliori strutture agricole e dovrebbe riguardare tutti gli animali in cattività e abbandonati, compresi gli animali randagi di specie domestica, con l'obiettivo ultimo di raggiungere finalmente un maggiore e generale benessere degli animali.
                  

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η προστασία της ευζωίας των ζώων είναι ένα σημαντικότατο ζήτημα που πρέπει να λάβει υπόψη της η Επιτροπή. Η στρατηγική της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για την προστασία και την καλή μεταχείριση των ζώων για την περίοδο 2012-2015 έφερε αρκετά θετικά αποτελέσματα βοηθώντας στην εξάλειψη του φαινομένου βασανισμού των ζώων.
                  

                     Συχνά όμως σε ολόκληρη την επικράτεια της Ευρώπης συναντάμε βασανισμούς και κακομεταχείριση των ζώων. Θα πρέπει επίσης να επισημανθεί ότι σε παγκόσμιο επίπεδο τα ζώα κυριολεκτικά βασανίζονται και υποκύπτουν με φρικτούς πόνους στο βωμό της αισχροκέρδειας όπως συμβαίνει με την φαλαινοθηρία.
                  

                     Θα πρέπει λοιπόν Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή να λάβει πολλαπλά πρόσθετα μέτρα με γνώμονα την καλή μεταχείριση των ζώων και φυσικά την προστασία αυτών από κάθε είδους πρακτικές βασανιστηρίων ή ανάλογων πρακτικών που οδηγούν στην κακή μεταχείριση των ζώων.
                  

                     Τέλος, θα πρέπει να υπάρξει μια πρόταση για ένα απλουστευμένο νομοθετικό πλαίσιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για την καλή διαβίωση των ζώων.
                  

Ulrike Müller (ALDE). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kollegen! Ich begrüße alles, was zu mehr Wohlergehen der Tiere beiträgt, und dies hat auch oberste Priorität bei den allermeisten Landwirten innerhalb der EU.
                  

                     Die Tierhaltungsformen haben sich in den letzten dreißig Jahren hervorragend weiterentwickelt. Wir sind mit großen Schritten vorangekommen, und auch die Investitionsprogramme, die als Anreiz für die Landwirte, in moderne Stallhaltungsformen zu investieren, aufgelegt wurden, waren gute Instrumente. Die Schweiz zertifiziert zum Beispiel Stalltechniken, die das Tierwohl besonders fördern. Auch das wäre ein Ansatz für uns.
                  

                     Wir brauchen machbare Wege und umsetzbare Prozesse. Gemeinsame Märkte dürfen nicht verloren gehen. Allerdings sehe ich schon ein großes Problem darin, dass wir innerhalb der 28 Mitgliedstaaten so unterschiedlich mit dem Tierwohl umgehen. Hier brauchen wir eine Harmonisierung. Mir wäre es ein großes Anliegen, einen Tierhaltungsschein für sämtliche Heimtierbesitzer einzuführen. Die Landwirte haben eine gute Ausbildung, und jeder Privatbesitzer sollte dies auch haben.
                  

Miguel Viegas (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, os atentados ao bem-estar animal são uma consequência de uma agricultura cada vez mais submetida à lógica do lucro, num mercado global cada vez mais competitivo. Os níveis absurdos de intensidade produtiva que temos na União Europeia, seja ao nível das poedeiras ou da produção intensiva de porcos, aves ou coelhos, não resultam de qualquer capricho por parte dos nossos agricultores. Trata-se de uma contingência que os obriga a maximizar a produtividade animal sob pena de pura e simplesmente não conseguirem garantir a rentabilidade das suas explorações.
                  

                     É esta contingência que está por resolver. Uma contradição entre uma Política Agrícola Comum cada vez mais liberal, orientada para os mercados e que empurra os agricultores para modelos produtivistas onde o lucro se sobrepõe ao bem-estar animal, e também todas as evidências científicas que nos alertam, todos os dias, para a necessidade de parar com esta loucura. Parar em nome do bem-estar animal, da biodiversidade e da saúde pública.
                  

                     Importa por isso alargar a nossa equação agrícola a outras variáveis sociais e ambientais, em nome da sobrevivência do nosso planeta.
                  

Jonathan Arnott (EFDD). – Madam President, subsidiarity would suggest that decisions should be taken as close as possible to the citizen. Most issues which have been raised today – however nobly – could be dealt with better by nations themselves. One-size-fits-all laws are not always necessary. For example, Member States need to have the power to end live animal imports and exports in their own countries in order to deal with this cruelty. I raise also comments about exotic pets, and particularly the threat that any legislation could have to ornamental fish in the UK, and to thousands of jobs, including some in my constituency which could be affected.
Finally, I would say that sensible debate is needed. Sadly, in the United Kingdom we have seen alarmism from the Labour Party, with the shadow cabinet member responsible having suggested that meat be treated like tobacco, with public health campaigns to stop people eating it. I suspect that with those comments she offended meat eaters and smokers alike.

(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)


Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis,
Member of the Commission
. – Madam President, I have listened very carefully and with close attention to your interventions on this important subject, and I share your view that the European Union should continue to be active on animal welfare. I hear different approaches and proposals: for a framework animal welfare law, a new animal strategy, or a European Union platform for animal welfare with strong enforcement, or a situation to evaluate today's strategy.
All those options have been and are being discussed in my Cabinet and with the services, and we have decided to start with a Eurobarometer survey. This is not only a matter of interest for the general public but is also about creating added value – innovation enclosed in the European Union food chain – and therefore concerns a wide range of stakeholders.
In the light of the completion of the European Union strategy on animal welfare, new information will become available in 2016 that could allow a response to the many varied yet legitimate expectations of European Union citizens and stakeholders. In addition, proper enforcement of the European Union acquis will continue to be a key priority. A study to be completed soon, and the result of the next Eurobarometer survey, will also look at what role responsible education and information to citizens can play in this regard.
With the forthcoming adoption of the proposal on official control, the European Union will have the opportunity to create European reference centres for animal welfare, giving a strong impetus for promoting the issue among stakeholders.
Furthermore, I believe that European Union animal production must seek to profit from its advantageous position as a world leader on animal welfare to drive forward this trend and to further explore markets, calling for high standards for animal welfare. I am looking forward to the resolution of this Parliament.
In conclusion, let me reassure Parliament that the Commission takes animal welfare issues very seriously. We will continue to work on integrating these issues into the wider perspective for the future of the European Union food chain.

President. – Motions for resolutions tabled in accordance with Rule 128(5) of the rules of Procedure will be announced later.
The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Thursday, 26 March 2015.


Written statements (Rule 162)



Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD),
per iscritto
. – Sono rammaricato di constatare la scarsa ambizione della proposta. Vari principi devono essere chiaramente sanciti sia nei trattati che nella pratica: il pieno rispetto da parte delle legislazioni europee e nazionali dell'articolo 18 TFUE, ovvero che gli animali vengano considerati esseri senzienti; il graduale ma definitivo abbandono della sperimentazione animale, la cui validità è contestata da moltissimi studi scientifici, rispettando quanto richiesto da ‘Stop Vivisection’ ; il divieto dell'utilizzo degli animali selvatici negli spettacoli circensi, dove sono costretti a vivere un'esistenza innaturale e mortificante – si richiede l'uniformità di regole nazionali che già esistono in 18 Stati membri; un impegno concreto per la chiusura di tutti i delfinari, dove cetacei con altissimo grado di intelligenza e socialità sono rinchiusi a vita; il miglioramento, anche attraverso ripartizione adeguata dei fondi PAC, delle condizioni di impiego degli animali per lo sviluppo rurale. In quanto membro dell'intergruppo sul benessere animale, cercherò, insieme alla Delegazione M5S Europe di portare avanti questa lotta civile.
                  

Norbert Erdős (PPE),
írásban
. – Tisztelt Képviselőtársak! Teljes mértékben egyetértek az Európai Néppárt álláspontjával, hogy jelen helyzetben – amikor Európa biztonsága megingott és összefogásra lenne szükség minden téren – felesleges és értelmetlen állatjóléti kérdésekről, esetleges ‘problémákról’, vitázni. A fentieket alátámasztja az a tény is, hogy jelenleg a legszigorúbb állatjóléti követelmények az EU-ban vannak a Földön, így az Unió példát mutat ezen a területen a Világnak. Sokkal inkább arra kellene hatékony megoldást találni, hogyan nehezítsük meg azon élelmiszerek EU-ba történő bejövetelét, amelyek előállítása során nem az uniós szabályokkal ekvivalens követelmények alapján tartják az állatokat. Itt a szigorú állatjóléti követelményeket betartó gazdák versenyképességéről van szó, így mindent meg kell tennie az Európai Bizottságnak és a többi uniós intézménynek és ügynökségnek is, hogy egyedül az uniós szabályokkal ekvivalens követelményeknek megfelelően előállított élelmiszer jöhessen be az EU-ba.
                  

Neena Gill (S&D),
in writing
. – Animal welfare is a topic on which constituents from my region are continuously writing me, on issues ranging from addressing badger cull and fox hunting in the UK, over life animal exports, to bull fighting in Spain, the situation of stray dogs in Romania and whaling in the Faroe Islands. This proves the trust vested in EU institutions to take action on a topic that is close to people's hearts. While I acknowledge the important role played by the Commission in improving animal welfare over the past years, crucial steps remain to be taken. The recognition that animals are sentient beings should be the basis of any effective piece of legislation aiming to protect the wellbeing of animals. Yet the majority of existing acts fail to recognise this key principle. And while the adoption by the Commission of a Strategy on the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015 has been a crucial step in improving animal welfare, it is disappointing that only 9 out of the 19 actions contained in it have been implemented. I count on the Commission to build on progress it has made with a strategy for 2016-2020 that investigates why this has been the case and draws lessons from failure as well as success.

Beata Gosiewska (ECR),
na piśmie
. – Komunikat Komisji w sprawie unijnej strategii ochrony i dobrostanu zwierząt 2012-2015 był krokiem w dobrym kierunku, ponieważ był mapą drogową z konkretnymi działaniami w zakresie unijnej polityki dobrostanu zwierząt. To dobrze, że Komisja uwzględniła w nim uwagi Parlamentu Europejskiego z rezolucji z maja 2010 r. Niestety jak do tej pory tylko 9 na 19 działań zaplanowanych przez Komisję zostało wykonanych. Komisja musi jak najszybciej wprowadzić w życie brakujące elementy strategii 2012-2015. Należy kontynuować wysiłki w tym zakresie. Oczekuję, że Komisja przedstawi nową propozycję w sprawie dobrostanu zwierząt na 2016-2020. Konieczna jest również lepsza implementacja prawa unijnego. Pragnę zaznaczyć, że harmonizacja przepisów nie może doprowadzić do niższych standardów. Znęcania się nad zwierzętami nie można usprawiedliwić w żaden sposób. Dlatego oczekuję, iż Komisja wprowadzi zakaz znęcania się zwierzętami bez wyjątków na terenie całej Unii Europejskiej. Przepisy w zakresie ochrony zwierząt żywych i w czasie transportu powinny być zaktualizowane na podstawie rezolucji Parlamentu 2012/2031. Komisja powinna również dopilnować, aby standardy dobrostanu zwierząt były zawarte w negocjowanych umowach z krajami trzecimi i przestrzegane przez eksporterów spoza UE.
                  

Bronis Ropė (Verts/ALE),
raštu
. – Diskusija dėl europinės gyvūnų gerovės strategijos yra svarbi keliais aspektais. Vieną vertus, gerai, kad mes, europiečiai, net ir teroro išpuolių kontekste galime diskutuoti dėl konkrečių Europos ateities kūrimo aspektų. Kartu gaila, kad svarbiam gyvūnų gerovės klausimui, tiesiogiai susijusiam ne tik su vertybėmis, bet su beveik kiekvieno europiečio skrandžiu, yra skirtas tik vėlyvas pirmadienio vakaras. Kalbant apie rengiamą dokumentą, norėčiau paklausti gerbiamo Komisijos nario, kaip naujoje strategijoje Komisija ketina užtikrinti, kad 2016-2020 m. laikotarpiu bus įgyvendintos visos numatytos gyventojų gerovės priemonės. Jei neklystu, dabartinėje strategijoje iš numatytų 19 priemonių pilnai įgyvendintos tik penkios. O juk šis klausimas daro įtaką ne vien gyvūnų savijautai, bet ir maisto kokybei! Antras dalykas, į kurį norėčiau atkreipti Jūsų visų dėmesį, yra pats klausimo objektas. Mes diskutuojame dėl gyvūnų, visų pirma, maistui naudojamų naminių gyvūnų gerovės reguliavimo. Bet ar nesusimąstome, kad pernelyg įsigilinus į gyvūnų gerovės reguliavimą, mes nebeskiriame pakankamai dėmesio pačiai gyvulininkystės sektoriaus gerovei? O juk bent jau keliose valstybėse narėse, įskaitant tokius atvejus, kaip kiaulininkystė ar pienininkystė, mano šalyje – Lietuvoje – atskiros žemės ūkio sritys sėkmingai artėja link išnykimo ribos tiek dėl rinkos krizės, tiek dėl nesąžiningų komercinių praktikų, tiek ir dėl nacionalinio ar europinio reguliavimo spragų ir nenoro gelbėti tol, kol dar yra ką gelbėti.
                  

