Verbatim report of proceedings of 1 February 2017
Date: 2017-02-01
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, parliamentary debate








C_202402553EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series














12.4.2024







            1 February 2017
            VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF 1 FEBRUARY 2017
            
         
(C/2024/2553)

Contents







1.

Resumption of the session
3










2.

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










3.

Verification of credentials: see Minutes
3










4.

Composition of committees and delegations: see Minutes
3










5.

Negotiations ahead of Parliament's first reading (Rule 69c): see Minutes
3










6.

Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes
3










7.

Action taken on Parliament's resolutions: see Minutes
3










8.

Delegated acts (Rule 105(6)): see Minutes
3










9.

Implementing measures (Rule 106): see Minutes
3










10.

Documents received: see Minutes
3










11.

Order of business
4










12.

Travel restrictions following US President executive orders (debate)
8










13.

State of the Energy Union (debate)
21










14.

Managing migration along the Central Mediterranean Route (debate)
41










15.

Situation in South Sudan (debate)
55










16.

Rule of law crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in Gabon (debate)
60










17.

Zero tolerance for female genital mutilation (debate)
67










18.

Bilateral safeguard clause and stabilisation mechanism for bananas of the EU-Colombia and Peru Trade Agreement (debate)
78










19.

Sustainable management of external fishing fleets (debate)
85










20.

Implementation of Erasmus + (debate)
94










21.

An integrated approach to Sport Policy: good governance, accessibility and integrity (short presentation)
106










22.

One-minute speeches on matters of political importance
111










23.

Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes
116










24.

Closure of the sitting
117




Verbatim report of proceedings of 1 February 2017
                  


PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. ANTONIO TAJANI


Presidente

1.   Resumption of the session

(La seduta è aperta alle 15.05)


Presidente. – Dichiaro ripresa la sessione del Parlamento europeo interrotta giovedì 19 gennaio 2017.
               
2.   Approval of the minutes of the previous sitting: see Minutes
3.   Verification of credentials: see Minutes
4.   Composition of committees and delegations: see Minutes
5.   Negotiations ahead of Parliament's first reading (Rule 69c): see Minutes
6.   Transfers of appropriations: see Minutes
7.   Action taken on Parliament's resolutions: see Minutes
8.   Delegated acts (Rule 105(6)): see Minutes
9.   Implementing measures (Rule 106): see Minutes
10.   Documents received: see Minutes
11.   Order of business

Presidente. – Il progetto definitivo di ordine del giorno, fissato dalla Conferenza dei presidenti, ai sensi dell'articolo 149 del regolamento, nella riunione di giovedì 19 gennaio 2017 è stato distribuito.
               

Jo Leinen (S&D). – Mr President, I would like to ask you to make contact with the Commission and Council in order to push for the refusal of the accreditation of the designated US Ambassador, Ted Malloch. Mr Malloch has shown extreme hostility towards the European Union and the core idea of European integration. I think he should be persona non grata in Brussels.

Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). – Mr President, I would like to share the concern of many of us at the resumption of massive heavy shelling in eastern Ukraine, where nine people have been killed, 26 wounded, thousands of civilians have been displaced, and hundreds of thousands of civilians are without basic supplies. I don't know if it is a coincidence that this weekend, on Saturday, President Putin and President Trump had a phone call, but the EU should react. I am happy that the High Representative is here with us to call for a ceasefire, for humanitarian aid and to restore the political process.

Anna Elżbieta Fotyga (ECR). – Mr President, I would like to raise the issue already mentioned by Ms Corazza Bildt. Unfortunately, the situation in eastern Ukraine and the humanitarian crisis in Avdiyivka, the destruction of critical infrastructure and the deaths of civilians require our debate here in the plenary. Therefore, I propose to add this point to the agenda. Please vote on this.

Peter Lundgren (EFDD). – Mr President, today a new item will be added to the agenda: managing the migration in the Mediterranean. With regard to this proposal, the EFDD Group would highlight that our member, Beatrix von Storch, already tabled a major interpellation on managing the migration in the Mediterranean. This issue is already in the pipeline for parliamentary follow-up with the High Representative. Mr President, could you please confirm that the major interpellation tabled by the EFDD Group shall not be dismissed on the grounds that a debate on a similar issue is taking place today?

Nigel Farage (EFDD). – Mr President, can I respond to the somewhat bizarre Communist intervention from the German Member Jo Leinen who wants us to ban and bar … (Loud objections, catcalls and whistles from the floor) … Oh, isn't this just the European House of democracy! So you shout me down before I've even said anything? Well, Mr President, these people's minds aren't very open. Can I just point out that it would be somewhat bizarre to bar and ban Ted Roosevelt Malloch from any engagement with the European Union, given that he hasn't even been appointed yet.

