Verbatim report of proceedings of 6 June 2016
Date: 2016-06-06
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, parliamentary debate








C_202401608EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
Series C














21.2.2024







            6 June 2016
            VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF 6 JUNE 2016
            
         
(C/2024/1608)

Contents







1.

Resumption of the session
3










2.

Tribute
3










3.

Approval of the minutes of the previous sittings: see Minutes
3










4.

Composition of Parliament : see Minutes
3










5.

Signature of acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure (Rule 78): see Minutes
3










6.

Questions for oral answer (submission): see Minutes
3










7.

Action taken on Parliament's resolutions: see Minutes
3










8.

Texts of agreements forwarded by the Council: see Minutes
3










9.

Documents received: see Minutes
3










10.

Order of business
4










11.

UN High-level meeting on HIV/AIDS (debate)
4










12.

2015 Report on policy coherence for development (debate)
13










13.

State of safety of nuclear installations in Belarus (debate)
25










14.

The New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition (short presentation)
38










15.

International Accounting Standards (IAS) evaluation (short presentation)
42










16.

Peace Support Operations - EU engagement with the UN and the African Union (short presentation)
45










17.

Unfair trading practices in the food supply chain (short presentation)
48










18.

Technological solutions for sustainable agriculture (short presentation)
53










19.

Enhancing innovation and economic development in future European farm management (short presentation)
59










20.

One-minute speeches on matters of political importance
63










21.

Agenda of the next sitting : see Minutes
69










22.

Closure of the sitting
69




Verbatim report of proceedings of 6 June 2016
                  


VORSITZ: MARTIN SCHULZ


Präsident


(Die Sitzung wird um 17.00 Uhr eröffnet.)

1.   Resumption of the session

Der Präsident. — Ich erkläre die am Donnerstag, dem 26. Mai 2016, unterbrochene Sitzungsperiode für wieder aufgenommen.
               
2.   Tribute

Der Präsident. — Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Mit großem Bedauern haben wir gestern die Nachricht vom plötzlichen Tod unseres Kollegen Gianluca Buonanno vernommen. Herr Kollege Buonanno war seit der Wahl 2014 Mitglied unseres Parlaments. Er war Mitglied des Ausschusses für Industrie, Forschung und Energie sowie der Delegation in der Paritätischen Parlamentarischen Versammlung AKP-EU.
               
3.   Approval of the minutes of the previous sittings: see Minutes
4.   Composition of Parliament : see Minutes
5.   Signature of acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure (Rule 78): see Minutes
6.   Questions for oral answer (submission): see Minutes
7.   Action taken on Parliament's resolutions: see Minutes
8.   Texts of agreements forwarded by the Council: see Minutes
9.   Documents received: 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 2. Juni 2016 gemäß Artikel 149 der Geschäftsordnung festgelegt wurde, ist verteilt worden. Zu diesem Entwurf wurden folgende Änderungen beantragt:
               

Anja Hazekamp,
namens de GUE/NGL-Fractie. – Ik wil jullie verzoeken om een resolutie toe te voegen aan de mondelinge vraag over de Japanse walvisjacht en hierover te stemmen tijdens de volgende plenaire vergadering in Straatsburg in juli. Japan wil de komende jaren bijna 4000 walvissen doden, vangen, afslachten, hoe je het maar wil noemen. Op dit moment doorkruisen Japanse boten de Zuidelijke en de Stille Oceaan. Vooral dwergvinvissen moeten het ontgelden, maar ook onder meer de noordse vinvis is een slachtoffer.
               

                  Dit is een dier dat wel 21 meter lang kan worden, één van de grootste dieren op onze aarde. Deze soort wordt bovendien met uitsterven bedreigd. Het is niet voor niets dat al sinds 1986 een internationaal verbod geldt op walvisvaart. Maar Japan en enkele andere landen lappen dit verbod aan hun laars. Kijken we als Europees Parlement toe hoe de laatste walvissen worden opgejaagd en uitsterven of doen we het maximale wat in onze macht ligt om dat tegen te gaan? Ik kies voor het laatste en ik hoop u ook.
               

Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, notre groupe soutient la demande. Je crois qu'il est assez clair qu'il s'agit ici d'une espèce en voie de disparition et c'est peut-être le plus grand mammifère vivant sur la planète aujourd'hui.
               

                  De nombreuses espèces sont en train de s'éteindre les unes après les autres et donc je crois qu'il est important que notre Parlement ne perde pas de vue la question de la biodiversité.
               

Der Präsident. — Es wurde namentliche Abstimmung beantragt.
               

Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, c'est une demande que nous ne faisons pas pour la première fois, et la raison est la même, c'est-à-dire que, traditionnellement, ce Parlement se prononçait sur les questions de droits de l'homme le jeudi après-midi, nous appelions même cela ‘l'après-midi du débat sur les droits de l'homme’; ce débat a été déplacé – pour des raisons que nous ne comprenons pas bien – le matin, et puis d'autres débats ont récemment été introduits l'après-midi, à la place de cet échange sur la question des urgences des droits de l'homme.
               

                  Donc, nous demandons simplement de revenir à ce que l'on faisait jusqu'à récemment.
               

Der Präsident. — Es wird elektronische Abstimmung beantragt.
               
11.   UN High-level meeting on HIV/AIDS (debate)

Der Präsident. — Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung der Kommission zur Hochrangigen Tagung der Vereinten Nationen zum Thema HIV/AIDS (2016/2756(RSP)).
               

Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, millions of people around the world live with HIV/AIDS. We have come a long away in fighting this serious disease. However, if we are to succeed in ending the AIDS epidemic by 2030, we must speed up and beef up our efforts to prevent HIV/AIDS, to give everybody a chance of early diagnosis and to provide appropriate treatment to all those who need it.
The Commission strongly welcomes the United Nations High-Level meeting on HIV/AIDS to be held in June in New York, and supports the calls for a faster response and renewed commitment. AIDS continues to strongly affect sub-Saharan Africa. Two out of three people who become infected live there. Young girls are particularly at risk and, right here in our continent, in eastern Europe, HIV infections are still on the rise. The European Union has a role to play in bringing the AIDS epidemic to an end at home, in our neighbourhood and in other partner countries, showing solidarity and providing additional support to those countries that need it most – low income ones in particular.
The EU channels its support to AIDS prevention and treatment through the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The Fund has helped to provide HIV treatment to over eight million people. The EU and its Member States collectively provide half of the Global Fund resources: more than EUR 1.5 billion has already been contributed from the European Union budget. There are plans to pledge another EUR 470 million for the 2017-2019 period at the pledging conference in September. The Sustainable Development Goals of last year mark a welcome shift from a focus on diseases to a more integrated approach to addressing people's health needs.
If we want to end AIDS and many other diseases, we must help third countries develop the capacity to provide basic healthcare, clean water and sanitation to all their citizens. This needs to be a collaborative effort. Domestic funding for this purpose, particularly in middle-income countries, also needs to be increased. In the EU we have made good progress: they have in particular eliminated mother-to-child transmission, and thus exposure of children to HIV/AIDS.
New infections are declining. Treatment coverage and access to care is high. A rather significant outstanding challenge remains: over 300 000 people in the EU need lifelong treatment; 30 000 people still get infected every year. Even so, HIV can be prevented. HIV/AIDS treatment costs billions of euros. The Commission works closely with Member States and civil society to strengthen prevention, improve testing and support universal access to treatment and care. We must reach out in particular to eastern Europe and Central Asia, where the epidemic is still on the rise. Again, this needs to be a collaborative effort. Tailor-made action for each of the most affected countries needs to be intensified.

Președinte: IOAN MIRCEA PAȘCU


Vicepreședinte


Cristian-Silviu Bușoi,
în numele grupului PPE. – Domnule președinte, salut prezența domnului comisar în cadrul ședinței plenare și împărtășesc multe dintre punctele de vedere pe care domnia sa le-a exprimat.
                  

                     Noul raport al Secretarului General al Națiunilor Unite, ‘Accelerarea ripostei pentru încetarea epidemiei SIDA’, ne avertizează asupra beneficiilor majore dobândite în ultimii 15 ani în lupta împotriva acestei amenințări la sănătatea populației, care ar putea fi pierdute dacă, în următorii cinci ani, nu ar fi luată nicio măsură. De asemenea, raportul îndeamnă statele să reacționeze prin creșterea investițiilor și întărirea acțiunilor, în special în zona de prevenție.
                  

                     Reamintesc că, încă de la începutul epidemiei, aproape 71 de milioane de oameni au fost infectați cu virusul HIV, dintre care jumătate au murit de-a lungul anilor din cauza nedepistării la timp, a lipsei de tratament sau de îngrijire adecvată.
                  

                     Progrese încurajatoare au existat, mai ales după anul 2011. S-a asigurat accesul la tratament antiretroviral a peste 15 milioane de persoane infectate cu HIV, fapt ce a dus la creșterea semnificativă a speranței de viață, scăderea deceselor, precum și accesul la tratamente. Nu trebuie însă neglijat impactul pe care îl au factorii sociali precum sărăcia, inegalitatea și discriminarea, mai ales în rândul populației vulnerabile. Și când spun ‘populație vulnerabilă’ mă refer la categoriile de persoane care nu ar mai trebui să sufere de pe urma discriminărilor și, bineînțeles, în primul rând mă refer la copii. Statistica arată că, în perioada 2000-2014, numărul lor a scăzut, dar încă există discrepanțe, mai ales în statele în curs de dezvoltare.
                  

                     Cred că trebuie să avem un plan de măsuri mult mai ambițios, trebuie să vizăm categoriile vulnerabile de populație, trebuie să creăm un instrument de protecție socială, trebuie să asigurăm accesul persoanelor infectate cu HIV la tratament pe întreaga durată a vieții și la îngrijire medicală adecvată.
                  

Enrique Guerrero Salom,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor Presidente, señor Comisario, la conferencia de las Naciones Unidas tomará nota de los múltiples avances que se han producido en este campo en los últimos quince años: avances en la información que han conducido a una mejor prevención de la enfermedad, avances médicos y farmacológicos para responder a ella, mayor activación de la sociedad civil y sistemas sanitarios que han respondido de una manera coordinada a esta infección, que se ha llevado por delante a tantos millones de personas en el mundo.
                  

                     Pero más importante que los avances que hemos conseguido es el compromiso para seguir luchando contra esta enfermedad que todavía padecen cuarenta millones de personas en el mundo, por la que murieron más de un millón de personas en el año 2015, de la que se siguen infectando en distintas partes del mundo y por la que África —el continente de la pobreza y también el continente del dolor— está perdiendo a muchas de sus niñas y de sus mujeres. Por tanto, lo importante son los compromisos que tenemos de cara al futuro.
                  

                     Y en este compromiso, lo más importante es asumir lo que se identifica con ‘los tres 90 %’: que el 90 % de quienes tienen el virus acaben siendo diagnosticados por los sistemas sanitarios, que el 90 % de quienes son diagnosticados acaben siendo tratados y que el 90 % de los que son tratados acaben viéndose libres de la infección viral.
                  

                     Por tanto, creo que la Unión Europea debe empujar a los Estados miembros para que establezcan planes coordinados, nacionales, estrategias que eviten la infección, que aseguren el tratamiento, pero también que luchen contra la discriminación. Y esos planes tienen que impedir que en algunos países, como es el caso de España, la estrategia nacional se debilite y los datos relativos a la lucha contra el sida estén en estos momentos mostrando, como en Europa en su conjunto, un aumento de las infecciones, aunque en el resto del mundo estén disminuyendo.
                  

Charles Goerens,
au nom du groupe ALDE. – Monsieur le Président, l'une des priorités en matière de santé publique en 2016, c'est, sans aucun doute, la conférence sur le refinancement du Fonds mondial de lutte contre le sida. C'est un autre rendez-vous qui vient s'ajouter à celui auquel vient de faire référence M. le Commissaire.
                  

                     La communauté internationale a été invitée à faire face à ses responsabilités: baisser la garde devant la menace que constituent, de nos jours, non seulement le sida, mais aussi d'autres maladies comme le paludisme et la tuberculose, serait faire preuve de myopie. Les résultats encourageants obtenus depuis le lancement du Fonds mondial en 2002 plaident nettement en faveur de la poursuite du combat contre ces maladies.
                  

                     Il faut espérer que non seulement la Commission, mais aussi tous les États membres de l'Union européenne ainsi que l'ensemble des pays industrialisés, comprendront bien les priorités en matière de santé publique mondiale. Pour ce qui est du sida plus particulièrement, ceux qui, naguère encore, croyaient devoir s'opposer au développement de la thérapie, c'est-à-dire à l'accès des patients atteints du sida aux antirétroviraux, ont bien dû admettre que leur frilosité et leur prudence exagérées, à l'époque, nous auraient conduit tout droit dans l'impasse.
                  

                     L'accès aux soins pour tous n'est dorénavant plus une illusion. Il peut devenir durablement une réalité si nous persistons à œuvrer dans la voie tracée depuis le début des années 2000.
                  

                     La Commission a pris ses responsabilités, disais-je, c'est maintenant aux États membres de l'Union européenne d'en faire de même.
                  

Lola Sánchez Caldentey,
en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señor Presidente, el VIH se ha convertido en una epidemia de dimensiones mundiales. Entre 1981 y 2007 mató a casi 25 millones de personas y hoy todavía hay más de 30 millones afectadas en el mundo. El Programa Conjunto de las Naciones Unidas sobre el VIH/sida coordina esfuerzos internacionales dirigidos a actuar sobre la epidemia, y es fundamental que la Unión Europea refuerce su apoyo a esta institución. Pero apoyar solamente con palabras es inútil. Para que sea un apoyo real, deberíamos repensar nuestro modelo de desarrollo de medicamentos para ponerlo al servicio de la gente y no de los intereses de las grandes farmacéuticas. Debemos ser coherentes y no minar el acceso a los medicamentos de la población de los países en desarrollo a través de acuerdos comerciales con severas cláusulas de propiedad intelectual que se reproducen una y otra vez, y continuamos en esa senda. Y la protección mediante patentes es la razón por la que los medicamentos más nuevos y eficaces no están al alcance del 95 % de las personas afectadas por el sida, que viven en el Sur global. No son datos míos, son datos de las Naciones Unidas.
                  

                     Por último, me gustaría recordar que el modo más común de propagación del VIH sigue siendo la transmisión sexual, es decir, la protección más eficaz —pese a que algunos fanáticos lo sigan negando y sigan predicando la abstinencia— es el preservativo. Y así fue como se pronunció este Parlamento Europeo en su Resolución del año 2011, donde abogamos —y leo literalmente— por ‘el acceso a los medios de protección como el preservativo masculino y el femenino, y el fortalecimiento de los derechos y la autonomía de las mujeres en las relaciones sexuales’. En suma, más coherencia de las políticas y más sexo informado y seguro, sobre todo para las mujeres.
                  

Heidi Hautala,
Verts/ALE-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, on hyvin lupaavaa, että Afrikassa on tällä hetkellä havaittavissa vähemmän uusia aids-tapauksia kuin hoidossa olevien ihmisten määrä on. Se osoittaa, että jos nyt satsaamme myös varoja aidsin ja HIV:n torjuntaan, voimme saada tämän epidemian tyrehdytettyä vuoteen 2020 mennessä.
                  

                     Haluaisin kiinnittää huomion siihen, että Itä-Eurooppa ja Keski-Aasia ovat hyvin vaikeita alueita aidsin suhteen. Olisi tuettava sellaista työtä, joka on ihmisoikeusperustaista ja joka ottaa huomioon sen, että kaikkein haavoittuvimmassa asemassa olevat ihmiset tarvitsevat suojaa. Tarvitaan rationaalista huumepolitiikkaa, ja on pidettävä huolta siitä, että vankilaolot ovat kohtuulliset ja myös siitä, että seksityötä tekevillä ihmisillä on ihmisarvoinen kohtelu.
                  

Piernicola Pedicini,
a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, globalmente l'obiettivo è quello di debellare l'epidemia HIV entro il 2012, ma questo obiettivo non verrà mai raggiunto se non si affrontano i problemi africani, soprattutto dell'Africa centrale e occidentale. In queste zone bisogna accelerare l'accesso al trattamento antiretrovirale salvavita, perché la copertura raggiunge meno di un terzo della popolazione che ne ha bisogno attualmente. Sono 35 i paesi che contribuiscono al 90% delle infezioni di HIV su scala mondiale. Di questi, 23 sono africani.
                  

                     Ma abbiamo un problema anche in Europa; in Italia, che è al dodicesimo posto in Europa per nuove diagnosi, evidentemente c'è un problema. Nel 2014 sono state rilevate 3 695 nuove diagnosi di HIV, pari a 6,1 casi per 100 000 in termini di incidenza. Pertanto, è fondamentale avviare misure speciali di prevenzione ma anche attivare nuove linee di investimento. Bisogna tener conto che nei paesi a basso e medio reddito il prezzo dei farmaci può raggiungere fino a 80 volte il prezzo di riferimento internazionale. In questi paesi sussiste una scarsissima disponibilità nel settore pubblico, mentre vi è una grande disponibilità nel settore privato, dove i prezzi sono molto più elevati, rendendosi così inaccessibili a enormi fette di popolazione.
                  

                     Abbiamo un problema di accesso ai farmaci, alle medicine, in Africa e, al tempo stesso, abbiamo un problema di eccesso di medicine nei paesi ricchi. Abbiamo soprattutto un eccesso di concentrazione nella produzione industriale dei farmaci, che è tutta nelle mani di pochissime case farmaceutiche che hanno il potere di decidere il prezzo, il potere di fissare le regole per i diritti di proprietà intellettuale e il potere di favorire le innovazioni incrementali anziché la vera ricerca. Evidentemente il virus HIV non è abbastanza interessante economicamente per queste case farmaceutiche e questo per noi è scandaloso.
                  

Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE). – Arvoisa puhemies, ensimmäisenä haluan kiittää komissaaria hänen hyvin vahvasta lausunnostaan ja sitoumuksesta HIV- ja aids-ongelman ratkaisemiseen niin täällä Euroopassa kuin globaalisti.
                  

                     On hyvin tärkeää, että EU:lla on vahva, sitoutunut ja kansainvälisesti johtava rooli. Todellakin haastetta riittää, mutta sen keskellä on syytä muistaa, että koko kamppailu HIV:iä vastaan on hyvä esimerkki siitä miten kansainvälinen yhteistyö yhteisvoimin voi sekä kehittää vaikeisiin sairauksiin lääkkeitä, parantaa ennaltaehkäisyä, vähentää stigmaa ja pidentää myös eliniänodotetta niillä, jotka ovat sairastuneet. Luonnollisesti tämä ei ole riittävää.
                  

                     Jotta voimme lupaustemme mukaan todellakin pysäyttää aidsin leviämisen, mielestäni meillä on neljä näkökulmaa, johon on syytä myös EU:n toimissa paneutua. Ensimmäinen on luonnollisesti täälläkin mainittu ennaltaehkäisy, johon kuuluvat myöskin naisten ja tyttöjen seksuaalioikeudet ja —valistus. Toinen voimakas kysymys liittyy sosiaaliseen oikeudenmukaisuuteen ja ihmisoikeusnäkökulmaan. Me tarvitsemme tiedotusta, koulutusta ja stigmasta ja syrjäytymisestä vapaata hoitoa, ennaltaehkäisyä ja tiedonvälitystä.
                  

                     Kuten tiedämme, monta kertaa nämä ongelmat ovat yhteyksissä myös sosiaalisesti huonoon asemaan, rikollisuuteen tai muuten epätoivoisiin tilanteisiin, ja siksi toivon, että EU myös voisi panostaa tähän sosiaalisen näkökulman ja hyvinvoinnin vahvistamiseen yleisemmin.
                  

Soledad Cabezón Ruiz (S&D). – Señor Presidente, lo cierto, según el informe de las Naciones Unidas y así lo podemos constatar todos, es que los avances han sido muy pero que muy importantes en el tratamiento y la prevención del sida. No obstante, como dice el informe, no podemos ser complacientes porque los avances en estos quince últimos años se pueden ir al traste si no hacemos el esfuerzo que requiere este final de lo que podríamos llamar ‘la epidemia del sida’.
                  

                     Aún quedan casi cuarenta millones de personas infectadas, y veintidós millones de ellas aún sin posibilidad de acceder al tratamiento. Aquí en el Parlamento estamos abriendo un debate respecto del acceso a los medicamentos y, por supuesto, debemos incorporar este aspecto en toda la política de cooperación al desarrollo. Mujeres y niñas son, principalmente, las más afectadas; por lo tanto, es imprescindible un enfoque de género.
                  

                     En Europa, los países de ingresos medios y bajos aún tienen el reto por delante. Además, me gustaría hacer una advertencia sobre la posibilidad de que veamos un repunte en esta situación de crisis económica, donde está cambiando el patrón de consumo de drogas: de cocaína por heroína, que es más barata y que, como saben ustedes, lleva aparejadas tantas enfermedades infecciosas.
                  

                     Por lo tanto, no podemos bajar la guardia. La Unión Europea tiene que ejercer su papel de liderazgo, tiene que tener un objetivo ambicioso para erradicar esta epidemia en el año 2030; tenemos que aspirar a planes nacionales que erradiquen y prevengan estas enfermedades víricas en su conjunto y, por supuesto, tenemos que fortalecer nuestro sistema sanitario, respecto del que tan importante es garantizar la universalidad para todos los ciudadanos para poder combatir esta y todas las epidemias que tenemos por delante.
                  

José Inácio Faria (ALDE). – Caros Colegas, é um facto evidente que enormes progressos têm vindo a ser obtidos na luta contra o vírus da imunodeficiência humana, como aliás referiu muito bem o Senhor Comissário. Hoje, quase dezasseis milhões de pessoas são medicadas com antirretrovíricos, o que equivale a uma redução de cerca de 35% nas novas infeções comparativamente ao ano de 2000.Bem como a diminuição das fatalidades ligadas ao HIV desde o pico da epidemia na ordem dos 42%.
                  

                     No entanto, dados diferentes mostram que ainda há muito a fazer se quisermos restituir a dignidade e a qualidade de vida a todos aqueles que são portadores de HIV. Dados que referem que cerca de vinte e dois milhões de pessoas ainda não têm acesso a medicação adequada e que metade de todos os portadores de vírus desconhece a sua real situação.
                  

                     Caros Colegas, no início deste novo milénio não podemos permitir que se mantenham iniquidades na resposta ao HIV. Acabar com a epidemia da sida até 20-30 é hoje um objetivo difícil mas possível. Para tanto é necessário que sejamos capazes de colocar em prática, já nos próximos cinco anos, uma estratégia coordenada e global assente no número de pilares-chave que atribuam prioridade à mobilização solidária de financiamento e à antecipação dos investimentos necessários na luta anti HIV, com particular atenção aos países com maiores fragilidades nos seus sistemas de saúde, bem como aos grupos mais expostos ao risco de infeção, assim como a assunção de que o elemento prevenção é absolutamente paradigmático no combate anti HIV, e por isso a ela devem ser alocados mais recursos.
                  

                     Senhor Comissário, só através de uma abordagem integrada e global poderemos conseguir um ciclo virtuoso de progresso neste combate e, por isso mesmo, quero louvar a iniciativa das Nações Unidas, esperando que a União Europeia possa também congregar esforços para materializar este objetivo de desenvolvimento do milénio.
                  

Maria Lidia Senra Rodríguez (GUE/NGL). – A União Europeia e os participantes nesta reunião de alto nível devem assumir compromissos vinculantes para: acabar com a discriminação e o estigma social de que sofrem ainda as pessoas doentes de sida e para eliminar as leis existentes em alguns países que criminalizam as pessoas portadoras do vírus, garantir o acesso universal aos serviços públicos de saúde e de saúde sexual e reprodutiva, assim como aos medicamentos, pondo fim ao monopólio da indústria farmacêutica e ao vergonhoso negócio das patentes, assim como evitar novos contágios. Para erradicar a doença são precisos muito mais reforços no campo da prevenção e prestar muita atenção às pessoas jovens e adolescentes. A investigação deve ser pública e estar ao serviço das pessoas, em vez de entregar dinheiro público a uma indústria que emprega para favorecer os seus interesses acima do direito à saúde.
                  

(O orador aceita responder a uma pergunta ‘cartão azul’ (n.o 8 do artigo 162.o)).


Jonathan Arnott (EFDD),
blue-card question. – My question is simply this. I completely understand where you are coming from in suggesting that pharmaceutical companies are charging incredibly high prices for antiretrovirals, and I further understand where you are coming from in saying that this has an impact on the fight against HIV and AIDS. What I would like to know more about is what specifically you suggest that the United Nations should do about this problem at the high level meeting at the end of this week?

Maria Lidia Senra Rodríguez (GUE/NGL),
respuesta de ‘tarjeta azul’
                        . – Gracias por su pregunta, señor Arnott. Creo que ya he dicho en mi intervención bastante claro que la Unión Europea y las potencias industrializadas deben asumir el compromiso de poner fin al negocio de las patentes y permitir la producción de medicamentos a precios y a costes asequibles.
                  

Marijana Petir (PPE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, ove godine obilježava se 35 godina od prve, na znanstvenim temeljima zabilježene infekcije virusom HIV-a. Kada govorimo o HIV-u, rana dijagnoza i pravovremeni tretman su od presudne važnosti, no još su važnije edukacija i prevencija. Edukacija utemeljena na vrijednostima i odgovornom ponašanju pomoći će da naša djeca postanu odgovorni mladi ljudi, stoga je u nju potrebno ulagati. O odgovornom ponašanju danas je još važnije govoriti dok se suočavamo sa zabrinjavajućim trendovima koji pokazuju kako sve više djece i mladih u dobi od 10 do 19 godina obolijeva od HIV-a.
                  

                     Do danas je od HIV-a umrlo više od 30 milijuna ljudi, no međunarodni stručnjaci potvrđuju da bi AIDS mogao nestati kao prijetnja javnom zdravlju do 2030. godine kada bi barem 90% ljudi zaraženih HIV-om bili pravovremeno dijagnosticirani i započeli s antiretrovirusnim tretmanom. Kako bi se ovaj cilj ispunio, potrebno je doći do onih najranjivijih i najsiromašnijih. 22 milijuna ljudi još uvijek nema pristup tretmanu, a većina niti ne zna da su zaraženi. Procjenjuje se kako je u području subsaharske Afrike gotovo 26 milijuna ljudi zaraženo HIV-om. Veliku ulogu u testiranju i liječenju HIV-a, posebno u ovome dijelu svijeta, čine vjerske organizacije, a međunarodni Caritas je preuzeo vodeću ulogu u promociji brige za ljude koji su pogođeni HIV-om. Prije dva mjeseca Caritas i vjerske organizacije izdali su i smjernice za iskorjenjivanje HIV-a u djece do 2020. godine. Iako se broj oboljelih i smrtnost djece u posljednjim godinama smanjila, a više od 70% zaraženih trudnica primilo je tretman kako se virus ne bi prenosio na djecu, tretman je dostupan samo za 820 tisuća djece od njih 2.6 milijuna koliko ih je zaraženo HIV-om. Međunarodni Caritas i vjerske organizacije rade sa svjetski priznatim stručnjacima, razvili su istraživačke programe, njihove metode su učinkovite, ali nedostaje im novac. Mi imamo financijska sredstva, dajmo ih u prave ruke!
                  

Soraya Post (S&D). – Herr talman! Det sociala stigma och ibland även regelrätta diskriminering som hiv-smittade utsätts för inom hälso- och sjukvården, på arbetsplatser och inom utbildningsväsendet, är fortfarande utbrett och innebär ett stort psykiskt lidande för många. Diskriminerande lagar och policyer kring hiv-smittade personer måste upphöra och adekvat information om hiv måste nå ut brett i samhället.
                  

                     hiv-prevention är ett gemensamt ansvar och bör riktas mot alla grupper i samhället. Den största risken för spridningen av hiv är just det stigma som leder till att många inte tar reda på informationen eller vågar söka vård. I arbetet med att bekämpa och förebygga hiv behöver därför mänskliga rättigheter stå i centrum och ordentliga satsningar bör göras för att motverka stigma och diskriminering av hiv-smittade.
                  

                     Förra året registrerade WHO flera nya hiv-smittade i Europa sedan 80-talet: 142 000 stycken. I EU bär omkring två miljoner på smittan. I EU behöver vi politiker på nationell och lokal nivå som tar sig an kampen mot hiv. Det behövs fler investeringar inom vården, ökade anslag till prevention., sprutbytesprogram och naturligtvis mer stöd till tredjeländer.
                  

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – Señor Presidente, promover el apoyo de la Unión Europea y su ciudadanía a los objetivos de las Naciones Unidas para erradicar el sida como amenaza para la salud pública en el año 2030 es para mí razón, pero, además, emoción. Porque en los años 80, en Bermeo, el pequeño pueblo de pescadores en el que nací, esta enfermedad mató a demasiada gente con la que compartí pupitre, adolescencia, que traté de tú. Demasiadas personas que, en espacios y tiempos compartidos, descubrieron la droga y sufrieron la enfermedad, la muerte asociada a esas dos sílabas temibles que se susurraban en cada funeral.
                  

                     Pero también viví una rebelión que comenzaron las madres, las mujeres, la denuncia, la implicación social e institucional, la esperanza, el rigor y la victoria. Y quiero la misma oportunidad, el mismo alivio, para todas y todos los que se enfrentan a un enemigo hoy ya visible y conocido que solo puede rearmarse si desperdiciamos lo que ya hemos conseguido.
                  

                     El sida sobrevive hoy en la pobreza, con la marginación, con los prejuicios y con la desigualdad. Mayoritariamente tiene rostro de mujer. Y es una bomba de relojería emboscada en lo que llamamos tercer mundo, pero también en la Europa oriental. Desactivémosla evitando los vetos que el fundamentalismo quiere imponer en esta cumbre a las asociaciones más activas y útiles; consiguiendo que en 2030 al menos el 90 % de los seropositivos sepan que lo son, que al menos el 90 % de ellos estén en tratamiento y que el 90 % de los tratados tengan una carga vírica indetectable. Por eso pido ‘recortes cero’ contra el sida, ciudadanos activos, leyes que no dificulten el acceso al tratamiento a las poblaciones de riesgo, más igualdad, más mujeres empoderadas y humanidad. Un último esfuerzo para alcanzar una meta que tenemos al alcance de la mano.
                  

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, můj příspěvek bych chtěl začít také samozřejmě slovem prevence. Prevence, prevence. Nicméně si myslím, že prohlášení pana komisaře stojí za to ocenit. Já bych chtěl ocenit roli Evropské unie na tomto poli, protože, jak i vyzdvihl pan komisař, polovina příspěvků, které jsou alokovány ve fondu právě pro boj nejen s HIV/AIDS, ale i s dalšími významnými chorobami, tuberkulózou a jinými, jsou příspěvky členských zemí EU. To je, myslím, opravdu chvályhodné a myslím, že je důležité to na tomto místě vyzdvihnout.
                  

                     Podle mého názoru je vidět právě na této chorobě, jak obrovský vývoj prodělala medicína. V 80. a 90. letech bylo onemocnění HIV/AIDS neléčitelnou smrtelnou chorobou. Dnes už do jisté míry léčitelné je, nicméně si myslím, že je to nemoc, kterou by se kdokoli z nás obával získat. A myslím si, že je důležité právě na tomto poli říct, že ve východní Evropě se lidé již přestali bát. Za jeden rok 120 000 nově nakažených, to myslím, že ukazuje mnohé, a cíl, který byl dán – vymýtit tuto nemoc do roku 2030 –, ten je velmi ambiciózní, ale s takovýmto postupem je jasné, že nebude dosažen. Myslím si, že by mělo být více investováno do výzkumu. A samozřejmě do prevence, o které zde hovořili mnozí moji kolegové.
                  

                     A právě bohužel i má země, Česká republika, v této souvislosti hodně selhává. My jsme potlačili různé preventivní programy a teď se nám to vrací, máme nejvíce nakažených od okamžiku, kdy se u nás začali měřit právě nakažení v této oblasti. A proto je důležité hovořit o tom, že Evropská unie by měla nejen investovat peníze do boje s touto chorobou, ale i do výzkumu a podporovat ty státy, které jsou v té opačné sféře chudoby, tzn. ty, které opravdu nemohou zajistit pro své nakažené léky.
                  

Christel Schaldemose (S&D). – Hr. formand! Jeg har taletid i et minut og 30 sekunder, og imens jeg taler, er der tre personer, der dør af aids. Globalt set dør der en person hver 30. sekund. Der er 40 millioner mennesker smittet på verdensplan, og der kommer yderligere to millioner til hvert år. Heldigvis er den gode historie jo, at vi er enige i verden om, at vi skal have gjort noget ved dette. Vi skal have udryddet aids-epidemien, inden vi når frem til 2030, og vi ved også godt fra 2015-målene, Millenium Goals, at det nytter noget at lave disse målsætninger, fordi vi så også handler derefter. Men alligevel er det alarmerende, når vi læser FN's rapport på området. FN siger, at hvis vi fortsætter med at agere og handle og lave de tiltag, vi laver på nuværende tidspunkt, så kommer vi faktisk til at se endnu flere smittede. Altså med andre ord: Der skal meget, meget mere handling til! Der er brug for rigtig mange ting: Der er brug for flere penge, der er brug for bedre adgang til medicin, men det her med medicin er jo ikke nok i sig selv, for hos mange af de mennesker, der får medicinen, virker den ikke, hvis de ikke også samtidig får mad. Og så er der brug for oplysning, oplysning, oplysning! Det er utrolig vigtigt, at der bliver taget fat på problemet med, hvad der giver aids. Jeg er rigtig glad for, at Kommissionen og EU's medlemslande bakker op om, at vi skal have sat aids på dagsordenen i endnu højere grad, end vi har gjort hidtil. Det er nødvendigt, hvis vi skal gøre noget ved epidemien.
                  

Anna Záborská (PPE). – Od roku 2009 do roku 2014 klesol počet detí nakazených HIV o 45 %. O tretinu sa znížil aj počet žien, ktoré zomreli na AIDS. Výzvou však zostáva prevencia u žien v reprodukčnom veku a uplatňovanie štyroch predpôrodných vyšetrení podľa odporúčaní WHO. Problémom je aj to, že napríklad v najviac postihnutých krajinách Afriky iba polovica detí vystavených vírusu HIV prejde po narodení diagnostickým skríningom.
                  

                     Viac ako štvrtinu všetkej starostlivosti o ľudí trpiacich HIV a AIDS vo svete poskytujú katolícke zdravotnícke inštitúcie. Svoju prácu vnímajú ako morálnu povinnosť, pretože veria, že každý ľudský život, aj ten ešte nenarodený, je hodný ochrany. Napríklad tím lekárov a zdravotníckych pracovníkov zo slovenskej Vysokej školy svätej Alžbety z Bratislavy dlhodobo vedie zdravotnícke projekty v Afrike aj v Ázii, ktoré sa venujú deťom s HIV a ich matkám.
                  

                     Dialógu medzi týmito organizáciami a EÚ však bráni dogma o ukončení tehotenstva ako riešení každého politického alebo zdravotného problému. Pritom ukončenie života dieťaťa ohrozeného vírusom HIV nie je ani prevenciou ani liečbou. To, čo dieťa potrebuje, aby sa narodilo zdravé, sú lieky už počas tehotenstva a v prvých týždňoch po pôrode.
                  

                     Skúsenosť z práce v teréne potvrdzuje, že rodina založená na rovnoprávnom partnerstve jedného muža a jednej ženy je v boji proti HIV a AIDS oveľa dôležitejšia než potratové kliniky. Pretože takáto rodina učí zodpovednosti vo vzťahu aj povinnosti postarať sa o členov rodiny.
                  

Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Priekšsēdētāj! Pirmām kārtām, es vēlētos pateikties Komisijai par to, ko Komisija dara AIDS profilakses ziņā, un tiešām mēs darām daudz šeit, Eiropas Savienības iekšienē. Mums Eiropā ir vislabākās zāles, vismodernākās tehnoloģijas. Mēs zinām, kā mēs varam uzvarēt šo cīņu.
                  

                     Bet diemžēl cipari liecina par to, ka vislielākais slimnieku procents ir tieši jauniešu vidū. Tie ir briesmīgi cipari. Es varu spriest par to, runājot par savu valsti — Latviju, jo šeit vislielākais procenta pieaugums ir tāpēc, ka jaunieši lieto narkotikas — sākumā legālās narkotikas, tā saucamos spaisus, un pēc tam lieto narkotikas vēl arī intravenozi, kas tikai palielina AIDS slimnieku procentu.
                  

                     Protams, pateicoties Pasaules Veselības organizācijai, piemēram, Latvijā ir atvērti trīs lieliski centri galvaspilsētā Rīgā, Liepājā un Daugavpilī, bet diemžēl šie profilakses pasākumi nav pieejami cilvēkiem lauku teritorijās. Un tomēr jāatzīmē, ka šī situācija manā valstī un Austrumeiropas valstīs ir labāka nekā tā bija 90.-to gadu sākumā pēc PSRS sabrukšanas. Un vēl, runājot globāli, ir skaidrs, ka 90 % AIDS slimnieku, pat arī bērnu, atrodas Apakšsahārā (Dienvidāfrikā, Namībijā, Botsvānā), un jāatzīmē, ka mums obligāti jācīnās pret tā saucamajiem reliģiskajiem kultiem, kad seksu ar nevainīgu jaunieti uzskata par [izlaidums], kas arī ir AIDS izplatīšanas iemesls.
                  

Procedura ‘catch the eye’
                        


Brian Hayes (PPE). – Mr President, I also want to welcome the Commissioner to the Chamber this evening and I welcome his work on this. It is important that the UN and the EU work as partners as we approach the High-Level Meeting. As others have said, a huge amount has been done in this area in recent years, but we still have exceptionally large numbers of people across the globe who have to live with the reality of AIDS. Forty million people have been affected. The reality is that 16 million people at least are living with AIDS as a consequence of having antiretroviral drugs following proper testing.
I would make one point in this debate and it is this: I think we have become complacent in the European Union on the prevalence of AIDS. In my own country the numbers last year were at the highest level of new cases for the past five years. At least one-third of people in Ireland are not even aware that they are prone to obtain the virus and are possible carriers of the virus. So we have got to do much more within Europe to address the issue while supporting the United Nations, as we do in this area.

Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'AIDS ha definito l'agenda mondiale delle politiche della salute di un'intera generazione. I primi decessi per l'AIDS sono stati diagnosticati oltre trent'anni fa e l'HIV è diventato rapidamente un dramma globale. Allo stato attuale, dei 36,7 milioni di persone che vivono con l'HIV, meno della metà accede a trattamenti sanitari specifici.
                  

                     Un approccio concreto richiede la definizione di obiettivi ambiziosi a scadenze brevi che prendano in considerazione, allo stesso tempo, politiche di prevenzione finalizzate alla riduzione del numero di persone infettate, politiche sanitarie per ridurre il numero di persone che muoiono di AIDS e politiche sociali per eliminare la discriminazione correlata al contagio da HIV.
                  

                     È auspicabile che nella prossima riunione di alto livello delle Nazioni Unite di New York vengano prese decisioni coraggiose che non lascino indietro nessuno, perché è chiaro che la lotta all'AIDS dipende solo dall'efficacia delle politiche messe in campo. La tecnologia, le medicine e gli strumenti a nostra disposizione sono in grado di consentire il raggiungimento dell'obiettivo fissato con l'adozione dell'agenda ONU di eradicare l'epidemia entro il 2030. Affinché ciò avvenga, è necessario però che questi strumenti disponibili siano maggiormente e concretamente fruibili da tutti, anche nei paesi poveri.
                  

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, χαιρετίζουμε την επικείμενη συνάντηση εκπροσώπων των κυβερνήσεων και των δομών υλοποίησης προγραμμάτων για την καταπολέμηση του HIV/ΑΙDS που θα πραγματοποιηθεί από τις 8 έως τις 10 Ιουνίου στην έδρα των Ηνωμένων Εθνών στη Νέα Υόρκη. Τα αποτελέσματα των πρόσφατων ερευνών για το HIV/ΑΙDS είναι ιδιαίτερα ανησυχητικά, καθώς αποδεικνύεται ότι 36,9 εκατομμύρια άνθρωποι παγκοσμίως ζουν με τον ιό του HIV/ΑΙDS. Η Αφρική παραμένει το παγκόσμιο επίκεντρο της πανδημίας με 25,8 εκατομμύρια άτομα να είναι φορείς του ΑΙDS το 2014. Παρά τη μεγάλη αύξηση, από το 2000, της παγκόσμιας χρηματοδότησης για την αντιμετώπισή του, ο ιός του HIV/ΑΙDS παραμένει αυξανόμενος, με 38,4 εκατομμύρια συνανθρώπους μας να έχουν προσβληθεί, αποδεικνύοντας ότι οι διαθέσιμοι πόροι για την αντιμετώπιση του HIV/ΑΙDS εξακολουθούν να είναι ανεπαρκείς. Είναι επομένως αναγκαίο η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να επενδύσει κονδύλια στην έρευνα για την παραγωγή ισχυρών και αποτελεσματικών φαρμάκων για την αντιμετώπιση του ΑΙDS, ενώ πρέπει να υπάρξει μέριμνα, ώστε να έχει όσο το δυνατόν μεγαλύτερο τμήμα του πληθυσμού παγκοσμίως πρόσβαση σε κατάλληλη ενημέρωση, στην πρόληψη, στην παροχή συμβουλών, ιατρικών ελέγχων και θεραπείας για το AIDS.
                  

Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, na jednom osobnom primjeru kojega sam proživljavao devedesetih godina želim pokazati koliko je otvoreni razgovor, svijest o problemima HIV-a, AIDS-a ili side i činjenica da oboljeli, naročito kad je to bilo devedesetih godina, itekako može postati problem za sredinu u kojoj živi, gdje njegova djeca idu u školu, jer se i njegova žena kreće po malom gradiću u kojemu je taj moj dobar poznanik svojedobno živio.
                  

                     Nažalost, njega nema više jer tada su lijekovi bili gotovo nepostojeći. Ovim želim samo naglasiti jednu činjenicu. Trebamo što više uložiti u edukaciju, što više uložiti u prevenciju. Trebamo kao Europska unija biti lideri u tome, kao što i danas jesmo, nastaviti s time, jer jedino na taj način, njegujući otvorenu svijest i javnost o tom problemu i ulaganjem u lijekove, u edukaciju, u prevenciju možemo riješiti ovu veliku epidemiju.
                  

(Încheierea procedurii ‘catch the eye’)


Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank Members for a fruitful debate. Many of you mentioned very important issues: early diagnosis, early treatment and prevention measures, Triple-90, national drug policies, human rights dimensions and social determinants in the world, poverty and sexual exploitation, access to treatment, pricing and patent issues, the reproductive health and sexual rights of girls and women, the fight against stigmatisation, education and prophylaxis, research and investment in treatment, and socially affordable prices. Thank you very much indeed for your contributions. All those things are very important.
It is clear that the fight against HIV is not over, despite the amazing progress we have made over the past decades. It is also clear that we will one day succeed together. HIV affects all countries, regardless of their capacities to respond to the challenge. HIV also affects the most vulnerable and does not stop at national borders. That is why we need collective action and solidarity with the vulnerable living among us and those living in countries that cannot afford universal healthcare coverage.
The Commission will continue to support EU action to address HIV within the EU, in the neighbouring countries and across the world, using all the tools at its disposal. In that sense, I am confident that the United Nations high-level meeting later this week will serve to send a strong and united message from the European Union.

Președintele. — Dezbaterea a fost închisă.
                  
12.   2015 Report on policy coherence for development (debate)

Președintele. — Următorul punct de pe ordinea de zi este dezbaterea comună privind raportul lui Cristian Dan Preda, în numele Comisiei pentru dezvoltare, referitor la raportul UE pentru 2015 privind coerența politicilor în favoarea dezvoltării [2015/2317(INI)] (A8-0165/2016).
               

Cristian Dan Preda,
rapporteur. – Monsieur le Président, je souhaiterais tout d'abord remercier les autres groupes politiques pour l'excellente coopération que nous avons eue, ainsi que le commissaire Andriukaitis d'être parmi nous aujourd'hui pour débattre de la cohérence des politiques de l'Union au service du développement (CPD).
               

                  La CPD est un sujet à la fois très important, complexe et mal connu. Il s'agit de la cohérence de toutes nos politiques, et il est donc tentant de vouloir traiter de tout. Il me semble que le rapport du Parlement n'a pas cédé à cette tentation et a essayé de se concentrer sur quelques éléments-clés, à la fois pour faire avancer le débat et pour contribuer à la mise en œuvre de la CPD.
               

                  Au sein de l'Union, la cohérence est très importante: les différentes institutions veulent être cohérentes les unes avec les autres; nous voulons également que nos politiques soient cohérentes entre elles. La question la plus ardue est de savoir comment mettre en œuvre cette cohérence au service du développement pour ne pas défaire d'un côté ce que nous faisons de l'autre.
               

                  Le rapport 2015 de la Commission est positif: il y a eu des progrès considérables, qui doivent, bien entendu, être à la fois poursuivis et renforcés.
               

                  Dans la résolution du Parlement, nous nous sommes concentrés sur deux points essentiels. Il y a tout d'abord l'interaction entre la CPD et le programme de développement à l'horizon 2030. Alors que d'autres acteurs internationaux ont déjà entamé une réflexion approfondie sur la transformation de la CPD en ‘cohérence des politiques au service du développement durable’, l'Union européenne doit encore adopter une position claire sur ce point. La rédaction de ce rapport et l'atelier que nous avons organisé ont été, pour le Parlement, l'occasion de lancer ce processus de réflexion. Le fait que la Commission européenne entame un processus similaire pourrait remettre en question le principe même de la CPD et le rapport bisannuel, en l'inscrivant dans une perspective plus large.
               

                  Concevoir la CPD dans le cadre du programme de développement à l'horizon 2030, c'est également repenser les objectifs de développement au niveau mondial pour se soustraire à cette conception donneur-receveur et se diriger vers des objectifs applicables à tous.
               

                  La CPD reste un concept inconnu au niveau international. Nous ne parviendrons pas à intégrer la CPD dans les objectifs de développement durable si les autres acteurs-clés du développement – les États-Unis, le Japon, les BRICS – ne participent pas à cet effort. L'Union a un rôle clé à jouer. Elle doit continuer à promouvoir l'universalisation du concept de la CPD auprès de nos partenaires. Le Parlement européen doit être impliqué dans ce processus, car il est désormais un acteur important de la CPD.
               

                  Le deuxième élément crucial dans le rapport de cette année est de trouver des moyens d'améliorer l'utilisation et l'efficacité des instruments de la CPD. Je pense qu'il est important de souligner que la mise en œuvre de la CPD reste laborieuse, mais il ne faut pas non plus oublier que c'est un exercice complexe.
               

                  Je n'ai pas appelé à la création de nouveaux instruments pour la CPD, car les instruments nécessaires existent déjà. Par contre, il faut trouver le moyen d'utiliser ces outils de la manière la plus cohérente et la plus efficace possible. Pour cela, il faut que les responsabilités en matière de mise en œuvre de la CPD soient claires et indiscutables. La seule façon de donner une impulsion décisive à la CPD est de l'inscrire à l'ordre du jour d'un sommet européen. Je sais que l'idée peut faire sourire, mais il y a quelques années, on souriait aussi à l'idée d'organiser un sommet européen de la défense.
               

                  Si nous voulons vraiment être sérieux sur les progrès de la CPD, celle-ci doit être discutée au plus haut niveau politique. Un sommet européen permettrait également de créer un processus de réflexion interinstitutionnel et au niveau des États membres. Ce sommet permettrait de donner des indications claires sur la façon d'opérationnaliser la CPD. Il faut qu'elle puisse s'extraire de la bulle ‘développement’ pour pouvoir exister dans d'autres domaines. Il ne s'agit pas de développement, il s'agit de coordonner toutes les autres politiques au service du développement. Il faut donc que nous pensions différemment la CPD.
               

                  Depuis le rapport de 2013, de nouveaux instruments ont été créés. Je pense notamment à la contribution des délégations de l'Union européenne au rapport bisannuel. Cet exercice est un développement positif, qui devrait être étendu à toutes les délégations. De plus, au vu du rôle extrêmement important que peuvent jouer les chefs des délégations de l'Union pour la mise en œuvre de la CPD sur le terrain, il faudrait inscrire cette question à l'ordre du jour de la réunion annuelle des chefs des délégations qui se tient à Bruxelles. Les délégations ont une vision globale des politiques menées par l'Union dans un pays donné et peuvent donc nous permettre d'identifier plus facilement les incohérences et la manière de les corriger.
               

                  Bien entendu, je ne peux pas mentionner ici tous les instruments de la CPD et la manière de les améliorer. Nous avons encore beaucoup de progrès à faire en ce qui concerne les études d'impact, par exemple, qui ne sont pas menées de manière systématique. Mais je tiens également à dire que certains instruments fonctionnent, et même très bien. Je pense notamment à la programmation conjointe, qui inclut non seulement toutes les activités de l'Union mais également les activités des États membres, pour assurer une plus grande cohérence.
               

                  Bien entendu, je ne peux pas non plus aborder tous les domaines d'action prioritaires contenus dans le rapport. Faut-il changer les priorités de la CPD, ou en ajouter d'autres? Je pense que nous serons en mesure de répondre à cette question une fois que nous aurons entamé le processus de réflexion dans le cadre de la mise en œuvre du programme de développement à l'horizon 2030.
               

                  Pour finir, je souhaiterais ajouter que j'ai voulu mettre l'accent cette année sur la CPD dans la politique extérieure de l'Union. La crise des réfugiés, les déstabilisations auxquelles doit faire face l'Union dans son voisinage ont remis en question ses fondations mêmes et, notamment, la solidarité ou la libre circulation. L'action extérieure est le domaine sur lequel la CPD doit se concentrer. Stabiliser notre voisinage doit donc être une priorité absolue. Nous disposons de l'approche globale, qui est un instrument idéal pour la CPD, et cette approche devrait être davantage renforcée avec l'adoption de la stratégie globale ce mois-ci. Nous devons faire de cet instrument la marque de fabrique de l'action extérieure de l'Union européenne.
               

                  L'approche globale, lorsqu'elle est convenablement mise en œuvre, devrait également nous permettre de prévenir les crises et d'assurer une transition efficace entre une opération militaire ou civile et la mise en œuvre d'autres instruments pour poursuivre les progrès sur le terrain. L'exemple du Sahel est parlant. Lorsque l'Union mobilise tous ses outils dans une région confrontée à la pauvreté, aux conflits internes et à la radicalisation, elle arrive à faire la différence.
               

Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, policy coherence for development is, indeed, of fundamental importance in our joint efforts to promote and support global sustainable development. Ensuring that all European Union policies contribute to our shared development objective is not only common sense but also a necessity.
In the Commission we have put policy coherence at the heart of our work, both in terms of ensuring coherence of our general policies and actions and in making sure that our policies indeed support our development cooperation objectives. But we cannot do this alone: we need to join forces. It is a shared responsibility. It is very encouraging to see this Parliament's strong interest in and support for policy coherence for development, as manifested by this debate. Let me thank the rapporteur, Mr Preda, for steering the preparation of the report, which we welcome.
The European Parliament has a key role to play in making policy coherence for development a success. You have consistently underlined the importance of the topic, including by establishing the post of standing rapporteur and by issuing several important resolutions. This debate is both useful and very timely. It provides an important contribution not only in our daily business of implementing policy coherence for development but more importantly for the implementation of the watershed 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The universal character of the 2030 Agenda marks a fundamental change of paradigm. It calls for a whole-of-government approach and for development sensitivity in policy making across a very broad range of inter-connected sectors.
The most important challenge for all of us in this room and well beyond is to make it happen, putting all means at our disposal to good use. This is what we are currently working on in the context of the revision of the European Consensus on Development. A public consultation was launched last week and will be open until 21 August. We count very strongly on your input and support.
Despite some critical remarks, which we note and also appreciate, I welcome the overall positive assessment by this House of the Commission's work on policy coherence for development (PCD). We have made significant progress over the last years. Let me give you some examples of where our work has successfully influenced political decision making in favour of development objectives.
First, we have placed PCD firmly as a part of impact assessments within the Better Regulation framework. It is still early days, but the systematic development check, through development specific guidelines and a toolbox for assessing potential impacts when elaborating new initiatives, has the potential to be a game changer. We have introduced country-by-country reporting, increasing transparency in extractive industries. The last common agricultural policy reform of 2013 was mindful of potential trade distortions vis-à-vis developing countries. And, finally, the Commission communication on ‘Trade for All’, from October 2015, was drafted with significant pro-development considerations as guiding principles.
In short, we are making progress and this is confirmed by the 2015 PCD report and by your report today. We should be encouraged by that. We should continue to step up our joint efforts to make full use of policy coherence for development as a tool for implementing the 2030 Agenda and guaranteeing the shared prosperity of the European Union and our partner countries.

Lola Sánchez Caldentey,
ponente de opinión de la Comisión de Comercio Internacional. – Señor Presidente, la coherencia de las políticas más allá de un principio recogido en el Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea y en los propios objetivos de desarrollo sostenible de las Naciones Unidas es de puro sentido común. La coherencia debe o debería ser la piedra angular de toda nuestra política exterior. A algunos diputados de esta Cámara se les llena la boca hablando de eficacia y eficiencia de los recursos, pero, Señorías, la coherencia de las políticas es una cuestión clave para la eficiencia. Si no somos coherentes en nuestra acción exterior estamos desperdiciando el dinero para la ayuda oficial al desarrollo y engañando, además, a la ciudadanía que, con sus impuestos, financia estas ayudas.
               

                  Porque mientras destinamos ayudas al desarrollo, el resto de nuestras políticas, especialmente la comercial, siguen empobreciendo a los países del sur. Y así, lo que damos con una mano lo quitamos con la otra. Es una postura totalmente cínica e hipócrita. Es ahora, una vez aprobados los ODS, el momento de pasar de la política a la acción. El carácter universal del nuevo marco de desarrollo implica que nosotros, los países desarrollados, pongamos el acento en la coherencia de las políticas. Es el momento de ser ambiciosos, de ir más allá de las palabras bonitas y de apostar por medidas realmente efectivas y sobre todo vinculantes, como, por ejemplo, apostar por la fiscalidad internacional, combatir las políticas de austeridad y las privatizaciones de los servicios públicos, exigir responsabilidad civil y penal a las grandes empresas y terminar con su insoportable impunidad, reformular la política comercial y de inversión, poniéndola al servicio de la gente, o asegurar el acceso a las medicinas como derecho universal y fundamental.
               

                  Estamos ante una oportunidad muy importante de que el Parlamento Europeo tome conciencia del principio de coherencia de las políticas en favor del desarrollo y haga un llamamiento a la urgencia de la toma de medidas efectivas y —como decía— vinculantes que aseguren el absoluto cumplimiento del artículo 208 que, Señorías, nos hemos dado nosotros mismos y no estamos cumpliendo. Es lamentable ver cómo el Grupo conservador y el Grupo popular, a través de votaciones por separado, están intentando diluir los elementos más necesarios de este informe.
               

Davor Ivo Stier,
u ime kluba PPE. – Gospodine predsjedniče, na početku bih se htio zahvaliti našem stalnom izvjestitelju, gospodinu Predi, na izvješću za koje mislim da će biti usvojeno velikom većinom u Parlamentu. On je već naglasio, ja ću ponoviti, kako je doista našoj razvojnoj suradnji, da bi bila efikasna, potrebna usklađenost svih politika Europske unije u interesu održivog razvoja. I doista je puno učinjeno na tom području, na primjer što se tiče usklađivanja naše poljoprivredne politike. Činjenica jest da se mora isto tako i naša trgovinska politika uskladiti, ali ja ne bih dijelio takve kritične tonove kao što je kolegica prije mene spomenula.
               

                  Čini mi se da je upravo slobodna trgovina jedan ključni generator rasta za zemlje u razvoju. Da su prednosti slobodne trgovine brojnije, a najočiglednija je generacija ekonomskog rasta kroz povećane komercijalne prilike i investicije te povećanje produktivne baze kroz razvoj privatnoga sektora. I mislim da to isto tako treba uzeti u obzir.
               

                  U svakom je slučaju usklađenost politika Europske unije s razvojnim ciljevima ključan element, i tu se svi slažemo, za ostvarivanje novog programa 2030. za održiv razvoj i ne smijemo pasti u zamku da jednom rukom u vidu razvojne pomoći dajemo, a drugom uzimamo kroz neke druge politike. To je točno. Ja bih tu možda naglasio pitanje nezakonitih financijskih tokova i možda bismo isto tako i na tom području trebali malo više raditi, pogotovo u okviru i u vidu novih panamskih dokumenta koji su bili objavljeni.
               

                  Dakle, tu trebamo isto neke nove mehanizme. Ali to ni u kojem slučaju ne znači da treba odustati od razvojne politike, već da se naš fokus u tim razvojnim politikama i u ostalim politikama, unutarnjim i vanjskim, treba upravo fokusirati na borbu protiv korupcije, promicanje dobre vladavine kao osnovnih preduvjeta održivog i pravednog razvoja.
               

Linda McAvan,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank Mr Preda for the report and for finding consensus on it. I just want to focus on one aspect of policy coherence for development: that is tax issues.
Mr Preda mentioned the agreement on the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and that, of course, was underpinned by the agreement on the financing for development. A big part of that is domestic resource mobilisation by developing countries, but we will not achieve that unless we see big changes in the international tax system: unless we close down tax loopholes and illicit financial flows.
Thabo Mbeki came to the Committee on Development a few weeks ago and he told us how staggering amounts of money leak out of Africa into tax havens and into European bank accounts. This has to stop, and that is why we have a chance in this Parliament to vote to change these rules: to make sure that African countries, and other developing countries, can raise their own financing for development, and to make sure that we have this Special Committee on the Panama papers, so that policy coherence for development is much more than a box-ticking exercise, and leads to genuine change.

Morten Messerschmidt,
for ECR-Gruppen. – Hr. formand! Når jeg tager ordet på denne rapport, er det særligt på grund af afsnittet om migration. Jeg synes, det er fuldstændig logisk, når ordføreren vælger at foretage en kobling mellem den ulandsbistand, vi finansierer, og behovet for bedre koordinering af migration, ikke mindst fordi, hvis vi ikke havde den ukontrollerede migration, ville der være langt flere penge til rent faktisk at hjælpe de folk i nød, som ikke formår at komme til Europa. Men det, som jeg altid undrer mig over, når jeg læser disse rapporter, er, at man blot uden at konkretisere indholdet efterlyser fælles løsninger. Ordføreren må da have en holdning til, hvad den fælles løsning så skal være. En løsning er jo ikke god, blot fordi den er fælles! Og jeg må sige, at hvis jeg ser rundt blandt de 28 lande i dag, synes det eneste – eller det, som i hvert fald kan samle den største opbakning – at være en pushmodel, hvor man i højere grad fokuserer på at hjælpe de mennesker i nærområderne, som reelt er i fysisk nød, som ikke har råd til at bestikke menneskesmuglere, som ikke vil sætte livet på spil over Middelhavet, end man fokuserer på dem, som af den vej er kommet til Europa. Så jeg kunne godt tænke mig, at der havde været større fokus på at hjælpe i nærområderne, snarere end hvad vi gør her.
               

Charles Goerens,
au nom du groupe ALDE. – Monsieur le Président, la commission du développement du Parlement européen présente aujourd'hui son troisième rapport sur la cohérence des politiques au service du développement. Il n'est point besoin de reproduire toujours les mêmes constats, les mêmes analyses et les mêmes propositions, tout ayant déjà été dit et redit. D'ailleurs, Cristian Preda, que je félicite, a résisté à cette tentation.
               

                  Ce qui importe, c'est d'en retenir les enseignements, qui devraient nous guider dans l'action. À cette fin, j'ai introduit un amendement oral qui, s'il était mis en œuvre, permettrait au président de la Commission de trancher au cas où deux ou plusieurs départements de la Commission n'arriveraient pas à se mettre d'accord sur la voie à suivre.
               

                  On peut arguer que les réunions interservices de la Commission sont là pour régler ce genre de conflit; la question est de savoir ce qu'il y a lieu de faire en cas de divergence insurmontable. De mon point de vue, il faut prévoir un arbitrage à un niveau hiérarchique supérieur: en effet, dans ce cas, on devrait prévoir la possibilité pour le président de la Commission d'assumer pleinement sa responsabilité politique sur les grandes orientations. Il pourrait ainsi trancher en vertu des engagements pris par l'Union européenne dans le cadre de la cohérence des politiques au service du développement.
               

                  Je me permets d'insister sur l'importance de cet amendement oral. En effet, ne pas le retenir ou, le cas échéant, s'y opposer, reviendrait à remettre en question une disposition que le Parlement européen avait déjà votée à sa grande majorité dans le cadre de mon propre rapport sur la cohérence des politiques au service du développement discuté ici en plénière en 2013.
               

                  Le pourquoi d'une politique plus cohérente est de moins en moins contesté – celle-ci est de plus en plus acceptée –, c'est maintenant sur le comment que nous devons concentrer nos efforts et c'est la raison pour laquelle j'ai introduit cet amendement oral.
               

Javier Couso Permuy,
en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señor Presidente, tras leer este informe me sorprende, como primera impresión, el vínculo constante que se hace entre desarrollo y seguridad, incluyendo a menudo al Servicio Europeo de Acción Exterior por el medio. Además, el informe está repleto de palabras bonitas y buenas intenciones: propone, por ejemplo, evaluaciones de impacto sobre la coherencia de las políticas de desarrollo, pero sin demandar ninguna política ni decisiones jurídicamente vinculantes.
               

                  Por otra parte, en el informe se subraya la preocupación por la actual crisis de migración (como el informe la denomina) y propone una solución securitaria ante este fenómeno, en vez de abordar las causas que provocan este aumento de la migración y, además, sin tener en cuenta los beneficios económicos, culturales y sociales que la inmigración aporta a nuestros países, como han demostrado diversos estudios. En fin, muchas palabras bonitas y no tan bonitas y pocos actos. Un ‘más de lo mismo’.
               

Heidi Hautala,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I would also like to thank Mr Preda for his excellent report and the good cooperation we have had on it in the Committee on Development.
I think Commissioner Andriukaitis said something very important when he talked about the interconnectedness of things and how they should be reflected in the ways decisions are planned and taken. I am very happy to hear that the Commissioner is saying that, for instance, policy coherence for development could in the future be a part of impact assessments. Let me also support the oral amendment by Mr Goerens, which says that, when in the Commission two or more Commissioners do not agree on something that has a serious impact – positive or negative – on development, the President of the Commission could have a role. I very much agree and we should develop something similar here in Parliament.
But, at the same time, elsewhere, something quite different is going on. I have become aware of the fact that the Commission and the External Action Service have now agreed that development cooperation money could be used to acquire and purchase weapons in those third countries where the EU is training the military. I think it is outrageous to hear that we would do this at the cost of development financing. Before anything like this is undertaken we should definitely have more funds to use, and we should make sure that these armies and military and police forces in developing countries get sufficient training in a human-rights-based approach and a democratic way of working.

Jonathan Arnott,
on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, we all do indeed have a human duty. There are 1.5 billion people in this world who are still living in poverty, who are deprived in ways that we in the West can only imagine. We have a human duty to do what we can to help, but to me this report is far from ideal in terms of identifying the problems at European Union level, and also in terms of seeking what solutions we should adopt.
The discussion of migration and development seems to spectacularly fail to take into account the way that the European Union has, in my view, mismanaged the refugee crisis from start to finish. The problems that arose are problems which could reasonably have been foreseen at the time, and which many of us did in fact foresee and said on the record, in this place, at the time.
It seems to me that this report is pushing towards greater EU, more EU control. For example, it mentions common asylum and immigration policy. I just wonder, if people in the United Kingdom actually knew that there were moves in this place towards a common asylum and immigration policy, how that would impact on their views on 23 June? Where I do agree with the report is to say that aid alone is not sufficient, because a lot of assisting development in developing countries is actually about developing through trade. It is actually about eliminating tariff barriers of which, sadly, we still all too often have too many at EU level. It is about bringing down tariff barriers and it is about helping countries through free and fair trade.
I would take issue as well with the report in its mention of a financial transaction tax. I see that as something that is hugely unconnected to the development issue and something which again would go down very badly indeed within the United Kingdom.
So I would say that whilst I agree with the principle of the human duty that we have, this report has spectacularly failed to achieve what it should have achieved. The UK is actually quite efficient compared with other EU countries in this regard, and my fear is that we end up being brought down to the lowest common denominator.

Jean-Luc Schaffhauser,
au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, le développement, c'est associer le capital et le travail des hommes. Le développement se fait par des hommes, mais ne se décrète pas. Vingt ans de pratique en Afrique me l'ont appris, car la formation et le transfert des savoir-faire doivent aller de pair avec le transfert de capital: cela demande du temps et de la programmation. Le vrai développement s'organise, il se planifie et se finance, pour un retour sur investissement à long terme qui ne répond pas à la loi du marché et de la concurrence généralisée qui, pour sa part, n'a que des perspectives à court terme et n'investit donc pas dans le capital humain.
               

                  L'Europe et l'Afrique ont en commun d'avoir été victimes d'une austérité imposée par la dette et donc par la finance, qui a pris le dessus sur l'économie réelle, l'économie humaine qui fait le développement: l'Afrique par le FMI, dans le cadre de la crise des dettes des années 1980, et l'Europe, dans celui de la crise des dettes souveraines qui a suivi la crise bancaire de 2007-2008.
               

                  Nous devrions nous rappeler le Jubilé juif, qui remettait les dettes tous les 50 ans pour retrouver le sens humain de l'économie. Pour cela, il nous faudrait sortir de nos slogans du marché unique, qui est vraiment unique dans une faillite quasiment programmée.
               

                  Je vous propose un véritable ‘New Deal’ pour l'Europe et l'Afrique, en utilisant les moyens de la Banque centrale non pas pour acheter des dettes, mais créer, cette fois, de nouvelles richesses.
               

                  Mille milliards investis dans le sud de l'Europe, car même si les comptes de la balance des paiements sont actuellement équilibrés, cela s'est fait par la destruction de richesses en raison de l'austérité. Ces mille milliards permettront à la France, à l'Italie, à la Grèce, au Portugal et à l'Espagne de renouer avec l'emploi et la croissance.
               

                  Cinq cents milliards pour l'Afrique et le Moyen-Orient, car la création de richesses dans ces pays est indispensable si nous voulons arrêter l'immigration de pauvreté et faire que les hommes aient le droit de vivre et de se développer chez eux.
               

Λάμπρος Φουντούλης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η συνοχή της αναπτυξιακής πολιτικής είναι ένα ακόμη παράδειγμα της απόστασης που υπάρχει μεταξύ της οπτικής της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και της πραγματικότητας. Τίποτα από όσα θεωρητικά επιδιώκετε δεν έχει επιτευχθεί. Η κατάσταση είναι σαφώς χειρότερη από ό,τι πριν από μία δεκαετία, ενώ οι προοπτικές κάθε άλλο παρά καλές είναι. Συγκεκριμένες χώρες της Ένωσης, με πρώτη την Ελλάδα, βιώνουν μία οικονομική και κοινωνική καταστροφή που σε μεγάλο βαθμό προέρχεται από την πολιτική ανικανότητα των ειδικών της Ευρώπης. Περιττό δε να αναφέρω πως στην εν λόγω έκθεση μεγαλύτερη είναι η ανησυχία του συντάκτη της για την κάλυψη των αναγκών των λαθρομεταναστών, των ύποπτων ΜΚΟ και των λοιπών εθελοντικών οργανώσεων παρά των ευρωπαίων πολιτών.
               

                  Όσον αφορά τις αναπτυσσόμενες χώρες, η βοήθεια που τους προσφέρεται δεν είναι τίποτα παραπάνω από νεο-αποικιακή πολιτική με αναπτυξιακό περιτύλιγμα. Θέτετε ως προϋπόθεση για την οικονομική βοήθεια την πλήρη αποδοχή από τις τρίτες χώρες των δικών σας αξιών και τον έλεγχο, έχοντας μάλιστα το θράσος να τις ονομάζετε οικουμενικές. Απαιτείται συνολικός επαναπροσδιορισμός της οικονομικής πολιτικής της Ένωσης, με στόχο την εξυπηρέτηση των αναγκών των ευρωπαίων πολιτών και όχι των πολυεθνικών. Όσον αφορά, επιπλέον, τις εξωτερικές μας σχέσεις, έχει αποδειχθεί πως όσο λιγότερο επεμβαίνει η Ευρώπη τόσο το καλύτερο για όλους.
               

Bogdan Brunon Wenta (PPE). – Popieram sprawozdanie posła Predy, które nawołuje do większego zaangażowania Parlamentu Europejskiego w politykę na rzecz rozwoju, podkreślając kwestie migracji, handlu i finansów, środowiska naturalnego, rolnictwa oraz międzynarodowej kooperacji, zarówno w krajach członkowskich, jak i ze Stanami Zjednoczonymi czy krajami BRIC. Parlament Europejski powinien poprzeć inicjatywę spójnej polityki na rzecz rozwoju, której głównym celem jest skuteczny długoterminowy program rozwoju.
               

                  W sprawozdaniu posła Predy zawarte zostały również mechanizmy, w jaki sposób Parlament Europejski wspierał realizację spójności polityki na rzecz rozwoju oraz bardzo istotną rolę odpowiedniej dokumentacji, niezbędnej do efektywnego monitorowania działań podjętych przez Parlament Europejski oraz państwa członkowskie. Zaproponowana w sprawozdaniu poprawka Agendy 2030 podkreśla potrzebę ustanowienia uniwersalnych celów dla wszystkich krajów, odchodząc od modelu krajów rozwiniętych jako darczyńców oraz krajów rozwijających się jako odbiorców. Jak dowodzą badania grupy CONCORD, większość krajów nie prowadzi analiz oceniających wpływ działań w ramach spójności polityki na rzecz rozwoju, co utrudnia ocenę skuteczności wdrażanej przez nas polityki. Sprawozdanie posła Predy, sugerując państwom członkowskim prowadzenie dokładniejszych badań dotyczących konkretnie skutków działań w ramach polityki spójności na rzecz rozwoju, proponuje również inne rozwiązanie: wprowadzenie systemu arbitrażu pod bezpośrednim przewodnictwem przedstawiciela Komisji, działającego w razie rozbieżności różnych działań Unii Europejskiej oraz niezależnego systemu skarg obywateli krajów rozwijających się bezpośrednio dotkniętych działaniami Unii Europejskiej.
               

Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D). – Señor Presidente, señor Comisario, la coherencia de las políticas en favor del desarrollo figura en el Tratado de Lisboa y, por tanto, constituye un mandato constitucional para la Unión Europea, algo que estamos obligados políticamente a poner en marcha. Sin embargo, no es así. No lo estamos poniendo en marcha. Cada política de la Unión va por su lado y, sin embargo, necesitamos esa coherencia a nivel institucional dentro de la Unión y en conexión con las políticas nacionales. Tenemos que estrechar los lazos con los Parlamentos nacionales para fiscalizar mejor las políticas de desarrollo de los Gobiernos respectivos.
               