Beatrix von Storch (ECR),
schriftlich
. – Ich werde der Entschließung des Europäischen Parlaments zum Entschließungsantrag über eine neue Tierschutzstrategie für den Zeitraum 2016-2020 zustimmen. Die Maßnahmen erscheinen mir ausgewogen. Die von Linken und Grünen eingebrachten Änderungsanträge im Hinblick auf einen besseren Schutz bestimmter Tiere – Fische, Schweine, Legehennen, Jagdwild etc. – werde ich durch die Bank ablehnen, weil sie stets ein Handeln der EU-Kommission einfordern. Das lehne ich ab. Ich wende mich gegen größere Kompetenzverlagerungen auf die EU. Die EU soll keine Vorgaben machen. Ich schließe also nicht aus, dass ich einzelne entsprechende Vorhaben auf nationalstaatlicher Ebene unterstützen könnte. Die EU sollte jedoch von ihrer Vielfalt leben, die am besten dadurch gewährleistet wird, dass gerade schwierig zu entscheidende und umstrittene Fragen verschiedene Lösungen finden – sprich weniger EU, mehr Selbstbestimmung.
                  
15.   Reducing inequalities with a special focus on child poverty (short presentation)

President. – The next item is the debate on the report by Inês Cristina Zuber on behalf of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs, on reducing inequalities with a special focus on child poverty (2014/2237(INI)) (A8-0310/2015).

Inês Cristina Zuber,
relatora
. – Senhora Presidente, na União Europeia, atualmente, mais de uma em cada quatro crianças vive em risco de pobreza ou de exclusão social. Em 2013, 26,5 milhões de crianças na União Europeia corriam o risco de cair na pobreza e exclusão social. São números dramáticos. As políticas que fizeram empobrecer as famílias da União Europeia são as mesmas que atiraram as crianças para a pobreza, negando-lhes muitos dos direitos que constam da Convenção sobre os Direitos da Criança, nomeadamente os direitos à saúde, educação e proteção social.
               

                  Neste relatório explicitamos bem claramente aquilo que os vários estudos apontavam, mas que parece que aqueles que insistiram nas políticas de austeridade, denominadas de consolidação orçamental, ignoraram. Os principais fatores que contribuem para a pobreza infantil são as políticas de redistribuição da riqueza, a eficácia da intervenção governamental através de apoio ao rendimento. É evidente que o aumento do emprego é o instrumento mais eficaz na luta contra a pobreza. É evidente que a degradação das políticas salariais e dos sistemas de proteção social a nível nacional aumentam a pobreza infantil. Mas o emprego por si só não basta. O drama dos dias de hoje reside no facto de que o risco de pobreza infantil persiste em famílias com alta intensidade laboral, como é o caso da Roménia, Lituânia, Portugal, Espanha e outros. Hoje sabe-se que os pais trabalhadores que não têm acesso a creches veem-se muitas vezes forçados a deixar as crianças entregues aos cuidados de outra criança ou a recorrer a redes de cuidados informais pagos e não certificados, o que coloca em causa a segurança e o bem-estar das crianças.
               

                  Por isso, neste relatório recomendamos aos Estados-Membros legislações laborais que garantam direitos sociais, incluindo um salário mínimo obrigatório adequado que respeite as práticas nacionais e os acordos coletivos e que proporcione uma maior segurança às famílias e combata os vínculos precários, promovendo trabalho com direitos sociais.
               

                  Por isso, neste relatório instamos a Comissão Europeia a abster-se de recomendar reformulações e cortes na administração pública dos Estados-Membros, de promover a flexibilização das relações de trabalho e a privatização de serviços públicos, as quais têm conduzido, inequivocamente, ao enfraquecimento dos direitos sociais das crianças.
               

                  Mas neste relatório existe uma perspetiva fundamental: a de que as políticas efetivas de prevenção da pobreza são aquelas que garantem o acesso universal e gratuito aos serviços públicos, e não aquelas que apenas se preocupam em compensar as crianças já em situação de pobreza infantil. São os estudos que concluem que as políticas universais em matéria de apoios oferecem uma melhor proteção contra a pobreza infantil. Assim, neste relatório, defendemos os serviços públicos, gratuitos e universais de elevada qualidade, particularmente no que se refere a assistência a crianças, educação, saúde, habitação e atividades de lazer. Por isso, defendemos subvenções sociais universais dirigidas às crianças, como seu direito próprio e intrínseco. Incentivamos legislações que protejam ou aumentem os direitos de maternidade e paternidade, salvaguardem o regresso ao trabalho das mulheres após a gravidez e a licença de maternidade e apoiem as famílias monoparentais, que são maioritariamente femininas.
               

                  No nosso relatório não consideramos apenas a pobreza monetária, mas também as privações multidimensionais, e por isso defendemos métodos estatísticos que integrem indicadores multidimensionais. Consideramos também que se deve fazer uma melhor utilização dos fundos estruturais da União Europeia para combater a pobreza infantil. Votaremos contra as partes que foram incluídas no relatório que consideram que esta tragédia pode ter resolução através do Semestre Europeu ou das regras da União Económica e Monetária, porque consideramos que aquilo que causa em grande parte o problema deve ser combatido e não pode ser parte da solução.
               

                  Queremos agradecer, por fim, a todos os que contribuíram para a realização deste relatório, nomeadamente a várias organizações portuguesas e internacionais que lutam diariamente contra a pobreza infantil.
               

Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot


Romana Tomc (PPE). – Hvala lepa, spoštovana predsedujoča, za besedo.
               

                  Poročilo podpiram, ker verjamem, da bi morali vsem otrokom zagotoviti pravico do izobraževanja, do zdravstvenega varstva, do stanovanja in odraščanja v skrbnem družinskem okolju. Vendar realnost žal kaže drugače, saj več kot vsakega četrtega otroka v Evropski uniji ogrožata revščina in socialna izključenost.
               

                  Poročilo v svoji vsebini navaja, da naj bi se revščina med otroci poglobila na račun varčevalnih ukrepov. Varčevalni ukrepi so seveda nujni, vendar ne smejo iti na račun otrok. Zato je vsaka država članica sama zadolžena, da zagotovi vsaj osnovne potrebe za normalno otroštvo.
               

                  Posledice pretiranega varčevanja na račun otrok lahko vplivajo seveda tudi na javno zdravje in potem dalje na državno blagajno.
               

                  Želela bi pa poudariti še primer Slovenije, za katero pa mislim, da je še vedno država, ki zagotavlja dostopnost javnega zdravja vsem otrokom.
               

Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, sărăcia, mai ales în rândul copiilor, nu este doar o chestiune de bani pentru că ea nu înseamnă doar lipsa alimentelor, hainelor, a accesului la o locuință decentă, ci este legată adesea de excluziunea socială și lipsa de acces la sănătate și educație de calitate.
               

                  O atenție deosebită trebuie acordată copiilor care trăiesc cu părinți singuri, în special mamele singure care adesea au în grijă și alți membri ai familiei cu nevoi speciale. Nu trebuie să uităm nicio clipă faptul că protecția familiilor și, în special, a familiilor monoparentale cu copii cu probleme de sănătate este și trebuie să rămână un punct de referință în politicile europene.
               

                  Ca atare, susțin importanța politicilor publice de prevenție care investesc în soluții judicioase pentru bunăstarea copiilor, cu accent pe reducerea abandonului școlar, sprijinind formarea unor persoane autonome, capabile să se integreze în societate și pe piața forței de muncă.
               

Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospođo predsjednice, dobrobit svih naših građana je, vjerujem, visoko na listi prioriteta svima nama u ovom domu. No, iako namjere izvjestiteljice smatram dobrima i plemenitima, držim da su predložene mjere potpuno pogrešne. Naime, daljnje inzistiranje na mjerama koje su dovele do problema ne može biti rješenje, nego samo izvor novih problema.
               

                  Besplatno zdravstvo i školstvo za sve zvuči jako lijepo, ali treba imati na umu da takvo što jednostavno ne postoji. Te usluge imaju svoju cijenu i netko ju mora platiti, a taj netko su porezni obveznici. Njihovo daljnje opterećenje novim nametima zbog povećanja javne potrošnje vodilo bi isključivo zatvaranju radnih mjesta i bijegu talenta iz Europe.
               

                  Nejednakost možemo smanjiti samo ako onima koji su najugroženiji damo priliku da se izdignu svojim znanjem i radom, pazeći pritom da ne budu diskriminirani, nego zaštićeni vladavinom prava. Stavljanje cijelih društvenih slojeva na socijalu samo će povećati nejednakost i, što je još važnije, produbiti nerazumijevanje i jaz među građanima.
               

Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospođo predsjednice, dugogodišnja ekonomska kriza uzima svoj danak na mnogim područjima. Djeca su, vjerojatno, dugoročno gledajući najveća žrtva ove preduge ekonomske krize kojoj svjedočimo. Zato, želim jasno naglasiti da ovaj izvještaj, koji u osnovi podržavam mada neke stvari nisu do kraja realne, vjerujem zbog toga što se želi imati dobrobit djeteta u prvom planu i dobrobit djece općenito, pokazuje da postoje razlike među našim državama – razlike između istoka i zapada, razlike između sjevera i juga. I to što taj izvještaj konstatira je, na žalost, potpuno točno.
               

                  Ali želim isto tako reći da postoje rješenja. Ja vidim sinergiju koju može Europska unija, zemlje članice, ali nikada nemojmo zaboraviti lokalne i regionalne vlasti kad govorimo o vrtićima, jaslicama, školama, zdravstvenom sustavu, dati za dobrobit djece.
               

Laura Agea (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ritengo che siamo giunti a un momento in cui dobbiamo prendere atto che il mondo non cambia con le nostre parole ma con il nostro esempio.
               

                  Se veramente consideriamo che l'unica bellezza che può salvare questo mondo sono i bambini, è necessario a questo punto fare scelte coraggiose, scelte dovute, perché il benessere, la salute e la dignità dei bambini devono diventare l'unica priorità di quest'Assemblea, della Commissione e di tutti quegli attori che, unici, possono veramente contribuire a tutelare, in ogni modo possibile, i bambini.
               

                  Non ci sono scelte che non possono e non devono essere fatte: qualunque scelta coraggiosa, innovativa, nuova deve essere fatta. I bambini meritano qualunque sforzo. A loro dobbiamo consegnare un mondo diverso da quello nel quale ci troviamo a vivere.
               

                  Per questo sosteniamo la relazione della collega Zuber, che ringraziamo per la collaborazione.
               

Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Paní předsedající, tato zpráva zaměřená na snižování chudoby dětí nemá sice přímé legislativní dopady, ale je nepochybně velmi silným apelem na orgány Evropské unie i členské státy.
               

                  Chci poděkovat paní poslankyni Zuber za její velmi vstřícný přístup k pozměňovacím návrhům i za vytvoření konsensu, kterého jsme dosáhli.
               

                  Chudoba dětí je závislá na jejich rodinách, na jejich rodičích. Proto se také zpráva obrací na rodiny, na vytváření lepších podmínek pro péči o děti, na zaměstnanost, na dostupnost bydlení, dostupnou zdravotní péči pro rodiny. Cestou z chudoby - cestou k lepší perspektivě dětí je zlepšení jejich vzdělání a zejména dokončení středního vzdělání. Kvalita vzdělání je jeden z hlavních nástrojů pro snížení chudoby. To také souvisí s návrhem na bezplatné stravování, další školní služby i mimoškolní aktivity.
               

                  Myslím, že to také souvisí s řešením migrační krize a péčí o děti, které sem přichází.
               

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, de la bun început vreau să subliniez importanța raportului pe care îl dezbatem și să felicit raportoarea și pe toți cei care au lucrat la acest raport.
               

                  Am ținut să vorbesc în legătură cu acest raport pentru a sublinia nevoia stringentă de investiții sociale și de politici pentru combaterea sărăciei în rândul copiilor. ‘Investiția în copii: ruperea cercului vicios al defavorizării’– nu trebuie să rămână o lozincă. Există într-un procent prea ridicat creșterea riscului de sărăcie sau de excluziune socială.
               

                  Datele arată că numărul copiilor expuși riscului de sărăcie a crescut în patru ani cu circa un milion, ceea ce nu este deloc sigur pentru viitorul Europei. În Uniunea Europeană peste 26 de milioane de copii sunt expuși sărăciei. Copiii asigură înlocuirea generațiilor viitoare și dacă nu avem grijă cum trăiesc, cum au acces la educație și sănătate nu putem asigura generațiile viitoare.
               