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα να ενημερώσω εσάς και το Σώμα για μια ιδιαίτερα επικίνδυνη εξέλιξη ενάντια στο δικαίωμα των ευρωβουλευτών να ασκούν ελεύθερα το λειτούργημά τους. Στις 24 Ιανουαρίου και κατά τη συνεδρίαση της Επιτροπής Αναφορών της οποίας είμαι μέλος, εξέφρασα τις απόψεις μου και στήριξα με τη ψήφο μου, για λόγους προστασίας της δημόσιας υγείας και του περιβάλλοντος, την αναφορά δύο πολιτών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης κατά των εξορύξεων χρυσού στη Χαλκιδική. Προχθές έλαβα επιστολή από την εταιρεία ‘Ελληνικός Χρυσός’ που διενεργεί τις παραπάνω εξορύξεις χρυσού, η οποία επιστολή στην ουσία ποινικοποιεί το δικαίωμα μου της ελεύθερης έκφρασης γνώμης και ψήφου κατά την άσκηση των καθηκόντων μου ως ευρωβουλευτή. Καταγγέλλω αυτήν την απειλητική συμπεριφορά της εταιρείας ‘Ελληνικός Χρυσός’. Δηλώνω ότι δεν πτοούμαι από τις απειλές τους και καλώ εσάς, κύριε Πρόεδρε του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, να προβείτε στις δέουσες ενέργειες προκειμένου να διασφαλιστεί το δικαίωμά μας να ασκούμε τα καθήκοντά μας ελεύθερα ως ευρωβουλευτές και να μην υφιστάμεθα απειλές από οποιαδήποτε ιδιωτική επιχείρηση.
               

Presidente. – On. Marias, mi invii una lettera dettagliata sull'argomento. Farò verificare dalla Direzione generale della Sicurezza e verificheremo cosa si potrà fare. Comunque sarà nostro impregno garantire la libertà di espressione di tutti quanti i deputati.
               

Ana Gomes (S&D). – Mr President, besides supporting my colleague, Jo Leinen, in his request that the person designated as Ambassador to the EU will not be accepted, I want to hear you, Mr President – as President of this Parliament and on behalf of this Parliament – to clearly condemn the measures that President Trump has announced in the US banning Muslims from certain countries as illegal, against international law and our principles as allies, racist, xenophobic, discriminatory and inviting terror reactions.

(Applause)


Presidente. – Ci sarà una discussione sui rapporti con gli Stati Uniti, su quello che sta accadendo, quindi naturalmente la mia posizione sarà quella espressa dal Parlamento.
               

Janice Atkinson (ENF). – Mr President, can I just say that we have not seen the like of this outpouring of liberal left grief. Were you outpouring, were you marching on the streets when President Obama proposed this ban on these 11 countries? No. It is a 90-day moratorium. Were you marching on the streets? You were not.

Presidente. – Stiamo parlando di punti all'ordine del giorno, non stiamo facendo una discussione sul probabile futuro candidato ambasciatore degli Stati Uniti presso l'Unione europea. Quindi vi prego di attenervi al rispetto del regolamento.
               

Николай Бареков (ECR). – Г-н Председател, бих искал да информирам Европейския парламент, че днес в моята родина България отбелязваме деня на жертвите от комунистическия терор. Милиони български семейства, включително и моето, са жертви на този терор. Искам Парламентът да почете този факт, без, разбира се, да обиждам колегите отляво. Това са исторически събития, но трябва да склоним глава пред тях, защото много хора в цяла Европа загубиха живота си.
               

Presidente. – Sono state presentate le seguenti proposte di modifica.
               

                  Mercoledì 1o febbraio: una dichiarazione del Vicepresidente della Commissione/Alto rappresentante dell'Unione per gli affari esteri e la politica di sicurezza sulle restrizioni di viaggio a seguito degli ordini esecutivi del Presidente degli Stati Uniti è aggiunta come primo punto all'ordine del giorno, seguita da un giro di interventi di oratori dei gruppi politici.
               

                  Secondo punto – una dichiarazione del Vicepresidente della Commissione/Alto rappresentante dell'Unione per gli affari esteri e la politica di sicurezza sulla gestione della migrazione lungo la rotta del Mediterraneo centrale è aggiunta come terzo punto all'ordine del giorno, dopo la dichiarazione della Commissione sullo stato dell'Unione dell'energia.
               