                  2016 es un año clave para ponernos a la tarea, porque es el año en que tenemos que empezar a aplicar los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. Tenemos que aplicar lo decidido en la Cumbre Humanitaria Mundial de Estambul y otros compromisos sobre la eficacia de la deuda. Aquí no cabe, como en el texto bíblico, que lo que hace la mano izquierda no lo conozca la mano derecha. Al contrario, son las dos manos las que tienen que trabajar conjuntamente en cuestiones de comercio, de desarrollo y de fiscalidad.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η ανθρωπότητα μαστίζεται από τη φτώχεια και την υπανάπτυξη. Τουλάχιστον 1,5 δισεκατομμύριο συνάνθρωποί μας ζουν μέσα στη φτώχεια και στην εξαθλίωση και στερούνται βασικών παροχών σε θέματα υγείας και παιδείας, ενώ την ίδια στιγμή ο παγκόσμιος πλούτος συσσωρεύεται σε μια χούφτα ανθρώπους. Αντί όμως η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να επικεντρωθεί στη βιώσιμη ανάπτυξη, στη μείωση της φτώχειας και των τεράστιων κοινωνικών ανισοτήτων στην παγκόσμια σκηνή, τελικά συνεχίζει να εμμένει στην πολιτική της λιτότητας και της εκμετάλλευσης. Πρέπει λοιπόν η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να αλλάξει πορεία και να συγκροτήσει μια συνεκτική αναπτυξιακή πολιτική, που να ενδυναμώνει τους φτωχούς παραγωγούς τους συνεταιρισμούς και τις μικρές επιχειρήσεις, να προωθεί το δίκαιο εμπόριο και τη διαγραφή του χρέους των χωρών του αναπτυσσόμενου κόσμου αλλά και των χωρών της ευρωπαϊκής περιφέρειας, και ιδίως της Ελλάδας που μαστίζεται από τα μνημόνια της τρόικας. Παράλληλα, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση θα πρέπει να ελέγξει τον αντίκτυπο που έχει η αγροτική και η ενεργειακή της πολιτική στο βιοτικό επίπεδο των πληθυσμών, να φροντίσει να υπάρχει μείωση των εισοδηματικών ανισοτήτων, αποτελεσματικό σύστημα υγείας για όλους και μέτρα για την εφαρμογή της συμφωνίας του Παρισιού COP21 για την κλιματική αλλαγή.
               

PRESIDE: RAMÓN LUIS VALCÁRCEL SISO


Vicepresidente


Olaf Stuger (ENF). – De afgelopen jaren heeft het Europees Bureau voor fraudebestrijding Olaf voor 900 miljoen EUR aan fraude opgespoord. Dat is bijna één miljard.
                  

                     Maar iedereen die hier langer dan drie dagen rondloopt, weet dat je dat bedrag met zeven moet vermenigvuldigen, zoals het aantal vluchtelingen of de diepte van de Griekse crisis. Dat is veel en veel te veel geld. En het zijn ook elke keer dezelfde landen die de boel belazeren. Het begint bijna op het Eurovisie Songfestival te lijken!
                  

                     Ik vraag de commissaris om dit geld terug te geven aan de mensen aan wie het toebehoort, en dat zijn de belastingbetalers van de nettobetalende landen. Het kan niet zo zijn dat die mensen hard werken, veel belasting betalen en dat er miljarden per jaar verspild worden aan fraude.
                  

Adam Szejnfeld (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Omawiamy dzisiaj jeden z najważniejszych tematów czasów, w których żyjemy. Niestety obawiam się, że wiele osób tego nie docenia. Dlatego tym bardziej ważne są podziękowania dla sprawozdawcy, pana Predy i tego, co poruszył on w swoim sprawozdaniu.
                  

                     Wielu obecnych tutaj mówców odbiera temat, na który mówimy, tylko w zakresie humanitarnym - pomocy humanitarnej i charytatywnej. Jednakże jest to sprawa cywilizacyjna. Żyjemy w czasach wielkiego przełomu. Za nami globalizacja wykorzystywania jednych przez drugich, a więc globalizacja ubóstwa. Musimy postawić przed sobą bardzo ważny cel, a więc globalizację dobrobytu. Globalizacja dobrobytu to nie jest tylko puste hasło, czy też takie humanitarne traktowanie tych, którzy są od nas biedniejsi, ale jest to także wyzwanie czysto ekonomiczne i gospodarcze. Świat nie będzie mógł funkcjonować długo będąc podzielonym na bogatą Północ i biedne Południe. Z powodu tego podziału mamy dzisiaj jeden z wielkich efektów, który nazywa się migracją i nie dotyczy on tylko przecież Afryki Północnej, Bliskiego Wschodu i skutków u nas w Europie, w Unii Europejskiej. Jest to proces globalny. Widzimy to w Azji Południowej i Wschodniej, widzimy to w Ameryce. Jeżeli nie zapanujemy nad tą sytuacją, jeżeli nie zaczniemy traktować ekonomicznie i gospodarczo, a nie tylko humanitarnie, jeżeli nie stworzymy globalnej koalicji na rzecz polityki spójności wobec rozwoju, to oczywiście nie osiągniemy tych bardzo ważnych celów.
                  

Elly Schlein (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la coerenza delle politiche per lo sviluppo è un principio fondamentale delle nostre politiche per assicurarci di sostenere e non danneggiare le prospettive di sviluppo dei paesi più poveri. Essa sarà fondamentale soprattutto per il successo dell'agenda per lo sviluppo sostenibile e per determinarne i progressi.
                  

                     L'Unione europea e i suoi Stati membri sono alle prese con una crisi migratoria che ancora non riescono a gestire. Eppure non si rendono conto che, se vogliamo affrontare le cause alla radice dei flussi, c'è moltissimo da fare per la coerenza delle nostre politiche estere, dello sviluppo, del commercio e fiscali, perché oggi stanno aumentando vorticosamente le diseguaglianze globali. Ogni anno i paesi in via di sviluppo perdono centinaia di milioni di euro, che sarebbero indispensabili per fornire servizi basilari ai propri cittadini, con l'elusione e l'evasione fiscale di compagnie nostre.
                  

                     Coerenza delle politiche per lo sviluppo significa quindi rendere obbligatoria, per le multinazionali, la rendicontazione paese per paese, così come effettuare un'analisi approfondita degli effetti delle politiche fiscali europee sui paesi in via di sviluppo, a partire dai trattati fiscali che concludiamo con essi.
                  

Joachim Zeller (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Das Kohärenzgebot ist eines der wichtigen Prinzipien der Politik in der Europäischen Union, das in allen Versionen der EU-Verträge bekräftigt wird. Recht früh, bereits in den Vertragstexten von Maastricht und Amsterdam, wurde die Politikkohärenz im Interesse der Entwicklung kodifiziert. Es hat dann bis 2005 gedauert, dass die Europäische Union sich auf einen europäischen Konsens zur Entwicklungspolitik verständigt hat. Wir müssen aber immer noch feststellen, dass es bei der Koordinierung der einzelnen Politiken zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten und den EU-Organen weiterhin Defizite gibt.
                  

                     Das bringt auch dieser Bericht zum Ausdruck. Dabei ist ein einheitlicher abgestimmter Politikansatz in der EU angesichts der Entwicklung in unserer globalisierten Welt und der Probleme, nicht zuletzt bei den Ländern mit Entwicklungsbedarf, vor unserer Haustüre dringender denn je. Die Entwicklungspolitik kann heute nicht mehr nur Krisenpolitik oder einzelne Maßnahmen zur Bekämpfung des Hungers in der Welt sein. Außenpolitik, Maßnahmen zur Landwirtschaft, Ernährungssicherheit, Fischereipolitik, Wirtschafts-, Finanzpolitik, Gesundheit, nicht zuletzt Sicherheitspolitik, sind Politikbereiche, die bei der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit nicht mehr zu trennen sind.
                  

                     Deshalb müssen wir den Vertragstexten und Worten jetzt Taten folgen lassen, in der Zusammenarbeit zwischen den EU-Organen und den Mitgliedstaaten, aber auch in der Zusammenarbeit der einzelnen Kommissionsbereiche, und nicht zuletzt müssen wir uns auch hier im Europäischen Parlament damit befassen, dass wir auch zwischen unseren eigenen Ausschüssen die Politikkohärenz in der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit stärker zur Geltung bringen. Auch wir haben hier noch Nachholbedarf.
                  

Pedro Silva Pereira (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, caros Colegas, sem uma verdadeira coerência nas políticas para o desenvolvimento a Agenda 2030 para o desenvolvimento sustentável ficará apenas no papel. E a política comercial é uma das áreas decisivas para testar essa coerência das políticas. É preciso que os acordos de comércio, que a União está a negociar pelo mundo inteiro, estejam alinhados com os novos objetivos de desenvolvimento sustentável e incluam capítulos fortes em matéria de desenvolvimento sustentável. É preciso também que a Comissão cumpra a promessa de, antes de celebrar qualquer acordo, fazer um estudo sobre os potenciais impactos nos países em desenvolvimento. E é preciso que apresente a este Parlamento um relatório sobre a ajuda ao comércio concedida aos países em desenvolvimento.
                  

                     O que pergunto à Comissão é se nos pode garantir que estas preocupações estão já a ser tidas em conta nas negociações comerciais da União, incluindo nas mais importantes, o TTIP com os Estados Unidos da América e o acordo comercial com o Japão.
                  

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, i já bych chtěl volat po určitém novém údělu, tzn. po tom heslu new deal, protože podle mého názoru stojíme na prahu určité doby, kdy by globální bohatství mělo být směřováno i vůči těm dneska nejchudším státům. Je třeba se podívat tzv. pravdě do očí a já velmi oceňuji tu zprávu, protože popisuje všechny krizové oblasti, ať je to migrace, ať je to obchod a finance, potravinové zabezpečení nebo zdravotnictví, změna klimatu, či bezpečnost, to všechno ve zprávě je podle mého názoru velmi pravdivě popsáno. Z mého pohledu je důležité, aby soudržnost politik byla provázána i na členské státy Evropské unie, tzn. abychom z toho nevynechávali národní parlamenty a obecně členské státy a jejich občany. Je důležité do tohoto procesu zapojit nejen hledisko efektivity, ale i komunikace s těmi členskými státy, o kterých zde již bylo hovořeno.
                  

                     Musím vyzdvihnout, že ve zprávě se rovněž zmiňuje autor, pan Preda, o dopadu politik Evropské unie, které bychom měli zkoumat právě v oblasti zemědělství, obchodu a energetiky. A výslovně vyzdvihuje i otázku biopaliv. Já zde musím do jisté míry pokárat českou vládu, protože právě to hledisko, jak se zohledňují biopaliva a jaká je s nimi zkušenost nejen v zemědělství, ale i v dalších sektorech, tak v tomto třeba česká vláda zcela evidentně selhává, vybrala si tu nejméně náročnou cestu k naplnění kritérií, která Evropská unie stanovuje. A těchto jiných dalších oblastí ve zprávě je celá řada, proto jsem přesvědčen, že ta zpráva je kvalitní, a velmi rád ji podpořím v následujícím hlasování.
                  

Liliana Rodrigues (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, dizer que em 2015 foram doze as áreas definidas como prioritárias pela União Europeia para o desenvolvimento, vão desde o comércio às migrações, da saúde às questões de género. Infelizmente não estão contempladas a educação e a cultura, o que diz muito sobre os nossos objetivos. A verdade é que a nossa atenção tem estado centrada na banca, nas finanças, nas Troicas deste mundo e pouco se tem olhado para aquilo que é o princípio e o fim da Europa: as pessoas.
                  

                     Há uma responsabilidade legal pelo impacto das políticas europeias nos países em desenvolvimento. No entanto, não fomos capazes de corrigir políticas incoerentes que erradicassem, por exemplo, a pobreza no mundo. No cais europeu, com a austeridade aumentou o número de pobres e desempregados. A coerência destas políticas tem de ser um compromisso político coordenado e sustentado interna e externamente, mas são tantas as incoerências! Por exemplo, o protecionismo agrícola, que deixa África entregue a si mesma, no comércio, nas migrações, nas finanças com a fuga ilícita de capitais.
                  

Mariya Gabriel (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, tout d'abord, je voudrais féliciter mon collègue, Cristian Preda, pour son excellent rapport.
                  

                     Alors que nous venons d'adopter les objectifs de développement durable à l'horizon 2030, que nous nous apprêtons à réviser l'accord de Cotonou et que l'Union européenne connaît une crise migratoire sans précédent, il est plus que jamais crucial de redoubler d'efforts pour que la cohérence des politiques au service du développement devienne un véritable mode d'action et apporte des résultats en dépassant le stade du concept.
                  

                     J'aimerais mettre l'accent sur quatre éléments. Premièrement, la cohérence des politiques au service du développement doit impérativement contribuer à l'établissement de l'état de droit, de la démocratie et de la bonne gouvernance dans les pays en développement, pour servir l'objectif et l'ambition de résultats durables. Sans États démocratiques stables, l'aide au développement irrigue des plantes sans racine et donc incapables de produire des fruits.
                  

                     Deuxièmement, je tiens à souligner le rôle clé des parlements nationaux et du Parlement européen, d'une part, et des délégations de l'Union, d'autre part, pour assurer une cohérence non seulement horizontale mais aussi verticale des politiques. Ce rôle doit être renforcé, notamment au niveau de l'élaboration des politiques par les parlements et de la mise en œuvre par les délégations.
                  

                     Troisième élément, l'appropriation est un enjeu clé. En réalité, la CPD, c'est s'assurer qu'à moyen terme, chaque direction générale, chaque ministère, chaque région, chaque ambassade ou délégation embrasse les objectifs de la politique européenne de développement. Les efforts doivent être poursuivis en ce sens.
                  

                     Quatrième et dernier point, je soutiens l'idée du rapporteur d'un sommet européen dédié à la cohérence des politiques au service du développement. Cela devrait permettre de mettre en place des recommandations concrètes et un renouvellement de l'engagement pour la CPD, tel qu'un véritable modus vivendi et operandi dans toutes les dimensions extérieures de l'action de l'Union.
                  

                     Pour conclure, Monsieur le Président, n'oublions pas que la cohérence des politiques au service du développement est essentielle pour protéger la capacité d'action, la crédibilité et l'efficacité budgétaire de l'Union. En ce sens, je pense que la dynamique qui a été engagée en 2015 grâce à l'Année européenne pour le développement pour mieux intégrer les citoyens européens dans cette politique et ces débats doit continuer à être entretenue.
                  

Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Mr President, as many colleagues mentioned, today around 1.5 billion people in the world are living in poverty with severe deprivation in health, education and living standards. Most of them are women.
Policy coherence for development is an important part of the 2030 agenda and should indeed be made an integral part of the EU's foreign policy, as well as a legally binding set of principles for our Member States to follow. We know that the EU is a major – and of course the largest – provider of humanitarian financial expert assistance to the developing countries, but the current migration crisis, and many more like it in other regions, have severely worsened the already drastic situation for hundreds of millions of people. Environmental issues such as desertification only make things worse. The intensification of assistance towards guaranteeing food security and the development of the private sector in developing countries, as well as introducing binding rules, will help us.

Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Elnök Úr! Ez a jelentés az intézményes politikaközi koordináció számos, régóta fennálló hiányosságára mutat rá a fejlesztéspolitika szélesebb értelemben vett területein. Megértve, hogy a fejlesztéspolitikai koherencia mint európai koncepció még jóval a menekültválság előtt született, látni kell, hogy a mostani helyzetben az Unió hatékony működésének létkérdésévé lépett elő a fejlesztési és a migrációs politika szoros összhangjának megteremtése. Hozzátenném ehhez a közös kül- és biztonságpolitika sürgető bekapcsolódását a koherencia javításába. Most már az Európai Külügyi Szolgálatnak valóban kiemelt feladatként kell kezelnie az EU szomszédságának stabilizálását, mégpedig a közösségi fejlesztési célokat és eszközöket a menekülthullám kezelése és megelőzése ügyének szolgálatába állítva. És itt hadd hívjam fel különösen a figyelmet valamire: amikor menekültekről beszélünk, figyeljünk különösen a gyermekekre.
                  

Ricardo Serrão Santos (S&D). – Senhor Comissário, parece-me essencial que as prioridades e as políticas dos países e das regiões sejam tidas em conta na elaboração da estratégia da União Europeia para o desenvolvimento. Não podemos assumir posições paternalistas em que definimos com que modelos os países terceiros se devem reger. É fundamental não torpedear a criação e a emergência de capacidades de produção endógenas. É importante garantir que os países em desenvolvimento não sejam redutos do despejo dos produtos sobre produzidos pelas nossas economias, como sejam os excessos industriais resultantes de políticas ultra liberais inseridas nos nossos mercados, em que o leite é apenas um dos exemplos.
                  

                     Por outro lado, apelo a uma ação firme de todos para dar cumprimento ao recente acordo em matéria de clima alcançado na COP 21. Destaco que a acidificação dos oceanos põe em causa a segurança alimentar de toda a humanidade. Os principais responsáveis por inverter esta situação são os países ditos ‘desenvolvidos’ e onde nos incluímos.
                  

Intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra (‘catch the eye’)


Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Mr President, nowadays it is more than obvious that a coherent development policy is needed in order to successfully tackle the most urgent social problems across the globe and, what is more, to achieve peaceful, just and inclusive societies. The challenges of the past years have already shown us that building synergies between different EU policies leads to improved results.
However, a coherent policy management also demands a global framework which can deal with the complexity of the task, to ensure coherence between many factors: global goals and national contexts; international agendas and processes; and between economic, social and environmental policies.
The EU and its global partners have to constantly support an approach based on collaboration, mutual accountability and human rights, in order to ensure that economic, environmental and social progress will be sustainable.

Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la coerenza delle politiche per lo sviluppo è un elemento fondamentale per conseguire gli obiettivi dell'agenda ONU 2030 per lo sviluppo sostenibile. Tale strategia, sebbene prevista dal trattato di Lisbona, al momento è rimasta inattuata. Manca ancora, infatti, un'interpretazione condivisa della coerenza delle politiche per lo sviluppo. Un approccio basato sui diritti umani consentirebbe di comprendere meglio la coerenza delle politiche per lo sviluppo, perché se non si affrontano gli ostacoli posti alla realizzazione dei diritti, non ci può essere alcun progresso verso lo sviluppo sostenibile e l'eliminazione della povertà.
                  

                     Lo strumento principale per la realizzazione della coerenza delle politiche per lo sviluppo è costituito dalle valutazioni di impatto. L'Unione europea deve investire più risorse per analizzare la coerenza delle politiche. Al momento, infatti, gli studi sono pochi e non affrontano in modo idoneo il potenziale impatto sui paesi in via di sviluppo. Tali analisi dovranno puntare all'individuazione delle incoerenze ed elaborare adeguati meccanismi di monitoraggio e di controllo dei progressi in materia di coerenza delle politiche dello sviluppo, includendo proposte su come superare le incoerenze tra le varie politiche.
                  

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – Señor Presidente, no hemos avanzado suficientemente en superar las incoherencias de las políticas para el desarrollo porque, entre otros, no han sido aplicados de manera concreta ni el Tratado de Lisboa, ni el Foro de Busan sobre la Eficacia de la Ayuda, ni la Declaración del Milenio. Señor Comisario, necesitamos voluntad política, implicación y, como usted reconoce, colaboración institucional. Colaboración institucional sí, pero sin olvidar el papel fundamental de las administraciones locales y regionales.
                  

                     El pasado mes de abril el Consejo de Gobierno vasco aprobó un marco de referencia para la coherencia de las políticas para el desarrollo en el País Vasco que permita avanzar hacia un desarrollo más humano y sostenible y permita abordar los retos actuales en el ámbito interno e internacional. Señor Comisario, ¿qué papel otorgará en el diálogo político a las administraciones locales y regionales? ¿Conoce el compromiso y el acuerdo del País Vasco? ¿Cree que podría constituir una buena práctica para Europa?
                  

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – Senhor Presidente, discutir a coerência das políticas para o desenvolvimento exige avaliar em que medida as políticas setoriais da União Europeia contribuem para os objetivos que esta diz prosseguir no domínio da ajuda ao desenvolvimento, nomeadamente o combate à pobreza. O que nos leva, inevitavelmente, a constatar que, se este for um exercício sério e rigoroso, muitas destas políticas não apenas não contribuem como contrariam as boas intenções proclamadas.
                  

                     Que dizer dos efeitos desastrosos da desregulação e liberalização do comércio internacional que a União Europeia continua a querer impor, nomeadamente através dos mal chamados ‘acordos de parceria económica’? Que dizer da desregulação do sistema financeiro dos paraísos fiscais que priva os países em desenvolvimento de vultuosíssimas receitas? Que dizer da desumanidade das políticas de migração e de asilo?
                  

                     Tudo isto sem esquecer a tentativa de exportação e de imposição de modelos de organização económica e política que, na maioria das vezes, desrespeitam a soberania, as necessidades e as legítimas opções dos países em desenvolvimento.
                  

                     O infernal ciclo de empobrecimento, dependência e subordinação destes países tem causas muito concretas, inseparáveis da natureza do capitalismo, que estes relatórios raramente encaram de frente.
                  

Bill Etheridge (EFDD). – Mr President, I was glad to get here in time for catch-the-eye. I did mean to speak on this earlier but I got held up with the trains.
I have just come back from the debate in the UK where we have been talking about potential Brexit, and one of the things under discussion was whether or not the UK is subject to ‘closer union’. All countries need to have development policy, of course, but when you have policies for coherence of development within the EU, it is quite clear that this is just one of the many areas where, despite the words of Mr Cameron and his crew of EU fanatics, if you are in the EU then of course you are going to be subject to closer cohesion on a whole range of policies, and to ever-closer union. Whether or not the words are said does not matter: you are subject to it.
So, as with so many of the things that Mr Cameron says, I will be warning people that when he says one thing he actually means another.

Richard Howitt (S&D). – Mr President, there is nothing more incoherent than the prospect of Britain withdrawing from the European Union and starting to compete with other aid donors in a way which would be wasteful and counter-productive.
The British influence in European development efforts has helped leverage greater commitment to the UN 0.7% GNP aid target, to untying aid, and now to mainstreaming the UN Sustainable Development Goals. In my own East of England constituency, I am proud to represent the Fair Trade organisation Banana Link in Norwich, a development education centre in Colchester, and to support students from developing countries through the Cambridge Trust.
Development groups like Global Justice UK in Watford rightly question us about the development impact of TTIP. Those in Britain who support international development recognise that we live on a common planet, they recognise the importance of international cooperation and see the advantages of working together. They see it not as a choice between working together in Europe and in the wider world, but of both being mutually reinforcing. The case for international development is for Britain to remain in the European Union.

Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). –
(Govornika se ne čuje) biti potpuno svjesni da migrantska kriza sigurno neće stati. Migrantska kriza će se samo značajno pojačati i stvoriti dodane poteškoće ako naša globalna politika i koherentna politika u onome što znači pomoć za razvoj ne bude dovoljno efektna u smislu sinergijskih efekata. Naime sinergija, politika Europske unije, sinergija politike zemalja članica, ali i sinergija onih regija, onih velikih, ali i malih gradova koji žele sudjelovati u razvoju, to je ono što Komisija mora učiniti.
                  

                     Isto tako imam niz privatnih tvrtki, malih i velikih, koje žele sudjelovati u obnovi i to ne s nekakvim skrivenim ambicijama i skrivenim ciljevima, nego iskreno. Dakle, pozivam Komisiju da bude na čelu tih sinergija kako bismo zaista mogli ostvariti razvoj.
                  

(Fin de las intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra (‘catch the eye’))


Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank the honourable Members for this engaging debate. I have taken careful note of your remarks and I am grateful for the help in our reflections on the way ahead. Let me take a couple of specific points which were mentioned in the report and which were brought up during the debate.
First of all, we all agree that the coherence of all European Union policies is a key issue and is enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty. You mentioned important issues relating to tax evasion and tax avoidance, tax loopholes and tax havens. All these things are, of course, very important today and we must address those challenges. The refugee problem was also mentioned, as well as issues related to human rights. There were also questions about TTIP and about our treaties with Japan.
The European Union takes into account sustainable development in its trade agreements. First, impact assessments are carried out. Second, chapters on sustainable development are part of the agreements. All trade agreements are decided on according to well-established rules involving the European Parliament. I agree that ensuring effective coordination in our daily work and placing policy coherence for development within the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development are key.
We stand ready to work closely with Parliament in this direction, in the context of the ongoing revision of the European Consensus on Development. Our shared ambition is to make policy coherence for development a standard element in policymaking across sectors. In key thematic areas, such as trade, immigration or climate action, we simply cannot afford to do business as usual. We need smart policies geared towards positive development impacts.

El Presidente. — Se cierra el debate.
                  

Λευτέρης Χριστοφόρου (PPE),
γραπτώς. – Ορθά η έκθεση προβαίνει σε σημαντικές επισημάνσεις για να αναδείξει τα προβλήματα των αναπτυσσομένων χωρών. Είναι γεγονός ότι 1,5 δισεκατομμύριο άνθρωποι εξακολουθούν να ζουν υπό συνθήκες φτώχειας και βιώνουν στερήσεις όσον αφορά την υγεία το επίπεδο διαβίωσης, την εκπαίδευση. Η πλειοψηφία μάλιστα είναι γυναίκες. Πιστεύουμε ότι η Συνοχή της Αναπτυξιακής Πολιτικής της ΕΕ αποτελεί βασικό στοιχείο για την υλοποίηση του νέου θεματολογίου για τη βιώσιμη ανάπτυξη. Υπενθυμίζεται ότι οι στόχοι της βιώσιμης ανάπτυξης έχουν εφαρμογή τόσο στις αναπτυσσόμενες χώρες όσο και στις ανεπτυγμένες χώρες και πρέπει να ενσωματωθούν πλήρως στην διαδικασία λήψης αποφάσεων της ΕΕ, τόσο στο εξωτερικό όσο και στο εσωτερικό. Σημειώνεται ότι ορισμένα κράτη έχουν θεσπίσει ένα αποτελεσματικό διυπουργικό μηχανισμό συντονισμού με ειδική εντολή για τη Συνοχή της Πολιτικής για τη Βιώσιμη Ανάπτυξη. Είναι ορθό τα κράτη μέλη να παρακολουθούν και να ανταλλάσσουν τις ορθές πρακτικές που έχουν υιοθετηθεί από άλλα κράτη.
                  

Patricija Šulin (PPE),
pisno. – Pomembno je, da gradimo trajnostni razvoj z usklajenimi politikami za razvoj na svetovni ravni. Resolucija o usklajenosti politik za razvoj za leto 2015 analizira sedem prednostnih področij in sicer področje migracij, trgovine in financ, prehranske varnosti, zdravja, podnebnih sprememb, spola in varnosti.
                  

                     Srečanje Evropskega sveta na temo usklajenosti politik za razvoj bi bilo ključno tudi za opredelitev odgovornosti posameznih institucij EU pri doseganju zavez na tem področju. Ko govorimo o ciljih trajnostnega razvoja, bi morali tretje države intenzivneje vključiti v proces sprejemanja odločitev EU. Usklajenost politik za razvoj je namreč ključni element za uresničevanje in doseganje nove agende trajnostnega razvoja.
                  
13.   State of safety of nuclear installations in Belarus (debate)

El Presidente. — El punto siguiente en el orden del día es el debate a partir de la Declaración de la Comisión sobre la seguridad de las instalaciones nucleares de Bielorrusia [2016/2728(RSP)].
               

Christos Stylianides,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, on behalf of Commissioner Arias Cañete, let me first thank honourable Members for their questions on the Commission's action on nuclear installations in Belarus.
Allow me to update you on how we are working towards ensuring the facility will be operated only with the highest level of safety standards. Nuclear safety remains a key priority for the Commission as confirmed by the Energy Union Framework Strategy.
While fostering cooperation, transparency and trust, we are using all the instruments at our disposal to ensure the highest possible safety standards in the EU and internationally. This is absolutely non-negotiable.
On EU-Belarus nuclear safety cooperation: that is exactly the approach we have always taken with Belarus – nuclear safety and radiological protection have always been the key focus of our exchanges.
Since 2011, the European Union has been providing the Belarusian nuclear regulatory authority with technical assistance under the EU's Instrument for Nuclear Safety cooperation by transferring EU best practices on the regulatory process, including formulation of licensing conditions and inspection practices, from site selection to commissioning and operation. Since April 2015, one EU expert has been based in Minsk, where we have been strengthening the regulator during the construction of the nuclear plant project from an early stage. The ultimate aim is to share EU expertise and build national capacity to ensure compliance with the best international practices and standards.
Through this technical assistance the competent regulatory authority of Belarus has improved its human and technical capacity. However, the Commission considers that the independence of the Belarusian regulator has to be further strengthened and a close monitoring of development is therefore needed.
On nuclear safety stress tests: as I said before, openness and transparency is essential when it comes to nuclear safety. By working together with our neighbours in an open way we can benefit from the exchange of information and expertise while building trust. In that spirit, the Commission welcomes Belarus's extensive use of IAEA expert peer review services to help ensure safety.
Before I address where we are with the Ostrovets nuclear safety stress test, I would like to clarify two things which are essential in understanding the overall process.
Firstly, nuclear safety stress tests, both in the EU and in third countries, are carried out on a voluntary basis. Legally speaking, the European Union cannot oblige any Member State, nor third countries, which choose nuclear energy, to undertake such stress tests. Nevertheless, there is a political commitment to perform stress tests within the EU and an encouragement to extend them outside, as the March 2011 European Council called not only for comprehensive and transparent risk and safety assessments of all EU nuclear power plants, but also for carrying out similar stress tests in the neighbouring countries and worldwide. Since then, the Commission has been promoting the undertaking of stress tests in neighbouring countries. It is encouraging that Ukraine has already voluntarily participated in such an exercise and Armenia is currently in the process of doing so, supported financially by the European Union.
Secondly, a stress test is a national competence. It is performed by the operator and supervised by the national nuclear regulatory authority. It is only after the national stress test assessment is finalised and the outcome of the assessment is reported on, that the Commission can and in fact does organise peer reviews by EU national nuclear safety authorities.
In June 2011, based on a Commission initiative, several neighbouring countries, including Belarus, confirmed their willingness to undertake nuclear stress tests by signing the Declaration on conducting nuclear safety stress tests.
Since then, we have been urging Belarus to perform a nuclear safety stress test. The Commission expects, in the light of the Council conclusions in February 2016, that EU-Belarus cooperation will evolve positively also in this regard.
What are the next steps? The Commission was informed by Belarus that it has now put in place a legal instrument regulating the implementation of nuclear safety stress tests in line with European specifications. Belarus has also indicated that upon conclusion of the Ostrovets stress test process, the national assessment report will be presented to the Commission in the course of 2016 and 2017.
On our side, the necessary preparations for the peer review have already been done, and it is now in the work programme of the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group. Together with the Commission, this group of experts will organise the peer review as soon as we receive the national assessment report.
While this is already a positive development, the Commission would like to speed up the process's implementation in Belarus and to receive the stress test report as soon as possible. Therefore, our services are planning a technical mission to Belarus in the coming months to discuss progress.
To conclude, let me assure you that the Commission remains fully committed to raising nuclear safety with the Belarusian authorities at all political levels. We will continue to promote the highest level of standards on nuclear safety in Belarus, together with all of our international partners.
Let me also assure you that we are in close contact with the neighbouring Member States, in particular Lithuania, to follow the developments with the Ostrovets nuclear power plant. I will ensure that the European Parliament is kept fully up to date with all the developments as and when they happen.

Andrejs Mamikins,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, the Belarusian nuclear power station was first envisaged backed in the 1980s. However, due to the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 these plans were halted until less than a decade ago. Construction began in 2013 and should cost around USD 10 billion.
It must be pointed out that the reactor employed, a water-water energetic reactor, is the same as is currently planned for use in the Hanhikivi nuclear power plant in Finland. The fears of the international community, especially Lithuania, are understandable. Belarus has never had a nuclear power plant on its territory, thus raising fears of inability to operate it properly. Therefore, in order to alleviate these concerns, Belarus should allow for a series of necessary stress tests performed under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency, as well as a comprehensive environmental impact assessment, particularly on the matter of drinking-water sources shared with Lithuania.
With EU sanctions lifted, relations between the EU and Belarus are once again moving forward. I believe, therefore, that a solution to the current issues around the Ostrovets nuclear power plant will be found soon, since, in the field of nuclear energy, there can be no other way but multilateral cooperation between all parties involved, directly or indirectly, be that Belarus, Lithuania, the EU, the Russian Federation, whose specialists are building the plant, or any other international institution concerned.
I want to add that nuclear energy is also environmentally friendly, and with proper maintenance, nuclear plants can last for decades on end.

Anna Elżbieta Fotyga,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – To tereny Białorusi najbardziej ucierpiały w wyniku katastrofy w Czarnobylu. 23 % terenów tego kraju zostało skarżonych i dlatego Białoruś przez całe lata prowadziła niezwykle ostrożną politykę energetyczną, unikając włączania się w projekty elektrowni atomowych. W 1999 r. podpisała w tej sprawie memorandum. Co spowodowało zmianę tej polityki? – geostrategiczne gry energią prowadzone w ramach unii gospodarczej przez Federację Rosyjską. Elektrownia atomowa w Ostrowcu jest wspólnym przedsięwzięciem białorusko-rosyjskim z ogromnym finansowaniem rosyjskim, z rosyjską technologią, z niewielkim finansowaniem chińskim. Elektrownia posadowiona jest na terenach tuż obok granicy z Litwą, 50 km od stolicy tego kraju. Jest posadowiona na terenach, które są aktywne sejsmicznie, wykorzystane mają być do chłodzenia wody Wilii. Ponadto nad elektrownią przebiega w tej chwili korytarz powietrzny, który zapewne będzie musiał znacznie zmienić kierunki lotów w tamtej przestrzeni. Dlaczego o tym mówię? Mówię również dlatego, że Białoruś nie wykonała swoich zobowiązań w ramach konwencji z Espoo i wszystkie wymienione przeze mnie argumenty nie były tam wyczerpująco wyjaśnione. Poza tym na terenach tych mieszkają również Polacy – moi rodacy – i oni, tak jak i Białorusini i Litwini, protestowali.
               

Petras Auštrevičius,
ALDE frakcijos vardu. – Lukašenka prieš ketverius metus viešai pareiškė, kad Astravo atominė elektrinė, citatos pradžia – ‘turi būti pigiausia iš visų tų, kurias rusai ir kiti pastatė pasaulyje’, citatos pabaiga. Tai girdėdamas aš išsigąstu. Ir, aš manau, nebūsite ramūs ir jūs. Būtų juokinga tai girdėti, jeigu nebūtų labai liūdna. Astravo elektrinė savavališkai ir taupant saugumo sąskaita statoma toliau, pažeidžiant Espo ir Orhuso tarptautines konvencijas, neatlikus jokių privalomų stress-testų ir, blogiausia, vagiant kaip tai buvo įprasta sovietinėse statybose.
               

                  Prie pat Europos Sąjungos sienos ir penkiasdešimt kilometrų nuo Vilniaus vyksta nelegalios ir nesaugios statybos, o mes šiandien girdime Komisijos pasiaiškinimus, kurie, atsiprašau pone komisare, buvo ir yra nepakankami. Sprendimas statyti Astravo elektrinę yra politinis Maskvos sprendimas. Tai sprendimas išlaikyti energetinę įtaką regione. Atsibuskime, kol ne vėlu. Kompromisai su branduoliniu saugumu yra tiesus kelias į katastrofą. Juk reikalą turime su diktatoriumi Lukašenka, kuris kuria savo branduolinę valstybę. Jei jis neišmoko Černobylio pamokų, gerbiami ponai, tai ar išmokome jas mes patys?
               