                  Există încă un abandon școlar mare – între 13 și 20%, milioane de copii nu au acces la sănătate, traficul de copii există încă și trebuie o monitorizare atentă. Eu cred că Comisia Europeană trebuie să își propună instrumente de măsurare a acestor indicatori, dar și măsuri pentru eliminarea lor.
               

Patricija Šulin (PPE). – Hvala za besedo, predsedujoča.
               

                  Kot družba smo odgovorni za dobrobit otrok in na vseh nas je, da v polnosti uresničujemo konvencijo o otrokovih pravicah, ki v središče postavlja interes, zaščito in pravico otrok.
               

                  Države podpisnice smo dolžne poskrbeti, da je sleherni otrok zaščiten pred vsemi oblikami nasilja, zlorab, zanemarjanja, krutega ravnanja in izkoriščanja. Zelo pomembno je tudi, da dejavno sodelujemo in ozaveščamo ljudi o boju proti trgovini z otroki, za katero koli vrsto izkoriščanja, med katere pogosto sodijo prisilno delo, prisilne poroke, nezakonite posvojitve in spolna zloraba.
               

                  Najučinkovitejša rešitev za zmanjšanje naraščajoče revščine otrok je v razvoju gospodarstva, dvigu gospodarske rasti in v odpravljanju brezposelnosti. Gospodarska kriza namreč vpliva na naraščanje revščine pri otrocih ter na uveljavljanje pravic, ki jih imajo otroci v skladu s konvencijo Združenih narodov o otrokovih pravicah.
               

(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)


Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis,
Member of the Commission
. – Madam President, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur Ms Zuber for this comprehensive report on child poverty. We have taken note of your analysis and we do share your concerns about the high levels of child poverty in many of our Member States. As you have pointed out, the risk of poverty and social exclusion is greater for children than for adults. Child poverty is a multifaceted issue that demands an integrated and – to the extent possible – preventive approach, looking at both the employment situation of the household and also the rights of the child.
The fight against child poverty has been high on our agenda. In 2013, the Commission proposed the Recommendation ‘Investing in children: breaking the cycle of disadvantage’, which is currently being implemented by Member States. The Commission will keep working to ensure the full operationalisation of this recommendation. In this respect we take note of your suggestion to have a three-pillar approach: access to resources, services and children's participation. We are also monitoring child-poverty related aspects in the context of the European Semester.
In its 2013 recommendation, the Commission suggested that the best way to support parents and their children is through progressive universalism, which is a system of strong universal services and benefit rights topped up with targeted instruments for particularly disadvantaged groups, such as the Roma. The recommendation calls on the Member States to provide parents with access to resources, in the form of paid work and adequate family and child benefits, and to high-quality services such as early childhood education and care, health and housing. An integrated approach is key to ensuring children have the best start in life.
The Commission has also been regularly monitoring the Member States' progress towards the Barcelona targets to improve access to childcare. Good-quality childcare services have been shown to support the cognitive and social development of children, especially those from low-income backgrounds, and improve their academic and labour market opportunities later on in life. These services are therefore key to reducing the intergenerational transmission of poverty.
Many Member States have made good efforts to improve the provision of these services, but progress is still slow and uneven. We are providing country-specific recommendations to many Member States where needed. In 2014 and 2015 many Member States received country-specific recommendations to improve income support for families, to expand childcare, as well as to make education more inclusive and to reduce financial disincentives for parents to enter employment.
As far as creating a new financial instrument in this area is concerned, we would like to recall that there are already funding opportunities for children in the current European Structural and Investment Funds: the European Social Fund, the European Regional Development Fund, and others. These instruments have been, in fact, significantly strengthened for the current 2014-2020 programming period. Member States should make further efforts to use them to their full potential.
In addition, Member States have agreed that 25.6% of the European Social Fund allocation of EUR 86 billion is to be earmarked for social inclusion measures, of which EUR 8 billion is set aside for access to children's and childcare services and for measures fighting against early school leaving. In this regard, it is important that all key stakeholders at national, regional and local level are mobilised and form strong partnerships.
The European Union funds are also supporting healthy nutrition for children. With the European Union School Fruit Scheme, EUR 150 million will support the distribution of fruit and vegetables in schools for 2015 and 2016. With these funds we can reach 12 million children across 25 Member States. In addition, there is national or private co-funding, estimated to amount to around EUR 32 million. All these financial interventions are extremely important for preventing and breaking the intergenerational transmission of poverty and social exclusion.
As you know, the Commission is currently working on a European pillar of social rights to foster upward convergence of employment and social performance in the European Union. We want to ensure that our legislation and policy framework is in line with the realities of modern life – teleworking, digital work, combining work and family duties – and keeps pace with developments in the fast-changing labour market, adequately addressing needs and challenges arising from diverse and innovative forms of work, and that it invests in people through a modernised social framework for those in and out of work.
We are also preparing a fresh start for working parents and caregivers. We believe that this new approach will reap benefits for all; in particular, for working parents and other caregivers who seek a better balance to their work and life commitments, but also for women, to support their participation in the labour market. Finally, as the employment status of parents is one of the key determinants of child poverty, this initiative will contribute to reducing the number of children who live in households at risk of poverty.
Let me assure you once again that this Commission is committed to addressing child poverty across the European Union by restoring economic growth and upward social convergence, fostering job creation and ensuring social fairness. These are not mere abstract concepts. For the 40% of children in some of our Member States who live in households at risk of poverty, we need to come with effective solutions to foster employment of their parents and to ensure their full participation in society.

President. – The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Wednesday, 25 November 2015.


Written statements (Rule 162)



Birgit Collin-Langen (PPE),
schriftlich
. – Ich unterstütze die Entschließung, denn wir müssen ein deutliches Zeichen gegen Kinderarmut und deren soziale Ausgrenzung setzen. Leider ist Kinderarmut in der EU weit verbreitet – selbst in Deutschland. Armut ist nicht nur eine Frage des Geldes, damit die Grundbedürfnisse wie Nahrung, Kleidung und Wohnraum gestillt werden können. Kinderarmut ist auch mit sozialer Ausgrenzung und dem fehlenden Zugang zu qualitativer Bildung und Gesundheitsdienstleistungen verbunden. Kinder sind unsere Zukunft, und es liegt in unserer Verantwortung, ihnen freien Zugang zu qualitativ hoher Bildung zu verschaffen. Die EU ist einer der stärksten Wirtschaftsräume der Erde, es kann keine Entschuldigung dafür geben, dass Kinder auch nur in einem unserer Mitgliedstaaten mangelernährt sind.
               

Benedek Jávor (Verts/ALE),
írásban
. – Az gyermekszegénység felszámolását célzó európai parlamenti jelentés számos fontos területen sürget európai megoldásokat, melyekből kiemelkedő jelentőségű a megfelelő étkeztetés, valamint az oktatáshoz és egészségügyi ellátáshoz való hozzáférés biztosítása. Azonban a tagállamokban meglévő egyedi és komplex problémákra országspecifikus javaslatokat a jelentés nem tud tenni, így nem mutat túl az általánosítás szintjén. Mindazonáltal ez a kezdeti lépés az elszántság kifejezése, mely fontos tényezővé válhat olyan tagállamokban, ahol a szegénység a gyermekpopulációt nagy mértékben érinti. Magyarországon jelenleg legalább 550 000 gyermek nem jut napi meleg ételhez szünidőben és közel 50 000 gyermek éhezik naponta. Európában ezzel hazánké a harmadik legrosszabb mutató a gyermekszegénységet illetően.
               

                  A probléma súlyosságát pedig jelzi, hogy a magyar kormány a gyermekéhezésre mint egy általa már régen megoldott problémára tekint, ezért nem is támogatta azt a nemrég indult civil kezdeményezést, amely e probléma felszámolását tűzte ki célul, és amely mellett minden más hazai párt kiállt; helyette Magyarország kormánya politikai haszonelvűségre hivatkozva lesöpörte a kezdeményezést az asztalról. Noha az európai intézmények döntései és intézkedései nem helyettesítik a tagországok kormányainak aktív fellépését a gyermekszegénység elleni küzdelemben, ennek ellenére fontos, hogy az európai intézmények átfogóan, előremutatóan és példamutatóan reflektáljanak a tagországokban fennálló komplex és egyedi problémákra.
               

Jan Keller (S&D),
písemně
. – V současné době je v zemích EU ohroženo chudobou každé čtvrté dítě. V této kategorii jsou výrazně zastoupeny děti rodičů dlouhodobě nezaměstnaných, děti matek samoživitelek a také děti z rodin imigrantů. Dětská chudoba se takto stává jedním z indikátorů míry účinnosti, či spíše neúčinnosti integrační politiky. Od počátku hospodářské krize v roce 2008 se poměrně výrazně zvyšuje podíl dětí žijících v chudobě, a to dokonce i v těch zemích EU, které patří k nejbohatším. Rovněž narůstá ohrožení dětí chudobou v rodinách, kde jeden či oba živitelé jsou odkázáni na neplnohodnotné pracovní smlouvy. Právě ty se na trhu práce v posledních letech šíří nejrychleji. Opatření navrhovaná zpravodajkou bohužel neberou do úvahy novou situaci danou přílivem uprchlíků z rozvrácených zemí. Je nutno počítat s tím, že právě mezi nimi budou rizikové faktory dětské chudoby (nezaměstnanost, neplnohodnotná práce, neúplné rodiny) zastoupeny zvláště často. Z navrhovaných opatření není dost dobře možné udělat si představu o tom, jak řešit problém integrace migrantů, aniž by tím byly zároveň dotčeny šance na řešení problémů dětské chudoby těch kategorií obyvatel, o nichž zpráva pojednává. Z politických důvodů by nebylo prozřetelné tuto výzvu ignorovat.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR),
γραπτώς
. – Τα παιδιά που ζουν σε συνθήκες φτώχειας δεν είναι πρόβλημα μόνο των αναπτυσσόμενων χωρών, αλλά και των αναπτυγμένων χωρών. Ειδικότερα στην περίοδο χρηματοοικονομικής κρίσης που διανύουμε, μαζί με την αύξηση των κοινωνικών ανισοτήτων παρατηρείται και αύξηση στα επίπεδα φτώχειας και κοινωνικού αποκλεισμού των παιδιών, κυρίως στις χώρες του Ευρωπαϊκού Νότου - που πλήττονται από τη μερκελική λιτότητα.
               

                  Συγκεκριμένα, σύμφωνα με στοιχεία της Eurostat, η Ελλάδα κατατάσσεται στη 30η θέση μεταξύ 35 αναπτυγμένων χωρών ως προς τη σχετική φτώχεια και στην προτελευταία θέση όσον αφορά τις δημόσιες δαπάνες για την οικογένεια (1,1% του ΑΕΠ). Επιπλέον, συγκριτικά με το 2014 παρατηρήθηκε διπλασιασμός στον αριθμό των ανηλίκων που ζητούν άσυλο στην Ευρώπη προκειμένου να ξεφύγουν από τις εμπόλεμες ζώνες. Έτσι από Ιανουάριο μέχρι Σεπτέμβρη 2015 περίπου 190.000 παιδιά ζήτησαν άσυλο στην Ευρώπη.
               

                  Όπως είναι φανερό, όλα τα κράτη της Ε.Ε. θα πρέπει να ενισχύσουν τις καθολικές κοινωνικές παροχές που προορίζονται για παιδιά, όπως η παροχή επιδοτούμενων ή δωρεάν γευμάτων σε παιδιά, να αναπτύξουν πολιτικές υπεράσπισης των δικαιωμάτων του παιδιού για εκπαίδευση, υγεία και προστασία από περιπτώσεις βίας, και να αυξήσουν τις επιδοτήσεις που δίνουν για την πρόσβαση όλων των παιδιών στον πολιτισμό και την ψυχαγωγία.
               

Victor Negrescu (S&D),
in writing
. – Today in Europe, 21% of children are at risk of falling into poverty. At least 20 million children are suffering daily from the lack of income and basic services. Many of them do not have a warm meal every day. I support the call of my political group, the Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, for the introduction of a European Child Guarantee, financed by the EU budget, to lift children out of poverty. The report on inequalities, primarily focused on child poverty and social exclusion, highlights the imperious necessity of establishing EU and national targets that can genuinely indicate the social status of children, alongside their well-being. There must be a strong cohesiveness between existing funds and policies to guarantee children equal access to benefits such as health and education in order to ensure that they achieve their full potential. I therefore emphasise the need mentioned in the report of coordinated action at both European and national levels, as these objectives can only be achieved if awareness is raised at a systemic level and all available resources are aligned and directed towards the same goal – combating child inequality, poverty and social exclusion.
16.   Cohesion policy and marginalised communities (short presentation)

President. — The next item is the report by Terry Reintke, on behalf of the Committee on Regional Development, on cohesion policy and marginalised communities (2014/2247(INI)) (A8-0314/2015).