                  Terzo – l'interrogazione orale sui pesticidi biologici a basso rischio è rinviata alla tornata di febbraio II.
               

                  Di conseguenza la seduta sarà prolungata fino alle ore 24.00.
               

                  Vi sono obiezioni?
               

(Il Parlamento accoglie la richiesta)


                  L'ordine del giorno è così modificato.
               

                  Comunico di aver ricevuto inoltre la seguente richiesta. Mercoledì 1o febbraio il gruppo Europa delle Nazioni e della Libertà ha chiesto che una dichiarazione del Vicepresidente della Commissione/Alto rappresentante dell'Unione per gli affari esteri e la politica di sicurezza sulle attività segrete del Servizio europeo per l'azione esterna sia aggiunta come secondo punto dopo la dichiarazione del Vicepresidente della Commissione/Alto rappresentante sulle restrizioni di viaggio a seguito degli ordini esecutivi del Presidente degli Stati Uniti.
               

Georg Mayer,
im Namen der ENF-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ich möchte für unsere Fraktion die Einschiebung eines Tagesordnungspunkts beantragen. Sie haben schon gesagt: nach dem Tagesordnungspunkt ‘Reiseeinschränkungen des US-Präsidenten’. Es geht uns da um das EU Intelligence Analysis Centre (INTCEN) – welch ein klingender Name für einen Geheimdienst. Dieser Dienst ist völlig im Dunkeln entstanden. Es gibt keine gesetzliche Grundlage für diesen Dienst. Noch dazu hat das Parlament hier im Haus keine Einschaltmöglichkeit bzw. keine Kontrollmöglichkeit für diesen Dienst. Das ist auch einzigartig in der Welt, dass so ein Geheimdienst nicht vom Parlament kontrolliert werden kann.
               

                  Insofern stelle ich folgenden Antrag für meine Fraktion: Die Rolle des INTCEN im Allgemeinen und im Besonderen im Zusammenhang mit dem Putschversuch in der Türkei im Juli 2016 hier zu debattieren. Ich weiß, es ist ein langer Tag heute, aber ich würde vorschlagen, diesen Tagesordnungspunkt nur mit einem Redner abzuhandeln.
               

(Il Parlamento respinge la richiesta)


Presidente. – Per giovedì 2 febbraio 2017 il gruppo del Partito Popolare Europeo e il gruppo dell'Alleanza dei Democratici e dei Liberali per l'Europa hanno chiesto che una dichiarazione della Commissione su democrazia e giustizia in Romania sia aggiunta come primo punto. Di conseguenza le votazioni inizierebbero alle 11.30 e non alle 11.00.
               

Manfred Weber,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Das Vertrauen der Bürger in den Staat ist die Grundlage unseres Staatsverständnisses, und wenn Korruption stattfindet, dann wird dieses Grundprinzip des Vertrauens in den Staat massiv erschüttert. Deswegen ist der Kampf gegen Korruption der Kampf für Europa und für Rechtsstaatlichkeit. Wir erleben jetzt in Rumänien leider Gottes, dass das Strafrecht heute Nacht mit Dekretsanordnungen der Regierung außer Kraft gesetzt wird. Über 2 000 aktuelle Fälle, die eigentlich Korruptionsfällen im Land nachgehen sollten, werden damit ad acta gelegt, und auch der Parteivorsitzende der Sozialisten wird damit freigesprochen, obwohl er bereits als jemand verurteilt ist, der korrupt ist.
               

                  Deswegen glauben wir, dass es ein Anlass ist, über diese Entwicklungen in Rumänien zu diskutieren. Wenn der Staat käuflich ist, durch Korruption, dann ist dies ein ganz schwerwiegender Eingriff. Wir respektieren, dass Hunderttausende von Menschen in Rumänien auf der Straße sind und dagegen demonstrieren. Wir unterstützen den Präsidenten Rumäniens, der gegen diese Initiativen protestiert und seine Macht einsetzt. Das Europäische Parlament muss sich mit dieser Frage beschäftigen.
               

Presidente. – Il gruppo dei Liberali chiede di dare non una formulazione congiunta ma di avere un'altra proposta.
               