                  Aš noriu priminti visiems – branduolinės katastrofos nepripažįsta sienų. Kolegos, sprendimas yra tik vienas – nesaugios atominės statybos privalo būti sustabdytos, kad Astravo atominė būtų svarstytina, reikalingas nuolatinis kritinis dialogas, suteikiantis galimybę Europos Komisijai nuodugniai tikrinti ir prižiūrėti šias statybas. Reikalingas tvirtas Europos Sąjungos atsakas tiek Minskui, tiek Maskvai. Europos Sąjunga privalo panaudoti visą savo derybinę galią. Nematau jokių priežasčių, kodėl Baltarusijos atžvilgiu Europos Sąjunga neturėtų pritaikyti branduolinių derybų su Iranu modelio patirties, įtraukiant ir Jungtinių Tautų Saugumo Tarybą.
               

Jiří Maštálka,
za skupinu GUE/NGL. – Pane předsedající, jsem rád, že mohu vystoupit k tak důležitému tématu, jako je bezpečnost jaderných elektráren, a to nejen v souvislosti s výstavbou nové jaderné elektrárny na bělorusko-litevské hranici. Podle statistik Světové jaderné asociace bylo k 1. květnu 2016 v provozu 440 jaderných reaktorů ve 30 státech světa a plánuje se výstavba dalších 173 reaktorů, a to i v zemích EU.
               

                  Nedávno jsme si připomněli smutné výročí tragické havárie v Černobylu. U této příležitosti jsem uspořádal kulatý stůl za účasti běloruských expertů, ale i představitelů občanské společnosti, kteří se s námi podělili o jejich zkušenosti z této katastrofy. Podle jejich ujištění probíhá výstavba nové elektrárny v souladu se všemi nejmodernějšími standardy a pod dohledem i nevládních organizací. Ovšem obavy o bezpečnost vzbuzují i jaderná zařízení, která se nacházejí na území ‘starých’ členských zemí EU, např. v Belgii. A nemohu nezmínit Ukrajinu, kde jaderná zařízení se nacházejí na hranici bojových linií. Naše názory se jistě v mnohém liší, avšak musíme vést diskusi o tom, jak co nejvíce eliminovat rizika nehod a zajistit energetickou i občanskou bezpečnost.
               

Bronis Ropė,
Verts/ALE frakcijos vardu. – Dėkoju už sutikimą dalyvauti šioje, tikiu, visai Europai svarbioje diskusijoje. Deja, esu nusivylęs tuo, kad Komisijos narys Cañete nesurado galimybės atsakyti į svarbų savo kompetencijos klausimą dėl grėsmės, kurią kelia branduolinių objektų statyba prie pat Europos Sąjungos sienos. Dar labiau esu nusivylęs Komisijos atsainiu požiūriu į didžiulę problemą – Astravo elektrinės statybas, vykstančias pažeidžiant tarptautinius aplinkosaugos ir branduolinės saugos standartus. Signalai, siunčiami iš Komisijos, yra formalūs ir netgi klaidinantys. Aš visų pirma kalbu apie ankstesnį komisaro Cañete atsakymą man, jog Baltarusijos atominėje elektrinėje ‘stress’ testai atlikti, kai jie dar net nepradėti. Taip pat glumina ir neseniai padarytas sveikatos komisaro Andriukaičio pareiškimas, kad Baltarusija vykdo visas būtinas tarptautines konvencijas.
               

                  Tuo tarpu Arhus ir Espo konvencijų organizacijos dar 2014 metais nustatė, kad Baltarusija pažeidžia šias konvencijas. Baltarusija tokias išvadas ignoruoja, bet kodėl į tai užmerkia akis Komisija, kuri yra šių konvencijų narė? Supraskite mūsų nerimą – prie Lietuvos ir Europos Sąjungos sienos autoritarinė valstybė Rusijos kompanijos rankomis itin sparčiai stato atominę jėgainę ir visą tai daroma nesilaikant tarptautinių standartų. Juolab, kad mes žinome, kokia ten darbo kultūra ir koks požiūris į skaidrumą. Pavyzdžiui, balandžio mėnesį statybose įvyko rimtas incidentas – įgriuvo dalis konstrukcijos – tačiau Minskas bandė šį įvykį nuslėpti. Atsainų Baltarusijos požiūrį demonstruoja ir pats aikštelės parinkimas nepakviečiant TATENA aikštelės įvertinimo misijos. Pažeidimų ir neskaidrumų sąrašas ilgas. Baltarusija neatsako į klausimus dėl poveikio pagrindinėms Lietuvos upėms, dėl atsparumo lėktuvo kritimo atveju, nerengia avarinės parengties planų, nesirūpina branduolinio kuro atliekų tvarkymu, ignoruoja seismologinius tyrimus ir taip toliau. Be to, jūsų pranešime ką tik Komisija pripažino, jog Baltarusijos branduolinės saugos reguliatorius nėra nepriklausomas. Tai reiškia, jog branduolinė sauga priklauso ne nuo ekspertų, o nuo nedemokratinės valstybės valdžios. Todėl primygtinai prašau, kad Komisija kuo skubiau Europos Parlamentui pristatytų labai konkretų grėsmių planą, kuriuo privers Baltarusiją laikytis tarptautinių saugos ir skaidrumo standartų. Šiame plane turėtų būti ir aiški žinia Minskui, kad elektros generavimas elektrinėje, pastatytoje taupant saugumo priemonių sąskaita, kertasi su sąžiningos prekybos principais, ir tokia elektra Europos Sąjungos rinkoje nepageidautina.
               

(Kalbėtojas sutinka atsakyti į asmens, pakėlusio mėlynąją kortelę, klausimą (Darbo tvarkos taisyklių 162 straipsnio 8 dalis)).


Jonathan Arnott (EFDD),
blue-card question. – This, of course, is an issue which is broader than a European Union issue; it is an international issue. You have said quite a lot about what you want the Commission to do in this case. You have also mentioned the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). I am just wondering, as you did not give any concrete suggestions, what you would like the IAEA to do on this. Can you give me any suggestions for what it could do, more than it has done already?

Bronis Ropė (Verts/ALE),
atsakymas į pakėlus mėlynąją kortelę pateiktą klausimą. – Iš tikrųjų situacija yra labai sudėtinga, nes visų pirma buvo parinkta aikštelė ir tik paskui, dabar, galvojama kviesti specialistus tirti, ar ta aikštelė yra tinkama. Tai yra politinis sprendimas. Ir tokių sprendimų yra labai daug. Ir tai, kad Baltarusija prižada daryti ‘stress testus’, bet jų nedaro, o Komisija taip pat vedžiojama už nosies, nes komisaras pasakė, kad Baltarusija jau padarė ‘stress testus’. Iš tikrųjų Komisija, būdama konvencijų narė, manau, kad privalo kelti klausimą, ir kad saugos reikalavimai turi būti užtikrinti, o ne po to kalbėsime, kada jau atsitiks bėdos, ir nežinosime ką daryti.
               

Bill Etheridge,
on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, the IAEA monitors nuclear energy development throughout the world under the auspices of the UN. This is a clear case of the EU building up its part. If Belarus is developing an industry that concerns its neighbours, that is a matter they should refer to the IAEA and the UN.
Obviously, Belarus, and any other country that wishes to develop a nuclear industry, should be subject to existing international rules. I personally support more nuclear power in the UK, and expect all of our developments to be subject to IAEA rules as well – just like any other country. Sovereign states should be free to develop their countries as they wish so long as they operate within accepted international law. If international law is broken it is a matter for the UN.
The EU is hungry for influence and power. Trade and economic cooperation is the excuse for the existence of the EU, not the reason. Not content with intervening in the lives of its citizens, this organisation is desperate to intervene with the policies of its neighbours. Each of you, as nation states, should support the IAEA and refrain from the temptation to intervene and interfere with the business of sovereign independent states. Use existing international law and, if it is broken, use the UN. These are the conventions that, as sovereign nations, we should all respect and we should use.
There is no requirement for the EU to build up what it does, to act as a single entity, as a quasi-superpower, as a federal state. There is no need for this. We have laws; we have bodies to enforce them. If those laws are being broken on such an important issue as nuclear power, then let us use the United Nations; let us use the existing authorities and let us ensure that our people are properly protected in the correct manner without allowing political ambitions and political manoeuvrings to interfere in any way.

Gilles Lebreton (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, les catastrophes nucléaires sont une des pires menaces qui pèsent sur l'humanité. Les accidents de Tchernobyl en 1986 et de Fukushima en 2011 doivent être pris très au sérieux; c'est pourquoi il est légitime que le Parlement européen s'inquiète de la sûreté de la centrale nucléaire d'Ostrovets, dont la Biélorussie est en train d'achever la construction en vue d'une mise en fonctionnement en 2018.
               

                  Il est en effet inquiétant que cette centrale n'ait pas été soumise au test de résistance préconisé par la résolution du Parlement européen du 14 mars 2013. Ce test est pourtant une précaution indispensable. Il a d'ailleurs été effectué après Fukushima sur 145 réacteurs au sein de l'Union européenne et sur 20 réacteurs hors de l'Union.
               

                  La résolution de 2013 a ainsi développé en Europe une culture de la sûreté nucléaire que la Biélorussie serait bien inspirée de respecter.
               

                  C'est d'autant plus souhaitable que la centrale d'Ostrovets est située à seulement 50 kilomètres de Vilnius, capitale de la Lituanie.
               

                  La sûreté nucléaire fait d'ailleurs l'objet d'une coopération internationale organisée, sous le contrôle de l'Agence internationale de l'énergie atomique, par le traité du 17 juin 1994. Cette coopération internationale aura bien sûr vocation à continuer dans le cadre de l'Europe des nations, que j'appelle de mes vœux.
               

                  L'inquiétude légitime sur la sûreté d'Ostrovets ne doit toutefois pas être instrumentalisée par l'Union pour attaquer une fois de plus la Russie.
               

                  La Biélorussie est en effet l'alliée de la Russie, qui y a déployé en 2015 une base aérienne militaire, et nul n'ignore que c'est la Russie qui a financé la construction de la centrale d'Ostrovets.
               

                  Je demande donc à l'Union de ne pas profiter de cette affaire pour dégrader encore davantage nos relations avec la Russie.
               

Janusz Korwin-Mikke (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący! Chciałbym przypomnieć panu komisarzowi, że są różne reaktory: droższe, tańsze, bezpieczniejsze pod takim lub pod innym względem. Nie wiem, co to jest reaktor, który spełnia najwyższe standardy, ale jeżeli pan komisarz wie, co to znaczy, to tylko jeden redaktor na świecie ma najwyższe standardy, bo inne muszą mieć mniejsze. Dlatego też nie rozumiem, dlaczego akurat na Białorusi musi mieć ten reaktor najwyższe standardy. Natomiast mówiąc ogólnie o polityce, chciałbym przypomnieć, że spychamy i my, i niestety mój kraj Polska, Białoruś w objęcia Rosji. Od wielu lat konsekwentnie – i Stany Zjednoczone i Unia – atakują pana Łukaszenkę i tym samym wpychają go w objęcia Rosji. Sami doczekaliśmy się tego. Pan Łukaszenka wcale nie chce być klientem Rosji, nie chce, żeby Rosja była jedynym aliantem Białorusi. Ale to my, atakując pana Łukaszenkę za każdym razem, wpychamy go – powtarzam – w objęcia Rosji i na to chciałbym zwrócić uwagę.
               

Carlos Zorrinho (S&D). – Senhor Comissário, nós assinalámos há poucos dias os trinta anos da ocorrência da catástrofe nuclear em Chernobyl, no território da Bielorússia. E é por isso que a construção de uma nova central no mesmo território, desta vez em Ostrovets, acorda fantasmas e suscita receios. E como vimos em Chernobyl e em Fukushima, as catástrofes nucleares são arrasadoras, não respeitam fronteiras, espaço, tempo. Matam milhares de pessoas e ferem irreversivelmente o planeta.
               

                  Sobre esta nova central a Comissão tem assegurado que está a seguir todo o processo de segurança e que os cidadãos europeus não têm razões para recear. Acredito. Temos que acreditar! Mas, não posso deixar de lembrar que a Comissão que afirma isto é a mesma Comissão que se mostra incapaz de lidar com o problema das 66% centrais nucleares que no território europeu já estão a operar para além do seu tempo de vida útil de referência.
               

                  O Programa Indicativo Nuclear publicado há dois meses é muito claro: para cumprir a Diretiva Euratom são precisos 330 mil milhões de euros para encerrar e modernizar centrais nucleares e só está provisionado um terço desse valor. As populações protestam mas a Comissão lava as mãos.
               

                  Recentemente dirigi várias perguntas ao Comissário Arias Cañete sobre a segurança da central nuclear de Almaraz, em Espanha, junto à fronteira portuguesa. Na sua resposta o Senhor Comissário informou-me que a Comissão aguarda a notificação da transposição das medidas da nova diretiva. Até lá, funciona a legislação espanhola, é quem tem a licença que assegura que tudo funciona bem.
               

                  Ou seja, numa central a funcionar para além do prazo, onde recorrentemente tem havido falhas de funcionamento, a Comissão não tem nenhuma ação proativa. Aguarda e aguardar é pouco.
               

                  Por isso, Senhor Comissário, acredito no que aqui disse sobre a segurança da nova central nuclear a ser construída. Gostava também de poder acreditar que a Comissão está a fazer tudo o que devia para promover a segurança dessas centrais, de todas as centrais no território da União. E, pelo menos em Almaraz não está!
               

Hans-Olaf Henkel (ECR). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Wir sprechen hier von vermeintlich oder tatsächlich unsicheren Kernkraftwerken. Ich möchte mal über sicherere Kernkraftwerke sprechen.
               

                  Die deutsche Regierung hat sich mit ihrer panikartigen Entscheidung, alle Kernkraftwerke abzuschalten, einige Widersprüche eingehandelt. Erst lässt sich Kanzlerin Merkel als Weltklimaretterin feiern, und dann verzichtet sie auf diese klimaschonende Technik. Jahrelang erklärt die Atombehörde in Genf die deutschen Kernkraftwerke zu den sichersten der Welt. Nun werden ausgerechnet diese abgeschaltet. Erst wollte die Bundesregierung Vorreiter sein, und jetzt folgt ihr niemand.
               

                  Frankreich verlängert die Laufzeit seiner Kernkraftwerke um zehn Jahre und will neue bauen. Finnland, die USA, Großbritannien wollen neue Kernkraftwerke bauen. In Belgien geht gerade ein wegen Fukushima abgeschaltetes Kraftwerk nahe an der deutschen Grenze wieder ans Netz. In Osteuropa laufen veraltete Kernkraftwerke weiter und werden neue gebaut. Japan bringt ein nach Fukushima abgeschaltetes Kernkraftwerk nach dem anderen wieder ans Netz. China baut jetzt 24 neue Kernkraftwerke und will sogar eines im Sudan errichten. Weltweit sind 443 Kernkraftwerke in Betrieb – mehr als vor Fukushima.
               

                  Nebenbei hat die deutsche Energiewende auch noch zu einer Explosion deutscher Strompreise geführt. Die deutsche Atompolitik ist nicht nur im höchsten Maße unsolidarisch gegenüber den Nachbarn Deutschlands, sie führt auch zu weniger Sicherheit und zu höheren Strompreisen für die Deutschen. Nehmen wir uns jetzt ein Beispiel an den Schweden, und nehmen wir diesen Ausstiegsbeschluss wieder zurück!
               

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


Klaus Buchner (Verts/ALE),
Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                     . – Herr Henkel, ich wollte Sie fragen: Wissen Sie, wie viel Prozent der Weltenergie heute durch Atomkraft gedeckt wird? Können Sie wirklich sagen, dass sie zum Klimaschutz beiträgt? Es sind weniger als drei Prozent. Und die zweite Frage: Wegen der angeblich so sicheren deutschen Atomkraftwerke: Was sagen Sie denn zum Beispiel zu den Fällen Krümmel und Brunsbüttel?
               

Hans-Olaf Henkel (ECR),
Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                     . – Ich habe Ihnen bereits gesagt, dass die Anzahl der Kernkraftwerke in der Welt steigt und dass zum Beispiel in China 24 neue Kernkraftwerke gebaut werden – dort spielt die Musik. Dass die Kernkraft kein CO2 ausstößt, wenn sie erzeugt wird, müsste eigentlich jedem klar sein. Und diese Vorfälle, von denen Sie dort sprechen, haben mit den Reaktoren überhaupt nichts zu tun. Ich bleibe dabei, dass die deutschen Kernkraftwerke mit Abstand die sichersten der Welt sind.
               

Jasenko Selimovic (ALDE). – Herr talman! Belarus två första kärnkraftverk håller på att utföras just nu, och dessa reaktorer byggs med stöd från Ryssland, det ryska bolaget, trots att de kommer att uppföra kärnkraftsanläggningen i sin helhet. Dessutom kommer Ryssland att investera motsvarande 1,5 miljarder svenska kronor i det första skedet av bygget av anläggningen. Allt detta kommer vid en tidpunkt då Belarus redan är väldigt beroende av Ryssland. 90 procent av Belarus energiimport kommer nämligen från en enda importör, nämligen Ryssland.
               

                  Återigen ser vi hur Ryssland försöker använda energi som vapen för att påverka andra länder i den riktning som passar Kreml. Detta har hänt förut, i Armenien, i Kirgizistan, i Kazakstan, i Estland, Lettland, Litauen, Polen, Ukraina, Georgien – och det kommer hända imorgon igen – i Belarus.
               

                  Därför måste Europaparlamentet granska detta projekt. Först för att projektet naturligtvis har enorm miljöinverkan på andra länder, sedan också för att projektet inte ligger i linje med EU:s mål att diversifiera Europas energikällor. Kommissionen måste sluta låtsas som ingenting och överväga de geostrategiska konsekvenserna av ett sådant projekt.
               

Lola Sánchez Caldentey (GUE/NGL). – Señor Presidente, la tragedia de Chernóbil afectó directamente a más de dos millones de bielorrusos e indirectamente a todo el planeta. La contaminación nuclear no entiende de fronteras, afecta a todas y, por eso, debemos tener este debate. Parece que no aprendemos de nuestros errores en ningún sitio, cuando Bielorrusia está construyendo una nueva central nuclear sin llevar a cabo las pruebas de resistencia previstas junto a la Comisión Europea ni las evaluaciones de impacto necesarias.
               

                  La Comisión haría bien en invitar a Bielorrusia a que no avance por un camino cuyos riesgos ya conoce y ya ha sufrido, pero debe, sobre todo, contribuir a un cambio radical en el modelo energético aquí, en la Unión Europea. La mitad de la energía nuclear del mundo se produce en Europa. Tenemos tecnología y recursos suficientes para cambiar este modelo y, también, ejemplos como el de Alemania, que ya lo está haciendo. Es hora de que otros países también lo hagan y de que la Comisión empuje a los Estados miembros a este camino.
               

                  Empecemos por dar ejemplo. Comencemos por desmantelar las centrales que ya han superado su periodo de vida y son un peligro en potencia, como Garoña y Almaraz en España, y que suponen un peligro potencial para nuestras vidas y para la Tierra.
               

Benedek Jávor (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, we have heard a lot of important points and concerns regarding the Belarusian nuclear power plant (NPP) project, but I would like to turn your attention to the fact that, while we are worrying because of an NPP construction close to the EU's borders, there is also something to be worried about within the borders of the EU.
In Hungary, my state, two new Russian-type blocks are going to be built in the next couple of years. This is just the same construction and the same technology as in Ostrovets, Belarus: the Russian-type VVER 1200 reactors. This Member State, Hungary, has already proved that it understands EU law in quite a ‘flexible’ way when it comes to nuclear projects. Regarding this nuclear project in Hungary, there was a veto from the Euratom Supply Agency because the contract with Russia was not in line with EU law. There is an ongoing infringement because of the lack of tendering, according to European public procurement law. There is an in-depth investigation because of non-tendering. There is an in-depth investigation because of possible forbidden state aid regarding the same project. That was a concluded pilot project because of the lack of transparency of the project. This Member State intentionally violated the EU regulation regarding nuclear waste with unlawfully shipped nuclear waste from a former serious incident in the existing NPP to Russia in 2014. Would you buy a used car from those guys? And do you think that it is a good idea to let it go when they plan to build a new Russian nuclear power plant in the heart of Europe?

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


Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE),
pitanje postavljeno podizanjem plave kartice — Hvala poštovani gospodine zastupniče. Hrvatska je 96. godine potpisala tzv. ESPO konvenciju, odnosno priključila se ESPO konvenciji i govorim to zato što ste upravo sada iznijeli poznate detalje o tome što se sve dešava u Mađarskoj i na koji se način želi graditi ta nova nuklearna centrala s ruskom tehnologijom.
               

                  Mislite li da bi Hrvatska trebala biti maksimalno angažirana i sudjelovati u svim tim odlukama kao susjedna država i štoviše mislite li da bi Europska unija trebala imati zajedničku politiku kada govorimo o nuklearnoj energiji kao budućoj strategiji?
               

Benedek Jávor (Verts/ALE),
blue-card answer. – Thank you for your question. I completely agree that we need strong cooperation between the Member States. Regarding this project, ten EU Member States participated in the process under the Espoo Convention. Still, I believe that there is not enough attention from the Member States. Mainly Austria and Germany expressed deep interest and concerns regarding the project, but I would like to ask the Member States, including Croatia, to be more active regarding this project. In small countries like Hungary, nuclear investments are not single Member State issues.

Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η πυρηνική ενέργεια είναι μεν μία ασφαλής μορφή ενέργειας, όμως για να χρησιμοποιηθεί ακόμη και για ειρηνικούς σκοπούς θα πρέπει να λαμβάνονται σοβαρά μέτρα ασφαλείας. Ιδιαίτερη προσοχή πρέπει να επιδεικνύεται όταν εγκαθίστανται πυρηνικοί σταθμοί ή άλλες εγκαταστάσεις κοντά στα σύνορα με την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Μια τέτοια περίπτωση είναι η περίπτωση του πυρηνικού αντιδραστήρα στο Αστραβιέτς της Λευκορωσίας, για τον οποίον υπάρχουν επιφυλάξεις σχετικά με το εάν και κατά πόσον έχει κατασκευαστεί σύμφωνα με τις υψηλές προδιαγραφές ασφαλείας που εφαρμόζονται στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Αυτή η περίπτωση φέρνει επίσης στην επιφάνεια και την ασφάλεια που πρέπει να πληρούν οι πυρηνικές εγκαταστάσεις που προτίθενται να κατασκευάσουν στις χώρες τους η Αλβανία, τα Σκόπια και η Τουρκία. Ιδιαίτερα η Τουρκία είναι μία χώρα επικίνδυνη για πρόκληση πυρηνικού ατυχήματος, διότι, όπως και η Λευκορωσία, δεν έχει διαφανείς διαδικασίες προσομοιώσεως ακραίων καταστάσεων πυρηνικής ασφαλείας και από την άλλη πλευρά είναι και χώρα σεισμογενής. Γι' αυτό η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρέπει να δραστηριοποιηθεί ούτως ώστε να εξασφαλίσει πως τόσο ο πυρηνικός αντιδραστήρας του Αστραβιέτς όσο και αυτοί που θα κατασκευαστούν στις χώρες που προανέφερα θα πρέπει να λειτουργούν με τις προδιαγραφές ασφαλείας που ισχύουν στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση.
               

Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, I must say I am very sad that Mr Etheridge has left the debating chamber and shown absolutely no interest in this serious debate. He shows himself up to be extremely ignorant, suggesting that we should all rely only on UN international laws to keep us safe. Does he not know that the most powerful nation in the world, the USA, does not endorse the UN's International Court of Justice? So where would that leave us, Mr Etheridge? I thank goodness for the vigilance of the EU.
I am very glad that Parliament has decided to debate the safety of nuclear plants in Belarus. Belarus must certainly carry out all the environmental impact assessments and stress tests required by international agreements, and reassure all of its neighbours that the wider environment and citizens across the region and beyond are safe - and that includes me and Mr Etheridge.
There is, however, a broader point at hand. Nuclear power carries with it risks and potential costs that are hard to assess and estimate. The humanitarian and environmental catastrophe that would occur in the case of a serious accident is terrible to contemplate, and I have seen first-hand the devastated lives of the Fukushima survivors - bereaved, bereft, suffering mental health problems, and in the case of many children unable even to play outdoors for fear of contamination.
So since being elected I have worked together with Nuclear Transparency Watch, a network founded, after a call by this very European Parliament for greater nuclear security following the Fukushima disaster in 2011. I would like to emphasise that we must continuously strive for greater nuclear safety and transparency and support the civil society organisations who work in the field to advance that transparency.
The nuclear power industry is a big player in the energy industry, with huge subsidies from the public purse. It therefore has a duty to work closely with host communities and Nuclear Transparency Watch to ensure that the plants are operating to the highest standards.

Monica Macovei (ECR). – Domnule președinte, catastrofele nucleare aduc moarte, aduc multe generații bolnave după ele, distrug mediul și întrerup viața. Practic, ne amintim cu toții cum a fost după catastrofa de la Cernobîl. E ‘înainte de catastrofă’ și ‘după catastrofă’. De aceea, este treaba noastră, a Uniunii Europene, atunci când o centrală nucleară este construită fără respectarea termenelor și, poate, cu anumite intenții legate de siguranța noastră. Discutăm astăzi despre centrala de la Ostroveț, din Belarus, construită de ruși pentru Belarus și care se află la doar cincizeci de kilometri de capitala Lituaniei.
               

                  Belarus susține că este un lucru bun, că o să o ajute economic și o să o ajute să-și reducă dependența față de Rusia. Nu este adevărat. Este o minciună. Belarus este dependentă masiv de Rusia, 90 % din gaz vine din Rusia și centrala este construită de companii rusești, cu finanțare rusească. E vorba de o sumă de circa 22 de miliarde de dolari.
               

                  Pe bună dreptate, Lituania acuză Belarus că nu a informat-o despre construirea acestei centrale nucleare, că nu a finalizat un studiu de impact asupra mediului, că nu a informat cetățenii privind influența asupra apei potabile și multe alte lucruri. De exemplu, noi aflăm informații despre această centrală de la Ostroveț numai din alte locuri decât de la autoritățile din Belarus, și nu este normal. Poate veni și rândul altor state. Auzim că și în Ungaria se întâmplă același lucru. Tot cu finanțare rusească. Ca atare, trebuie să ținem la siguranța noastră, a cetățenilor europeni și a celor noneuropeni.
               

Helmut Scholz (GUE/NGL). – Herr Präsident! Herr Kommissar! Was wir bezüglich Belarus diskutieren, ist kein technisches Problem. Es geht im Kern um die politische Herausforderung eines Ausgleichs legitimer Interessen auf Basis vereinbarter völkerrechtlicher Normen, konkret der ESPOO Konvention des Kiewer Zusatzprotokolls zur verbindlichen strategischen Umweltprüfung, und zwar überall.
               

                  Nach der 2009 erfolgten Notifizierung des geplanten Baus eines neuen Kernkraftwerks hat Belarus den Benachrichtigungs- und Konsultationsverpflichtungen formal Rechnung getragen. Sollten bei der finalen Standortentscheidung die entsprechenden Ergebnisse nicht hinreichend berücksichtigt worden sein, so ist dies auch von der EU einzufordern.
               

                  Bekräftigt aber durch Ihr heutiges Statement frage ich, ob Sie diese politische Fragestellung überhaupt als die Ihre ansehen? Denn bislang schweigt die Kommission zum analogen Vorgang, trotz Nachfrage in der Ukraine. Dort wird die Laufzeit der existierenden Reaktoren unter Bruch des Völkerrechts einfach bis 2030 verlängert, obwohl das Gros nach EU-Regeln bereits abgeschaltet gehört.
               

                  Ich fordere Sie deshalb auf, diese prinzipielle Baustelle zu beheben! Dazu zählt auch die Tatsache, dass besagtes Kiewer Protokoll von 9 EU-Mitgliedstaaten auch 13 Jahre nach seiner Unterzeichnung noch immer nicht ratifiziert ist. Zumindest zwei dieser EU-Länder betreiben mehr als 70 Reaktoren und planen den Bau von vier weiteren.
               

Klaus Buchner (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Das Atomkraftwerk Ostrowets, das in Weißrussland gerade gebaut wird, verletzt gleich mehrere internationale Verträge: zum Beispiel die Aarhus-Konvention, zum Beispiel die Verpflichtung, einen Stresstest durchzuführen. Würden Sie ein Auto kaufen, das nicht getestet ist? Ich möchte hier gerade erwähnen, dass der geplante Typ WWER-1200 inhärent nicht die Sicherheit bietet, die wir erwarten, weil das Verhältnis Länge zu Durchmesser des Reaktordruckbehälters sehr ungünstig ist, sodass sich der Reaktor schwer regeln lässt.
               

                  Das ist aber nicht das einzige Problem. Wie hier schon angeklungen ist, hat Weißrussland nicht die finanziellen Ressourcen, die ganzen Konsequenzen aus dem Betreiben der Atomkraft zu ziehen, was die Sicherheit angeht, was sicherheitstechnische Nachrüstungen angeht, die sicher nötig sein werden, was auch den Atommüll angeht. Können Sie, Herr Kommissar, uns garantieren, dass nicht auch diesmal wieder der europäische Steuerzahler aufkommen muss für das, was Weißrussland nicht leistet?
               

Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Elnök Úr! Csak néhány hete, április 26-án emlékeztünk meg a csernobili nukleáris katasztrófáról, amelynek Ukrajna után – és számos más európai ország mellett – arányaiban Belarusz lakossága volt a legnagyobb áldozata, máig tartó hatással. Önmagában ez a tény is rámutat, hogy európai ügyről – mivel baj esetén a határokon átnyúló – veszélyekről van szó. Közös érdekünk, hogy az Európai Unió a súlyos politikai ellentéteken túltekintve törődjön a belarusz nukleáris biztonság javításával. Hozzátenném, hogy ennek a Putyin hatalmi játszmáinak ezer szálon kiszolgáltatott országnak az esetében ez a kérdés a közös uniós kül- és biztonságpolitika szempontjából sem közömbös, hiszen az energiakomponens régóta meghatározó eleme Minszk Moszkvától való függésének.
               

                  Miközben Belaruszt az energiafüggőség és nukleáris biztonság szempontjából közös erővel próbáljuk átvonszolni a XXI. századba, az Unión belül azt kell tapasztalnunk, hogy egyik tagállam, sajnos éppen az én hazám, Magyarország kormánya a Paks II szerződésével visszaveti országát a XX. századi viszonyok közé. Hosszú évtizedekre kiszolgáltatja az országot energetikai és pénzügyi szempontból is Moszkvának. Magyar képviselőként kötelességem tehát a napirendi pontunk kapcsán is felhívni a Bizottság és az Európai Parlament figyelmét: ez is közös európai ügy és veszély, hiszen tagállamról van szó, amely ráadásul teljesen figyelmen kívül hagyja mindazt, amit a Bizottság az energiaunió keretében elénk terjesztett, és ebben a Parlamentben meggyőző támogatást kapott.
               

                  Végezetül hadd jegyezzem meg: minden egyes új létesítmény, nukleáris létesítmény egy-egy újabb seb, egy-egy tőrdöfés a Föld jövőjébe. Az elmúlt tíz év káprázatos fejlődése, ami a megújuló energiák tekintetében elénk tárult, teljesen indokolatlanná tesz mindennemű további nukleáris fejlesztést az erőművek világában.
               

Kazimierz Michał Ujazdowski (ECR). – Panie przewodniczący! Panie i Panowie posłowie! To nie jest debata ogólna. To jest debata bardzo konkretna. Nie tutaj miejsce na rozważanie struktury energetycznej Europy, pożądanej struktury energetycznej Europy, na ile energia jądrowa jest wartościowa. Debata dotyczy bardzo konkretnej inwestycji na Białorusi, w pobliżu granicy z Unią Europejską, w miejscu wrażliwym zarówno dla Litwy, jak i dla Polski. Ja jestem trochę zdziwiony wystąpieniem pana komisarza, które było nadmiernie techniczne, tak jakby ta kwestia była jedną z wielu inwestycji, która powinna podlegać wyłącznie ocenie technicznej. Warto posłuchać głosu tych ludzi, którzy wtedy, kiedy doszło do katastrofy w Czarnobylu, żyli po tej złej stronie żelaznej kurtyny, którzy zmagali się z dyktaturą komunistyczną i wiedzą, co to jest brak szacunku dla człowieka, brak szacunku dla środowiska. Ta inwestycja nawet w kategoriach ekologicznych rodzi wiele wątpliwości. Ale przede wszystkim – i tutaj chcę bardzo wesprzeć te głosy, które podkreślają czynnik rosyjski – to jest inwestycja finansowana, kredytowana, a właściwie współorganizowana przez Rosję. Rosja podporządkowuje cele energetyczne celom politycznym. Jeśli Unia Europejska prowadzi politykę wschodniego sąsiedztwa, jeśli Unia Europejska aspiruje do tego, by dbać o bezpieczeństwo całego Starego Kontynentu, by prowadzić coś na kształt polityki zagranicznej, nie może pomijać tego negatywnego faktu, iż jest to inwestycja zgodna z celami politycznymi Rosji.
               

Intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra (‘catch the eye’)


Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Powiem w dużym skrócie. Nie interesuje mnie, skąd Białoruś weźmie środki finansowe, czy bierze środki na elektrownię atomową. Nie interesuje mnie, gdzie sprzeda, i czy sprzeda, i za jaką kwotę nadwyżkę tej energii. Natomiast bardzo mnie interesuje, co będzie się działo z odpadami, czy ma na to pomysł, czy jest on pod właściwą kontrolą. Jaka technologia w rezultacie zostanie użyta i na ile ona rzeczywiście będzie bezpieczna? I bardzo mnie interesuje stosunek Litwy do tej inwestycji, gdyż to państwo jest w chwili obecnej najbardziej obciążone ewentualnym ryzykiem funkcjonowania tej elektrowni.
               

                  Chciałbym wyraźnie podkreślić, że te elementy, które są budowane w pytaniach dotyczących bezpieczeństwa, muszą być uznane za kluczowe. Te elementy, które dotyczą ekonomii, stanowią suwerenną część polityki samej Białorusi. Ważne jest, aby Komisja wykorzystała wszystkie możliwe dostępne środki, zarówno prawne jak i również inne, aby objąć tę inwestycję właściwą kontrolą.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η Λευκορωσία είναι μια από τις πιο ανεπτυγμένες χώρες της πρώην ΕΣΣΔ και ο διπλωματικός προσανατολισμός της κυβέρνησης Λουκασένκο προς τη Μόσχα δεν θα έπρεπε να αποτελεί λόγο για δημιουργία αρνητικού κλίματος με οποιαδήποτε αφορμή. Προφανώς και ο κίνδυνος ενός πυρηνικού ατυχήματος δεν περιορίζεται στα σύνορα των κρατών. Το γνωρίζουμε πολύ καλά από το ατύχημα του Τσερνόμπιλ και προφανώς η κυβέρνηση της Λευκορωσίας καθώς και όλοι οι ιθύνοντες που εμπλέκονται στην κατασκευή του νέου πυρηνικού εργοστασίου στο Αστραβιέτς πρέπει να λάβουν όλα τα απαραίτητα μέτρα, ώστε η μονάδα να πληροί τις προδιαγραφές ασφαλείας της διεθνούς οργάνωσης πυρηνικής ενέργειας. Το ίδιο όμως πρέπει να συμβεί και για την Τουρκία, που επιχειρεί αντίστοιχα να οικοδομήσει πυρηνικό εργοστάσιο απέναντι από τα Δωδεκάνησα, σε μια άκρως σεισμογενή περιοχή. Επίσης υπάρχουν μια σειρά από παλιά εργοστάσια στη Δυτική Ευρώπη των οποίων η λειτουργία πρέπει να μας ανησυχεί. Πότε θα συζητήσουμε για το θέμα αυτό συνολικά; Πότε θα συζητήσουμε για τις μονάδες της Doel και του Tihange, που θα έπρεπε από το 2015 να έχουν τεθεί εκτός λειτουργίας στο Βέλγιο;
               

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, a segurança das instalações nucleares é uma questão da maior relevância, não só fora como também dentro da União Europeia. Não esqueçamos que cerca de metade dos Estados-Membros da União Europeia têm centrais nucleares no seu território. A idade média dos reatores em funcionamento é elevada, o que nos coloca perante exigências e riscos que não podem ser minimizados.
               