Terry Reintke,
rapporteur
. – Madam President, first of all I would like to thank all the shadow rapporteurs, the great civil-society organisations and everyone else who has contributed to making this report what it is: a great starting point for making the right changes to European cohesion policy in order to make it more inclusive for marginalised communities – or, as Commissioner Crețu put it last week, to make the inclusion of marginalised communities one of the priorities for EU cohesion policy.
This report is made for people who very often do not have a lobby in this Parliament and in EU institutions. It is made for people who are very often overlooked and overheard when it comes to the distribution of EU funds. In the preparation of this report, I have seen examples of where this is still happening today in the European Union. In my hometown, Gelsenkirchen, I visited a school where I met two girls – two sisters, Denise and Michaela, 10 and 12 years old – who had recently moved from Romania to Gelsenkirchen. I met them in their class. They were curious, they wanted to learn, and they were really trying to get integrated into the school in Gelsenkirchen. But the question that came up in my head was: will Denise and Michaela have the same chances and opportunities that I had when I was growing up in Gelsenkirchen? Will they have the same access to resources I had? When we look at the situation of Denise and Michaela, there are challenges that they are facing, because very often they are being discriminated against or they are facing structural exclusion. This report can give the tools to cities such as Gelsenkirchen to create an integrated approach in order to give a chance to children like this, be it in education or with regard to housing, employment or health. We need to look at different fields of society in order to give a chance to people from marginalised communities. At the same time, we have to bring all the stakeholders together, be they from the local level, from civil society or the people affected themselves, in order to create the best programmes and to really make sustainable investments. And we need to give support for them to have a strong voice in the whole process – not only in the preparation, but also in the monitoring and evaluation, of the programmes.
Secondly, we simply cannot afford to live in segregated societies, because in the long run, inequality and exclusion is much more expensive for us than inclusion and integration. This is why we need to make sure that EU funds actually reach the people that need them the most. This report will give a very clear signal to both the Commission and the Member States to do exactly that. Be it community-led local development or strong implementation of the partnership principle, or be it monitoring our evaluation mechanisms that need to be improved, we have these tools and we need to implement them in order to make EU funds more inclusive.
Lastly, alongside the set of good measures and proposals that are in this report, we also need to speak very clearly about the problems. Let us not shy away from clearly mentioning the obstacles that we are still facing to have inclusive societies in the European Union. Be it corruption or fraud, be it the lack of political will or anti-Gypsyism, we need to name these barriers in order to create good implementation and overcome these problems.
Human rights are the basis of the European Union. Let us mainstream human rights in all policy fields in this Parliament and make them also the basis of our work with regard to EU structural funds, because in the end, this is going to create societies where everybody has a chance and can live equally.
I want to thank again everyone who has contributed to this report and I hope that it will find your support tomorrow in the vote.

Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot


Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Madam President, despite the first steps of progress achieved through the EU framework for national Roma integration, the wide gaps in our societies show that there is a lot more to be done to break the vicious circle faced by marginalised communities, especially the Roma: lack of education and diminished labour market prospects coupled with direct and indirect discrimination. Nevertheless, it is also in these vital areas where a better use of cohesion policy could make a difference. Mainstream and targeted measures for the reduction of the rate of Roma early school leavers are among the measures that could have the largest long-term impact, as it is early school leaving which later translates into the lack of skills and qualifications that prevent Roma from accessing quality employment in their adulthood. Similarly, beside demand-side measures such as recruitment subsidies for employment and apprenticeship schemes, lifelong learning and vocational training for adult Roma must also be key priorities in our goal towards more social cohesion.

Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, într-o societate tot mai globalizată asigurarea unui acces egal la o educație de înaltă calitate pentru toți membrii societății este esențială pentru reducerea excluziunii sociale.
               

                  Uniunea și statele membre trebuie să își întărească cooperarea pentru a pune în aplicare programe, proiecte și activități de sprijin în favoarea comunităților marginalizate pentru a facilita educația preșcolară, noi oportunități pentru alte forme de educație și pentru învățarea pe tot parcursul vieții, având în vedere modificările continue din diverse sectoare și creșterea procentului instrumentelor online.
               

                  Este esențială totodată capacitarea femeilor și a fetelor din comunitățile marginalizate pentru o formare profesională adecvată, iar aici mă refer inclusiv la fetele și femeile de origine romă. Stimularea antreprenoriatului și a participării în rândul femeilor din aceste comunități, pentru un acces mai bun pe piața forței de muncă, trebuie să devină o prioritate.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η τρόικα τα μνημόνια και μερκελική λιτότητα μετέτρεψαν την Ελλάδα στην πιο περιθωριοποιημένη χώρα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Έτσι την τελευταία μνημονιακή εξαετία έχουν δημιουργηθεί τεράστιες στρατιές εκατομμυρίων ανέργων στη χώρα, το 40% του πληθυσμού ζει κάτω απ τα όρια της φτώχειας, οι άνεργοι νέοι της Ελλάδας παίρνουν κατά χιλιάδες το δρόμο της ξενιτιάς μεταναστεύοντας σε άλλες χώρες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, οι μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις κλείνουν κατά χιλιάδες και η αγροτική οικονομία χειμάζεται.
               

                  Η μερκελική λιτότητα που εφαρμόζεται στην Ελλάδα και στις χώρες του ευρωπαϊκού Νότου έχουν δημιουργήσει μια Ευρώπη των δύο ταχυτήτων. Μια Ευρώπη διπλών συμφερόντων που αποσκοπεί μόνο στην εκμετάλλευση του πλούτου των χωρών του Νότου με στόχο την οικονομική ανάπτυξη της γερμανικής Ευρώπης. Θα πρέπει λοιπόν να σταματήσει η κατάσταση αυτή στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και να υπάρξει μια Ένωση ισότητας και ίσων ευκαιριών για όλους τους πολίτες και τα κράτη μέλη της Ένωσης.
               

Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospođo predsjednice, kohezijska politika je politika partnerstva. Politika partnerstva Europske unije, zemalja članica, ali nemojmo nikada zaboraviti, naročito kada govorimo o marginaliziranim zajednicama ili skupinama, da bez uloge lokalnih i regionalnih vlasti nema realizacije kohezijske politike na pravi način. Upravo zato želim govoriti o važnosti uključivanja lokalnih i regionalnih vlasti kada govorimo konkretno i u ovom izvještaju o rješavanju problema Roma, kao jedne od marginaliziranih zajednica unutar Europske unije. Imam mnogo iskustva, osobno kao istarski župan koji je dvanaest godina pokušavao pomoći Romima u Istri i sigurno znam da je uloga gradova i regija u pružanju konkretne pomoći Romima iznimno važna. Zato molim da učinite sve što možete da napravite tu sinergiju svih vlasti u Europskoj uniji.
               

Rosa D'Amato (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio la collega per lo spirito costruttivo e per l'ottimo risultato ottenuto con questa relazione. Il nostro giudizio è molto positivo, grazie alle proposte particolarmente interessanti e molto attuali. Una su tutte: l'analisi del fenomeno dell'emarginazione. Essa va fatta accertando e analizzando una serie di indicatori, quali l'esclusione sociale, la disoccupazione di lunga durata, il basso livello di istruzione, le condizioni abitative disagiate, il livello di discriminazione, le esposizioni a rischi per la salute e la mancanza di accesso all'assistenza sanitaria.
               

                  I tragici eventi di queste ultime settimane non fanno che confermare l'importanza di misure atte a ridurre quelle disuguaglianze e quelle condizioni di isolamento culturale, sociale ed economico che sono fra i fattori predisponenti alla radicalizzazione della criminalità comune e organizzata.
               

                  La politica di coesione e la quota del 20% delle risorse del Fondo sociale europeo, che per regolamento deve essere dedicato alla lotta alla povertà e all'inclusione sociale delle persone maggiormente vulnerabili, assume un'importanza fondamentale. Non possiamo permettere che le misure di austerità colpiscano settori chiave, come l'istruzione, la formazione e gli alloggi e che i fondi della politica di coesione non siano utilizzati o lo siano con progetti di dubbia utilità.
               

                  La quantità e la qualità dei progetti e la reale applicazione del principio di partenariato contano oggi più che mai se non vogliamo che gli obiettivi di coesione economica, sociale e territoriale diventino solo dichiarazioni di intenti vuote e prive di qualsiasi effetto pratico per le nostre regioni. Ringrazio ancora la relatrice.
               

Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospođo predsjednice, kao članica Odbora za regionalni razvoj podupirem dijelove izvješća koji naglašavaju da se pri implementaciji kohezijske politike posebna pažnja mora usmjeriti na ključne izazove siromaštva i isključenosti mladih ljudi te djece i ljudi s invaliditetom.
               

                  Također u potpunosti sam suglasna s dijelovima izvješća koji govore o bottom-up pristupu odnosno težnji da se EU fondovi u fazi implementacije trebaju koristiti na integrirani način putem novih teritorijalnih razvojnih instrumenata u kohezijskoj politici, integriranih teritorijalnih ulaganja i lokalnog razvoja vođenog zajednicom jer isti naglašavaju i važnu ulogu koju civilno društvo može imati u navedenom segmentu.
               

                  Međutim, smatram da zaštita prava i dodjela sredstava ne bi trebali ovisiti o određenim subjektivnim i posve ideološkim čimbenicima kao što je pripadnost arbitrarno odabranim skupinama već isključivo o objektivnim i prije svega mjerljivim kriterijima koji moraju biti jednaki za sve.
               

(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)


Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis,
Member of the Commission
. – Madam President, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur, Madam Reintke, and the shadow rapporteurs, Mr Kósa and Mr Urtasun, for their very constructive approach on this own-initiative report. Thank you so much.
It supports several of the novelties introduced by the legislative framework for the European Structural and Investment Funds for 2014-2020. These include the fact that funding for social inclusion and poverty reduction should amount to at least 20% of the Member States' European Social Fund budget. In fact, Member States have allocated 25.6% of the European Social Funds' total budget – the total budget is about EUR 21 billion – to measures aimed at social inclusion. This includes support for marginalised communities such as the Roma. I welcome the rapporteur's recommendations, many of which are fully in line with our guidance to Member States.
Let me start by stressing that ‘promoting social inclusion, combating poverty and any discrimination’ is one of the eleven thematic objectives of the European Strategic and Investment Funds. Under this thematic objective, marginalised communities can receive support through a dedicated investment priority. In fact, Member States have programmed about EUR 1.5 billion under this priority. I am pleased that the report supports the explicit, but not exclusive, approach taken by the Commission in the use of European Strategic and Investment Funds in support to marginalised communities.
Other thematic objectives – on education and unemployment – can also be mobilised to enhance European Union financial interventions. The European Strategic and Investment Funds are geared towards delivery on the European Union 2020 targets and the ensuing priorities set out in the country-specific recommendations. A tangible illustration of this is the fact that Member States which received country-specific recommendations on Roma integration have all programmed support under the dedicated investment priority on marginalised communities in their programming documents.
The new legislative framework has also ensured that an adequate policy framework is in place before Member States receive actual European Strategic Investment Fund support through so-called ex-ante conditionalities. With regard to the Roma, Member States are required to set up a national Roma inclusion strategic policy framework. This is crucial, as the implementation of national Roma integration strategies in countries with sizeable Roma minorities largely relies on European Social Fund and European Regional Development Fund funding.
I would like to refer now to some of the recommendations you made in your report. The report calls on the Commission to guide Member States in defining marginalised communities. I would like to stress that it is the Member States' responsibility to define the marginalised communities on the basis of national indicators, taking into account their national context. This is based on the assumption that Member States are in a much better position to define the target groups for their support.
The report also rightly draws attention to the issue of segregation, a very difficult issue. Spatial and education segregation/desegregation are complex and critical issues which both the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund address. The Commission prepared a guidance note for Member States on the use of European Union funds in tackling segregation. It should help support inclusive education and housing for Roma. Infringement procedures have been launched against some Member States because of discrimination of Roma children in education.
The importance the report attaches to the involvement of all relevant partners in the preparation and implementation of programmes is well echoed by the strengthened partnership principle in the Common Provisions Regulation. Its enforcement has been carefully ensured by the Commission during the negotiation phase of the programme.
You also mentioned the European Union Urban Agenda, which should help cities to improve the implementation of European Union and national policies on the ground. Following discussions between the Commission, Member State cities, experts and stakeholders, urban poverty has been selected as a priority area where Roma inclusion may play an important role.
The reinforcement of the administrative capacities of public and local authorities, which has been identified in the report as a key challenge, can be strongly supported by the funds. A dedicated thematic objective on administrative capacity can be used to support public administration in delivering services to marginalised communities in a more efficient manner.
I very much welcome your call to empower marginalised communities and to ensure they can get easier access to European Union funding. I am convinced that a greater use of simplified cost options, fundamentally simplifying the management of the funds, as well as territorial approaches, including community-led local development, will play a crucial role in ensuring such better access.
Finally, the report rightfully underlines the added value of transnational cooperation and exchange of good practices. This will be reflected in the new URBACT programme as well as in the new European Social Fund transnational cooperation framework.
As a final note, I would like to stress once more that it is the Commission's firm intention to steer the European Union towards social fairness. This requires that no citizen can be left behind. I therefore express in the strongest terms possible my commitment to use all means at the European Union's disposal to reach the Union's marginalised communities. And we are very grateful that this report helps us stay on the right path.