Norica Nicolai,
în numele grupului ALDE. – Domnule președinte, Grupul ALDE solicită o dezbatere în acest Parlament, nu în spatele ușilor închise, așa cum s-au mai tranșat în vechime chestiuni care au ținut de România și dorim, domnule președinte, să avem o dezbatere despre starea democrației și a justiției în România. Am vrea ca această dezbatere să răspundă la câteva întrebări și întrebările pe care le pun nu îmi aparțin mie, ca om politic, ci aparțin comunității magistraților din România. Am vrea ca această dezbatere să răspundă la următoarele întrebări: este politica penală atributul guvernelor sau al instanțelor judecătorești? Sunt deciziile Curții Constituționale, într-un stat de drept, facultative pentru magistrați, judecători sau procurori, sau sunt obligatorii? Este nevoie ca conflictele între puterile politice ale statului să fie manageriate de puterea judecătorească? Este nevoie ca parlamentele să mai adopte legi? Este nevoie ca legile care guvernează funcționarea justiției să fie înfăptuite, alături de serviciile secrete, prin forme administrative și prin nu prin lege?
               

                  Deci sunt întrebări la care este nevoie de un răspuns și magistrații din România, domnule președinte, cer acest răspuns și această dezbatere în plenul Parlamentului European și salutăm dezbaterea de mâine.
               

Presidente. – Mi pare che le due proposte, seppur formulate con termini diversi, possano essere riunificate. Quindi mi sembra di poter mettere all'attenzione della Plenaria una proposta unica per avere una dichiarazione della Commissione sulla democrazia e la giustizia in Romania. Quindi abbiamo ascoltato la proposta congiunta PPE/ALDE.
               

Maria João Rodrigues,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, the S&D position is in favour of having a plenary discussion about democracy and justice in Romania. and as this is being proposed in particular by the ALDE Group. We also think that we need to clarify facts by complementing this debate in plenary with a proper discussion in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. We feel that we should also send a fact-finding mission to Romania to check what is really happening.
We consider that it is particularly important to clarify these points: not only the purpose of the legislative package adopted yesterday, but also the way the prison system works in Romania, as well as the way the judicial system works. So this is our proposal: a debate in plenary, a debate in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, and a fact-finding mission to Romania.

Presidente. – On. Rodrigues, chiede di mettere ai voti anche la sua proposta, alternativa a quella dei Liberali e del PPE?
               

Maria João Rodrigues,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, I agree with the ALDE proposal concerning the debate in plenary on the theme of democracy and justice in Romania. We agree with this proposal, and add to it a proper discussion in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs afterwards, as well as a fact-finding mission to Romania.

Presidente. – Sentiamo il gruppo Popolare. On. Weber, siete a favore della soluzione suggerita dal gruppo Socialista?
               

Manfred Weber,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ich bitte um Klärung. Also wir beantragen, dass die Diskussion in dieser Mini-Plenartagung stattfindet, das heißt, nach unserer Vorstellung morgen Früh. Wenn die Sozialisten dem zustimmen, dann können wir das so machen, aber ein weiteres Verzögern, ein weiteres Vertagen der Debatte würde aus unserer Sicht nicht richtig sein. Okay? Dann würden wir es so unterstützen.
               

Presidente. – Se ho capito bene il gruppo Socialista chiede, oltre alla discussione, anche una discussione in LIBE, o sbaglio?
               

Maria João Rodrigues,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, we agree with the debate in plenary but we want to add two other initiatives: a debate in the LIBE Committee and a fact-finding mission to the country itself. This is our proposal.

Presidente. – Possiamo unificare la proposta, quindi integrare la proposta illustrata dall'on. Weber e dall'on. Nicolai con la proposta dell'on. Rodrigues in modo che ci sia una discussione in Plenaria e poi un dibattito in LIBE, per poi inviare una missione in Romania. Siamo d'accordo? Metto in votazione le tre proposte congiunte.
               

(Il Parlamento accoglie la richiesta)


(L'ordine dei lavori è così fissato)


Rebecca Harms (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, I think Ms Fotyga had an amendment to our agenda and order of business. She asked, taking up Ms Corazza Bildt's proposal, to put the Ukrainian crisis and the escalation in Avdiyivka on our agenda in this mini-session. According to our working methods, if there is such a request, we should vote on it.

Presidente. – On. Harms, avevo ascoltato attentamente l'intervento dell'on. Fotyga, ma il regolamento prevede che la richiesta di modifica dell'ordine del giorno sia presentata almeno un'ora prima della discussione a nome di un gruppo. Questa richiesta non è arrivata, è stata fatta dall'onorevole, io l'ho ascoltata in Aula, quindi non posso modificare. C'è il nuovo regolamento, quindi bisogna rispettare il regolamento.
               
12.   Travel restrictions following US President executive orders (debate)

Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione sulla dichiarazione del Vicepresidente della Commissione/Alto rappresentante dell'Unione per gli affari esteri e la politica di sicurezza sulle restrizioni di viaggio a seguito degli ordini esecutivi del Presidente degli Stati Uniti (2017/2546(RSP)).
               