                  É o que sucede, por exemplo, com a central nuclear de Almaraz, em Espanha, junto à fronteira portuguesa. A necessidade de desmantelamento de alguns reatores é uma evidência, por imperiosas razões de segurança e de salvaguarda da saúde das populações e do ambiente. Estes processos não devem descurar a necessária manutenção e vigilância, antes, durante e após o encerramento, o tratamento dos resíduos, a sua armazenagem e descontaminação, a requalificação ambiental das instalações, e o apoio à substituição da capacidade de produção energética das centrais desmanteladas, dando especial atenção à sustentabilidade ambiental e à eficiência energética.
               

Jonathan Arnott (EFDD). – Mr President, of course the situation in Belarus with regard to nuclear power is something which does need to be monitored at an international level and it is important – imperative even – to ensure that all safeguards are met. Just to clarify from earlier on in the debate that there is a broader point of principle which we were also making in this debate, which is to say that there are international organisations other than the European Union of which we are fully supportive. In this case, the IAEA and the United Nations play a very significant role just as, in a wider context across over policy issues, we could say that the G7, the G20, NATO, the IMF, the International Organization for Standardization, the World Trade Organization, the OECD, Interpol and so many others, are organisations that we want to be a part of – and yet in the UK the debate continues to focus on this one area of the European Union, as we are told we would be isolated if we were not in it. So there is a broader issue of principle here, as well as the specific situation in Belarus.

Ελευθέριος Συναδινός (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η κατασκευή πυρηνικού σταθμού στο Αστραβιέτς της Λευκορωσίας έχει τεράστια σημασία για την ενεργειακή πολιτική της Λευκορωσίας αλλά και της Ένωσης σε ό,τι αφορά την ασφάλεια και προστασία του πυρηνικού σταθμού και του περιβάλλοντος. Είναι προφανές ότι η Λευκορωσία έχει κάθε δικαίωμα να αναζητήσει εναλλακτικές μορφές ενέργειας, αν αναλογιστούμε ότι το 90% του αερίου που χρησιμοποιεί εισάγεται από τη Ρωσία. Βέβαια οι φωνές διαμαρτυρίας που ακούγονται αφορούν στη συμφωνία της Λευκορωσίας με τη ρωσική εταιρεία για την κατασκευή του σταθμού και τη μελλοντική διαχείριση αποβλήτων αλλά και στη χρηματοδότηση του όλου εγχειρήματος με 22 δισεκατομμύρια δολάρια από τη Ρωσία. Νομίζω ότι η Λευκορωσία ως κυρίαρχο κράτος μπορεί να υπογράφει ενεργειακές συμφωνίες χωρίς υποδείξεις και απαγορεύσεις. Περισσότερο πρέπει να μας απασχολεί η διενέργεια προσομοιώσεως ακραίων καταστάσεων, η πληρότητα των προτύπων ασφαλείας και η προστασία του περιβάλλοντος και ειδικά του παρακείμενου ποταμού Νέρις. Σε αυτό μπορούμε να συνδράμουμε τις αρχές της Λευκορωσίας αλλά και τη Διεθνή Υπηρεσία Ατομικής Ενέργειας με την Ευρωπαϊκή Ομάδα Ρυθμιστικών Φορέων Πυρηνικής Ασφάλειας.
               

(Fin de las intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra (‘catch the eye’))


Christos Stylianides,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, let me first thank all Members for their interventions which show how high the stakes really are when it comes to energy safety and security. By way of wrap-up, I would like to pick up on a few of the wider issues raised during the debate, but first on the Ostrovets case.
Let me underline what I said at the start: the Commission will continue to use all the instruments at its disposal to ensure the highest possible safety standards in the EU and internationally. That is non-negotiable, as I already said. That is why our priority is now to ensure the timely implementation of Ostrovets nuclear safety stress tests in line with European specifications.
As always, the Commission will keep this House fully up to date with any developments as and when they happen. But let me be clear. Many of the solutions to the questions raised in this debate lie in the need to end energy isolation and complete Europe's internal energy market. For Lithuania, as well as for all Baltic states, this means that we need to continue working towards their full integration into the European energy market.
The good news is that we are making progress. We recently saw the start of operations for the electricity interconnections of Lithuania with Poland and Sweden. Thanks to the LitPol Link and NordBalt, the level of interconnection of the Baltic States with the rest of the European grid has substantially increased, from 4% in early 2014 to approximately 22%.
On gas, work is under way on the game-changing Gas Interconnector Poland-Lithuania. GIPL, as it is called, is the first gas interconnector between the Eastern Baltic Sea region and Continental Europe. When complete in 2019 it will end the region's gas isolation, further diversify gas sources, routes and counterparts, and ultimately help to reduce prices for consumers.
Much of this progress is thanks in large part to the Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan, which brings together all the Baltic states to cooperate on integrating the region into a European network. This is an example to others on what we can achieve under the Energy Union. But we must build on this progress.
Our next challenge is to ensure the synchronisation of the Baltic States and other isolated regions with the rest of the EU market. Our vision is of an Energy Union based on solidarity and trust, which speaks with one voice to our external partners and which, ultimately, provides the secure and sustainable energy Europe's citizens need. That is why the Energy Union is a top Commission priority and why our focus is fully on implementation. We look forward to working hand in hand with the European Parliament to make it a reality.

El Presidente. — Se cierra el debate.
               

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D),
raštu. – Lietuvos kaimynystėje statoma Astravo atominė elektrinė yra ne Lietuvos ar Baltijos regiono, o visos Europos Sąjungos saugumo klausimas. Tačiau susidaro įspūdis, jog iki šiol tam nebuvo skiriamas deramas dėmesys iš ES institucijų.
               

                  Baltarusija iki šiol neįgyvendina tarptautinių įsipareigojimų aplinkosaugos ir branduolinės saugos srityse, vystydama Astravo projektą. Tačiau, nepaisant to, kad buvo konstatuoti tarptautinių reikalavimų pažeidimai, Astravo atominės elektrinės projekto darbai ir toliau vykdomi, ‘stress’ testai neatliekami ir mes iki šiol neturime informacijos apie šio projekto saugą. Nors Komisija teigia, jog ji negali priversti nei valstybių narių, nei trečiųjų šalių atlikti ‘stress’ testus, tačiau 2016 m. vasario Europos Vadovų Taryboje buvo pabrėžta politinio bendradarbiavimo su Baltarusija svarba, siekiant užtikrinti tinkamą branduolinę saugą . Labai svarbu, kad Astravo klausimas nuolat būtų Komisijos ir Europos Tarybos politinėje darbotvarkėje, siekiant užtikrinti, kad vos už 42 km nuo ES išorės sienos statoma atominė jėgainė nekeltų grėsmių mūsų visų saugumui.
               

Aymeric Chauprade (NI),
par écrit. – À l'occasion de ce débat, notre attention a été attirée sur le projet de centrale nucléaire d'Astraviets en Biélorussie. Celui-ci a fait l'objet de la signature d'un contrat avec le groupe nucléaire russe Rosatom, pour la construction de deux réacteurs de type AES. Ce projet a entraîné des interrogations de pays voisins, quant à l'état de sûreté de cette installation nucléaire de troisième génération.
               

                  S'il y a bien un domaine qui nécessite de dépasser les postures idéologiques et les arrière-pensées politiques, au profit d'une analyse scientifique et rationnelle, c'est bien celui du nucléaire. Étant moi-même partisan de cette énergie propre et quasi inépuisable, je suis convaincu de la nécessité de ne pas prendre le moindre risque en matière de sûreté nucléaire, sauf à voir l'avenir de cette énergie totalement remis en question si jamais un nouvel accident de type Tchernobyl venait à se produire.
               

                  Aussi, force est de constater que ce projet a fait l'objet d'une validation par l'AIEA et que le groupe Rosatom a reçu l'autorisation de construire des centrales en Inde, Chine, Iran et Hongrie. Enfin, la Finlande a retenu ce groupe pour la construction de son sixième réacteur, qui sera équipé de la même technologie qu'en Biélorussie.
               

Algirdas Saudargas (PPE),
raštu. – Astravo atominės elektrinės branduolinės saugos ir aplinkosaugos klausimas turi kelti susirūpinimą ne vien Lietuvai, bet ir visai Europai. Faktas, kad Astravo atominė yra statoma pažeidžiant Jungtinių Tautų Espo ir Orhuso konvencijas. Baltarusija nesilaiko ir prisiimto įsipareigojimo atlikti branduolinės saugos testavimą nepalankiausiomis sąlygomis pagal ES metodologiją. Akivaizdžiai nebuvo laikomasi taisyklių parenkant aikštelę elektrinei, tinkamai neatlikti seisminiai ir geologiniai tyrimai, o įvykę incidentai elektrinės statybų aikštelėje yra slepiami.
               

                  ES turi kreipti didesnį dėmesį į trečiųjų šalių statomas branduolines jėgaines, o aktyvi aplinkosaugos ir branduolinės saugos standartų sklaida turi tapti būtina ES išorės energetikos politikos dalimi. Dažnai girdime, kad Komisija neturi svertų Astravo elektrinės statymui sustabdyti. Tiesa, uždrausti negalime, bet spaudimą, kad Baltarusija veiktų skaidriai ir laikytųsi savo įsipareigojimų, privalome daryti. Tam yra įvairių priemonių: galima pasinaudoti ES branduolinio saugumo bendradarbiavimo instrumentu, pagal kurį finansuojamas Baltarusijos branduolinės saugos reguliatoriaus stiprinimas. Tam skirta beveik 5 milijonai eurų iš ES biudžeto. Pagalba neturėtų būti besąlyginė. Už tai reikia reikalauti, kad būtų atlikti ‘stress’ testai pagal ES standartus ir laiku.
               

                  Tokias pat sąlygas Komisija turėtų iškelti ir atkuriant ES ir Baltarusijos energetinį dialogą. Branduolinės saugos Astrave klausimas turėtų būti įtrauktas ir į BEMEP'o darbotvarkę, bendrai suformuota regioninė pozicija būtų ypatingai svarbi Lietuvai, bendraujant su Baltarusijos atstovais.
               
14.   The New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition (short presentation)

El Presidente. El punto siguiente en el orden del día es la breve presentación del informe de Maria Heubuch sobre la Nueva Alianza para la Seguridad Alimentaria y la Nutrición [2015/2277(INI)] (A8-0169/2016).
               

Maria Heubuch,
Berichterstatterin. – Herr Präsident! Die neue Allianz für Ernährungssicherheit in Afrika wurde 2012 von den G8-Staaten ins Leben gerufen. Diese große public private partnership soll Investitionen in die Landwirtschaft in Afrika südlich der Sahara locken, um dort die Ernährungssicherheit zu verbessern. Zehn afrikanische Länder sind beteiligt. Die EU finanziert die Initiative mit. Insgesamt haben Geberländer über sechs Milliarden US-Dollar zugesagt.
               

                  Die neue Allianz möchte in Afrika das Modell der Grünen Revolution aus den sechziger und siebziger Jahren in Asien nachahmen. Die Grenzen dieser Vorgehensweise und insbesondere die damit verbundenen Umweltrisiken sind allgemein bekannt. Im Rahmen der neuen Allianz werden die afrikanischen Länder aufgefordert, legislative Reformen durchzuführen, um ein unternehmensfreundliches Umfeld für private Investitionen in die Landwirtschaft Afrikas zu schaffen. Bemerkenswerterweise wurden Kleinbauern kaum an diesem Prozess beteiligt, obwohl sie letztendlich die Nutznießer sein sollten. Folglich wurde die neue Allianz von der Zivilgesellschaft, von der Sonderberichterstatterin der Vereinten Nationen für das Recht auf Nahrung und von afrikanischen Kleinbauern selbst heftig kritisiert.
               

                  Der Entwicklungsausschuss im Parlament hat sich ausführlich mit dem Bericht befasst und wird einige besorgniserregende Phänomene aufgreifen. Erstens: Art der Landwirtschaft und der Anbaumethoden, zweitens: Transparenz und Governance, drittens: Gesetzesreformen, viertens: die Geschlechterfrage.
               

                  Zu Erstens: Art der Landwirtschaft und Anbaumethoden: Sowohl die Agenda 2030 für nachhaltige Entwicklung als auch das Pariser Klimaschutzabkommen weisen darauf hin, dass ein landwirtschaftliches Modell entwickelt werden muss, das wesentlich besser belastbar ist und nachhaltige Ernährungssysteme schaffen kann. Der Bericht fordert die Regierungen in Afrika auf, nicht das Modell einer unternehmensorientierten Landwirtschaft auf der Grundlage landwirtschaftlicher Großbetriebe zu unterstützen, sondern in landwirtschaftliche Familienbetriebe und Agrarökologie zu investieren. Denn bäuerliche Familienbetriebe – Kleinbauern – sind die wichtigsten Investoren in der afrikanischen Landwirtschaft und stellen mehr als 60 % der Arbeitsplätze in den Ländern südlich der Sahara.
               

                  Transparenz und Governance: Detailinformationen über multilaterale Entwicklungsinitiativen wie die neue Allianz sollten zugänglich sein. Derzeit sind nicht ausreichend Details über die Investitionspläne der Firmen bekannt. Wir brauchen vollständige Transparenz, robuste Überwachungsmechanismen und Leistungsindikatoren, angemessene institutionelle und rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen, vorherige Anhörungen mit den zahlreichen Interessenträgern und den Betroffenen und einen Beschwerdemechanismus für die Menschen und Gemeinschaften vor Ort. Alle teilnehmenden Länder müssen die entsprechenden internationalen Standards wirklich wirksam umsetzen, mit denen dafür gesorgt wird, dass Investitionen alle Menschenrechte respektieren.
               

                  Unternehmensfreundliche Gesetzgebung: Wie erwähnt, werden die beteiligten afrikanischen Länder aufgefordert, gewisse unternehmensfreundliche Gesetzgebung durchzuführen, unter anderem im Bereich Land und Saatgut. Obwohl es in Afrika verschiedene Formen der Landnutzungs- und Besitzrechte gibt, nehmen die corporate frameworks bei der Absicherung der Nutzungs- und Besitzrechte ausschließlich die Beurkundung von Grundbesitz in Betracht. Die neue Studie vom DROI-Ausschuss bestätigt, dass es im Rahmen der neuen Allianz bei Landgeschäften, an denen europäische Firmen und Geberinstitutionen beteiligt waren, zu Menschenrechtsverletzungen kam. Das ist völlig inakzeptabel.
               

                  Die neue Allianz fordert auch unternehmensrechtliche Reformen im Saatgutrecht. 90 % der Bäuerinnen und Bauern sind darauf angewiesen, ihr Saatgut frei zu erzeugen und auszutauschen. Es macht mir große Sorge, dass durch die neue Allianz die meisten Länder diese informellen Methoden untersagen wollen. Ähnliche Sorge mache ich mir um geschlechterspezifische Belange. Nur 21 % der kleinbäuerlichen Betriebe, wo Frauen das Sagen haben, wurden beteiligt, obwohl 50 % der Frauen die Betriebe südlich der Sahara führen.
               

                  Zusammenfassend möchte ich feststellen, dass die wichtigsten Beteiligten aus dem Privatsektor multinationale Konzerne sind, die bereits eine beherrschende Marktstellung haben. Dazu kommt ein großes Marktungleichgewicht zwischen internationalen Agrarkonzernen, regionalen und nationalen Akteuren in den Ländern Afrikas. Es bestehen große Zweifel daran, dass die neue Allianz in der Lage ist, einen Beitrag zur Verringerung der Armut und zur Ernährungssicherheit zu leisten. Deswegen sollten die EU und die Mitgliedstaaten genau prüfen, ob ihre Beteiligung an dieser Initiative überhaupt zielführend ist oder ob wir stattdessen besser gemeinsam in nachhaltige landwirtschaftliche Modelle investieren, wie in den sustainable development goals beschlossen. Ich danke den Schattenberichterstattern und dem AGRI-Ausschuss für die gute Zusammenarbeit.
               

Intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra (‘catch the eye’)


Bogdan Brunon Wenta (PPE). – Panie Komisarzu! Nowy sojusz na rzecz bezpieczeństwa żywnościowego i żywienia w Afryce to niezwykle istotna inicjatywa, która ma na celu wzmocnienie bezpieczeństwa żywnościowego w Afryce, co z kolei może przełożyć się na uratowanie milionów istnień ludzkich. Jako Parlament Europejski powinniśmy dołożyć wszelkich starań, aby wykorzystać możliwości zawarte w tym programie. Z mojej perspektywy jedną z nich jest kwestia wsparcia – o czym zresztą Maria Heubuch już wspomniała – dla małych i średnich rolników, gospodarstw rolnych oraz producentów żywności. Doświadczenia udzielania pomocy rozwojowej Afryce pokazują, że nie powinniśmy, nie wolno nam zaniedbywać lokalnego wymiaru tej pomocy. W tym wypadku wsparcie dla rolnictwa rodzinnego ma również pozytywny wpływ na dobrobyt ludności. Pomoc kierowana do indywidualnych rolników i rodzinnych gospodarstw polepszyłaby sytuację ekonomiczną miejscowej ludności.
               

Ricardo Serrão Santos (S&D). –
(Por razões de ordem técnica, o orador tem de interromper o discurso e em seguida o Presidente pede-lhe que volte ao início) Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, devemos ter um comportamento de reciprocidade em termos de exigências ambientais e sociais no que diz respeito aos investimentos agroindustriais feitos em países terceiros.
               

                  Os objetivos que traçamos em termos de política de desenvolvimento devem ser as linhas condutoras e as comunidades locais devem continuar a dispor e a decidir sobre as opções do progresso futuro. No que diz respeito aos recursos naturais é imperativo defender a propriedade e a preservação do património em prol das populações que deles dependem.
               

                  Tal deve ser possível dentro de um quadro regulamentar bem definido que faculte reais possibilidades às comunidades locais e sob a égide do direito à alimentação, nutrição, propriedade e participação.
               

                  Estes são direitos básicos e elementares que nem deveriam ser ainda objeto de reivindicação nos nossos dias. Porque disfrutamos de progresso na Europa aos níveis material e político, temos a obrigação de promover mais e melhor progresso nas outras partes do mundo.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ο τρόπος με τον οποίο λειτουργεί η Νέα Συμμαχία για την Επισιτιστική Ασφάλεια και τη Διατροφή στην Αφρική, που είναι μια σύμπραξη δημόσιου και ιδιωτικού τομέα για να στηρίξει την Υποσαχάρια Αφρική και την αντιμετώπιση της φτώχειας, μου θυμίζει λίγο την τρόικα στην Ελλάδα. Δηλαδή θέλει να επιβάλει νομοθεσίες σε όλα τα κράτη μέλη που συμμετέχουν, θέλει να αλλάξει τους όρους για την έγγεια ιδιοκτησία, θέλει επίσης να βάλει όρους για τον τρόπο που θα χρησιμοποιούνται οι σπόροι.
               

                  Βλέπω λοιπόν μια παρέμβαση στα εσωτερικά των κρατών και προβληματίζομαι αν πραγματικά θα υπάρξει και ουσιαστική βοήθεια. Επίσης, βλέπουμε στήριξη των μεγάλων επιχειρήσεων, δεν βλέπουμε στήριξη των μικρών κοινοτήτων, των εργατών γης, ενώ οι γεωργικές επενδύσεις που προωθούνται είναι προσανατολισμένες στις εξαγωγές και όχι τόσο στην τόνωση της τοπικής οικονομίας. Επομένως θεωρώ ότι δεν μπορεί αυτή η κατάσταση να ανατρέψει τα προβλήματα στην Αφρική. Μόνο η διαγραφή του χρέους των κρατών της Αφρικής μπορεί πραγματικά να τους δώσει την ευκαιρία για ανάπτυξη.
               

Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, nemam nikakve sumnje da je novi Savez za sigurnost hrane i ishrane te prehrane u Africi, kada je ustanovljen 2012., imao odlične namjere.
               

                  Ono na što trebamo pripaziti je da naše dobre namjere ne pretvorimo u nešto što može postati jedna vrsta neokolonializma. Naime, nema nikakve dvojbe da su ovdje vrlo veliki interesi u igri, a ja bih htio da prvenstveno interesi koji su u igri budu interesi građana Afrike, odnosno malih obiteljskih poljoprivrednika u Africi, da imaju pravo na zemlju, da imaju vlasništvo nad zemljom, da se pobrinemo da ipak svi ne koristimo isto sjemenje u poljoprivredi na ovom svijetu.
               

                  Zadržimo bioraznolikost, ono što možemo zadržati od ljepote poljoprivrede koja postoji u Africi i razvijmo tu poljoprivredu na onim parametrima na kojima smo uspješno razvijali i europsku poljoprivredu.
               

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – Senhor Presidente, estamos perante uma iniciativa que envolve o G8, várias multinacionais, parcerias público-privado através das quais, garantem-nos, se pode retirar da pobreza e da fome milhões de pessoas em África.
               

                  A desfaçatez dos promotores não esconde ao que vêm: acelerar o fluxo de capital privado. A pretensa caridade das multinacionais exige modificações políticas que lhes facilitem o negócio, porque afinal de contas é disso que se trata, business as usual. Esta iniciativa parte do pressuposto, por verificar, porque errado, que mais produção através de investimento das grandes corporações privadas irá resolver o problema da fome e má nutrição em África.
               

                  Ora estas corporações produzem para mercados lucrativos, não para os pobres e famintos. Esta iniciativa será uma forma útil de facilitar a essas corporações o acesso à terra e insumos agrícolas, incentivando de caminho a alteração de práticas agrícolas no próprio interesse das multinacionais, favorecendo modelos de produção intensiva de cariz exportador, com elevada incorporação de agroquímicos e de OGM. A grande questão é: quem pagará os seus lucros?
               

Molly Scott Cato (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I thank Maria and her colleagues in the Committee on Development for this report, which is a prime example of the EU standing up to big business. I also thank the hundreds of constituents who emailed me with their concerns about the outdated model of agricultural development promoted by the G7's so-called New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition. In such an initiative, nutrition should be the logical starting point, but this is not so. Instead, nutrition comes second to opportunities for industrial agribusinesses with no focus on healthy food but rather on agricultural commodities, which of course require monocultures. This increases input dependency and land degradation.
Crucially, this Parliament report argues that the new alliance must allow farmers to avoid input dependency. There will not be food sovereignty if farmers are beholden to corporations for their seeds and then brought into vicious circles of pesticide and fertilizer use. We should support farmers' seed systems which maintain agro-biodiversity.

Jonathan Arnott (EFDD). – Mr President, I would like to commend the rapporteur for a lot of what she says about the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition. There are a lot of positives in this report, and specifically comments about things which could be improved within the NAFSN.
I would like to draw out three points. Firstly, I agree completely with Notis Marias that there must be no interference with sovereignty of developing nations. Secondly, I share the concerns with regard to big multinationals playing too great a role in planning agricultural development and therefore the impact that has on smaller farmers and their right to have a say.
Thirdly, I would just take issue with the comment that the EU and its Member States are the biggest giver of aid. Well, if you take 28 countries and put all of those numbers together then of course it is going to be bigger than any one individual.

Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Elnök Úr! Reális veszélynek tekinthetjük, hogy az ebben a dokumentumban foglalt programok elsüllyednek a helyi és kormányzati korrupció, valamint a termőföld-spekuláció mocsarában. Én azt gondolom, hogy megerősített garanciákra és folyamatos ellenőrzésre van szükség. Nyilván az ellenőrzésben a demokratikusan választott parlamenteknek, így az Európai Parlamentnek is kiemelt szerepet kell vállalnia, ezt kifejezetten javaslom.
               

                  Mindezek mellett a sok-sok program az élelmiszerellátás biztonságát állítja középpontba. Én mégis azt gondolom, hogy a gyermekélelmezést segítő termelési és finanszírozási struktúrák kiemelt támogatása kerüljön az első helyre. A gyermekéhezés és az alultápláltság leküzdésére való összpontosítás részeként, úgy gondolom, hogy el kéne kezdenünk azt a típusú gondolkodást, hogy az élelmiszereket sehol ne sújtsa adó.
               

(Fin de las intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra (‘catch the eye’))


Christos Stylianides,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, first of all I would like to welcome the European Parliament's report on the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition and of course to thank you and congratulate the rapporteur, Mrs Heubuch, for steering its preparation. It is in line with what the Commission wants to achieve under the New Alliance.
Together with our partners – African governments, the African Union Commission, the private sector and G7 members – the European Union has made a commitment to promoting inclusive and sustainable agriculture-based growth. The agricultural sector in low-income countries has suffered from under-investment for decades with considerable consequences for long-term food security while also contributing to rural poverty. The investments needed to eradicate hunger are enormous.
We thus have to work together with all partners. This is what we agreed under the 2030 Agenda and its second Sustainable Development Goal: to end hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition and also promote sustainable agriculture. In doing so we will need to mobilise additional resources for developing countries. This is what the New Alliance is trying to do: reduce poverty and link smallholders to markets by working with the local and international private sector.
The European Union has been supporting the New Alliance since its launch in 2012 and has since committed EUR 1.2 billion in ten new alliance countries. This represents a powerful initiative to reduce rural poverty. Food and nutrition security in our developing partner countries is a priority area for the Commission. We want to contribute to job creation, stability, growth and sustainable development. In all our programmes under the New Alliance we make sure that we are working towards this objective.
The Commission is a staunch supporter of the voluntary guidelines on tenure of land and of the principles for responsible investment in agriculture and food systems. Within the New Alliance we have developed guidance for companies on due diligence and risk management for land-based investments in agriculture.
Gender is also a prominent component in the New Alliance. Fifty-one per cent of the jobs created in 2014 benefited women. At the same time, the Commission will continue to insist on a much more targeted focus on women farmers and entrepreneurs and on actions to ensure they have equal access to land and other economic resources.
Of course there are many challenges associated with our efforts and we are working hard to solve them. We are taking very seriously the concerns being voiced that the New Alliance creates a favourable environment that mainly benefits large private sector companies to the detriment of the smallholder farmers. Many of the concerns raised also here today are an integral part of the discussions with our partners in the new alliance. The European Union is very sensitive towards the smallholder farmers. They play a key role in sustainable agriculture and in combating hunger and malnutrition, and they are indeed the ones that should primarily benefit from the New Alliance actions.
The European Union is also very attentive to the plight of the most vulnerable in societies who, despite the advances made, remain susceptible to crises and shocks and will continue to need our humanitarian and development assistance. We need partnerships with the private sector that encourage businesses to put sustainable development at the core of their strategies. This is particularly relevant for inclusive and sustainable agricultural development.
The only option is to work together and to act responsibly, inclusively and sustainably. This also includes more involvement of farmers in civil society and the coordination of new alliance activities. The Commission will discuss and explore with all partners in the New Alliance how to better advance its implementation, also in the light of the conclusions and recommendations of this report.

Puhetta johti ANNELI JÄÄTTEENMÄKI


varapuhemies


Puhemies. — Keskustelu on päättynyt.
                  
15.   International Accounting Standards (IAS) evaluation (short presentation)

Puhemies. — Esityslistalla on seuraavana lyhyt esittely Theodor Dumitru Stolojanin mietinnöstä Kansainvälisten tilinpäätösstandardien (IAS) arviointi (2016/2006(INI)) (A8-0172/2016).
               

Theodor Dumitru Stolojan,
rapporteur. – Madam President, first of all, I would like to thank all of the shadow rapporteurs who contributed to this report on International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).
It is the first time that the European Parliament presents its strategic view on the issue of IFRS. These standards are the bedrock of all investment decisions in the global capital markets, and of the evaluation of company management on behalf of its shareholders.
For over a year, we have held many debates, seminars and hearings, with different stakeholders, standard setters, academics and experts. Let me focus on the main points of this report. We think that the concept of public good for the IFRS should be clarified, as well as the potential conflict between the private nature of the IASB, the standard setter, and the public good nature of the IFRS that are applied today in more than 110 countries and jurisdictions.
There are differences between how we in the European Union understand the concept of true and fair view, the principles of prudence and stewardship, which are the basis of accounting standards, and the accounting setters view on this concept and principle.
We insist on the need for an impact assessment for every new accounting standard or change of a current accounting standard. We think about the future of EFRAG, the private technical advisor of the European Commission in the process of IFRS endorsement in the European Union, and about the possibility on the long-term to transform EFRAG into a European agency.
We also ask for the strengthening of the role of the European Parliament, both in the process of setting accounting standards and in the endorsement process of IFRS in the European Union.

Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot


Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la creazione di una regolamentazione armonizzata sull'applicazione dei principi contabili di alta qualità è un irrinunciabile requisito per regolare la concorrenza e un efficace metodo per eliminare gli ostacoli agli investimenti su scala globale. Tale correttivo, coerente con il settore della regolamentazione prudenziale, si dimostra quanto mai necessario in un periodo di crisi finanziaria. Va quindi rafforzato, ai fini dello sviluppo di un'unione dei mercati dei capitali, il modello dei principi di informativa finanziaria fino al punto che questi poi informino le regole di governance interna degli istituti finanziari. Va infatti sottolineato che, con l'innalzamento del livello di responsabilità finanziaria, sono stati agevolati il mercato unico e la competitività dell'economia, permettendo alle imprese di attrarre capitali ed investimenti. Mi associo alle preoccupazioni del relatore sulla difficoltà degli organismi preposti a stabilire i principi contabili per la complessità degli strumenti finanziari utilizzati e la necessità di principi globali trasparenti e comparabili che possano essere compresi da un vasto gruppo di soggetti interessati.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, σύμφωνα με την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, η εφαρμογή των Διεθνών Λογιστικών Προτύπων δίνει στις επιχειρήσεις τη δυνατότητα να προσελκύουν κεφάλαια και επενδύσεις στις διεθνείς κεφαλαιαγορές συμβάλλοντας έτσι στην ενίσχυση της ενιαίας αγοράς. Βέβαια, η χρηματοπιστωτική κρίση έδειξε ότι αυτά τα πρότυπα πρέπει να επανεξεταστούν. Ειδικότερα θα πρέπει να ενισχυθεί εκ μέρους των διεθνών προτύπων χρηματοοικονομικής αναφοράς η λογοδοσία και να μειωθεί το χάσμα μεταξύ επενδυτών και επιχειρήσεων, ώστε να προστατευτούν οι επενδύσεις. Έτσι θα ενισχυθεί και η διεθνής συγκρισιμότητα και επομένως η διαφάνεια στην απεικόνιση της πραγματικής κατάστασης των οικονομικών μονάδων. Επιπλέον, όσον αφορά την εφαρμογή των Διεθνών Λογιστικών Προτύπων σε ένα κράτος μέλος, θα πρέπει να υπάρχει εναρμόνιση του θεσμικού και νομικού περιβάλλοντος καθώς και καλύτερη ενημέρωση ελεγκτών και λογιστών για τις τεχνικές λεπτομέρειες της εφαρμογής τους. Τέλος, θα πρέπει να ενισχυθεί η διαφάνεια και η αξιοπιστία στις αρμόδιες εποπτικές και ρυθμιστικές αρχές.
               

Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospođo predsjedavajuća, dozvolite mi da odmah na početku kažem da bez kvalitetne usklađenosti međunarodnih računovodstvenih standarda naravno da nema jedinstvenog niti konkurentnog europskog tržišta. U ovom izvještaju, kojega naravno svakako i podržavam, želim jasno naznačiti dvije teme. Prva tema je javnost i interes javnosti da sve tvrtke koje su izlistane na burzi budu na neki način jednako tretirane.
               

                  Naravno da imamo zakonodavstvo od 2005. godine, ali mislim da upravo u tom elementu Europska unija mora biti lider na svjetskom financijskom tržištu. A druga tema je pitanje jednakog vrednovanja boniteta poduzeća. Tu isto tako Europska unija mora biti poticatelj kako ne bismo imali situacije da kada se neko poduzeće kupuje, kada se u neko poduzeće želi uložiti, nemamo kvalitetnu informaciju o njegovom bonitetu.
               

Miguel Viegas (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, as normas internacionais de contabilidade constituem uma parte importante do quadro regulamentar e de supervisão da União Europeia.
               

                  Estas normas interagem com uma grande variedade de atos de regulamentação da União Europeia sobre serviços e, designadamente, no domínio da regulação prudencial. Acompanhamos o relatório sobre o papel central das normas de contabilidade para o desenvolvimento de um mercado mais transparente, mais legível para a comunidade. O que não acompanhamos é esta associação da necessidade de melhorar as normas internacionais de contabilidade com a atual crise financeira.
               

                  As normas de contabilidade internacionais são importantes, mas não podem substituir as medidas de fundo que se impõem para controlar o mundo da finança, evitando esta especulação sem regra e sem freio e que conduz a crises cujos custos acabam sempre por ser suportados pelos mesmos de sempre.
               

                  Desta forma, não confundamos os planos de intervenção. A crise será resolvida quando houver vontade política para tomar as medidas que se impõe e que passam por um controlo público do sistema financeiro, bem como dos grandes oligopólios que mandam de facto nesta União Europeia.
               

Igor Šoltes (Verts/ALE). – Poenoteni mednarodni računovodski standardi igrajo pomembno vlogo pri zagotavljanju po eni strani finančne discipline, po drugi strani seveda tudi preglednosti in pa tudi odgovornosti tako zasebnega kot posredno tudi javnega sektorja.
               

                  Predvsem je pri izvajanju računovodskih standardov pomembna beseda zaupanje. In tisti, ki trdijo, da so mednarodni računovodski standardi seveda tudi delni krivec za finančno krizo in ekonomsko, lahko povem, da seveda niso računovodski standardi tisti, ampak je predvsem je kriv tisti, ki jih je uporabljal na neustrezen način, ko seveda postanejo lahko tudi računovodski standardi predmet zlorab, ko postanejo predmet špekulacij in pa seveda tudi prilagajanje bilanc podjetjem.
               

                  In zato seveda je potreben strog nadzor nad delovanjem in uporabo teh standardov, ker edino na ta način lahko zagotovimo zaupanje.
               

Jonathan Arnott (EFDD). – Madam President, I think sometimes the words ‘avoidance’ and ‘evasion’ get a little lost in translation. There is certainly a spectrum from at one end, say, a plumber who uses his van for work, who decides whether it is appropriate to claim for wear and tear on a vehicle or on a mileage basis. I think few would argue that this is something we really need to stamp out of society. I think people would say it is perfectly legitimate for that plumber to choose how he goes about doing things. But then you move on to multinationals which aggressively employ teams of accountants, and I think we want to root out that kind of aggressive tax avoidance. And then of course there is evasion, which is completely breaking the law.
I think, when things get lost in translation like that, the idea of this one-size-fits-all legislation across 28 different legal systems starts to fall apart a little bit. That is the concern that I have about EU-imposed country-by-country public reporting, which could prove to be counterproductive.

Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Elnök Asszony! A nemzetközi pénzügyi beszámolási standardok alkalmazása a múltban jelentősen hozzájárult az egységes piac megerősítéséhez, azonban a pénzügyi válság megmutatta, hogy ezek felülvizsgálatra és javításra szorulnak. A nemzetközi pénzügyi beszámolási standardok és a nemzetközi számviteli standardok, amelyek elengedhetetlenek a belső piac és a tőkepiacok hatékony működéséhez, közjavaknak tekinthetők, amelyeknek biztosítaniuk kell a pénzügyi stabilitást, a fenntartható fejlődést, valamint a teljes átláthatóságot és elszámolási kötelezettséget. Éppen ezért röviden: a közérdeket kell szolgálniuk, és nem csupán a befektetők, kölcsönadók és a hitelezők érdekeit. A közérdeket kell szolgálniuk.
               