PRZEWODNICTWO: RYSZARD CZARNECKI


Wiceprzewodniczący


Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.
                  

                     Głosowanie odbędzie się we wtorek 24 listopada 2015 r.
                  


Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 162)



Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D),
în scris
. – Numeroase persoane se confruntă cu diferite forme de discriminare, în special în cadrul comunităților de romi care sunt adesea marginalizate în societățile europene.
                  

                     Am depus, alături de o serie de colegi, un amendament privind finanțarea programelor care să combată atitudinile antițigănești și să asigure o mai bună integrare a acestora în societate. Aș dori să mulțumesc în avans tuturor colegilor care vor sprijini acest amendament.
                  

                     Unele comunități nu beneficiază de politica europeană de coeziune. Ele nu sunt incluse nici în structurile decizionale, nici în procesele de punere în aplicare și de monitorizare a proiectelor. Acest lucru poate duce la situația în care UE exacerbează problemele grupurilor vulnerabile, de aceea Comisia trebuie să regândească utilizarea fondurilor de coeziune pentru a răspunde nevoilor comunităților marginalizate.
                  

Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE),
in writing
. – The EU should be more consistent in its cohesion policy. The Commission should not drive small peripheral Member States towards further marginalisation, as it recently did by issuing its damning decision regarding Estonian Air. Unlike in the Air Malta and Cyprus Airways cases, the Commission did not accept Estonia's ‘peripheral geographic location’ as a justification for state aid although these cases are extremely similar. According to their previous decision: ‘the Commission notes that Air Malta as a small carrier with a fleet of only 10 aircraft which does not have much possibility to benefit from synergies and which additionally intends to meet specific needs due to Malta's peripheral geographical situation is not comparable with major flag carriers or large LCCs’ and that Air Malta is ‘vital for Malta's economic and social cohesion both internally and with the rest of the EU by providing daily transportation’. Estonian Air was even smaller with only 6 aircraft serving a country of 1.3 million on the periphery of Europe, which is why it is astonishing that the Commission decided to ignore all the decisive arguments forming its own previous decisions and did not consider Estonia to be in a situation comparable to Cyprus and Malta.
17.   The role of the EU within the UN (short presentation)

Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dnia jest debata nad sprawozdaniem sporządzonym przez Paavo Väyrynena w imieniu Komisji Spraw Zagranicznych w sprawie roli UE w ONZ – w jaki sposób lepiej osiągać cele polityki zagranicznej UE (2015/2104(INI)) (A8-0308/2015).
               

Paavo Väyrynen,
rapporteur
. – Mr President, my report includes several proposals for strengthening the role of the United Nations system in global governance and for improving the possibilities of the European Union and its Member States to better achieve our foreign policy goals inside the system. The report paves the way for an annual process in which Parliament can address the global challenges in a deep and comprehensive way. For me personally, the most important achievements in this report are the recommendations on the substantial strengthening of the economic, social, environmental and developmental dimensions of the UN system.
According to the report, this must be done in the first instance by means of structural and functional reform of the Economic and Social Council, but we also call on the EU institutions and Member States to consider the possibility of strengthening their role in the ECOSOC by developing it into a Sustainable Development Council.
My draft was more ambitious. I wanted to give the Sustainable Development Council the same kind of status as the Security Council in dealing with all areas of global cooperation other than security. I proposed that the Council would have permanent members: the European Union, the USA, Japan and the BRICS countries and rotating ones. These ideas got a lot of support in the negotiations, but not enough in order to be accepted. This basic idea is not a new one: it was originally launched in the Rio Conference in 1992. It was then watered down by establishing only the Commission on Sustainable Development under the ECOSOC. Chancellor Angela Merkel proposed, in a speech to the World Economic Council in Davos in 2009, the creation of a UN Economic Council according to the model of the UN Security Council. I have in mind a council with a wider mandate covering all economic, social, environmental and human development in the world.
When Barack Obama started his term as President of the United States with Hillary Clinton as his Foreign Secretary, he introduced the idea of ‘three Ds’ in US Foreign and Security Policy: development was lifted to an equal footing with defence and diplomacy. Now we should do the same in the European Union.
In the negotiations on my EU-UN report, I felt that those who emphasise the importance of the security dimension of the United Nations were reluctant to strengthen the other parts of the UN system. I even heard the argument that they do not belong to the area of foreign policy, even if they have a prominent position in the foreign and security policy goals section in the EU Treaty and development has a more central role in strengthening security all over the world.
In the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET), a report is going to be drafted on the global security strategy of the EU. I think that we should pay a lot of attention to development issues also in that report. In the case of the EU, the defence pillar cannot have a dominant role. We have to rely more on diplomacy and development.

Pytania z sali


Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, συζητούμε για το ρόλο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης στο πλαίσιο του ΟΗΕ, που ως γνωστόν στοχεύει στην προστασία των ανθρώπινων δικαιωμάτων και στην προώθηση της οικονομικής και κοινωνικής ανάπτυξης. Ωστόσο, η ανάπτυξη και η καταπολέμηση της φτώχειας χρειάζονται πόρους, οι οποίοι στις αναπτυσσόμενες χώρες και στις χώρες της ευρωπαϊκής περιφέρειας δεν υπάρχουν, αφού η εξόφληση των κρατικών χρεών πηγαίνει στους τοκογλύφους δανειστές και έτσι έχει στεγνώσει η οικονομική ζωή των χωρών αυτών.
               

                  Για το λόγο αυτό πρέπει να τεθεί σε ισχύ η απόφαση της Γενικής Συνέλευσης του ΟΗΕ που τον περασμένο Σεπτέμβριο αποφάσισε διαδικασίες για την αναδιάρθρωση και τη διαγραφή των κρατικών χρεών των αναπτυσσόμενων χωρών. Την απόφαση, όμως, αυτή της Γενικής Συνέλευσης του ΟΗΕ δεν υπερψήφισε καμία χώρα μέλος της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, ούτε καν οι υπερχρεωμένες χώρες του ευρωπαϊκού Νότου, καθώς ακολούθησαν τις εντολές των Βρυξελλών, της τρόικας και των διεθνών δανειστών.
               

                  Αποδείχθηκε λοιπόν ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση χύνει κροκοδείλια δάκρυα για τον ΟΗΕ και το μόνο που την ενδιαφέρει είναι τα στενά οικονομικά της συμφέροντα και τίποτε άλλο.
               

Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, prije svega želim protestirati. Neprimjereno je da ovaj izvještaj i ulogu Europske unije u Ujedinjenim narodima raspravljamo kao kratko izvješće. Danas smo raspravljali o našim odnosima u Svjetskoj trgovačkoj organizaciji, pristupu Ekvadoru našem Sporazumu s Kolumbijom i Peruom, raspravljali smo o našem odnosu s Vijetnamom, a o našem odnosu s Ujedinjenim narodima raspravljamo u okviru kratkog izvješća. To je neprimjereno. Neprihvatljivo.
               

                  Uloga Europske unije unutar Ujedinjenih naroda mora biti prije svega pokušaj da uvijek dobijemo jedan glas, da nastupimo kao jedan glas, da Europa bude vjerodostojna, da Europa bude jaka u Ujedinjenim narodima i da nametne svoje teme jer naravno da nije samo sigurnost tema Ujedinjenih naroda i ne može biti samo sigurnost već to mora biti i razvoj i socijalna komponenta i zaštita okoliša. Klimatske promjene, dovoljno je samo to reći, što to znači kada govorimo o zaštiti okoliša.
               

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, é preciso uma leitura muito segmentada e muito enviesada da Carta das Nações Unidas para considerar – como faz este relatório – que a União Europeia se revê nos seus princípios e valores. Que dizer, por exemplo, da agressão militar contra países soberanos e independentes, como o Iraque, a Líbia, a Síria, ativamente promovida e levada a cabo também por países da União Europeia?
               

                  Dois exemplos que este relatório não aborda sobre o papel da União Europeia, que a União Europeia tem vindo a desempenhar na Assembleia Geral das Nações Unidas, onde de resto não deve ter assento. O primeiro exemplo: a discussão sobre um quadro multilateral para a reestruturação das dívidas soberanas. Uma questão da maior importância para vários países da União Europeia. O que é que a União Europeia faz? Não acompanha a importantíssima discussão e boicota-a sob vários pontos de vista, procurando que dela não saiam conclusões substantivas. Outra questão: a resolução sobre o direito à água pública e ao saneamento. O que fez a União Europeia? O que fizeram os países da União Europeia? Mais uma vez não aprovaram esta importantíssima resolução e ficaram por uma ambígua abstenção na maior parte dos casos, não adotando aqueles importantes princípios contra a privatização da água e dos serviços de água.
               

James Carver (EFDD). – Mr President, I find the concepts of this report deeply worrying, not least the usual display of neo-colonialism, with calls for the European Union to be given its own UN Security Council seat. In Britain the apologists maintain a lie that the EU is primarily about trade and economics, yet this subject highlights the ambition to make the EU a global power.
We have calls for EU common positions on Security Council items and for Member States on the Council to act in the interests of the EU's common security and foreign policy. This only expands the British people's deep mistrust of the EU, and I feel safe in asserting that this attack, at the very heart of our own ability to define British foreign policy and security, is completely unacceptable.
The time has come for the British people to vote to leave behind this 19th century answer to a 20th century problem and reaffirm our identity as a genuinely influential global trading nation. The world is our oyster, but inside the European Union, Britain's future is as a clam.

(Koniec pytań z sali)


Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis,
Member of the Commission
. – Mr President, I thank Mr Väyrynen for his report, which the European Commission takes as an encouragement for continuing to work for a strong European Union in the United Nations, as well as a strong partnership within the European Union and the United Nations.
As High Representative and Vice-President Federica Mogherini stressed in Vienna, following the horrific attacks in Paris (which were, in fact, attacks on us all), the answer to these barbaric terrorists must be in joining forces and coming together. Now everybody is affected. After bombings in Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq, and the Russian plane crash, this is a global problem that requires a global response. The challenges we face today are truly global in nature, and effective world governance has never been so crucial. A strong, effective United Nations, as well as a strong, united European Union acting together to advance our foreign policy objectives, values and interests on the United Nations stage, are more essential than ever since its creation 70 years ago.
The European Union has very close cooperation and frequent contacts with the United Nations Secretariat. On all main United Nations policies – peace and security, development of human rights – we support each other, ranging from humanitarian assistance to cooperation programmes to peace operations. Let us assure you that the European Union's voice in the United Nations is strong and is clearly heard. Just to take two examples: first, the European Union spoke with a clear, united voice in the 2013 agenda negotiations and has thus had a major influence on this final outcome; second, the European Union regularly briefs the United Nations Security Council, including through High Representative Vice-President Federica Mogherini personally, and participates in United Nations Security Council debates. Many other United Nations member states regularly align with our statements, so we often speak on behalf of an even larger group than the European Union and its Member States. The European Union is appreciated as a reliable, positive and constructive partner, and often a bridge-builder. Strong European Union coordination allows us to appear as a solid and coherent political actor. It is more important than ever that we closely cooperate on the several crises we are faced with. The European Commission fully agrees with Members when they say that we need to take prevention and early action very seriously.
Gender equality and women's empowerment also remain one of our major common priorities in this context, and we pursue this very actively at the United Nations. While it can seem difficult when so many full-blown conflicts already demand attention, we cannot focus on symptoms alone. We must pay attention to drivers and the root causes of conflicts, extremism and forced migration. It is important to achieve not only a rhetorical shift but a change of mindset. A clear recognition of the close interlinkage between peace, sustainable development, governance, gender equality, human rights and the rule of law in the 2013 agenda for sustainable development was just last week discussed in the Security Council under the United Kingdom Presidency, where the European Union also delivered a statement. It is our conviction that the role of security and development actors should be complementary, and sustaining peace should be a unifying thread running through the work of the United Nations.
We must preach peace, development and security, and we believe that, as a global framework agreed by all the United Nations member states, the 2013 agenda can help us to do this. The agenda is an important opportunity for all of us to depart from business as usual. It is also very relevant for the ongoing peace reviews. As Members will know, the United Nations is currently engaged in a period of strategic reflection on several levels, and we are following this with great interest in the European Union. Therefore, this report is very timely. It is absolutely essential that we keep up our regular exchanges between the European Union and the United Nations on so many levels, ranging from high-level exchanges to desk-to-desk dialogues, and this includes you, the Members of the European Parliament, who also regularly visit the United Nations capitals. Shared analysis together with our partners, including the United Nations, is essential for more joined-up strategic thinking.
The attacks in Paris are a terrible reminder of the magnitude of the threat and the importance of joining forces on counter-terrorism. The European Union and the United Nations have decided on a number of actions in recent months, including on foreign fighters, terrorist financing and countering violent extremism. Our collective response cannot be a procedural exercise. It is clear that together we need to do more, more effectively, with a new sense of purpose and urgency. Solving the Syrian and Libyan conflicts clearly remains a top priority. High Representative and Vice-President Federica Mogherini quoted Robert Schuman in her statement congratulating the United Nations on its 70th anniversary one month ago. I quote: ‘World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it’.

Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.
               

                  Głosowanie odbędzie się we wtorek 24 listopada 2015 r.
               


Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 162)



Andrea Bocskor (PPE),
írásban
. – Az Európai Unió nemzetközi szintű fellépése a demokrácia, a jogállamiság, az egyenlőség, a szolidaritás, valamint az emberi jogok és alapvető szabadságok egyetemes és oszthatatlan voltának és az emberi méltóság tiszteletben tartásának elveire épül. Szeretnék emlékeztetni arra, hogy az EU külpolitikájának elvei és céljai szorosan kapcsolódnak az ENSZ céljaihoz. Az EU előtt álló kihívások globális megoldásokat, a globális problémák pedig hatékony uniós fellépést igényelnek. Éppen ezért céljainak eléréséhez globális partnerekre van szüksége, nevezetesen a béke és a biztonság és a terrorizmus terjedésének megakadályozása terén.
               

                  Meggyőződésem, hogy az Uniónak továbbra is törekednie kell az ENSZ-en belüli globális kormányzás megerősítésére. Az Európát sújtó migrációs és menekültválság vonatkozásában fontos, hogy az eddiginél is szorosabban együttműködve kezeljék a válságot, és – egyebek mellett – segítsék a migráció kiindulópontjául szolgáló országok gazdasági helyzetének az orvoslását és ezek fenntartható fejlesztését.
               

Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE),
na piśmie
. – Cieszę się, że w dokumencie Parlamentu nt. roli i współpracy Unii Europejskiej z ONZ znalazła się podkreślona przez Komisję Kultury i Edukacji potrzeba zintensyfikowania działań obejmujących zrównoważony rozwój kulturowy oraz ochronę i wspieranie różnorodności form wyrazu kulturowego przez włączenie edukacji, turystyki, dyplomacji kulturowej, ochrony dziedzictwa, sektora twórczego i badań naukowych w proces kształtowania polityki. Jako kontrsprawozdawca w Komisji Kultury podkreślałem przede wszystkim, że kultura powinna być wspierana z dwóch powodów: jako narzędzie stosunków zewnętrznych Unii Europejskiej poprzez dialog międzykulturowy i międzywyznaniowy oraz jako wartość autoteliczna, którą należy wspierać samą w sobie. Ważna jest dla mnie ponadto potrzeba opracowania danych statystycznych na temat kultury i sektora kultury, które zostaną wykorzystane w debacie na temat polityki kulturalnej i pozwolą mocniej podkreślić ekonomiczny potencjał sektora kultury i sektora kreatywnego oraz ich wpływ na społeczeństwo, jak również podkreślenie symbolicznego znaczenia dziedzictwa kulturowego, które – jak pokazały niedawne akty niszczenia obiektów kultury w Syrii i Iraku – stało się narzędziem realizowania celów politycznych. Konieczne jest zatem wzmożenie wysiłków, większa koordynacja i szerzenie świadomości społecznej w celu ochrony dziedzictwa kultury.
               
18.   One-minute speeches on matters of political importance

Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dnia są jednominutowe wystąpienia w znaczących kwestiach politycznych (art. 163 Regulaminu).
               

Deirdre Clune (PPE). – Mr President, 25 November this week marks International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Women are the primary victims of domestic abuse: physically, they are the weaker sex, and they are prone to this situation.
I am pleased to inform this Parliament that the Irish State recently signed the Istanbul Convention of the Council of Europe on preventing and combating violence against women, and in particular domestic violence. Domestic violence has traditionally been viewed as something that goes on behind closed doors and should stay there. But this has changed, and we must continue to highlight cases and provide support to women – not necessarily just women who are victims of physical violence, but also abuse of a psychological nature, which can be even more sinister.
Twelve to fifteen per cent of women in Europe face violence every day in their home. Our legal system, policing system and the judicial system in particular must be trained in issues of domestic violence and recognise it so that it is not seen as something that is merely for the domestic situation. Victims need to be supported, and the state services need to be fully aware of the implications of this situation.

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, doresc să exprim îngrijorarea concetățenilor mei față de escaladarea violenței, față de creșterea nesiguranței și să exprim teama familiilor pentru copiii plecați în alte țări.
               

                  Am interpelat Comisia, dar doresc să ridic în plenul Parlamentului această problemă gravă legată de siguranța europenilor la ei acasă.
               

                  Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, stimați colegi, consider necesar ca președintele Comisiei Europene și președintele Consiliului să prezinte urgent în fața Parlamentului și a cetățenilor europeni care este programul legat de migrație, refugiați, securitatea frontierelor și siguranța liberei circulații a cetățenilor europeni.
               

                  A stabili cote nu rezolvă problema. Nu se poate să păstrăm un grad de risc ridicat timp îndelungat și să existe riscul să se mai piardă vieți.
               

                  Europenii doresc să știe care este programul de ieșire din criză. Vrem o Uniune Europeană unită, sigură și un tratament legal. Nu mai vrem nici o Europă cu două viteze, nu mai vrem nici nesiguranță. Toate cele 28 de state au semnat un acord de aderare și trebuie să beneficieze de aceleași reguli și să respecte aceleași reguli.
               

Beatrix von Storch (ECR). – Herr Präsident! Wir müssen über den Zusammenhang von offenen Grenzen, Terror und Sicherheitsgesetzgebung reden.
               

                  Frau Hohlmeier hat hier letzte Woche den Vogel abgeschossen. Sie hat den Grünen bzw. den Linken die Mitverantwortung für die Terroranschläge in Paris gegeben, weil die gegen eine stärkere Überwachung der Bürger sind.
               

                  Die Terroristen sind über Land gekommen. Da helfen Fluggastdatenspeicherungen nichts. Grenzkontrollen würden da was helfen. Die Terroristen stimmen sich mit SMS ab, da hilft auch die seit Jahren praktizierte Vorratsdatenspeicherung der Franzosen nichts – sie hat nichts genutzt und ein Verbot von Verschlüsselung sicherlich auch nicht.
               

                  Die Terroristen haben schon heute illegale Waffen. Es ist ein Stück aus dem EU-Tollhaus, dass jetzt darüber diskutiert wird, das Waffengesetz für die legalen Waffenbenutzer und für die Sportschützen und für die Jäger zu verschärfen. Die Grenzen müssen kontrolliert werden, das ist das, was auch die CSU und Frau Hohlmeier nicht wollen, und da liegt der Hase im Pfeffer.
               

Yana Toom (ALDE). – Mr President, the war in Syria is a challenge for Europe, and the activities of ISIS are the most dangerous and imminent threat. The recent terrorist attacks in Paris and the tragic fate of the Russian plane in Egypt prove that the war has come to Europe. There were many concerns raised after the start of the Russians' interference in Syria. We like to talk about differences in values with this country. However, from the perspective of ISIS, Europe and Russia are twins. ISIS is a danger not only because they are radicals or terrorists; ISIS has become an alternative project for the future of the Middle East and for the entire world. At the recent meeting in Palanga, the Baltic Presidents said they would not join any coalition fighting ISIS if it included Russia. It is not the first time that the Baltic States seek to evade their solidarity duties under this pretext. This approach is very wrong. We need to be united against a common enemy with all political actors, including Russia, Iran and others. The fight against ISIS is too important to abandon for geopolitical reasons.

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – Senhor Presidente, a situação dos migrantes que percorrem a rota dos Balcãs, num fluxo imparável e significativo, é da maior preocupação do ponto de vista humanitário. Uma situação que se agravou nos últimos dias com a imposição por parte de vários países de barreiras discriminatórias e ilegais à circulação de pessoas com base na sua nacionalidade. Medidas que se somam a atos de violência e extorsão, cometidos pelas autoridades sobre pessoas desamparadas e vulneráveis. Impõe-se uma resposta urgente a esta situação. Impõe-se a única resposta compaginável com alguns dos valores e princípios que a União Europeia gosta de proclamar, mas não pratica. A única resposta compaginável com os direitos humanos dos que fogem da miséria, do caos e da guerra que a União Europeia ajudou a semear e alimentou ativamente. Ou seja, a criação de rotas migratórias seguras e legais que desarticule as redes de tráfico que se alimentam das políticas migratórias repressivas e criminalizadoras. E insistimos também na proposta de transferências das verbas alocadas à vigilância fronteiriça para medidas de acolhimento, apoio e integração social.
               

Jordi Sebastià (Verts/ALE). – Señor Presidente, acabamos de pasar el 20 de noviembre, una fecha emblemática para los grupos que reivindican la dictadura fascista de Francisco Franco, y en muchas ciudades del Estado español se han celebrado con total impunidad actos públicos de reivindicación de aquel régimen sanguinario.
               

                  También en Alicante, allí donde en 1977 fue asesinado Miquel Grau por un militante fascista, que luego fue indultado por el Gobierno. Por fin, con el nuevo Gobierno municipal, Miquel Grau ha recibido el reconocimiento que merecía, pero esto es una excepción: sigue habiendo exaltación fascista e impunidad y, además, incumplimiento sistemático de la Ley de Memoria Histórica, por lo que las víctimas de aquella dictadura asesina no obtienen la reparación que merecen.
               

                  ¿Dónde quedan las palabras de la Comisaria Reding diciendo que hay que preservar la memoria de los crímenes cometidos por regímenes totalitarios? Europa no puede permanecer callada ante la tolerancia de uno de sus Estados miembros -el español- hacia el totalitarismo. Este Parlamento y el resto de las instituciones europeas deben condenar sin paliativos esta situación y presionar al Gobierno español para que cumpla sus obligaciones éticas y legales. Si no lo hacemos, estaremos siendo cómplices.
               

Margot Parker (EFDD). – Mr President, there is no more persecuted and yet more disregarded minority in the world than Christians. Over 90 countries ban or restrict Christian belief, many of them in the Middle East. For centuries Christians have lived, worked and prayed in the Middle East. Indeed, that region was the birthplace of Christianity. Yet since the collapse of secular leaders in the region, Islamists like ISIS have filled the vacuum with a toxic and intolerant campaign against Christians. We have seen ancient churches and monasteries looted and converted to mosques. In ISIS territory, Christian women and girls are sold in sex slave markets, whilst male Christians are forced to sign contracts that officially relegate them to second-class status. We also see the grotesque scenes of gay men and women being thrown off rooftops and kicked to death if they survive the fall.
The silence of so many LGBT groups on this issue is puzzling. This hatred of gay men that is common in ISIS-style Islamic extremism is now spreading to my country, where gay men and women are frequently demonised in radical sermons. Violent attacks on gay men and women are a serious concern and totally unacceptable. East London, in particular, is a dangerous place for gay men. I hope whoever wins the London mayoral race – hopefully Peter Whittle, himself a gay man – will make tackling this problem a top priority.

Ignazio Corrao (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, PSR, FEP, FSE, FEIS: tra il 2009 e il 2015, centinaia di imprenditori, di pescatori, di agricoltori, di formatori sono stati sedotti, illusi e poi abbandonati dalle autorità di gestione di questi programmi e fondi. Quello che sto descrivendo è uno scenario più o meno apocalittico che avviene nella mia regione, la Sicilia, dove circa 400 imprese agricole rischiano la chiusura se verranno disimpegnati i fondi del PSR previsti per il periodo 2007-2013.
               

                  Per questo motivo ho ricevuto tantissime mail e sollecitazioni da parte delle persone interessate, affinché si possa ottenere una proroga dei fondi in questione e, insieme ai colleghi parlamentari del Movimento 5 Stelle regionale e nazionale, ho cercato di mettere quanta più pressione possibile sulle autorità nazionali e regionali per richiederla. Ma l'ultima parola spetta alla Commissione.
               

                  Io, in questa sede, chiedo pertanto alla Commissione, con estrema umiltà, se sia possibile ottenere questa proroga, perché è vitale per un settore così importante per una regione come la Sicilia.
               