(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)


Christos Stylianides,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, on behalf of my dear colleague Jonathan Hill I would first of all like to congratulate Mr Stolojan on taking the initiative to present this report. I note with pleasure that we have a common understanding on many issues.
Our conclusions of the evaluation of the IAS Regulation were overall positive on the experience with IFRS and on the endorsement process, with practical improvements identified. We will carefully consider all the recommendations listed in the report. In fact we have been working on some of them already for some time. In particular, we have noted the need for a better coordination between all actors in the endorsement process. We, therefore, welcome the set-up of a European Parliament permanent IFRS team which has already been a helpful forum to discuss IFRS-related issues.
Regarding the governance of the bodies developing and advising on the standards, in our reply to the IFRS Foundation's consultations on their structure and effectiveness, we passed a strong message to improve the public accountability of the IFRS Foundation. We wish to see a more active Monitoring Board on issues of public interest, an allocation of top jobs to countries that fund it and use its IFRS standards, and a strengthened effects analysis.
For EFRAG, the appointment of the President of the Board in the coming weeks will be the last step of the reform. Following the withdrawal of Wolf Klinz and the need for another selection procedure, the Commission selected Jean-Paul Gauzès. We are pleased to note that the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs agreed on 30 May to support Mr Gauzès's nomination.
In parallel, our services are intensively working with EFRAG to establish a sound basis for a solid effects analysis methodology which we would like EFRAG to apply in support of their future endorsement advices. Consequently, I am counting on the support of the European Parliament to ensure a rapid adoption of our proposal to extend the co-financing of EFRAG for the period 2017-2020 along the same lines as was earlier agreed with Parliament with respect to the IFRS Foundation and the PIOB (Public Interest Oversight Board).
Regarding the request for clarification of certain endorsement criteria such as ‘the public good’ and the ‘true and fair’ principle, I am pleased to inform you that our services have had very constructive and substantial discussions with representatives of the Member States in the Accounting Regulatory Committee. We have reached common grounds on these issues in that Committee. The case law has been analysed and the Maystadt report was taken into account. We will shortly publish the outcome of these discussions and we would be happy to discuss our findings with Parliament, to start with in the European Parliament IFRS team, if you like.
In this context, I would like to mention that at this moment, we see no compelling need to review the existing legislation. On balance, the endorsement process works well and I believe we can bring meaningful improvements with respect to the endorsement process, including with respect to the application of concepts such as ‘public good’ and ‘true and fair’, without the need to legislate, by providing stakeholders and those involved in the standard setting process with the necessary clarifications.

Puhemies. — Keskustelu on päättynyt.
               

Romana Tomc (PPE),
pisno. – Mednarodni računovodski standardi so bistveni element za učinkovito delovanje trga in so prispevali k splošnemu izboljšanju kakovosti računovodskih podatkov in izkazov, kar koristi tako enotnemu trgu kot tudi kapitalskim trgom.
               

                  Menim, da so potrebne še določene izboljšave, saj države članice teh standardov ne izvajajo v celoti oziroma jih ne podpirajo v celoti. Treba je oblikovati skupne smernice, ter spodbuditi države članice da jim sledijo in standarde izvajajo v celoti. Prav tako se mi zdi pomembno, da razvijemo poenostavljene vseevropske računovodske standarde za mala in srednja podjetja, ki bi jim omogočili večjo čezmejno mobilnost, manjše stroške in lažji dostop do financiranja na kapitalskih trgih.
               
16.   Peace Support Operations - EU engagement with the UN and the African Union (short presentation)

Puhemies. — Esityslistalla on seuraavana lyhyt esittely Geoffrey Van Ordenin mietinnöstä Rauhanoperaatiot – EU:n yhteistyö YK:n ja Afrikan unionin kanssa (2015/2275(INI)) (A8-0158/2016).
               

Geoffrey Van Orden,
rapporteur. – Madam President, when I set out to write this report, my aim was to have an end product that reflected the reality of the situation and was useful. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the shadow rapporteurs for their cooperation and efforts in helping to achieve this. I believe we have a report that is strongly supported across Parliament.
It deals with a critical issue bearing on so many current concerns in our countries. We have seen flows of refugees and economic migrants, as well as the terrorist threat, increasing – and, by the time these problems are on the doorstep of Europe, it is too late. It is therefore in our interest not only to put our own houses in order so that we reduce the pull factors and our own vulnerabilities, but also to help the African countries, in particular, to deal with their problems.
It is thus in all our interests for African countries, and the African Union in particular, to do more to create peace and stability on their continent, but they need help to achieve this, particularly in building capacity. A key priority is to make the African Standby Force operational and really effective as soon as possible. This requires stronger political will and engagement from the African countries themselves, more advocacy by us in African capitals and practical assistance by our Member States and – in terms of funding and civil resources – by the EU itself.
So often, Parliament's reports give the impression that the EU alone is shouldering the world's problems. This is far from the truth. We need to recognise the efforts of the United Nations, the African Union, the United States and NATO, as well as many individual European countries, in addition to the excellent contribution from the EU itself.
The EU must also avoid duplicating the work of others. There needs to be greater cooperation and communication between all those involved. Given the scale of the challenges and the complex involvement of other organisations and nations, the EU should seek an appropriate division of labour, focusing on where it can best add value, including through support to operations by individual Member States. There is probably sufficient funding available to Africa and for peace support operations. It is a question of how it is spent. There is a requirement for greater transparency and accountability in order to give assurance about appropriate spending. We have a duty to ensure funds are not abused or wasted. The EU should focus its efforts: it needs to prioritise. There are a great many issues to be dealt with and it would be most effective to be selective in the ones we attempt to tackle.
Our engagement over the years in helping overcome the problem of anti-personnel landmines, which have been such a threat in post-conflict development, is a case in point. I do not happen to believe that promotion of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) agenda is the right focus. Others are better able to provide military support. The EU can be useful in other ways. I therefore do not support the references to the CSDP that have been made through amendments to my report in committee.
In order for peace support operations (PSOs) in Africa to be effective in bringing about real change, there must be a consistent drive towards a more coordinated response by all international actors. The UN must carry the main responsibility for external military intervention, but the African Union must increasingly take the regional lead, supported by the most capable of our nations, as well as by the United States, NATO and the EU as appropriate. Enhanced international collaboration, appropriate division of labour and a continued emphasis on African capability and responsibility must be our priorities. The needs of the African countries concerned and the security and cohesion of our own countries should be the overall guiding principles for EU involvement.

Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot


Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! To dobre sprawozdanie. Efektem pracy z generałem Van Ordenem jest sprawozdanie, które z jednej strony jest krytyczne, a z drugiej strony bez wątpienia dobrze ocenia to wszystko, co się działo w Afryce z punktu widzenia różnych misji, nie tylko europejskich. Ale, co dla mnie bardzo istotne, ten krytycyzm jest głównie po to, aby te misje, krótko mówiąc, były lepsze, lepiej funkcjonowały, aby rzeczywiście wyższa efektywność tego całego wysiłku gwarantowała poprawę sytuacji w Afryce.
               

                  Chciałbym także podkreślić, że przy krytycyzmie posła sprawozdawcy udało się ustalić właściwe proporcje dotyczące właściwego zaangażowania Europy w misję w Afryce w ogóle. Myślę, że, ogólnie rzecz biorąc, to sprawozdanie będzie źródłem czy pewną szansą na to, aby nasze misje, w związku z którymi ponosimy określone koszty były efektywniejsze, sprawniejsze i ważniejsze dla Afryki.
               

Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, in questo momento sono in corso 16 operazioni ONU per il mantenimento della pace su diversi fronti del pianeta, con l'impiego di circa 120 000 unità. L'Africa costituisce il punto di maggiore impegno nel difficile sforzo di costruzione della pace, un continente devastato da innumerevoli conflitti e il costo di questi conflitti si conta in milioni di morti, in distruzioni senza fine, nel blocco di qualsiasi processo di sviluppo e nell'esodo di massa delle popolazioni verso l'Europa. I paesi europei e la stessa Unione europea sono importanti contribuenti del sistema ONU, in particolare attraverso il sostegno finanziario accordato ai programmi e ai progetti delle Nazioni Unite. È necessario fare molto di più per vincere le sfide che abbiamo di fronte. L'attuale azione delle Nazioni Unite deve essere quindi potenziata e resa più incisiva dal contributo di tutti i paesi che hanno i mezzi tecnici ed economici. L'Europa e la comunità internazionale devono essere in grado di vincere questa sfida, non solo attraverso le missioni di pace ma soprattutto esercitando la necessaria azione per la prevenzione dei conflitti.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, οι ξένες επεμβάσεις είναι και θα παραμείνουν καταδικαστέες όποια μορφή και αν λαμβάνουν. Στο όνομα της υποστήριξης της ειρήνης διαμελίστηκαν χώρες, κοινωνίες ολόκληρες καταδικάστηκαν στην υπανάπτυξη και λαοί εξαφανίστηκαν. Ο απολογισμός των πρόσφατων παρεμβάσεων και επεμβάσεων στην Αφρική δεν αποτελεί εξαίρεση από αυτή την περιγραφή· παρεμβάσεις ανεπιτυχείς ακόμη και από στρατιωτική σκοπιά. Τι έγινε στη Σομαλία, στο Σαχέλ, στη Λιβύη; Τα παραδείγματα αυτά δεν είναι τυχαία. Είναι τρεις περιοχές στις οποίες μετά από ξένες στρατιωτικές επεμβάσεις το σαλαφιστικό Ισλάμ έγινε ισχυρότερο. Δηλαδή επανελήφθη το σενάριο του Ιράκ ακέραιο.
               

                  Οι αποφάσεις όμως έχουν κόστος, ειδικά οι ανεύθυνες αποφάσεις, και ιδιαίτερα της Γαλλίας, της οποίας οι διαδοχικές κυβερνήσεις και οι επιφανείς δήθεν διανοούμενοι επιχειρούν να συμπαρασύρουν ολόκληρη την Ευρώπη σε καταστροφικούς πολέμους στην Αφρική. Ας αναλάβει λοιπόν τις ευθύνες της η Γαλλία, ιδίως σε σχέση με τους πρόσφυγες και τους μετανάστες που πνίγονται καθημερινά στα ανοιχτά της Κρήτης και της Λαμπεντούζα. Ας αναλάβει και την ανοικοδόμηση των χωρών που έχει καταστρέψει και ας μη χρεώνει στα άλλα κράτη μερίδιο της δικής της αδιέξοδης διπλωματίας που κρατά επί χρόνια.
               

Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospođo predsjednice, Ujedinjeni narodi, Europska unija i Afrička unija ključ su uspjeha za stabilnost i za sigurniju budućnost afričkog kontinenta. Ali tu treba pozvati i druge zemlje, treba pozvati, i već se angažiraju naravno, i SAD i Kina koja ima nekoliko tisuća vojnika spremnih u svakom trenutku za pomoć u Africi. To su dobri primjeri. Ono što NATO čini, to su dobri primjeri. Ono što čine naše zemlje, Europska je unija milijardu i pol eura utrošila za razminiranje nakon raznih ratova u zadnjih 20 godina. To su stvari koje trebamo isticati, ali naravno trebamo isticati i ozbiljne probleme.
               

                  Eko-migranti su ono što nam se dešava danas, a još više će se dešavati sutra. Eko-migranata će biti sve više zbog klimatskih promjena i krajnje je vrijeme da učinimo konkretne korake za stabilizaciju i sigurnost u Africi.
               

Miguel Viegas (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, contrariamente às profecias dos anos noventa, que anunciavam uma era de paz, de segurança e de prosperidade, vivemos hoje num mundo mais perigoso, com mais guerras, mais desigualdade e miséria.
               

                  Estas guerras, quase sempre disfarçadas com intenções humanitárias, refletem a necessidade dos países ricos de dominarem as grandes reservas de matérias-primas e, por isso, fomentam a corrupção. A África está cansada de ingerência, está cansada de governos corruptos suportados por multinacionais com a conivência dos países capitalistas. Está cansada de sucessivas manobras de ingerência nas quais despejam armas em cima do continente africano e se fomentam guerras fratricidas a contento das grandes multinacionais do complexo militar industrial.
               

                  A África clama por um novo paradigma ao nível das relações internacionais, um paradigma baseado no respeito pela soberania nacional, pelo respeito à autodeterminação, ao direito de cada povo poder dispor dos seus recursos e escolher o seu próprio modelo desenvolvimento.
               

Jonathan Arnott (EFDD). – Madam President, Commission President Juncker famously said that a European army will be necessary in the long run. This report, written by a British Conservative MEP, does not support a common security and defence policy. It is pro-EU enough in a lot of ways, because it talks about strengthening EU military cooperation, but it stops short and deliberately does not support a common security and defence policy.
And of course what we have in this Chamber is amendment after amendment putting all of those things back in, because the European Union wants to move inexorably in that direction, towards a European army. So if anyone is in any doubt that that is the direction of travel, all you need do is look at the amendments to this report.

(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)


Christos Stylianides,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank you very much for your kind invitation to attend this presentation and for the exchange of views. I very much welcome Mr Van Orden's report on EU engagement with the United Nations and the African Union in peace support operations. I also very much appreciate the close involvement of both the Committee on Development and the Subcommittee on Security and Defence on this important issue, which falls at the intersection of security and development.
The UN and the African Union are our strategic partners in preventing conflicts, promoting stability and building peace in Africa, including through the deployment of peace support operations in crisis and post-conflict scenarios. Peace and security is a priority area of cooperation under both the Africa-EU Strategic Partnership and the new EU-UN Strategic Partnership. African-led peace support operations receive substantial financial support from the European Union under the African Peace Facility (APF). As noted in the report, stronger emphasis will now be given to building the African Union's own capacities in order to enable it to respond to and manage crises by itself. The establishment of the African Standby Force is an important milestone in this regard. Let me also recall that, through the APF, we provide support not only to African-led missions, but also to the overall African Peace and Security Architecture and to the Early Response Mechanism, which plays a critical role in conflict prevention and resolution by enabling African mediation and preventive diplomacy actions.
We are working hard to ensure the financial sustainability of the APF, which is being called on to provide support to an increasing number of peace and security operations. But this needs fairer burden sharing with our African and international partners, as called for in the report. We raised this important issue at the recent meeting of the Commission with the African Union Commission.
EU crisis management missions and operations in Africa, under our Common Security and Defence Policy, are also closely coordinated with the UN and AU, particularly when deployed in parallel to UN and/or African Union peace support operations, for instance in Somalia, the Central African Republic (CAR) and Mali. We maintain regular contacts with the African Union and the UN at all levels, from the planning stage to the end of the implementation stage, not only in the headquarters but also in the field, in order to ensure an efficient division of labour, to share relevant information, including on situational awareness, and, indeed, to conduct joint conflict analysis, for instance in the CAR.
Cooperation with the UN in building African Union peace and security capacities is also close and fruitful, not only in crisis management, early warning and mediation but also in policy areas such as security-sector reform and disarmament, demobilisation and the reintegration of ex-combatants. When building African capacities in police and criminal justice matters, we also discuss with the UN relevant principles and approaches.
Beyond the specific case of Africa, we also welcome the draft report's support for the objectives of the recent Joint Communication on Capacity Building for Security and Development, which aims at better enabling our partners to prevent and manage crises by themselves, acknowledging the need to provide support to both the civilian law-enforcement services and the military, particularly in conflict-affected countries.

Puhemies. — Keskustelu on päättynyt.
               
17.   Unfair trading practices in the food supply chain (short presentation)

Puhemies. — Esityslistalla on seuraavana lyhyt esittely Edward Czesakin mietinnöstä Hyvän kauppatavan vastaiset käytännöt elintarvikeketjussa (2015/2065(INI)) (A8-0173/2016).
               

Edward Czesak,
sprawozdawca. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Cieszę się, że dziś, po prawie roku od rozpoczęcia prac nad projektem, mogę przedstawić ostateczne sprawozdanie w sprawie nieuczciwych praktyk handlowych w łańcuchu dostaw żywności. Prace nad sprawozdaniem rozpoczął poseł Dawid Jackiewicz – obecnie minister w rządzie Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej. Chciałbym podkreślić znaczący wkład pracy, zarówno posła, jak też jego współpracowników oraz pracowników sekretariatu.
               

                  Nie bez znaczenia dla finalnego kształtu sprawozdania było również zaangażowanie posłów z poszczególnych grup politycznych, a w szczególności posłów cieni. Wszystkim serdecznie dziękuję za poświęcony czas i aktywność. Mam świadomość, iż tematyka sprawozdania jest niezwykle ważna, zarówno dla środowisk dystrybutorów, jak i dostawców, a jej ostateczny tekst oraz przesłanie będzie mieć ogromne znaczenie dla przyszłości relacji pomiędzy obiema grupami.
               

                  W sprawozdaniu jednoznacznie stwierdziliśmy, iż nieuczciwe praktyki handlowe są problemem, którego istnienie potwierdzają wszystkie podmioty w łańcuchu dostaw żywności oraz krajowe organy do spraw konkurencji. Konkretne przykłady potwierdzają wagę tego problemu, między innymi w Wielkiej Brytanii czy w Polsce. Podczas prac nad sprawozdaniem odbyło się wiele spotkań, zarówno z organizacjami międzynarodowymi, jak i narodowymi. Przedstawiono wiele sugestii oraz doświadczeń w zakresie funkcjonowania, zarówno rozwiązań dobrowolnych, jak i ustawodawczych na poziomach krajowych. Komisja oraz Parlament wielokrotnie zwracali uwagę na problem nieuczciwych praktyk handlowych, między innymi w sprawozdaniu Komisji z 29 stycznia br. Znalazło to swoje odzwierciedlenie w licznie zgłoszonych poprawkach. Opinii na jego temat nie znamy, wiemy jednak, że zdania są podzielone. Przykład: przegląd rozwiązań w zakresie przeciwdziałania nieuczciwym praktykom handlowym w państwach członkowskich potwierdza, iż dobrowolne inicjatywy okazują się obecnie niewystarczające. W sprawozdaniu zawarto zalecenia wspierające potrzebę wytężonych prac nad rozwiązaniami poprawiającymi relacje pomiędzy dostawcami i supermarketami, między innymi w kwestii minimalizowania czynnika strachu. Zawarliśmy również wezwanie Komisji do podjęcia działań w kierunku formułowania nowych narzędzi wzmacniających działania na rzecz przeciwdziałania nieuczciwym praktykom. Prawie wszystkie państwa członkowskie wprowadziły rozwiązania regulacyjne uzupełniające dobre praktyki. Dziś już możemy stwierdzić, że w kontekście sprawozdania Komisji opisane doświadczenia innych państw potwierdzają, że inicjatywy dobrowolne mogą mieć jedynie efekt uzupełniający.
               

                  Obecnie funkcjonujące inicjatywy są obarczone jednak niedoskonałościami, które wskazujemy w treści sprawozdania. W ostatnim czasie większość państw wprowadziła własne regulacje krajowe. Zatem należy zachęcić państwa członkowskie do wymiany doświadczeń w zakresie rozwiązań regulacyjnych. Należy też zapytać, czy to wystarczy. Wierzę, że wypracowane wspólnie treści zawarte w sprawozdaniu będą znaczącym krokiem w kwestii działań na rzecz przeciwdziałania nieuczciwym praktykom handlowym w łańcuchu dostaw żywności. Zależy nam wszystkim, aby właśnie relacje pomiędzy środowiskami w obszarze handlu były transparentne i równoprawne. Tym samym mam nadzieję, że podczas obecnej sesji parlamentarnej poprą Państwo w głosowaniu projekt sprawozdania.
               

Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot


Λευτέρης Χριστοφόρου (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, πιστεύω ότι για αυτό το ζήτημα το Ευρωκοινοβούλιο πρέπει να είναι ξεκάθαρο. Πρέπει να στηρίξουμε και να θωρακίσουμε τους καταναλωτές, τους παραγωγούς και τις μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις από τις αθέμιτες πρακτικές που εφαρμόζουν στη διατροφική αλυσίδα και στο εμπόριο οι διάφορες μεγάλες επιχειρήσεις. Πιστεύω ότι όλοι μας είμαστε καταναλωτές και γνωρίζουμε ότι ο αδύναμος κρίκος σε αυτήν την αλυσίδα τροφίμων είναι οι καταναλωτές, πρωτίστως, οι παραγωγοί αλλά και οι μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις. Αυτή η μεγάλη αλυσίδα εφοδιασμού τροφίμων παίζει ένα σημαντικό ρόλο στις οικονομίες και στην κοινωνία, λαμβανομένου υπόψη ότι αποτελεί το 4,3% του Ακαθάριστου Εθνικού Προϊόντος της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και το 17% των μικρομεσαίων επιχειρήσεων. Άρα στηρίζουμε, ενισχύουμε και σφραγίζουμε το πλαίσιο, ενισχύουμε το δίκαιο του ανταγωνισμού αλλά και το θεσμικό πλαίσιο που πρέπει να είναι υπέρ του καταναλωτή, να τον προστατεύει, να σέβεται τα δικαιώματα του καταναλωτή, να του παρέχει μεγάλη διαφάνεια. Με όλα αυτά τα όπλα πιστεύω ότι μπορούμε να ανατρέψουμε τις αθέμιτες πρακτικές σε αυτή τη σημαντική και ευαίσθητη πτυχή που έχει να κάνει ουσιαστικά με όλους εμάς τους καταναλωτές αλλά και με τα τρόφιμα με τα οποία εφοδιαζόμαστε καθημερινά.
               

Olga Sehnalová (S&D). – Paní předsedající, s prodlením při úhradě plateb, jednostrannými změnami smluvních podmínek nebo přenášením nákladů ze strany obchodního partnera se setkalo mnoho subjektů potravinářského dodavatelského řetězce.
               

                  Dobrovolné iniciativy na národní i evropské úrovni, v rámci nichž se někteří aktéři trhu zavázali k dodržování férového jednání, trpí prokazatelně řadou nedostatků. Nedají se proto považovat za nástroj proti zneužívání nerovného postavení.
               

                  Vzhledem ke vzrůstající roztříštěnosti pravidel na vnitřním trhu potřebujeme jednotný evropský rámec, který bude definovat společné zásady v boji proti nekalým obchodním praktikám.
               

                  Tato zpráva požaduje nastavit spravedlivé konkurenční prostředí napříč členskými státy, jež umožní, aby trhy fungovaly tak, jak mají. Požaduje nastavení férových a transparentních vztahů mezi výrobci, dodavateli a distributory. Vyzývá také ke zlepšení omezené spolupráce národních dozorových orgánů s cílem zlepšit potírání přeshraničních případů.
               

                  Vyvážení vyjednávacích sil v celém řetězci posílí konkurenceschopnost, přispěje k udržitelnému rozvoji a rozmanitému výběru kvalitních a dostupných potravin pro koncové spotřebitele.
               

Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospođo predsjednice, nepoštene trgovačke prakse u lancu opskrbe hranom brojne su i svakodnevne pa mi je iznimno drago da izvjestitelj ovom problemu pristupa na ozbiljan i sveobuhvatan način.
               

                  Posebno bih izdvojila jedan problem s kojim se susreću svi mali proizvođači u Hrvatskoj, a to je neravnoteža pregovaračke moći koja ima nepovoljan učinak na ugovornu slobodu, raznolikost ponude i cijenu. Naime, veliki distributeri i trgovački lanci koriste nesređenost tržišta i svoju dominantnu poziciju na njemu kako bi što je više moguće srušili cijenu otkupa, što mali proizvođači jednostavno ne mogu preživjeti.
               

                  Izvjestitelj nudi kvalitetno rješenje u vidu osnivanja proizvođačkih organizacija koje bi male proizvođače stavile u povoljniju pregovaračku poziciju i ja ga u tome apsolutno podupirem, ali moramo biti svjesni da će bez puno jače uloge nadležnih tijela država članica u informiranju i pravnoj zaštiti malih proizvođača ovaj model teško u potpunosti zaživjeti i dati očekivane rezultate.
               

Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). – Madam President, we need efficient tools to deal with imbalances in the food sector in order to ensure fairness, transparency and trust. The Supply Chain Initiative is a good process. It is gaining ground. Now we need to show concrete results on impartial governance, confidential claims and sanctions. It is about creating a culture of compliance in the Member States. And the solution is enforcing rules, such as the Late Payment Directive, rather than creating new rules which could burden SMEs even more.
Competition law is a key, in food retail as elsewhere, to ensuring a level playing field. The Commission has been clear that, on the basis of independent study and years of work together with us, EU legislation unfortunately does not solve the problem.
Colleagues, I call on you to vote against EU legislation on unfair trading practices. Let us not give our dear farmers, SMEs and consumers, who have legitimate concerns, the illusion of a quick fix from Brussels.

Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospođo predsjedavajuća, gospodine povjereniče, zar nije čudno da na našim tržištima imamo oznaku fair trade za uvoz kakaoa, za uvoz kave, a onda na našem vlastitom tržištu naši proizvođači dolaze u situaciju da nemaju fair trade, i da nisu u situaciji da se mogu obraniti od napada, od nasilja gotovo, kojega imamo na tržištu.
               

                  Mi smo za slobodno tržište, ali nismo za slobodu nasilja na tom tržištu, zato što želimo poštenu konkurenciju. Jedino poštena konkurencija, pogotovo oni koji su manji, slabašni, ali koji su ključ za raznolikost naših okusa i mirisa u našoj europskoj poljoprivredi, upravo ti mali proizvođači nose raznolikost i bogatstvo raznolikosti u Europi i njih moramo zaštititi i na tržištu, upravo na način na koji ovaj izvještaj predlaže, ali i na onaj način na koji to zemlje članice moraju učiniti.
               

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, face a sucessivas denúncias de produtores que sobrevivem, os que sobrevivem, com a corda na garganta, a Comissão Europeia tem o peculiar e muito conveniente entendimento que, por definição, no mercado interno não há dumping.
               

                  Mas a verdade é que continuam a aparecer nas prateleiras dos supermercados, todos os dias, produtos a preços impossíveis, inferiores aos custos de produção que arrasam os produtores, que tendem a arrasar sectores de produção nacionais inteiros.
               

                  Os exemplos são em demasia! Veja-se o caso do queijo oriundo do centro da Europa à venda em Portugal, em grandes superfícies comerciais, a preços que não pagam sequer o custo do leite a partir do qual foi feito. A verdade é bem diferente da versão da Comissão Europeia. O dumping não só existe como é inerente ao funcionamento do mercado interno.
               

                  Um mercado feito à medida dos grandes grupos económicos, incluindo os da grande distribuição, da sua pulsão imperial e colonizadora, que arrasa sistemas de produção e produtores e que contribui para nivelar por baixo as condições de vida e de trabalho na Europa.
               

Igor Šoltes (Verts/ALE). – Po nekaterih podatkih naj bi nepoštene trgovinske prakse evropskim potrošnikom prinesle kar trideset do štirideset milijard evrov stroškov na leto. Nedvomno takšne prakse najbolj prizadenejo mikro-, mala in pa srednja podjetja ter seveda tudi kmete, ki so najbolj na udaru.
               

                  Zelo zgovorna je tudi statistika, ki opozarja na to, da praktično pet trgovcev v Evropi obvladuje kar petdesetprocentni tržni delež. Gre torej za prakso, ki ni dobra za pošteno konkurenco in, kar lahko občutijo seveda tudi, tako kot sem rekel, mala, srednja podjetja, kmetje kot tudi potrošniki. Zato želimo da bi evropska zakonodaja to uredila na bolj učinkovit, pošten način, je pa seveda tudi veliko v državah članicah.
               

                  Dosedanje rešitve seveda niso idealne, tudi to, o čemer bomo glasovali v prihodnjih dneh, ni idealen model. Morda je korak naprej, ampak želimo si, da bi ta praksa… predvsem pa da bi Evropska komisija pripravila še bolj ambiciozen načrt in pa ukrepe za zaščito malih, srednjih podjetij, kmetov in pa na koncu potrošnikov.
               

Zoltán Balczó (NI). – Elnök Asszony! A jelentés számos olyan mechanizmust tár fel, amelyek tisztességtelen kereskedelmi gyakorlatot valósítanak meg az élelmiszerláncban. Különösen fontos, hogy kiemeli, hogy az áraknak jobban kellene tükrözniük az elsődleges termelők hozzáadott értékét.
               

                  Most egy olyan tisztességtelen kereskedelmi eljárásra térnék ki, ami a jelentésben nem szerepel: ez a keleti és nyugati piacokon értékesített áruk minősége közötti különbség. Ezzel kapcsolatban hatvanan, képviselők, nyújtottunk be írásban egy nyilatkozatot. Ugyanis egyértelmű vizsgálatok mutatják, hogy ugyanaz a termék, ugyanabban a csomagolásban, ugyanazért az árért sokkal rosszabb minőségű, ha a keleti piacokon értékesítik. Azt mondták, hogy a keleti, közép-kelet-európai országok nem másodrendű állampolgárokként kerülnek be az EU-ba. Ezek a cégek pedig úgy gondolják, hogy ebben az Európa-házban nekünk nem a szalonban, hanem a cselédszobában van a helyünk. Ezt a gyakorlatot nem lehet elfogadni.
               

Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Madam President, can I thank the rapporteur for his work on this and for his cooperation with our colleagues in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development where I drafted the opinion? Clearly this is on the agenda, because it is a problem, I recall that since 2009 there have been five resolutions on this issue before the House, and it is still before us this evening. There are differences as to how you tackle it.
Can I just say in relation to the Supply Chain Initiative that the reason it exists at all is because there was political pressure on the powerful in the food supply chain to take action. They would not have done so without consistent pressure from this House. Anna Maria Corazza Bildt was involved in this, as was I, with other colleagues as well.
I hope this House will give a strong signal to the Commissioner who is with us this evening that there will be EU action and attention to this issue. It is about producers and consumers, because consumer choice is impacted where the powerful have too much power, and when we want sustainable food supply chains, with an eye to the environment, we need those chains to be fair.

Ricardo Serrão Santos (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, os agricultores sofrem atualmente de um esmagamento de preços que nalguns sectores, como o do leite, se situam em níveis historicamente baixos. Para além de condições de mercado pouco favoráveis, o relacionamento dos agricultores com a indústria e a distribuição revela diferenças em termos de capacidade negocial, o que resulta na diminuição dos preços que recebem.
               

                  Face à necessidade de garantir o escoamento dos seus produtos, os agricultores veem-se muitas vezes impelidos a aceitar condições que os obrigam a rever em baixa as suas previsões de rendimentos.
               

                  É urgente que exista legislação europeia para reequilibrar este relacionamento e garantir um preço justo aos agricultores. Esta questão adquire uma importância particular no caso das regiões cuja produção depende fortemente da distribuição para escoar os seus produtos, como é o caso dos Açores.
               

                  Por isso, quero saudar a visita que o senhor comissário fará esta semana à Feira da Agricultura em Portugal, onde se prevê uma reunião com o presidente do Governo Regional dos Açores.
               

(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)


Phil Hogan,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I am taking this report this evening on behalf of my colleague Commissioner Bieńkowska. The Commission would like to thank the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection for this report on unfair trading practices in the food supply chain. In particular I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Czesak, for his hard work on this report. I would like to thank the shadow rapporteurs and rapporteurs from other committees, in particular Ms McGuinness, for their input.
I fully share your views about the importance of the food supply chain. It affects all of us as European citizens so it is crucial that the chain functions well. There are very large and very small players operating in the food chain, and commercial relationships between these companies usually work reasonably well. Of course, negotiations can sometimes be tough but what we need to avoid is companies abusing large differences in bargaining power to apply unfair trading practices. I fully agree with you that this is not acceptable.
For the agricultural sector I have asked the Agricultural Markets Task Force to further assess the issue of unfair trading practices and I look forward to their conclusions and their recommendations later this year.
As you know, unfair trading practices have been a hot issue in many Member States in recent years. Your report acknowledges the numerous initiatives that have been taken to address the issue. We reported on this in January: we found that 20 Member States had introduced legislation against unfair trading practices and more were planning to do so. Obviously there is a problem when so many Member States have acted in a legislative way. Where Member States have identified a major problem they have introduced comprehensive and strong enforcement measures. It is true that Member States have taken different approaches on the issue. Most of these national frameworks are quite recent. So I agree that we should continuously monitor and assess these national frameworks to see if they are working or not. And that is what we will do.
An important achievement in the fight against unfair practices was the launch of the EU voluntary Supply Chain Initiative. Your report welcomes this initiative but points to a number of weaknesses. You suggested that, because of these, farmer representatives have not joined the scheme. We agree that the initiative was a step in the right direction and commercial issues cannot always be solved by regulation alone. Any measure that aims to build trust between the parties should be given a serious chance. And we agree with you that there are very concrete points that can and must still be improved.
So we will work together with all relevant stakeholders to make this happen. As voluntary efforts go, this is give and take. We hope that farmer representatives will reconsider joining the initiative so that they can prove its value and can make their case within it.
We welcome Mr Czesak's report, we will reflect in detail on its suggestions, and together we need to focus on actions that can truly make a change and add value, and I am committing myself to do so in conjunction with the report of the Agricultural Markets Task Force later this year.

Puhemies. — Keskustelu on päättynyt.
               

Petras Auštrevičius (ALDE),
in writing. – Unfair trading practices (UTPs) can affect small food producers and retailers in business relationships where one party is in a stronger position than the other. UTPs are often regarded as practices that deviate from good commercial conduct or are contrary to good faith and fair dealing imposed from one trading partner to another. These practices can have a negative effect on the EU economy as a whole, resulting in SMEs losing their ability to invest and innovate and a failure to seek expansion in the single market. The issue has come to our attention in recent years with many Member States installing self-regulatory frameworks and providing examples of best practices. However, the problem of UTPs is growing and becoming more widespread, and voluntary procedures will not be enough to solve the issue. Consistent action from the EU is needed to eliminate UTPs in the food supply chain and to protect small producers. This can be done through defining what UTPs consist of and the penalty for their use, as well as encouraging Member States to exchange best practices. The problem of unfair trading internally in the EU must be dealt with to protect fair competition and prevent worsening effects on the EU economy.

Birgit Collin-Langen (PPE),
schriftlich. – Ich unterstütze den Initiativbericht und die Forderung nach einer stärkeren Regulierung, damit Lebensmittelerzeuger und Einzelhändler angemessen gegen unlautere Handelspraktiken geschützt werden können. Es ist nun an der Kommission, genau zu prüfen, wie wir einen einheitlichen Rahmen gegen unlautere Handelspraktiken in der Lebensmittelversorgungskette festlegen können, damit wir faire und transparente Beziehungen zwischen allen an der Lebensmittelversorgungskette Beteiligten gewährleisten können.
               

Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE),
írásban. – A vállalkozások közötti kapcsolatokban alkalmazott tisztességtelen kereskedelmi gyakorlatok egyre inkább előtérbe kerültek az elmúlt években, és bár nehéz felmérni a probléma jelentőségét, jelentős mennyiségű statisztikai és piaci alapú bizonyíték áll rendelkezésre, amely arra enged következtetni, hogy a tisztességtelen kereskedelmi gyakorlatok viszonylag elterjedtek, különösen az élelmiszer-ellátási láncban. Számos tagállam felismerte, hogy a tisztességtelen kereskedelmi gyakorlatok kárt okoznak, és intézkedéseket hoztak az ellenük irányuló küzdelem érdekében. A szabályokban azonban e területen is jelentős eltérések vannak az egyes tagállamok között, és a probléma mértéke is eltérő.
               

                  Véleményem szerint a probléma nagyságrendje miatt olyan uniós jogszabályokat kell elfogadni, amelyek biztosítják a piacok rendeltetésszerű működését, valamint az élelmiszer-ellátási lánc valamennyi résztvevője közötti tisztességes és átlátható kapcsolatokat. Úgy vélem, hogy határozott, következetes intézkedéseket kell hozni annak érdekében, hogy a tisztességtelen kereskedelmi gyakorlatokat egyszer és mindenkorra megszüntessék az EU élelmiszer-ellátási láncban.
               