Dominique Bilde (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, la maladie d'Alzheimer et les maladies associées touchent environ 6 millions de personnes en Europe et le nombre de nouveaux cas diagnostiqués chaque année continue d'augmenter.
               

                  En France, 225 000 nouveaux cas sont détectés chaque année et un Français sur quatre a dans son entourage une personne concernée, ce qui engendre beaucoup de souffrance et de détresse, tant pour la personne atteinte que pour les personnes qui l'entourent.
               

                  Cette maladie entraîne la perte progressive et irréversible des fonctions mentales, notamment de la mémoire et, malheureusement, il n'existe, à l'heure actuelle, aucun traitement pour la maladie d'Alzheimer même si certains traitements médicamenteux peuvent contribuer à ralentir le processus.
               

                  Cette maladie, qui constitue la première cause de dépendance en Europe, nécessite des moyens supplémentaires pour la recherche mais, surtout, d'être reconnue comme une question de santé prioritaire en France et en Europe. J'ai d'ailleurs, à ce titre, déposé une déclaration écrite sur ce sujet avec vingt-quatre de mes collègues parlementaires de tous bords politiques car c'est l'intérêt général et humain qui doit primer. J'invite, à cet instant, tous les membres de ce Parlement à signer cette déclaration.
               

Janusz Korwin-Mikke (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący! W dniu 13 stycznia przemawiałem w tym parlamencie i powiedziałem, że nasi wrogowie są nie w Moskwie, tylko w meczetach: not in Moscow but in mosques. Zostało to uznane za coś okropnego przez pana Junckera, przez pana Schulza. Chciałbym się spytać, czy oni nie uważają, że jednak ja miałem rację, a oni się mylili?
               

                  Chciałbym się również spytać, dlaczego powiedzenie, że nasi wrogowie są w Moskwie, nie jest mową nienawiści, a powiedzenie, że w nasi wrogowie są w meczetach, to jest mowa nienawiści?
               

                  I chciałbym wreszcie się spytać, dlaczego pan Schulz dzisiaj mówił o ofiarach terroryzmu, a jakoś nie wymienił ofiar terroryzmu, gdzie zginęło 204 pasażerów samolotu rosyjskiego, a w Paryżu zginęło w końcu tylko 130 osób? Tego nie wymienił.
               

                  A poza tym sądzę, że Unia Europejska musi by zostać zniszczona.
               

Ева Паунова (PPE). – Днес е десетият ден от чудовищните атаки в Париж, но също така и 321-ят ден от атентата срещу редакцията на ‘Шарли Ебдо’. Ако блокадата в Брюксел трябва да покаже нещо, то е че не може и че не е възможно да живеем в такова ниво на несигурност и страх. Затова днес, на 10-я ден от атаките в Париж, заставам пред вас, за да ви кажа, че не можем да чакаме да станат 321 дни от този терористичен акт, за да вземем мерки.
               

                  Пред нас има няколко ясни решения: Първо, да приключим важни досиета като това за Директивата за резервационните данни на пътници; да заздравим ключовите елементи като Фронтекс, за да го превърнем в истински пазител на границите на Европейския съюз. Също така да решим какво правим с радикализацията и чуждите бойци на нашата територия. И последно, да променим механизмите по границите си, за да имаме достатъчно информация и да можем да я споделяме.
               

                  Защото всеки изминал ден без нужните мерки е ден в страх за нашите граждани.
               

Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). – Domnule președinte, constat cu îngrijorare că în ultima perioadă revine în discuție ideea unei așa numite Europe cu două viteze.
               

                  Este cu atât mai îngrijorător cu cât unul din liderii Uniunii Europene, domnul Juncker, încurajează o asemenea idee care vine în opoziție directă cu valorile și fundamentul proiectului european bazat pe coeziune, integrare, reducerea decalajelor.
               

                  Cum mai poate Uniunea să lupte eficient împotriva unor probleme esențiale precum sărăcia sau șomajul în rândul tinerilor dacă reduce integrarea? Cum poate Uniunea Europeană să se apere de amenințările externe, dacă liderii săi iau în calcul fracturarea?
               

                  Astfel de declarații, alături de cerințele Marii Britanii, de restrângere a drepturilor migranților, transmit un mesaj nedorit într-un context dificil, tocmai când Uniunea are nevoie mai mult ca oricând de solidaritate și unitate.
               

                  Consider că președintele Comisiei are datoria să își argumenteze declarațiile deoarece nu este deloc clară viziunea sa. Nici care sunt cele două viteze și nici ce reguli ar vedea pentru o Europă care funcționează după acest principiu.
               

Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Уважаеми г-н Председател, уважаеми колеги, последните трагични събития, причинени от военните нападения, осъществени от Ислямска държава на територията на държави – членки на Европейския съюз, недвусмислено потвърждават изказаните от нас в продължение на година и повече опасения от нашествието и нападенията на салафитския сунитски ислям и неговия терор в нашите домове.
               

                  Безпощадно ясно е, че Европейският съюз трябва незабавно да предприеме предлаганите от нас мерки по охрана и отбрана на своите външни граници. На юг най-голямата сухоземна граница на ЕС е тази на моето отечество, Република България. И тук се обръщам към колегите от ЕНП и от ПЕС, тези, които аз смятам за отговорни за безволевото и непродуктивно поведение на Европейския парламент по отношение на Ислямска държава и терора.
               

                  Отново настоявам за следните незабавни за ЕС мерки: незабавно прикриване на държавните граници и на границата на Европейския съюз, която се пада моята родина, Република България; незабавна екстрадиция и експулсиране на всички нелегални имигранти от територията на ЕС и държавите членки; незабавното физическо разкриване, локализиране и унищожаване на ислямистките клетки на територията на държавите – членки на ЕС.
               

                  Уважаеми колеги, уважаеми членове на ЕП, само така ще можем да се опитаме поне да отбраним нашите домове, нашия живот и това, което приемаме за наши ценности.
               

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – Señor Presidente, hoy y ahora en España las familias de cerca de 100 000 desaparecidos siguen buscando a sus parientes asesinados durante la dictadura franquista. Sufren el menosprecio del Gobierno, que permite, cuando no alienta, homenajes fascistas que deberían ser delitos; que bloquea, con el apoyo del principal partido de la oposición, el procesamiento de personas acusadas de crímenes de lesa humanidad; que mantiene el Instituto Cervantes en París en lo que fue la sede del Gobierno vasco en el exilio, incautada por los nazis y entregada al dictador: humillaciones para las víctimas de un régimen criminal que encuentran aquí silencio y pasividad.
               

                  No son temas de ayer, son injusticias de hoy que vamos a seguir denunciando aquí porque son una vergüenza para la Unión, que debe a estas víctimas la misma actitud que la que evitó la impunidad de los asesinos de otros regímenes totalitarios europeos.
               

Josu Juaristi Abaunz (GUE/NGL). – Señor Presidente, la Unión Europea y el Consejo de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas se han pronunciado varias veces contra la negación, trivialización o exaltación de los crímenes del franquismo.
               

                  Sin embargo, se registran todavía hoy en Europa situaciones inadmisibles, como el pago continuado, por parte del Gobierno alemán, de pensiones a voluntarios franquistas de la División Azul -como acaban de denunciar EH Bildu y Die Linke ante la Comisión Europea- o como el mantenimiento y amparo por parte del Gobierno español de la impunidad por los crímenes de la dictadura, aún hoy.
               

                  Ya es hora de recuperar la dignidad, el respeto y la memoria para miles de familias que llevan décadas esperando respuestas y justicia. Esto exige compromisos colectivos y procesos participativos, porque la memoria histórica nos pertenece a todos y a todas, y a esta Cámara compete también la responsabilidad de decir alto y claro que con impunidad no hay democracia, que ante los crímenes del franquismo exigimos justicia y reparación.
               

Tiziana Beghin (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, da anni la Cina invade il nostro mercato con prodotti a basso costo, che hanno già mandato a casa migliaia di lavoratori europei. Ma adesso Pechino sta preparando l'attacco finale e i suoi complici sono proprio qui a Strasburgo e a Bruxelles. Se la Commissione lo confermerà, dal dicembre 2016 la Cina sarà riconosciuta come economia di mercato e non potremo più usare le protezioni con cui difendiamo oggi i nostri prodotti.
               

                  Ma la Cina non è un'economia di mercato. Non c'è nessuno obbligo giuridico a riconoscerla come tale e soprattutto la scelta non può e non deve appartenere solo alla Commissione, un organo non elettivo. I cittadini sanno che più di tre milioni di posti di lavoro in Europa dipendono dalle scelte di questo organismo che nessuno ha eletto? E soprattutto, il governo italiano si rende conto che 700.000 posti di lavoro, solo in Italia, dipendono da questa decisione?
               

                  Certo che lo sa. Lo sanno tutti ma tutti tacciono: neanche un tweet del nostro Presidente del Consiglio. In Italia non ne parla nessuno, tranne il viceministro Calenda. Ma non mi stupirei se la politica collusa trovasse il modo di zittirlo. Forse 700.000 posti di lavoro non interessano a nessuno.
               

Romana Tomc (PPE). – Val migrantov preplavlja Evropo. V dobrem mesecu dni je preko Slovenije po podatkih naše policije potovalo že več kot 250.000 oseb, to je več kot 10 % prebivalstva Slovenije. Ugodeno pa je bilo od vsega tega le štirim prošnjam za azil, torej lahko sklepamo, da gre v večini za ekonomske migrante.
               

                  Večina oseb, ki prihaja preko našega ozemlja, je brez dokumentov. Mi smo v Schengenu in dolžni smo varovati zunanje meje Evropske unije, vendar je naša policija v več primerih zaznala osebe, ki so tok migrantov izkoristile za vrnitev iz bojnih območij v Siriji.
               

                  Posebej v luči zadnjih napadov v Parizu seveda sprašujem evropske institucije, kaj bomo naredili. Ali lahko zaupamo našim obveščevalnim službam in varnostnim ukrepom? So kadrovske kapacitete zadostne in varnostni ukrepi učinkoviti? Zanima me seveda tudi, v kakšni fazi je po zadnjih dogodkih projekt skupne obveščevalne službe Evropske unije?
               

Jonás Fernández (S&D). – Señor Presidente, mis primeras palabras hoy son para recordar a las víctimas de los últimos atentados terroristas en Europa, que nos recuerdan la necesidad de tener una política de defensa y de seguridad en nuestro continente.
               

                  En cualquier caso, yo quería hablar hoy de la decisión, del debate sobre la posibilidad de otorgar a China la condición de economía de mercado, una decisión que podría atentar directamente contra el sector industrial en Europa y afectar muy específicamente a sectores muy importantes, como es el sector del acero, con incidencia muy clara en mi circunscripción, en Asturias.
               

                  La economía china no es una economía de mercado. El crédito está dirigido por el Estado. El Estado impide a los trabajadores la movilidad, impide que las personas puedan moverse de un sitio a otro del país. ¿Qué economía puede ser de mercado con un control directo del crédito y de las personas? Esa decisión no puede ser tomada en Europa, porque atenta contra el acero, contra el sector industrial y contra regiones como la mía, como Asturias, que tienen un futuro muy próspero y muy competitivo.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύρια Πρόεδρε, η μνημονιακή συγκυβέρνηση ΣΥΡΙΖΑ - ΑΝΕΛ ψήφισε πριν μερικές ημέρες έναν ακόμη επαίσχυντο νόμο με προαπαιτούμενα που απαιτούσαν η τρόικα και οι δανειστές: Κύρια αιχμή του νόμου είναι τα κόκκινα δάνεια. Οι ελληνικές τράπεζες με τις αλλεπάλληλες ανακεφαλαιοποιήσεις που έγιναν θα έπρεπε, ήδη, να είχαν από καιρό διαγράψει πολλά κόκκινα δάνεια, διότι έλαβαν γι' αυτό τον σκοπό κεφάλαια.
               

                  Αντί γι' αυτό η εφαρμογή των ρυθμίσεων του συγκεκριμένου νόμου θα οδηγήσει σε δεκάδες χιλιάδες κατασχέσεις και πλειστηριασμούς κατοικιών Ελλήνων δανειοληπτών και τα διεθνή κερδοσκοπικά πιστωτικά ιδρύματα, τα διάφορα funds και τα κοράκια, θα βάλουν χέρι στα σπίτια των Ελλήνων πολιτών.
               

                  Τέτοιο νόμο δεν είχαν καν τολμήσει να ψηφίσουν ότι οι προηγούμενες μνημονιακές κυβερνήσεις. Αυτό ακριβώς, δυστυχώς, ψήφισε η μνημονιακή συγκυβέρνηση ΣΥΡΙΖΑ ΑΝΕΛ. Οι Έλληνες πολίτες θα παλέψουμε ειρηνικά και δημοκρατικά και δεν θα επιτρέψουμε κανένας συμπατριώτης μας να χάσει το σπίτι του, όπως συνέβη στην Ισπανία. Κανένα σπίτι στα χέρια τραπεζίτη. Κανένα σπίτι στα κοράκια.
               