Beata Gosiewska (ECR),
na piśmie. – Jako Posłanka z Polski pozytywnie odnoszę się do sprawozdania dotyczącego nieuczciwych praktyk handlowych w łańcuchu dostaw żywności. Nieuczciwe praktyki handlowe w łańcuchu dostaw żywności, biorące swój początek głównie z braku równowagi ekonomicznej w stosunkach handlowych, mają zdecydowanie negatywny wpływ na całą gospodarkę Unii Europejskiej. Nadużywanie silniejszej pozycji rynkowej przez duże firmy pozbawia małe i średnie przedsiębiorstwa zdolności do inwestowania, a przez to blokuje rozwój tego sektora gospodarki na jednolitym rynku unijnym. Powszechność występowania problematyki nieuczciwych praktyk handlowych i ich stosowania w odniesieniu do małych producentów żywności i sprzedawców detalicznych ukazuje słabość funkcjonujących do tej pory mechanizmów samoregulacyjnych w celu przywrócenia równowagi rynkowej. Nie bez wpływu na brak skuteczności tych mechanizmów jest podniesiony w niniejszym raporcie ‘czynnik strachu’, który niejako wymusza na małych i średnich producentach poddanie się nieuczciwym praktykom z obawy o zerwanie stosunków handlowych przez stronę silniejszą - duży koncern. Dlatego z tego miejsca apeluję o podjęcie zdecydowanych działań zmierzających do całkowitego wyeliminowania nieuczciwych praktyk handlowych występujących w łańcuchu dostaw produktów spożywczych w Unii Europejskiej.
               

Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE),
schriftlich. – Wenn Milch billiger als Wasser verkauft wird, ist das ein Skandal! Die Schleuderpreispolitik auf Kosten der Landwirte muss ein Ende haben. Handelskonzerne, die Milch und Fleisch als Lockmittel unter dem Einstandspreis verscherbeln, vergehen sich an der nachhaltigen Nahrungsmittelherstellung auf Kosten unserer Bauern und der Konsumenten. Unsere Landwirte brauchen keine weiteren Analysen und Bestandsaufnahmen über die unlauteren Handelspraktiken im Lebensmittelhandel, sondern eine EU-Rahmengesetzgebung, die systematisch gegen Produzentenerpressung und Unterbietungswettbewerb vorgeht! Die Übermacht der Konzerne beschert den Landwirten Zahlungsverzug, einseitige Vertragsänderungen und Vorabzahlungen an Supermärkte als Eintrittsgebühr. Das hat nichts mehr mit Marktwirtschaft zu tun. Die Kommission muss daher rasch mit effizienten Durchsetzungsmechanismen und wirksamen Sanktionen dieser fatalen Fehlentwicklung entgegenwirken.
               

                  Qualitäts-Lebensmittel haben ihren Preis. Der Status quo bedeutet aber eine reine Gewinnmaximierung von Handelskonzernen und ihrer Lobby. Damit werden der Massenproduktion Tür und Tor geöffnet. Dafür bin ich aber nicht zu haben. Sowohl unsere Bauern als auch die Konsumenten haben ein Anrecht darauf, dass in Europa langfristig Nahrungsmittel in Spitzenqualität produziert werden.
               

Marijana Petir (PPE),
napisan. – Zalažem se da se problem nepoštene trgovačke prakse koja je rak rana europske, ali i hrvatske poljoprivrede, riješi donošenjem Zakona na EU razini, jer se pokazalo da volonterski pristup ovom problemu ne daje rezultate. Beskrajno dugim rokovima plaćanja i jednostranim izmjenama ili raskidima ugovornih obveza od strane trgovačkih lanaca treba stati na kraj.
               

                  Kada se radi o tržišnom natjecanju, često se donose mjere koje su usmjerene na proizvođače, dok se nepoštena trgovačka praksa otkupljivača i njihova koncentracija gotovo do razine monopola tolerira. Poljoprivrednike se takvim bezobzirnim i nepoštenim postupanjem dovodi na prosjački štap.
               

                  Pita li se netko od čega ti ljudi žive i od čega školuju svoju djecu, ako im i po godinu dana nisu plaćeni njihovi proizvodi ili ako su im preko noći vraćeni pod izlikom da nisu dovoljno dobri samo zato što je uvezena jeftinija i manje kvalitetna roba izgurala njihov proizvod? S obzirom da imamo zajedničko tržište taj se problem treba riješiti na zajedničkoj, EU razini. Zakonom. I to odmah!
               

Dubravka Šuica (PPE),
napisan. – Nepoštena trgovačka praksa ozbiljan je problem prisutan u brojnim gospodarskim sukobima. Važnost lanca opskrbe hranom velika je za Uniju, jer taj sektor zapošljava više od 47 milijuna ljudi, s udjelom do 7 % u bruto dodanoj vrijednosti na razini EU-a. Općenito govoreći, nepoštena trgovačka praksa može se definirati kao praksa koja grubo odstupa od dobrog poslovnog ponašanja. Smatram da su nepoštene trgovačke prakse prepreka razvoju i dobrom funkcioniranju unutarnjeg tržišta.
               

                  Potrošači mogu ostati uskraćeni za raznovrsnost ponude. Takva praksa ima ozbiljne negativne posljedice za poljoprivrednike, poput smanjene dobiti, troškova koji su viši no što je predviđeno, prekomjerne proizvodnje i rasipanja hrane te poteškoća u financijskom planiranju. Takva praksa nastaje tamo gdje su neravnoteže u financijskim sredstvima, a smatram da može imati štetan učinak na gospodarstvo Unije u cjelini jer može dovesti do toga da tvrtke, osobito mali i srednji poduzetnici gube svoju sposobnost investiranja.
               

                  Smatram da će usvajanje zajedničkih standarda, kao sredstvo borbe protiv ovakve prakse, omogućiti tržište rada na kojem postoje pošteni i transparentni odnosi između svih strana uključenih u lancu opskrbe hranom.
               
18.   Technological solutions for sustainable agriculture (short presentation)

Puhemies. — Esityslistalla on seuraavana lyhyt esittely Anthea McIntyren mietinnöstä Kestävän maatalouden tekniset ratkaisut (2015/2225(INI)) (A8-0174/2016).
               

Anthea McIntyre,
rapporteur. – Madam President, let me start by saying how much I have really appreciated the support and cooperation of all the Groups and the shadows in producing this report. It is estimated that there will be nearly 2.5 billion more people on the planet by 2050 than there are today, so satisfying the demand for safe, healthy and nutritious food is one of the biggest challenges facing our world. Land availability is shrinking; we have environmental degradation, shortages of water and increased energy demand, not to mention the emergence of new pests and diseases – all of which are putting real pressure on the natural environment. So we need to develop technological solutions not only to increase production, but to improve the means of distribution and to tackle food waste, and the benefits of innovative technologies need to be applicable and available to all our farmers whether they are conventional or organic, livestock or arable, small scale or large scale.
Concern about food security has brought a new focus to public sector research and development in recent years, but European agriculture continues to trail behind many of its international competitors. What we need is sustained and prioritised investment in applied and translational research. Not enough research is commercialised, and that means that farmers are not able to take advantage of the opportunities that innovation could provide, Take precision farming, for example. My report calls on the Commission and the Member States to work in partnership to improve the performance and adaptability of PF techniques.
Agriculture accounts for 70% of the world's freshwater use – 70%. Now this can be significantly reduced by the use of precision irrigation techniques. My report welcomes the inclusion of PF robotics in Horizon 2020 and encourages the uptake of GPS-driven machinery and drones. It welcomes the development of controlled traffic farming technologies which reduce soil damage. It welcomes efforts to integrate high-resolution remote sensing technology into organic farming.
The report also covers the need for continuous progress in innovative breeding aimed at increasing not only the range of pest- and disease-resistant traits in crops, but also the range of food raw materials with nutritional and health beneficial characteristics on the market. The loss of genetic diversity over the past century threatens our food and feed security, so all plant varieties, animal species, land races, wild and semi-wild relatives, they are all essential for maintaining genetic diversity. And we should be encouraging an open and transparent dialogue among the stakeholders and the public on responsible development of high-precision innovative solutions for breeding programmes, including risks, hazards and benefits. We need to raise awareness and understanding of new techniques among farmers and the general public, and we have to make sure that consumers and farmers are sufficiently educated about new breeding techniques to ensure that open and informed public debate can take place.
Europe should be a world leader in agricultural technology. Farmers are the major stewards of our environment and they need continued access to innovation, new technology and research in order to produce food in a sustainable way. So we need all to work together – the EU and the Member States, academia such as Harper Adams University in my region, the industry, breeders, agro-chemical sectors, all work together to make sure that we have the best research and we translate it practice, from lab to farm to fork. That will unlock a new phase in agricultural innovation in Europe.

Catch-the-eye procedure


Norbert Lins (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Damit die europäische Landwirtschaft im globalen Vergleich weiterhin eine herausragende Stellung in Technologie, Innovation und Nachhaltigkeit einnehmen kann, müssen wir sie für die Zukunft fit machen.
               

                  Dafür bedarf es meiner Meinung nach: Erstens: Ressourcen schon in der Präzisionslandwirtschaft, welche die Wirksamkeit der eingesetzten Mittel verbessern. Zweitens: Der Einbeziehung aller Landwirtschaftsformen und aller Regionen, also Gunstlagen genauso wie benachteiligte Gebiete sowie große und kleine Betriebe, um die nachhaltige Entwicklung des gesamten ländlichen Raums zu garantieren. Drittens: Einer besseren Zusammenarbeit zwischen Landwirten, Agrarunternehmen und Forschungseinrichtungen. Was die strittigen Punkte betrifft: Neue Züchtungstechniken sollten nicht von vornherein als negativ abgestempelt, sondern erst einer fundierten wissenschaftlichen Analyse unterzogen werden. Deswegen finde ich es gut, dass in der Ökolandbauforschung auch eine kontroverse Diskussion dazu stattfindet. In diesem Sinne herzlichen Dank an die Berichterstatterin für die gute Zusammenarbeit.
               

Ricardo Serrão Santos (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, a inovação deve estar ao serviço de todos os tipos de exploração agrícola, incluindo as de tamanho mais modesto ou familiar, para o que as regiões ultraperiféricas podem constituir um bom laboratório.
               

                  Soluções inovadoras podem contribuir para uma agricultura mais eficaz no uso dos recursos que melhorem a competitividade dos agricultores.
               

                  O texto que debatemos inclui referências a novas técnicas de melhoramento, new breeding techniques. Relativamente a estas, entendo que não podemos adotar uma posição obscurantista porque devemos e temos a obrigação de criar um ambiente propício ao desenvolvimento da ciência, mas sempre, e repito, sempre, com medidas de precaução poderosas e muito precauciosas no que diz respeito ao impacto no ambiente e saúde dos animais das pessoas.
               

                  Exige mais debate e mais informação para não adotarmos posições demasiado apriorísticas. Não devemos impedir o desenvolvimento e o trabalho dos centros de investigação nestas matérias, mas reforço, devemos ser muito precauciosos na passagem à produção e ao consumo.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, στην έκθεση που συζητούμε τίθεται το πρωτεύουσας σημασίας ζήτημα της επιβίωσης της ευρωπαϊκής γεωργίας, δηλαδή της προσαρμογής της στα νέα τεχνολογικά και οικονομικά δεδομένα. Δυστυχώς όμως διαπιστώνουμε ότι δεν υπάρχει καμία σαφής αναφορά στις απειλές που αντιμετωπίζει σήμερα η γεωργία μας. Πώς θα νομοθετήσουμε για την προστασία της αγροτικής οικονομίας χωρίς να έχουμε προσδιορίσει τους κινδύνους; Ο κυριότερος κίνδυνος αυτή τη στιγμή είναι η λογική που καταργεί τις ονομασίες προέλευσης, η λογική που στηρίζει την εισαγωγή γενετικά μεταλλαγμένων τροφίμων στις αγορές και φυσικά η λογική των επιδοτήσεων της μονοκαλλιέργειας, της εντατικοποίησης της γεωργίας και των μεγάλων λόμπι του αγροτικού τομέα. Άλλωστε η Επιτροπή δεν χρειάστηκε παρά να κάνει λίγες σκέψεις προκειμένου να δώσει φερ' ειπείν στην Τσεχία τη δυνατότητα να παράγει ελληνικό γιαούρτι, κύριε Επίτροπε. Εκεί φτάσαμε! Ελληνικό γιαούρτι ‘made in Τσεχία’! Προστασία λοιπόν του αγροτικού τομέα και της βιώσιμης γεωργίας σημαίνει επιδοτήσεις στους σωστούς αποδέκτες, σημαίνει ήπιος και δημοκρατικός εκσυγχρονισμός της παραδοσιακής μικρής και βιολογικής καλλιέργειας.
               

Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). –
(Početak govora se ne čuje) poljoprivredi, jesam za korištenje satelita, za korištenje digitalnih metoda, ali nisam za to da svi jedemo isto, nisam za to da imamo situaciju u kojoj će se naše zdravlje, naš okoliš dovesti u pitanje. Pogotovo, nisam za to da onima koji ribu trebaju, a to je Afrika, to su neke zemlje koje su siromašne, oni trebaju ribu, ali ja nisam za to da im damo ribu, nego sam za to da im damo udicu i da nauče loviti ribu.
               

                  Dakle, nisam za to da Europska unija, zato što na svijetu rapidno raste broj stanovništva, postane jedini proizvođač hrane, kao što se na neki način sugerira u ovom izvještaju. Nego sam za to da zaista svatko ima udicu i svatko može uloviti ribu i prehraniti samog sebe, odnosno da svaka zemlja, svaki kontinent, svaka obitelj to može učiniti. Zato, ja imam rezerve prema ovom izvještaju i neću ga sutra podržati.
               

Miguel Viegas (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, o relatório contém aspetos positivos e relevantes, contudo passa ao lado da realidade e a realidade diz-nos que hoje, no mundo ocidental, produz-se comida a mais, paga-se para eliminar produtos alimentares. A tecnologia aplicada hoje à agricultura tornou-se num problema e não em qualquer solução milagrosa para um problema que é político e que só acabará com um novo modelo económico de produção e distribuição.
               

                  A tecnologia está hoje na origem da produção intensiva que coloca em perigo a biodiversidade e o equilíbrio o nosso planeta. Os OGM, o glifusato que a Comissão entendeu prolongar por mais sete anos, são filhos ilustres desta tecnologia. Não negamos a necessidade de maior investigação ao nível das práticas agrícolas, mas também temos que nos entender.
               

                  Uma agricultura sujeita às leis do capitalismo e da acumulação máxima de lucro só pode suscitar tecnologias cada vez mais intensivas e produtivistas. Antes de falar de tecnologia, importa, por isso, reverter a nossa PAC hoje completamente liberalizada.
               

Molly Scott Cato (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, the EU faces a plateau in productivity and fertility caused by soil degradation and loss of ecosystem functions. Intensive farming and climate change have caused this, so continuing down the same intensive path is not a solution – technical or otherwise.
Soil health was in the UK news last week as our Environmental Audit Committee argued that CAP cross-compliance rules for agricultural soil health need greater scope, force and ambition. So we need more, not less, soil protection. But Tory Brexiteers, like George Eustace, wish to see these rules scrapped. Now this report claims to reduce inputs, but then calls for less regulation, the fast-tracking of approvals and so-called ‘enabling implementation’, which may enable agri-businesses to sell more and more quickly, but does little to help farmers, their livelihoods, or the soil.
Many of these so-called solutions are financially impossible for most farmers caught up in high input costs and low farm gate prices. Big businesses' talk of robotics and satellites is distracting and so far removed from the realities of small farmers that the agri-business lobby and our Tory rapporteur really should get back to Earth.

Jonathan Arnott (EFDD). – Madam President, of course post-Brexit we will want an agreement with the European Union. Of course we want to continue improving our technology, including robotic techniques, as mentioned by the rapporteur. Of course we want to cooperate in research in a way that is sustainable in the long term.
But the problem with the common agricultural policy is that it is just not fit for British farmers. We are already sending pre-accession agriculture funding to Turkey. We are putting in EUR 4.6 billion and getting EUR 2.9 billion back every year from the common agricultural policy. We are not producing enough food ourselves, and of course there is the perennial problem of red tape. So maybe those are just some of the reasons why a recent poll found that 59% of British farmers want to leave the European Union.

Marijana Petir (PPE). – Gospođo predsjednice, tehnološki napredak ključan je za održivu poljoprivredu u Europskoj uniji. Poljoprivredna proizvodnja zasnovana na industrijskim principima proizvodnje rezultira štetnim učincima na sve sastavnice okoliša i zato su nam nužni novi načini promišljanja tehnološkog napretka poticanjem onoga što snižava ulazne troškove i cijenu proizvodnje uz minimalne utjecaje i rizike na okoliš, zdravlje, sigurnost hrane i bioraznolikost. Ali treba nam i nova, odgovornija regulacija zasnovana na poštovanju načela predostrožnosti, pogotovo kad se radi o novim tehnikama oplemenjivanja i uzgoja bilja.
               

                  Ovo izvješće promovira nove tehnike genetskog inženjeringa te zaziva izmjenu zakonodavnog okvira EU-a za GMO s ciljem da olakša njegovu autorizaciju, čemu se odlučno protivim. Promovira sintetičke kemijske pesticide klasificirajući ih kao nisko rizične iako nisu prošli detaljan postupak procjene rizika, što smatram neodgovornim.
               

                  Poštivanje načela predostrožnosti smatram ključnim u sprječavanju šteta koje mogu biti daleko veće od planiranih dobiti i o tome bi političari trebali voditi računa kada predlažu izvješća ili zakone.
               

Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Elnök Asszony! Én egyetértek azzal, hogy a népességnövekedés miatti intenzív élelmiszertermelést fenntartható módon kell kialakítani. Ennek egyik fontos eleme az élelmiszerhulladék csökkentése, amely különböző mértékben, de kritikus méreteket ölt az egyes tagállamokban. Ennek megoldására szociális szempontokat figyelembe vevő eszközök kialakítását javaslom EU-s szinten.
               

                  Másik fontos elemnek tartom az innovációt, amely véleményem szerint akkor lesz sikeres, ha a tényleges gazdálkodók kapnak lehetőséget. Az európai innovációs partnerséget jónak tartom, de jó lenne látni a konkrét eredményeket. Mindehhez persze forrás szükséges, addig csak elméleti vita folyik itt. A Bizottságot kérem, hogy javasoljon erre megoldási lehetőségeket.
               

Franc Bogovič (PPE). – Vsekakor podpiram tehnološki razvoj na področju kmetijstva, kajti v nasprotnem primeru kmetijstvo ne bo moglo izpolniti osnovnih pričakovanj, se pravi prehraniti ljudi, dati kmetom dostojanstven in dostojen prihodek, prav tako pa tudi zagotoviti varno hrano in ohraniti zaupanje potrošnikov.
               

                  Zato sem trdno prepričan, da je nujno potrebno posvetiti pozornost in se usmeriti predvsem v raziskave, ki so usmerjene k prenosu znanja v prakso. Takšne raziskave bodo imele veliko prihodnost, v kolikor bomo znali zainteresirat mlade ljudi, kajti ti so nosilci tudi sprememb.
               

                  Vsekakor pa podpiram raziskave, ki bodo šle v smeri novih novosti na področju varovanja rastlin, raziskave, ki bodo zagotovile varnost živil, in hkrati raziskave, ki bodo tudi odgovorile na veliko vprašanje klimatskih sprememb, ki se nam dogajajo. Vsekakor pa te vse raziskave rabijo veliko transparentnost, kajti ključno pri vsem tem je tudi, da ohranimo zvestobo potrošnika, ki bo verjel v varno evropsko hrano.
               

Paul Brannen (S&D). – Madam President, as regards the McIntyre report, I think it is one thing to support innovation and new technologies for the agriculture sector, but I think it is quite another thing to do that with rather a disregard for farmers' independence, environmental sustainability, and European rules on food safety.
I am completely in favour of new technologies for agriculture and I am convinced that farmers themselves are very much in favour, too. But I do not understand why modernisation of European agriculture is deemed equal to the genetic modification exceeding the boundaries of the established EU GMO assessment framework; deemed equal to a fast-track approval process for new pesticides, potentially putting human health and the environment at risk; and deemed equal to entrenching a misguided rationale that the EU should feed the world, despite the clear logic in favour of the developing world feeding itself and ensuring its own food sovereignty based on agro-ecological approaches.
We need to make clear, and ensure, that the common agricultural policy does not stifle innovation and modern technology; but the process must not compromise human health, environmental sustainability or animal welfare.

Luke Ming Flanagan (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, for decades agricultural science has focused on boosting production through the development of new technologies. It has achieved enormous yield gains as well as lower costs for large-scale farming and improved the working conditions of many farmers. But this success has come at a high environmental cost. Furthermore, it has failed to solve the social and economic problems of the poor in developing countries, which have generally benefited the least from this boost in production. Increasingly the power of the retailer in the food chain is eroding the margins of even the most efficient and modern producers, as seen now in the crisis in the dairy sector. No matter what advances we make, the farmer seems to end up with less.
The report also does not address issues of food waste, estimated to be in the region of 30% of production globally. Nor does it address the imbalance in the food chain or the weak position of the primary producer.
There is definitely one technology out there that can benefit farmers, and that is social media, which make it possible to connect with customers directly without having to pay massive costs for marketing. We have one such company, Castlemaine Farms, in my constituency, and people are benefiting from it. That is how they will benefit from technology; with quality food.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Phil Hogan,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur Ms McIntyre for the initiative to address many issues that have a profound interest for the agricultural sector. This report is one of two reports that we will be discussing this evening regarding the importance of innovation in the development of agricultural production.
I share many of the rapporteur's views which she has set out and I would like to comment on a few of the issues raised. What is particularly important is that the report focuses on the need for sustainable agriculture in the European Union. The report identifies a number of the challenges facing European agriculture in the decades ahead, not least in terms of global population growth and the increasing demand for food. In view of these challenges and those posed by climate change and the European Union's commitment to meet the COP21 targets, the focus on sustainability is now more important than ever.
There are a number of aspects of the report that I welcome, including precision farming, soil and nutrient management, skills development and knowledge transfer. I welcome, too, the emphasis on reducing bureaucracy and red tape, all of which is consistent with my commitment to simplify the CAP. There is little doubt that big data and precision farming hold significant promise for the future of agricultural production in Europe, and the report encourages the Commission to stimulate the development and uptake of precision farming and to remove the barriers to the integration of fragmented ICT systems. The Commission is in fact very anxious to encourage more precision farming, but the conclusions of a focus group organised by the EIP network recently were that farmers are hesitant in the use of precision farming for several reasons. They do not want to be locked in by a single supplier of software and/or machinery. They want to retain ownership of their own data and they want to see whether an application has added value before they invest.
In view of the sustainability challenges that food production is facing, precision farming technologies offer many possibilities and we believe that many EIP pilot projects under the Rural Development Programme will show the usefulness of precision farming. Later this month our EIP Service Point will host a seminar to bring together businesses, many of them start-ups, that based their business model on the use of big data in the agricultural sector.
It seems that we all share similar concerns regarding genetic diversity. It is in our common interest to have a wide agricultural genetic diversity, but farmers will opt for the highest-yielding varieties and breeds, and as a result, we have already lost genetic diversity and risk losing even more. We have several tools to prevent this, such as support for in situ conservation – under rural development – and support for research in this area. On top of that, we now have an interesting pilot project made possible by a budget attributed by the European Parliament, on the sustainable use of genetic resources, looking for new market opportunities for certain neglected varieties or breeds.
Finally, I would like to come back to the issues of skills development, knowledge transfer and research priorities. Farming is changing and will continue to change, and like many other sectors it is becoming an increasingly knowledge-based industry. As Ms McIntyre's report says, we need the right skills for this. I note and welcome the importance you attach to the EIP and to on-farm demonstration. Knowledge transfer and knowledge generation are key and we should constantly ask ourselves whether we can improve our policy in this area. I have seen many good examples of innovation and the outcomes of research, and I can see the potential of such developments. However, I am only too well aware that this potential will never be realised unless we can translate the innovation into practical on-farm application, as you have recognised in your identification of the importance of knowledge transfer.
Traditionally we link knowledge generation also to research. In January we had a conference in Brussels to discuss with the sector what the priorities for such a long-term research agenda should be. The outcomes of that conference will certainly be taken into account, both for research programming under the remaining part of Horizon 2020 and beyond. Finally, let me thank Ms McIntyre again for the report, and for the very many very relevant issues that were raised.

Puhemies. — Keskustelu on päättynyt.
               

Pavel Poc (S&D),
písemně. – Zprávu o technologických řešeních v oblasti udržitelného zemědělství v EU by bylo možné podpořit za předpokladu, že by brala v potaz nezávislost a rozmanitost zemědělců v EU, dopady na zdraví a životní prostředí, realitu klimatických změn a právo EU v oblasti bezpečnosti potravin. Nové technologie a inovace jsou naprosto jednoznačně tím, co zemědělci v EU potřebují, aby se adaptovali na nové a stále se měnící podmínky, a jako takové si zasluhují podporu. Nemám nicméně rád, když se do zprávy z vlastní iniciativy dostanou body, které nic z výše uvedeného nerespektují, neberou v potaz princip předběžné opatrnosti a vše se pak interpretuje jako jednotná pozice Parlamentu. Zpráva není v současné podobě akceptovatelná mimo jiné proto, že říká ‘A’, ale už nedoplní ‘B’. Zpráva hovoří o podvýživě, nedodává ale, že obezita nyní představuje ještě větší problém. Hovoří o nedostatku potravin, nedodává ale to, že plýtvání potravinami je stejně zásadní problém. Zpráva kolegyně McIntyreové rovněž tvrdí, že EU by měla nakrmit zbytek světa, přestože je jasné, že lokální a regionální produkce bude pro rozvíjející se státy mnohem důležitější. Zpravodajka si zjevně neuvědomuje obrovský problém současného zemědělského systému. Ten produkuje potraviny za cenu enormního zatížení planety a jako takový nemůže být aplikován i v budoucnosti.
               

Carolina Punset (ALDE),
por escrito. – Las soluciones tecnológicas en la agricultura siempre han creado mecanismos de dependencia del agricultor de las grandes compañías de producción y venta de fitosanitarios, semillas o abonos químicos. El reto de la alimentación de una población mundial creciente no pasa por aumentar los rendimientos de los cultivos mediante más aplicación de fertilizantes, organismos modificados genéticamente o más presión de insecticidas, sino por disminuir los alimentos que se tiran a la basura. La FAO estima que un 33 % de los alimentos producidos en el mundo acaban en la basura. La agricultura tecnificada tiene como resultado la deslocalización de la producción de los centros de consumo, por los requerimientos de extensión y abaratamiento de la mano de obra, lo que significa seguir destruyendo empleo local y aumentar las emisiones de CO2. En un mundo en transición hacia lo sostenible energéticamente, es hora de que la agricultura comience su andadura hacia una producción realmente sostenible, y la agricultura ecológica es el futuro de la producción sostenible. Además, crecer de manera continuada a pesar de la coyuntura económica, tanto en número de agricultores como en superficie, impulsada por una ciudadanía cada vez más responsable, por lo que la agricultura ecológica es la solución ambientalmente sostenible que Europa debe potenciar.
               

Marc Tarabella (S&D),
par écrit. – Dans le contexte du changement climatique, de la hausse du besoin alimentaire résultant de l'augmentation démographique et des menaces pesant sur l'environnement, il est évident que l'innovation dans les technologies agricoles est essentielle pour relever ces défis, j'en suis parfaitement conscient. Toutefois, le texte voté ce midi n'est pas acceptable tant il met en avant une vision pro-industrielle, déshumanisée, pro-pesticide, pro-OGM.
               

                  Je suis, par exemple, particulièrement choqué qu'on y insiste lourdement sur le fait d'augmenter sensiblement la production de nourriture. Pour rappel, nous produisons aujourd'hui de la nourriture pour 14 milliards d'êtres humains alors que nous ne sommes que 7,2 milliards. Le rapport ne mentionne même pas la lutte contre le gaspillage, la question de l'obésité ou de la suralimentation dont souffrent de plus en plus de personnes. Rien non plus sur la crise agricole profonde, la précarité du travail de la terre ou encore l'état d'épuisement qui, eux aussi, mettent gravement en péril la production alimentaire pour les décennies à venir.
               

                  Par contre, proposition est faite de procédures light en matière d'autorisation de pesticides et des OGM déguisés .Ce texte donne l'impression d'avoir été rédigé par les industriels eux-mêmes. Je refuse de participer à cela!
               
19.   Enhancing innovation and economic development in future European farm management (short presentation)

Puhemies. — Esityslistalla on seuraavana lyhyt esittely Jan Huiteman mietinnöstä Innovoinnin ja talouskehityksen tehostaminen tulevaisuuden tilanhoidossa EU:ssa (2015/2227(INI)) (A8-0163/2016).
               

Jan Huitema,
Rapporteur. – We praten hier altijd over problemen, maar één van de grotere oorzaken daarvan is vaak de politiek zelf. Er liggen juist enorme kansen en boeren willen die dolgraag benutten. Het is onze taak ze de ruimte te geven om die kansen te pakken. Daarover gaat mijn verslag.
               

                  Ik ben jullie, mijn collega's in de Commissie landbouw, dankbaar voor het harde werk dat ook jullie erin hebben gestoken om het verslag beter te maken. Klimaatverandering, dalende biodiversiteit, schaarste aan natuurlijke hulpbronnen zoals water en vruchtbare landbouwgronden en een groeiende resistentie van antibiotica: de wereld om ons heen verandert, met bijbehorende uitdagingen. Dit vraagt om nieuwe oplossingen.
               

                  De land- en tuinbouw kan die uitdaging aan. Door kennis en innovaties kunnen wij de groeiende wereldbevolking voeden met steeds beter voedsel en tegelijkertijd de milieueffecten en het dierenwelzijn verbeteren. Daar ben ik trots op. De land- en tuinbouw wordt nog te vaak gezien als iets ouderwets. Niets is minder waar. Onze trekkers rijden op gps, drones monitoren onze gewassen, afvalstromen zoals mest kunnen worden omgezet in waardevolle producten voor bemesting of energie, enzovoort. Ik zie het als mijn taak om de boeren te helpen van een verkeerd imago af te komen. De sector is in staat de wereld te voeden, het milieu te sparen en goed voor de dieren te zorgen. Dit kan alleen als we de boeren en tuinders de ruimte geven om te innoveren.
               

                  Dit is de hoofdboodschap van mijn verslag: ruim baan voor innovatie en ondernemerschap in de landbouwsector. Het potentieel van de sector wordt nog lang niet ten volle benut. Ondoordachte regelgeving zit nog te vaak in de weg. Boeren en tuinders kunnen veel meer dan ze nu mogen. Het is aan ons om de boeren die ruimte te geven en ons niet te laten leiden door groeperingen die van het zwartmaken van de boer en tuinder een bestaansrecht hebben gemaakt. Niemand kent zijn bedrijf beter dan de boeren of de tuinders zelf. Laat hen daarom meedenken over hoe we de gewenste doelen kunnen halen. Wij moeten hun het vertrouwen en de ruimte geven om nieuwe ideeën en innovaties toe te passen. Reken de boer en tuinder niet af op een checklist van maatregelen die van achter een bureau lijken te zijn bedacht, maar op de daadwerkelijke bijdrage voor mens, dier en milieu.
               

                  Te veel regels die we vandaag maken zijn morgen al weer verouderd. Zorg er dus voor dat er ruimte blijft voor nieuwe toepassingen, bijvoorbeeld door projecten een proefstatus te gunnen. Juist de landbouw heeft de potentie bij te dragen aan de economie van morgen door kringlopen te sluiten, slim gebruik te maken van de kracht van de natuur en aan te sluiten bij de digitale economie. Zo kunnen we plagen op een natuurlijke manier bestrijden door middel van insecten, onze producten tot op het bord volgen, consumenten een beter inzicht geven in de boerenpraktijk, maar ook CO2 binden in de bodem.
               

                  Mijn boodschap aan de Europese Commissie en de Europese landbouwministers is helder. De landbouw van morgen is gearriveerd, maar wij staan nog te vaak te treuzelen. Niet alleen de politiek, maar ook de sector moet de handschoen oppakken. Mijn verslag biedt meer dan genoeg mogelijkheden.
               

                  Morgen hoop ik dat al mijn collega's mij steunen in mijn expliciete oproep de boer centraal te stellen in het landbouwbeleid van morgen. Geef boeren en tuinders het vertrouwen en de ruimte en maak gebruik van hun expertise om zo het beste in onze boeren naar boven te halen.
               

Catch-the-eye procedure


Marijana Petir (PPE). – Gospođo predsjednice, nastavak uspješne zajedničke poljoprivredne politike te zadržavanje dostatnosti proizvodnje hrane visoke kvalitete za europske potrošače ovisi i o inovacijama u poljoprivredi. Inovacije su potrebne u razvoju tehnika i tehnologija, ali i sustava financiranja te svih razina upravljanja, a sve kako bi poduprli sigurnost opskrbe hranom stanovnika Europe te pomogli održivosti ruralnih prostora Europe.
               

                  Zahvaljujem izvjestitelju jer je prihvatio moje amandmane, a time i naglasio u izvješću važnu ulogu malih i srednjih poljoprivrednih obiteljskih gospodarstava koja daju izniman doprinos stvaranju društveno i gospodarski živih ruralnih područja te očuvanju kulturne i prirodne baštine.
               

                  Nasuprot industrijskoj poljoprivrednoj proizvodnji kakvu vidimo na drugim kontinentima, europski način poljoprivrede gotovo je na osobnoj razini usmjeren prema potrošaču te je kao takav, u smislu njegove dodane vrijednosti, prepoznat na globalnom tržištu. Želim da takav odnos poljoprivrednih proizvođača i potrošača opstane te se i dalje razvija poduprt inovativnošću europske znanosti i gospodarstva.
               

Ricardo Serrão Santos (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, a inovação na agricultura exige suficiente investimento em investigação e desenvolvimento e o envolvimento dos agricultores na busca de soluções e na disseminação de resultados.
               

                  Soluções inovadoras como as que compreendem a agricultura de precisão devem estar ao serviço de todos os tipos de exploração, devem apresentar uma relação custo/oportunidade proporcional às capacidades financeiras das explorações de mais pequena dimensão, como é o caso daquelas que se situam em zonas mais remotas ou ultraperiféricas, onde a agricultura é uma atividade imprescindível para o emprego local.
               

                  A agricultura, para alimentar o mundo, deverá adaptar-se ao desafio das alterações climáticas e fazer um uso racional dos recursos disponíveis. Para tal, precisamos de soluções inovadoras com base na tecnologia e numa visão diferente de práticas tradicionais, no processo em que os agricultores devem estar no centro das atenções, como principais atores da mudança e objeto de formação adequada.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ο εκσυγχρονισμός των μικρών παραδοσιακών και βιολογικών καλλιεργειών είναι η καλύτερη, ίσως και η μοναδική απάντηση στο αμερικανικό μοντέλο γεωργίας. Το αμερικανικό μοντέλο –αυτό που κάποιοι και μέσα στην Ευρώπη επιχειρούν να μας επιβάλουν μέσω της ΤΤΙΡ– είναι σίγουρα πολύ αποτελεσματικό μόνο για τους κολοσσούς του αγροτοδιατροφικού τομέα και τα λόμπι των μεγάλων παραγωγών, είναι όμως καταστροφικό για το περιβάλλον, την υγεία μας, τις μελλοντικές γενιές. Είναι καταστροφικό και για τα 25 εκατομμύρια αγρότες των χωρών της Ευρώπης, που στην πλειοψηφία τους επέλεξαν και κατάφεραν με σκληρούς αγώνες να διατηρήσουν μια άλλη οργάνωση της παραγωγής. Αντί λοιπόν να τραβάει το χαλί κάτω από τα πόδια τους, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρέπει να στηρίξει αυτή την κληρονομιά. Δεν υπάρχει κανένας καλός συμβιβασμός για την ΤΤΙΡ. Το ευρωπαϊκό μοντέλο παραγωγής, στηριγμένο στη μικρή μονάδα, βρίσκεται στον αντίποδα αυτού που ζητούν οι αμερικανικές και ευρωπαϊκές πολυεθνικές. Σε μια εποχή που η βιωσιμότητα έχει καταστεί ζητούμενο και η δέσμευση των περισσότερων μεγάλων οικονομιών του πλανήτη υπάρχει, η καταστροφή του ευρωπαϊκού παραγωγικού ιστού θα αποτελέσει μέγιστο πισωγύρισμα.
               

Jasenko Selimovic (ALDE). – Madam President, innovation remains a key priority for meeting the biggest challenges faced by farming today. In the context of climate change, rising food demand, population growth and threats to the environment, we really need to support agricultural innovation in order to increase the productivity and sustainability of the sector. In other words, farmers will need to produce more with less in the future.
However, adoption of the new agricultural technologies by European farms has been modest until now. The challenge before us, Commissioner, is therefore to support the transfer of knowledge from researchers to farmers and to make use of innovative techniques by updating the relevant legislation, as well as the creation of new financing opportunities for farmers. Most of the farms of today have little in common with the farms of the 1950s and, if we get it right, the farms of 2050 will probably differ significantly from the farms of today.

IN THE CHAIR: ADINA-IOANA VĂLEAN


Vice-President


Jordi Sebastià (Verts/ALE). – Señora Presidenta, hablamos de algo tan importante para la agricultura como es la innovación. Sin duda, un elemento más, pero no el único, para intentar que el sector abandone la crisis en que está sumido y en la que tienen mucho que ver las políticas adoptadas por la Comisión Europea.
                  

                     La innovación puede tener muchas perspectivas, y por eso quiero agradecer al ponente que haya dejado claro que innovación y sostenibilidad no están reñidas. Innovar quiere decir, también, apostar por una agricultura que se desenganche de la dependencia de los agroquímicos, que permita al agricultor ser más independiente y producir de forma más barata y que aproveche todo aquello que el respeto por la biodiversidad nos proporciona.
                  

                     Apostar por una agricultura sostenible no es volver al pasado. Es encarar el futuro con responsabilidad, con investigación y con el objetivo de hacer de la agricultura eficaz y duradera una fuente de alimentación segura y permanente. Probablemente, lo más revolucionario y lo más innovador sea volver a aprovechar toda la fuerza que la naturaleza nos da y de la que nos hemos apartado durante mucho tiempo.
                  

Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Elnök Asszony! Valóban az új, innovatív nemesítési eljárásokkal kapcsolatban is fontosnak tarthatjuk, hogy minél hamarabb kapjunk állásfoglalást a Bizottságtól, hogy megelőzzünk egy megalapozatlan társadalmi elutasítást. Tudniillik, amikor a Bizottság maga folytat eljárást, az nem keverendő össze a GMO-k társadalmi fogadtatásával.
                  

                     Másik fontos dolog, hogy kössük össze hatékonyabban a kutatásokat és a gyakorlatot. Ilyen tipikusan most a Parlament napirendjén szereplő glifozátnak az esete, amikor itt, csak ebben a teremben rengeteg innovatív javaslat mutatkozott és merült fel, hogy miként lehet a glifozátot helyettesíteni, ehhez képest a világ szinte nem változik, mert a farmerek úgysem fognak tudni arról, hogy mi a teendőjük. Ezért én azt gondolom, hogy a Bizottságnak sokkal nagyobb energiát kell fordítania arra, hogy a megszerzett innovációkat valóban el tudjuk juttatni az egyes gazdálkodókhoz, a farmerekhez.
                  

Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, un'agricoltura efficiente ed innovativa è fondamentale per affrontare al meglio le sfide sul piano della sostenibilità cui si confrontano quotidianamente le imprese agricole. L'impresa agricola moderna non è legata solo alla produzione di beni, bensì al concetto di multifunzionalità, trasformazione dei prodotti, vendita diretta, fattorie didattiche, agriturismo. Sono favorevole all'adozione di sistemi di gestione basati sulle tecnologie dell'informazione e delle comunicazioni, sul monitoraggio dei dati in tempo reale, sulla tecnologia dei sensori e sull'impiego di sistemi di rilevazione per l'ottimizzazione dei sistemi di produzione o dell'agricoltura di precisione. Tali azioni condurranno a un migliore controllo delle fasi produttive e a una maggiore resa delle culture. Sono pertanto un profondo sostenitore dello sviluppo di pratiche agricole moderne. Ritengo infatti che esse possano contribuire fortemente a rendere l'agricoltura più attrattiva per i giovani agricoltori ed è per questo che ritengo che la Commissione debba fare di più per favorire l'innovazione in agricoltura.
                  

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Phil Hogan,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Huitema, for drafting and presenting his report on enhancing innovation and economic development in future European farm management. From a number of conversations I have had with Mr Huitema, I am well aware of his interest in, and support for, innovation and agriculture. Indeed it is something of which I too am very supportive.
The challenges facing our sector are such that a greater focus on innovation is essential, and I am pleased to say is happening. Why is innovation so important? Innovation allows the sector to develop new products, new production methods and services, to respond to challenges like climate change, and to address other societal challenges, particularly in the environment, as well as addressing issues around our competitiveness.
We are all increasingly conscious of the need to ensure food security and of the need for a greater focus on more sustainable food production. Mr Huitema has outlined very effectively the main thrust of his report and the proposals that he is making. I have taken very careful note of the many actions which the Commission is asked to take in relation to the issues raised, whether that is in relation to ICT-based management systems, the need to reduce the use of antimicrobials, or the need to stimulate integrated pest management.
In relation to those areas in which the Commission is urged to act, I would like to underline the importance of subsidiarity. In many such areas, local conditions require local solutions, and the Commission is not automatically best placed to address all of these issues. Therefore the relevant level of policy intervention may be national or regional. I welcome the acknowledgment in the report that agriculture has always developed new practices and techniques, and I agree also that innovation is a prerequisite for maintaining this progress.
Perhaps it is useful to recall how innovation is addressed in the current policy mix. Both rural development policy and our research policy under Horizon 2020 stimulate and support innovation. Horizon 2020 is the European Union's framework programme for research and innovation and a majority of support for agriculture and forestry, research and innovation, will be granted under societal challenge too, which includes food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime issues, and inland water research and the bio-economy. Under our work programmes in 2016 and 2017 for societal challenge 2, in the relevant part in the Horizon 2020 policy, you will also see that we have already addressed many of the issues that are raised in the report. I think that under our work programmes of 2016 and 2017 you will see that Horizon 2020 has the largest research budget ever, with nearly EUR 80 billion funding available for 2014 until 2020, and EUR 3.7 billion euros are allocated to the relevant heading: societal challenge 2. But this is co-managed and co-shared by the Director General of Agricultural and Rural Development and the Director General for Research and Innovation.
The total budget for DG AGRI under Horizon 2020 for seven years is EUR 1.5 billion. Four years of Horizon 2020 activities have already been programmed, from 2014 to 2017, representing on the agriculture side 71 topics for a budget of EUR 617 million financing, which is financing an expected 112 projects. 14 have started in April 2015, 22 are scheduled to start in the upcoming months, with others still to be submitted.
In the last three years of the Horizon 2020, which is 2018-2020, will be programmed at once by September 2017. Out of the 118 rural development programmes, 94 will support the EIP actions in the current programing period. We also expect 3200 pilot projects to be implemented in 24 Member States.
I note that the draft report is concerned about a fragmented implementation of the EIP under the rural development programmes. However, I believe that this is its strength. It is thanks to the subsidiarity engrained in the rural development policy that we can reach out across the whole of Europe with projects that are locally appropriate. We think that the current policy mix is a good one, because you cannot have ‘one size fits all’.
We should always look critically at our instruments and policies to see whether we can improve them, and I will be glad to do. Last week I attended the informal meeting of European Union agriculture ministers in Mr Huitema's native country. While there, I and the Ministers visited the STEK food exhibition in Eindhoven. The exhibition was dedicated to innovation in food production and consumption. While there we saw several very exciting and innovative uses of technology in crop and other food production. I think all of us were impressed with what we saw because it is representative of many of the issues you have raised here this evening: the practical application at farm level of the development of technology and the investment in and value of innovation. One needed nothing more to realise the importance of the issues that have been raised this evening in Mr Huitema's report.

President. — The debate is closed.

Viorica Dăncilă (S&D),
în scris. – Felicit raportorul pentru acest raport complex. De când există agricultură, practicile agricole au cunoscut schimbări fie structurale, fie legate de procesul de producție, iar aceste schimbări au făcut din sectorul agricol unul dintre cele mai dinamice sectoare economice, practicile agricole contemporane fiind de ultimă generație. Consider importantă elaborarea unor strategii care să prevină și să atenueze consecințele negative la nivelul agriculturii în Uniunea Europeană, prin următoarele măsuri: un plan de acțiune în zonele cele mai afectate, folosirea unor soiuri de plante rezistente la noii parametri climatici, adaptarea calendarului activităților agricole la noile condiții, împăduririle, construcția de sere, gestionarea resurselor de apă din agricultură, ecologizarea terenurilor poluate, precum și un plan de viitor pentru eliminarea cauzelor care conduc la schimbările climatice prin promovarea unei economii globale bazate pe emisii reduse de CO2, corelată cu o promovare a securității energiei.
                  

Norbert Erdős (PPE),
írásban. – Javaslom, hogy szavazatukkal támogassák a Huitema-jelentés elfogadását. A mezőgazdaság mindig kifejlesztett olyan új gyakorlatokat, technikákat és termelési módszereket, amelyek növelték a terméshozamot, javították a mezőgazdasági gyakorlatoknak az új és változó körülményekhez való alkalmazkodóképességét, és csökkentették a termelési költségeket. A mezőgazdaság és az erdészet a világunk kulcsfontosságú része, amely az élelmiszer-termelésen túlmenő javakat és szolgáltatásokat nyújt, és amely új fejlesztések elősegítésével erősíthető. Úgy látom, hogy az innováció e fejlődés fenntartásának előfeltétele.
                  
20.   One-minute speeches on matters of political importance

President. — The next item is the one-minute speeches on matters of political importance (Rule 150).

Andrea Bocskor (PPE). – Elnök Asszony! A béke, és az európai alapértékek szavatolására létrejött Európai Uniónak napjainkban számos kihívásra kell választ adnia. Ennek ellenére több ország szeretne tagja lenni ennek a közösségnek, mely demokratikus fejlődést indukál, de kötelezettségekkel is jár. Ezt az értékközösséget választotta Ukrajna is, melynek része a 12%-ban magyar lakosú Kárpátalja, ahol bevett a különböző nemzetiségek együttélése.
               

                  Az országban jelenlévő szélsőjobboldali szervezetek megnyilvánulásai azonban veszélyeztetik a békés együttélést, nyugalmat. Hol a magyar emlékhelyeket rongálják meg, hol pedig félelemkeltő felvonulásokat tartanak, mint március 13-án is, amikor a megyeszékhely, Ungvár utcáin zajló fáklyás felvonulások során magyarellenes szavakat skandáltak. Ez a magyarok méltóságát, és az európai értékeket mélyen megsértő megmozdulás ellentétes Ukrajna alkotmányával, valamint az ország nemzetközi egyezményekben vállalt kötelezettségeivel. Az esemény után írásos választ igénylő kérdésem nyomán a külügyi főképviselő biztosított arról, hogy az emberi jogokat, illetve a nemzeti kisebbségekhez tartozók jogait is alapvetően védi az EU és Ukrajna közötti társulási megállapodás, és az EU-ukrán emberi jogi ülés keretén belül fognak erről az esetről tárgyalni.
               

Claudia Țapardel (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, drepturile la libera circulație și muncă în Uniunea Europeană sunt drepturi inalienabile. Din păcate, mulți dintre muncitorii și specialiștii onești care provin din Europa de Est se confruntă cu fenomenul exploatării, iar acest lucru este inadmisibil. În ultimii ani, am văzut nenumărate cazuri în care muncitorii din România au fost tratați ca cetățeni de mâna a doua și au căzut victime unor abuzuri incompatibile cu Europa secolului XXI. Aceștia nu au avut la îndemână instrumentele legale care ar fi putut să le facă dreptate.
               

                  Consider că este de datoria noastră, a Parlamentului European, să tragem un semnal de alarmă cu privire la încălcarea drepturilor și să veghem asupra respectării prevederilor privind legislația muncii pentru toți cei aflați la muncă în străinătate. Să spunem ‘stop’ oricăror forme de sclavie modernă. Dincolo de campanii de informare care să-i pregătească pe cetățenii europeni cu privire la drepturile și obligațiile lor, avem nevoie de un mecanism orizontal european care să poată preveni abuzurile din statele membre. Să nu uităm: muncitorii români nu vin în vest doar fiindcă vor un salariu decent. Vin și fiindcă este mare nevoie de ei în agricultură, în construcții, în transporturi, în IT, în medicină și în educație. Este evident că munca acestora aduce plusvaloare economiei europene.
               

Anna Záborská (PPE). – Už o pár dní bude Slovensko po prvýkrát predsedať v Rade Európskej únie. Jednou z jeho priorít je aj migrácia, hoci v minulosti to boli práve vyjadrenia slovenských predstaviteľov o utečencoch, ktoré vyvolávali rozpaky a nepochopenie v celej Únii. Som rada, že slovenská vláda chce presadzovať komplexný prístup k utečeneckej kríze. Jeho súčasťou musí byť nielen zlepšovanie spolupráce pri ochrane vonkajších hraníc a boji proti terorizmu, ale aj hľadanie dohody o štatúte oprávnených žiadateľov o azyl. Programový dokument pripravený slovenskou vládou sa, žiaľ, tejto téme vyhýba. Ja však verím, že Slovensko je pripravené prevziať iniciatívu pri hľadaní konsenzu, ktorý by rozptýlil obavy občanov, no zároveň potvrdil, že v Európe má hodnotu každý ľudský život.
               

Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, dragi colegi, salut viziunea Națiunilor Unite de a atinge zero noi infecții cu HIV, zero discriminare și zero decese legate de SIDA, precum salut și întâlnirea la nivel înalt de săptămâna aceasta care are ca scop eliminarea acestei amenințări la adresa sănătății publice.
               

                  Tuberculoza reprezintă ucigașul numărul unu pentru persoanele infectate cu HIV. Fără un tratament adecvat, șapte din zece persoane care trăiesc cu HIV și care dezvoltă tuberculoză vor muri. În ciuda acestui fapt, în ultimii ani, am asistat la o retragere a sprijinului donatorilor pentru programele de HIV și tuberculoză în Europa de Est și în Asia Centrală, lăsând numeroși pacienți fără acces la medicamente. În această regiune, se înregistrează cea mai rapidă creștere a numărului de infecții cu HIV, dar și un număr crescut de tuberculoză chimio-rezistentă. Mai mult decât atât, în Uniunea Europeană, Planul de acțiune împotriva HIV expiră în acest an, iar Planul de acțiune-cadru pentru tuberculoză este depășit.
               

                  În acest context, consider că, pe de o parte, este timpul pentru Uniunea Europeană și nu numai să aibă un cadru politic integrat pentru 2016-2020 privind HIV și tuberculoza - în calitate de coinfecții - iar, pe de altă parte, guvernele naționale și Comisia Europeană au responsabilitatea de a realiza tranziția durabilă și eficientă la finanțarea internă pentru accesul pacienților la medicamentele necesare.
               

Mihai Țurcanu (PPE). – Doamnă președintă, stimați colegi, doresc să vă atrag atenția asupra abuzurilor autorităților pentru protecția copilului din unele state europene, abuzuri cărora le-au căzut victime, recent, mai multe familii de români. Așa fost cazul Botnariu, în Norvegia, când cinci copii au fost despărțiți de familie. La capătul a șapte luni dramatice, după proteste în douăzeci și unu de țări, familia Botnariu se va reîntregi. Din păcate, familia Barbu trăiește acum o dramă similară în Marea Britanie.
               

                  Florin Barbu a făcut peste două săptămâni greva foamei în fața Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului. Fac apel la autoritățile britanice să respecte drepturile celor doi copii, cetățeni români, și solicit autorităților europene să acționeze pentru prevenirea acestor traume familiale. Este de datoria noastră să asigurăm echilibrul între cele două principii fundamentale: interesul superior al copilului, prevăzut în Recomandarea nr. 874/1979, și necesitatea de a menține familiile unite, conform articolului 9 din Convenția privind drepturile copilului.
               

Jude Kirton-Darling (S&D). – Madam President, we have the biggest decision for a generation before us in the UK and it is our rights at work that are on the ballot paper. Since the 1970s our trade unions have worked in solidarity across Europe to fight to secure valuable working rights for all. It was Ford's female workers who symbolised the fight for equal pay, but it was the European Court of Justice that guaranteed it in 1982. EU health and safety legislation has saved countless British lives. Rights like maternity and paternity leave, equal treatment for part-time, full-time and agency workers and the right to paid holiday are all underpinned by EU law, avoiding a race to the bottom. And now the leave campaign wants a flexible Britain and a bonfire of red tape and regulation: a bonfire of your rights. Don't give them that chance. Please vote to stay in on 23 June.

Jasenko Selimovic (ALDE). – Madam President, the two countries in which modern slavery is most widespread today are Uzbekistan and Pakistan. These are two countries with which the EU has close relations. Moreover, the report of the International Labour Organization stated the crucial importance for the authorities of Uzbekistan to continue with measures to keep children away from the cotton harvest, as child labour in cotton harvesting has been widely used before. The EU Parliament has constantly condemned the systematic violation of labour rights in Uzbekistan and Pakistan. The Commission and the Member States have looked away even though forced labour, both adults and children, is a common practice in both countries. The Commission should firmly and resolutely address such cases of human rights violations in these countries and step up the fight against forced labour in Central Asia.

Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Миналата седмица долната камара на германския парламент прие декларация, която осъждаше едно тежко насилие, едно тежко престъпление срещу човечеството, а именно арменския геноцид, извършен от младотурската власт през 1915 г. И именно възстановяването на тази историческа справедливост предизвиква необяснима реакция от страна на турския президент и турския министър-председател. Една реакция, която показва абсолютно разминаване между всички т.нар. европейски ценности и политиката, която в момента се провежда в Турция и която прикрива престъпленията, извършени по това време от младотурската власт, на която в момента се твърди, че наследник е турският премиер и президент. Именно подобно поведение показва една дълбоко погрешна политика от страна на т.нар. настоящи лидери на Европейския съюз, които правят прекалено много отстъпки пред една недемократична авторитарна власт, каквато е тази в Анкара.
               

Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, the EU needs radical reform, hence Sinn Féin's policy of critical engagement. The best interests of Irish people are not always best served by EU policies and practices. Nor are they best served by taking the North of Ireland out of the EU. The North is a net beneficiary of the EU, our farming community benefits through CAP and direct payments, our students can travel through Europe to study, and our businesses can access a single market of over 500 million potential customers. In addition EU protections guaranteed to workers include equal pay for men and women, protection of holiday hours and maternity rights to name but a few.
None of these will be replaced by the British Government. If it is Brexit the North of Ireland will be shackled to Britain and partition copper fastened. Sinn Féin is not a cheerleader of the EU; our interest is always assessing what is in the best interest of the people of Ireland. Therefore Sinn Féin is advocating a remain vote.

Deirdre Clune (PPE). – Madam President, the sharing economy, or collaborative economy, is here to stay. I think that, instead of fighting against it, we need to embrace the opportunities that it brings and ensure that there is a harmonised approach to regulation for Member States in the spirit of the common market and in the interests of European consumers.
European consumers are the biggest users of the sharing economy. A study carried out by the Commission itself found that in France, for example, 36% of consumers had used the collaborative economy, such as Airbnb or Uber – and we know those names so well. In Ireland a similar amount – 35% – of consumers have done so. The sharing economy in Europe is estimated to be worth EUR 10 billion, and forecast to grow to EUR 250 billion over the next decade. It gives consumers and customers choice, it offers flexibility and it provides competition. Those companies involved in the collaborative economy also create jobs and generate business for the local economy.
So I welcome the recent presentation by the Commission that looks to prevent a patchwork approach to regulation by Member States and instead advocates one that allows new business models to develop, whilst protecting consumers, ensuring fair taxation, and addressing employment conditions, by advising how EU law should be applied in the sharing economy.

Paul Brannen (S&D). – Madam President, the North-East of England has much to gain by staying in the European Union and conversely the North-East has much to lose if we are to leave. The benefits of staying are clear. The European Union is good for jobs, allowing the North-East access to the world's largest single market, and the EU is good for investment. As the poorest English region we actually receive more back than we put in. And the EU protects our rights, both as consumers and as workers.
The EU keeps us safe – we are now living through the longest period of peace inside the European Union since the Roman Empire – and the EU is good for our environment and countryside, cleaning up our bathing water, protecting our wildlife and helping us to collectively tackle climate change.
If we are not careful and we leave the European Union, it may well be that the only place you will find a sheep farmer from the hills in the North-East of England will be at Beamish Open Air Museum. For the North-East of England and the EU the case is clear; better in, worse out.

Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Madam President, my question here this evening is: Can Irish politicians use the time-honoured excuse and say ‘Brussels made us do it’ when it comes to the payment of water charges? The Water Framework Directive gives Member States a clear opt-out where they can decide, in accordance with established practice, not to apply water charges.
So what are established practices? Well, former Commissioner Potočnik answered that question in 2010 when he clarified ‘established practice’ as being at the time of the adoption of the Directive. That is 2003, not 2010, 2014 or 2016. It is 2003.
In 2014, the European Court of Justice found against the European Commission when it took Germany to court for not charging for certain water services, including consumption. The Court was clear in its judgment. The EU legislature intended to allow Member States to determine the measures to be adopted for the recovery of costs, without extending it to all services associated with water use. The Court further states that the directive does not, per se, impose a generalised pricing obligation in respect of all activities of water use.
In this case, what is good enough for Germany is good enough for Ireland, and those Irish politicians who are trying to blame Brussels while pursuing their own agendas have no legal basis for their argument.

Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, un studiu recent arată că unul din trei copii între șase și nouă ani, în Uniunea Europeană, este fie obez, fie supraponderal. Costul tratării problemelor generate de obezitate se ridică la o zecime din cheltuielile totale pentru sănătate în Europa.
               

                  Totuși, nu se fac deloc progrese pentru oprirea acestei tendințe. E inadmisibil faptul că lupta împotriva obezității se duce prin strategii pe hârtie - absolut nimic concret. E nevoie de acțiuni vizibile și rezultate concrete. E nevoie ca oamenii să aibă la dispoziție tot ce le trebuie pentru a se feri de acest fenomen și pericol: informații concrete, alimente sănătoase la prețuri decente, protecție față de publicitatea înșelătoare, mai ales la produsele pentru copii.
               

                  Am propus recent un proiect-pilot pentru crearea unei platforme de informare și învățare despre nutriție. L-am gândit ca pe o sursă accesibilă de idei și informații, pe care să se poată baza părinții, dar și instituțiile, precum grădinițele, atunci când planifică hrana copiilor din fiecare zi. Sper ca colegii mei deputați să susțină acest proiect.
               

Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Madam President, for millennia rural areas have acted as the main providers of food and numerous other agriculture-related resources. They also accounted for the major proportion of population and demographic growth. Over the years, however, with the advent of the industrial revolution, cities started to attract more and more people from across the country, thereby eventually leading to depopulation of rural areas.
Nowadays in most EU Member States, rural dwellers account for much less than half of the population. Whilst these tendencies may have a positive effect on job creation, education, housing or decreasing transportation costs due to usually permanent resettlement from their native places, rural areas essentially lose their future in every sense. It also harms productivity, especially in agriculture and traditional craftsmanship. Moreover, whole cultural strata become endangered. Central and particularly Eastern European Member States are the ones suffering most from this trend, even more so after 2004.

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, σήμερα, ανήμερα της επετείου της απόβασης των Συμμάχων στη Νορμανδία το 1944, που έπαιξε σημαντικό ρόλο στην ήττα του Ναζισμού, ο αλβανός πρωθυπουργός Έντι Ράμα σε ένα παραλήρημα εθνικισμού έθεσε ζήτημα Τσαμουριάς, εκπροσωπώντας όπως είπε αλβανούς πολίτες απογόνους των Τσάμηδων, αυτών δηλαδή που καταδικάστηκαν από την Ελλάδα ως εγκληματίες πολέμου, μια και ως ένοπλα τμήματα συνεργάστηκαν κατά τη διάρκεια της γερμανο-ιταλικής κατοχής με τα SS και τη Βέρμαχτ δολοφονώντας χιλιάδες έλληνες αμάχους. Ήρθε λοιπόν η στιγμή η Ελλάδα να απαιτήσει πολεμικές επανορθώσεις και αποζημιώσεις και από την Αλβανία για τις εγκληματικές πράξεις των τσάμηδων συνεργατών των Ναζί, ιδίως τώρα που ο πρωθυπουργός της Αλβανίας Έντι Ράμα αναδέχθηκε επισήμως τα δήθεν δικαιώματα άρα και τις υποχρεώσεις και τις ευθύνες των Τσάμηδων. Άλλωστε δεν πρέπει να λησμονούμε ότι η Ελλάδα το 1945 δεν αποδέχθηκε τη συμμετοχή της Αλβανίας στη Διεθνή Διάσκεψη Ειρήνης των Παρισίων, μια και η Αλβανία, όπως άλλωστε και η Γερμανία, είχε και συνεχίζει να έχει ευθύνες για την αποζημίωση της Ελλάδας. Τότε η Αλβανία αποτελούσε μέρος της Ιταλίας του Μουσολίνι, που επιτέθηκε στην Ελλάδα το 1940 και παρέμεινε μέχρι το 1943 ως δύναμη κατοχής της πατρίδας μου.
               

Josep-Maria Terricabras (Verts/ALE). – Señora Presidenta, ayer domingo 5 de junio hubo una gran manifestación en Barcelona en defensa del Ebro y su delta. Era continuación de la gran manifestación de Amposta, de la que se cumplirán cuatro meses precisamente mañana. El Gobierno español ha vuelto a plantear un plan hidrológico que ya había sido criticado por todos los organismos, incluidos los europeos, por ser contrario a la Directiva marco del agua. Lo ha hecho un Gobierno que dice estar en funciones porque no quiere tomar decisiones en políticas sociales, pero que en cambio se atreve a agredir de nuevo con su plan la viabilidad del Ebro y de su delta, al que quiere dejar con un caudal anual de 3 000 hectómetros cúbicos, absolutamente insuficientes para garantizar su continuidad. Hoy quiero unir de nuevo mi voz a la de los miles y miles de manifestantes que piden a la Comisión Europea que obligue al Gobierno de España a retirar su nefasto plan hidrológico. Espero que la Comisión se una a este clamor ciudadano en defensa de un río vital para aquella zona y en defensa del medio ambiente.
               

Julie Ward (S&D). – Madam President, sadly, the dumping of Chinese steel continues across Europe, with David Cameron acting as the ringleader for a small group of irresponsible Member States who continue to block the Commission's proposal for fairer tariffs. These would save our steel industries.
However, I do have some good news. Failing Tata steel plants at Scarborough and Workington have just been bought by the investment company Greybull Capital for one pound, securing the jobs of 225 people in the town of Workington in Cumbria, where my office is based, and ultimately safeguarding 4 000 jobs in the supply chain across the UK and France. It is Labour MEPs who continue to expose the Tory Government's careless callousness in respect of our proud steelmaking industry. They are working together with Labour MPs, such as Sue Hayman, local council leader Alan Smith, and the trade unions. We all know that the EU works best when mutual cooperation and solidarity prevail between politicians, business leaders and workers.

Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já bych chtěl mluvit o tom, jak funguje, respektive nefunguje náš vnitřní trh s autorskými díly. V Evropě je zaveden systém kolektivní správy autorských práv, který má zajistit dodržení práva na duševní vlastnictví a zároveň tedy oprávněným nositelům práv zajistit jistý komfort při udělování těchto souhlasů s užitím jejich děl, které potom poskytují tito kolektivní správci. Straně veřejnosti se má dostat zpřístupnění těchto děl.
               

                  Nicméně problém je v tom, že každý kolektivní správce zastupuje pouze nositele práv na určitém území členského státu. A dnes je prakticky nemožné získat souhlasy s výjimkou hudebních děl na území celé Evropské unie. Myslím si, že by bylo vhodné, aby se Evropská unie nad tímto problémem zamyslela, aby uživatel mohl získat souhlas konkrétního tvůrce od konkrétního kolektivního správce, který tak může poskytnout souhlas i pro celé území EU.
               

Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, depois de ameaças sistemáticas a Portugal com sanções, o Presidente da Comissão Europeia disse há poucos dias que não haveria sanções para França, porque a França é a França. O presidente do Eurogrupo, Sr. Dijsselbloem, veio contrariá-lo, mas apenas para exigir mão pesada para todos.
               

                  É este o contributo que dão para a estabilidade. Enquanto alguns Estados-Membros procuram fazer o que podem para levantar a sua economia, os dirigentes europeus fazem tudo o que está ao seu alcance para manter os investidores nervosos e os cidadãos à beira de um ataque de nervos.
               

                  Como se não bastasse o desencanto com o projeto europeu, como se não fosse suficiente a crise de legitimidade democrática, como se não chegasse o desastre económico e social que resultou da opção ideológica da austeridade, como se este desastre não fosse o resultado ele próprio da política de austeridade que impede o cumprimento das metas, o que acontece é que o presidente da Comissão Europeia nos vem dizer que afinal de contas esta não é uma união entre iguais.
               

                  O problema é que as consequências são muito reais e são bem concretas e acabam por ser uma sabotagem económica, uma sanção em si mesmo, mas ilegal, uma sanção em si mesmo, mas não escrita. Por isso eu só vos peço, senhores comissários, uma coisa, façam um favor à Europa, sancionem-se a vós próprios. Vocês merecem!
               

Afzal Khan (S&D). – Madam President, there are just 17 days until the UK votes on its membership of the European Union. This is a huge decision affecting not just Britain's future but every other Member State represented in this Parliament.
The risks to the UK of leaving are huge: an immediate economic shock and a possible recession; 3.5 million jobs at risk; workplace rights and protections which could be scrapped, and defence and security cooperation weakened. In response to these risks the Leave campaign has had no answers.
Now having lost the arguments on the economy and security they have resorted to scaremongering over immigration. Over the past few weeks they have made disgusting and borderline racist claims implying that all immigrants who come to the UK are either criminals or welfare claimants. As an immigrant myself I know that these claims are false and that immigrants make a huge positive contribution to the UK. I also believe that most decent voters in Britain know this as well, and they will see through the Leave campaign's lies and will vote to remain on 23 June.

Yana Toom (ALDE). – Madam President, Latvia and Estonia host a large number of stateless people. They are former citizens of the Soviet Union and their children. Stateless people make up 12% of the Latvian population and 6% of the Estonian population. The Soviet Union ceased to exist 24 years ago. The problem of mass statelessness in Estonia and Latvia has not been solved so far. In both countries stateless residents are denied voting rights during national and European elections, in Latvia also during local elections.
Estonian and Latvian residents have collected more than 17 000 signatures in order to submit a petition where they ask Parliament to correct the under-representation of stateless people in the European Parliament. They have very good reasons to advocate change. In the case of Estonia and Latvia, and especially in Latvia, the number of seats allocated to these countries in the European Parliament is disproportionately high at the expense of persons without voting rights. I wish my colleagues to support the expansion of voting rights for stateless residents in Estonia and Latvia.

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Juncker, Senhor Draghi e companhia, façam um esforço por ouvir com atenção o que vos diremos.
               

                  A luta dos trabalhadores e do povo português derrotou o Governo que aplicou diligentemente as vossas orientações, condenou as vossas políticas. A luta dos trabalhadores e do povo português travou um caminho contrário à marcha da História.
               

                  Lutámos e conseguimos a eliminação dos cortes salariais da administração pública, o aumento do salário mínimo nacional, a redução das taxas moderadoras na saúde, o reforço das prestações sociais, o descongelamento das pensões, a eliminação da sobretaxa do IRS, a gratuitidade progressiva dos manuais escolares, entre várias outras medidas.
               

                  E na semana passada foi reposto o horário das 35 horas na administração pública. Tudo isto é pouco, muito pouco, apesar de importante. Falta muito mais e vamos conseguir muito mais.
               

                  Senhor Juncker, a França é a França, pois é, mas Portugal é Portugal, um país com mais de 800 anos de História e com um povo zeloso da sua independência. Será ele a escrever por suas mãos o seu destino. Ponham as barbas de molho!
               

Gilles Lebreton (ENF). – Madame la Présidente, M. Juncker s'est rendu le 31 mai au Congrès des maires de France pour leur dire que l'Europe, c'est eux. Non, Monsieur Juncker, l'Europe, c'est vous!
               

                  La politique d'austérité qui affame les communes, c'est vous! Les maires sont vos victimes et vous êtes leur bourreau. Un bourreau qui leur ment quand il prétend que la France bénéficie de 27 milliards d'euros de Fonds structurels sur six ans, alors qu'en réalité, l'Union coûte deux fois plus à la France sur la même période.
               

                  Un bourreau qui se moque d'eux quand il leur dit, je cite, que ‘la Commission a une âme’, alors que vous êtes le digne représentant de l'oligarchie financière qui les écrase sans vergogne, comme le prouvent des scandales à répétition: LuxLeaks hier, Panama Papers aujourd'hui, partenariat transatlantique de commerce et d'investissement demain.
               

                  Mais les maires ne sont pas dupes, Monsieur Juncker, et ils rejoignent de plus en plus les rangs de ceux que vous appelez avec mépris des populistes et qui sont en réalité des patriotes.
               

Κωνσταντίνος Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η κυβέρνηση ΣΥΡΙΖΑ-ΑΝΕΛ στην Ελλάδα, αφού καρατόμησε συντάξεις και ασφαλιστικά δικαιώματα, παρέδωσε και την πρώτη κατοικία της λαϊκής οικογένειας στα funds. Ταυτόχρονα, εφαρμόζει άγρια φορολεηλασία, εξασφαλίζοντας ζεστό χρήμα για τους βιομήχανους και τους εφοπλιστές. Τώρα μάλιστα προετοιμάζει νέο νόμο για τα εργασιακά με όρους γαλέρας αντίστοιχους με αυτούς που περνούν στη Γαλλία, στο Βέλγιο και σε κάθε κράτος μέλος της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Είναι οι λεγόμενες ‘βέλτιστες πρακτικές της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης’ και των οργάνων της όπως το Ευρωκοινοβούλιο, που βγάζουν τους εργάτες κατά χιλιάδες στο δρόμο. Έτσι ακριβώς ονομάζετε εσείς το τσάκισμα των συλλογικών συμβάσεων, την κατάργηση του 13ου και 14ου μισθού, τις ομαδικές απολύσεις, τους περιορισμούς στην απεργία. Όλα αυτά είναι προϋποθέσεις για την ανάκαμψη του κεφαλαίου. Είναι ο μαγνήτης για τις επενδύσεις σαν αυτές που μόλις υπέγραψαν οι κυβερνήσεις Ελλάδας και Γαλλίας στην πλάτη των λαών των δύο χωρών. Αποτελεσματική εργατική λαϊκή απάντηση μπορεί να δοθεί μόνο με τον οργανωμένο ταξικό αγώνα για ανάκτηση των απωλειών, την ανατροπή της εξουσίας του κεφαλαίου.
               

President. — That concludes the item.
21.   Agenda of the next sitting : see Minutes
22.   Closure of the sitting

(The sitting closed at 22.45)



ELI: 
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)