Jozo Radoš (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, zajednička vanjska i sigurnosna politika postoje već 25 godina, a zajednička sigurnosna i obrambena politika punih 15 godina. U to proteklo vrijeme i jedna i druga politika razvijale su svoje mehanizme, aktivnosti, oblike djelovanja i tijela, ali do bitnog pomaka u pogledu zajedništva i snage tih dviju politika nije došlo. Krize s kojima je suočena Europska unija, ratovi u susjedstvu, izbjeglice i terorizam bilo bi puno lakše riješiti, a neke od njih čak i spriječiti sa snažnijom zajedničkom vanjskom sigurnosnom odnosno obrambenom politikom.
               

                  Nakon proteklih spomenutih 15 i 25 godina iskustva pogotovo najnovijeg bolnog iskustva s lošim odgovorom na krize jasno je da zajednička vanjska sigurnosna i obrambena politika trebaju biti osnažene jer nema razloga nadati se da će u budućnosti izazovi s kojima se Europska unija suočava biti manji i lakši.
               

Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, last week saw a significant agreement made by the two largest political parties in the North of Ireland and with the Irish and British Governments. The six counties' institutions are the only viable platform to give protection to the working poor and those on benefits.
Last week, however, did not see the British Government address breaches of its Article 2 obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – the right to life – which the ECHR found that Britain had violated during the conflict in Ireland.
The British Government has covered up for state actors, their agents, the British army, police and the political institutions which colluded in countless murders, and to this day the British Government continues to exercise a national security veto to conceal the role it played in collusion in Ireland.
The Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr Muižnieks, must return to Belfast to investigate Britain's role in the conflict and its human rights abuses and to bring the British Government to book for acting with impunity, and to work with the families to get full disclosure of information for the victims and the families.

Francesc Gambús (PPE). – Señor Presidente, mis primeras palabras son en recuerdo de las víctimas de París, Beirut, Bamako, Nigeria.
               

                  Asumiendo que la historia es una ciencia y que la memoria es subjetiva, lo cierto es que el paso del tiempo establece certezas irrefutables. Una de esas es que el pasado viernes hizo cuarenta años de la muerte del dictador Francisco Franco. Otra, que sus crímenes siguen impunes; y, por hablar de personas concretas, otra certeza es que en 2013 hizo setenta y cinco años del fusilamiento de Manuel Carrasco i Formiguera, dirigente de mi partido, Unió Democràtica de Catalunya. Cristiano convencido, catalán hasta la médula, tuvo que salir de Cataluña por ser perseguido por los incontrolados por sus ideas religiosas y, llegando a Euskadi, cayó preso del ejército faccioso insurrecto, que lo sometió a juicio sumarísimo y lo fusiló el 9 de abril de 1938 por su compromiso insobornable con la democracia, la libertad y la nación catalana.
               

                  La democracia española y, por extensión, la europea todavía pasan la vergüenza de no haber restituido su dignidad y la de tantos miles de personas con historias similares, anulando todos aquellos juicios sumarios. Su dignidad, y con la suya la de sus familias y la de todos nosotros, está pendiente. Que conste en acta.
               

Tonino Picula (S&D). – Gospodine predsjedniče, pitanje zaštite granica u Europskoj uniji postalo je tijekom proteklih tjedana dramatično povezano s pitanjem zaštite građana. Do sada je izbjeglički fenomen uglavnom tretiran kao humanitarno i organizacijsko pitanje, a nakon masakra u Parizu i događaja u Bruxellesu dobiva prvenstveno sigurnosni profil.
               

                  EU jest u jednoj posebnoj vrsti rata. I to jednim dijelom građanskog rata. Europu nisu, naime, napale nikakve strane vojske, ali protiv nje brutalno ratuju neki njeni državljani koji su ovdje rođeni i odrasli. Korijene ovog fenomena treba tražiti u vrsti socijalne patologije nastale zbog osjećaja isključenosti iz sustava koji su trebali osigurati društvenu promociju i prihvaćenost.
               

                  Naravno da svatko koga pogodi nezaposlenost ne postaje automatski i terorist. Ovdje se radi o prožimanju različitih socijalnih, vanjskopolitičkih, vjerskih i medijskih faktora. Ali nema sumnje, terorističke prijetnje napinjat će ne samo nacionalne, nego i europske pa i globalne institucije određujući karakter Europskoj uniji u prvim desetljećima 21. stoljeća.
               

Pál Csáky (PPE). – Elnök Úr, a nemzetközi terrorizmus egyértelmű igyekezete napjainkban, hogy áttolják a konfliktusfelület egy részét Európába is, és éppen a karácsonyi ünnepkörben. El akarják bizonytalanítani, és meg akarják félemlíteni ezzel Európa polgárait. Nyugtalanít, hogy ebben a parlamentben is többen alábecsülik ennek a helyzetnek a komolyságát. Meggyőződésem, hogy Európa polgárai tetteket várnak tőlünk, s ezeket a döntéseket nekünk meg kell hoznunk, ha azt akarjuk, hogy a polgárok bizalma megmaradjon az Európai Unió iránt. Most nem szabad itt a klasszikus politikai játszmákat játszani, ne az legyen a kérdés, hogy ki győz le kit, hanem az, hogy találunk-e ésszerű megoldásokat a kialakult helyzetre.
               

                  Az Európai Néppárt kidolgozott egy megoldási javaslatcsomagot, amely Európa polgárainak biztonságát hivatott növelni. Szeretném megkérni a tisztelt kollégákat, tanulmányozzák át ezt az anyagot, hogy annak elemeit mielőbb el tudjuk fogadni. Különben félő, hogy a politikai szélsőségesek szavára fognak hallgatni a polgárok.
               

Claudia Tapardel (S&D). – Domnule președinte, stimați colegi, în ciuda gravității situației ce ține de securitatea cetățenilor noștri, proiectul european trebuie să continue.
               

                  Nu trebuie să lăsăm aceste momente de criză să ne copleșească sau să mascheze lipsa de acțiune într-o problemă ce privește viitorul european și anume lipsa locurilor de muncă în rândul tinerilor.
               

                  Chiar dacă uităm de multe ori să vorbim despre tineri și despre numeroasele vulnerabilități ale acestei categorii, aceasta nu înseamnă că problemele nu mai există. Dimpotrivă, acestea se acutizează. Astăzi mai sunt încă 4,6 milioane de tineri europeni fără niciun fel de ocupație.
               

                  Comisia Europeană trebuie să vină cu date concrete privind implementarea programelor destinate pregătirii și ocupării tinerilor, iar noi în Parlamentul European trebuie să ne convingem partenerii instituționali că avem nevoie de mai multe inițiative și de investiții majore pentru reducerea șomajului în rândul tinerilor. De aceea am propus ca aceste programe să se aplice inclusiv pentru tinerii cu vârsta de până la 35 de ani.
               

                  Ca atare, această problematică nu trebuie să dispară de pe agenda noastră și din discursul public pentru că lipsa unei soluții ne va afecta bunăstarea pe termen lung.
               

Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Elnök Úr, negyven éve fogadták el az emberi jogok, beleértve a kisebbségek jogainak tiszteletben tartását alapelvként leszögező Helsinki Záróokmányt, továbbá húsz éve itt Strasbourgban írták alá a Keretegyezményt a Nemzeti Kisebbségek Védelméről. Jó alkalom ez a kettős évforduló tehát arra, hogy mérleget vonjunk és megállapítsuk: rendkívül sok még a tennivaló a nemzetközi egyezmények kisebbségvédelmi passzusainak életbe ültetése és alkalmazása terén. A Keretegyezmény számos pontját egyszerűen nem hajtják végre, ezen a helyzeten pedig meglátásom szerint az segíthetne, ha az Európai Unió intézményei fogadnának el egy jogi kötőerővel bíró kisebbségvédelmi keretszabályozást.
               

                  Bár a kezdeményezést a Bizottság részéről várnánk, a Parlament – mint az európai polgárok érdekeinek megjelenítője – is az élére állhatna ennek a folyamatnak. 40 millió uniós polgárt érint ez a kérdés közvetlenül, az EU-nak tehát foglalkoznia kell a nemzeti kisebbségek problémáival. Annál is inkább, mivel az Európai Unióról szóló Szerződés második cikke is kimondja, hogy az Unió a kisebbségek jogainak tiszteletben tartásán alapul.
               

Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, již jenom dvacet pět minut máme možnost hlasovat a rozhodnout o vítězi desátého ročníku soutěže Lux Film Prize, který bude vyhlášen zítra na plenárním zasedání Evropského parlamentu.
               

                  Já to zmiňuji proto, že jazyk filmu je někdy občanům mnohem srozumitelnější než řeči nás, politiků. A tyto filmy, které byly nominovány, jsou velmi aktuální. Film Mediterranea hovoří o motivaci a osudu afrických uprchlíků. Film Mustang hovoří o mladé generaci Turků a bulharský film Urok hovoří o rodinných vztazích, nepochopeních a konfliktech. Jsou to filmy, které jsou velmi hodnotné a které přispívají k dialogu mezi Evropany, které přispívají k diskusi o evropských hodnotách také mezi námi, politiky a občany Evropské unie. Věřím, že tato cena přispívá i k většímu uvědomění si evropských hodnot, které zde máme hájit.
               

Jude Kirton-Darling (S&D). – Mr President, this week the first snow fell at home as autumn rapidly moves to winter. For many people this brings the added dread of extra energy costs.
Energy efficiency and renewables are a key means of ensuring that energy poverty is reduced long term. While much progress has been made on improving efficiency and reducing their cost, government support schemes remain crucial. The market alone cannot deliver this crucial investment, particularly for those living in social housing and the private rental sector.
That is why the recent decision by the Tories to slash support for solar and onshore wind is such a deplorable act. With the right legal framework, solar power alone could generate GBP 25.6 billion for the UK economy and support over 8 000 full-time skilled jobs – a vital investment in our future, putting money into local communities like my own. The UK Government should – and must – reverse its short-term and short-sighted decision.

Claude Rolin (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, la question de la reconnaissance du statut d'économie de marché à la Chine fait débat, nous l'avons vu ce soir. Elle impliquerait de fortes incidences sur l'emploi dans notre économie, notamment parce que la Chine a une politique commerciale clairement agressive. Ces craintes sont particulièrement importantes dans le secteur de l'acier, où patrons et syndicats ont le même point de vue.
               

                  La Chine n'est pas une économie de marché, elle inonde notre marché de produits sidérurgiques à des prix qui ne respectent pas les principes de concurrence loyale. La reconnaître comme telle serait dès lors préjudiciable pour des centaines de milliers d'emplois directs et indirects, et plus globalement pour l'ensemble de notre économie. Pour être reconnue comme une économie de marché dans l'Union européenne, la Chine doit impérativement se conformer à cinq critères techniques, or ils sont loin d'être respectés.
               

                  Nous devons défendre les valeurs de notre économie de marché socialement régulée et ne pas octroyer ce statut à la Chine. C'est une question de vitalité et d'avenir pour notre économie, mais surtout pour notre industrie et ses emplois.
               

István Ujhelyi (S&D). – Elnök Úr, lassan este ¾ 11-et mutat az az óra az európai zászlók fölött és én ismét újra azért vártam ki szorgalommal ezt az időt, mert el kell mondjak, meg kell értessek mindenkivel valamit. Tudom, hogy nagy a félelem mindannyiunkban a terrorcselekmények miatt. Tudom, hogy vannak kormányok, politikai erők, akik felhasználták az elmúlt időszakot menekültellenes propagandára. De értsük meg: az igazi baj a mai európai társadalomban van. És ezért kell beszéljek a gyermekszegénység kérdéséről. Jelenleg Európában 26 millió gyermek szegény, minden negyedik gyermek szegénységben él. Magyarországon ez a szám, ez az arány borzasztó 41,4%. El kell mondjam Önöknek, ezzel kell valamit tegyünk, és éppen ezért hívom fel arra az Önök figyelmét, hogy holnap szavazunk a gyermekszegénység megszűntetésével kapcsolatos határozatról, és a kormányok ezt követően pedig vegyék tudomásul, hogy végre kell hajtsák a közös akaratot, meg kell szüntessük közösen a gyermekszegénységet, mert így nem lesz európai egészséges fejlődés.
               

Przewodniczący. – Zamykam dyskusję nad tym punktem porządku dnia.
               
19.   Agenda of the next sitting : see Minutes
20.   Closure of the sitting

(Posiedzenie zostało zamknięte o godz. 22.40).



ELI: 
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)