                  Ricordo agli onorevoli deputati che per questa discussione non è prevista la procedura ‘catch-the-eye’, né saranno accettate domande ‘cartellino blu’.
               

Federica Mogherini,
VPC/HR. – Signor Presidente, vorrei iniziare con il congratularmi con Lei per l'elezione a Presidente di questo Parlamento e augurarmi, anzi essere certa, di un'ottima cooperazione che d'altra parte abbiamo già avviato.
               

                  I would also like to underline one element. I fully agree with what my friends, Ms Fotyga and Ms Corazza Bildt, raised. In the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday, the situation in Ukraine will be on the agenda with the Foreign Ministers, and that will also give us an opportunity to restate our full support for the country and for the full implementation of the Minsk Agreement.
               

                  Turning to the issue on our agenda today, I would start by saying that Europe and the United States of America are tied by an old and deep friendship. Personally I have always looked – and I still look – at the United States with great respect and admiration, as a land where everyone can succeed whatever their social, ethnic or cultural background. It is a land of opportunities, a land of hope and dreams, a country that has always been great precisely because it has always been open and has always been a champion of freedoms.
               

                  As a good friend of the United States, I believe Europe has a duty to be clear – respectful and clear – whenever disagreement arises, especially when it relates to our fundamental values. We certainly disagree with the executive order issued by the President of the United States on 27 January as, it seems, do many in the US too. As you know, the executive order introduces a temporary suspension, for a period of 90 days, of the entry into the USA of foreign nationals from seven countries: Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Libya and Yemen. A temporary suspension is also foreseen, for a period of 120 days, of the US refugee admissions programme, in principle so that no new refugee application can be accepted until the US Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security, reviews the current application process.
               

                  There have been questions about which citizens are affected by the travel ban. I would like to tackle this issue immediately and then focus on what to me is even more important. The US Department of State clarified yesterday that European Union citizens will not be affected by the ban, even if they hold dual citizenship in one of the seven countries listed in the executive order. We welcome this clarification, but let me be absolutely clear that this does not change our overall assessment of the executive order.
               

(Applause)


                  I have already made clear in recent days where the European Union stands on this. No-one – no-one – can be deprived of his or her own rights because of their place of birth, their religion or their ethnicity. This is written in our constitutions, both in Europe and in America. This is who we are, this is our identity, and this is something we cannot forget. Our European history has taught us to celebrate when a wall is torn down and a bridge is built. We learned from our own great, but also tragic, history that every human being is, first and foremost, a person with fundamental rights that cannot be put into question.
               

                  Let me add, from a personal point of view, that I found it really sad to learn that this executive order was issued on 27 January, Holocaust Remembrance Day, that is first and foremost a day to commemorate millions of Jews killed by Nazis, but also to reject any discrimination and to reflect on our duty to host those who flee from persecution and protect them and their rights.
               

(Applause)


                  Many of them – most of them actually – are fleeing from terrorist groups such as Daesh. They are victims of terrorism and, beyond being refugees, they are men, women and children with personal stories, dreams, fears and profound wounds. Most of all, they have a future to build, also for the sake of their own countries and our own security, because the social reconstruction of their countries depends on them. So let me – actually, I should say let us – be very clear. The European Union will not turn back anyone who has the right to international protection. This is where we stand. This is where we continue to stand.
               

                  It would not be moral, it would not be just, it would not be legal, and it would not be in our interest, because this kind of measure has the potential to increase tensions and mistrust among peoples and nations. When I say among people, I also mean among people in our own societies. I am worried by the trends we are seeing inside American society at the moment, and that is why, with a lot of respect, I invited the President of the United States to pay attention to what is happening in his own country.
               

                  Only respect and cooperation can make us more secure. Only respect and cooperation can help us manage the many crises around the word. This is the European way. We work together with the countries experiencing a crisis and with their neighbours – all of them. A travel ban can maybe – maybe – give a temporary illusion of addressing the issue, but it can only create more frustration and anger. We need cooperation, not closures. We need to engage and to build common ground, not to ban. The EU will continue to be a partner and a strong point of reference for all countries in the region, regardless of the religion of their citizens. They can count on us.
               

                  We will continue to be a partner and a strong point of reference for all those in the world who believe in international cooperation, human rights and the rule of law. This is also why the European Union is the biggest donor in the world to the Syrian people and their neighbouring countries, with more than EUR 9 billion invested since the start of the fighting in Syria. So far, the European Union and the US have worked closely together, including at the UN Summit on Refugees in New York, because a global issue requires global common work. Bold commitments were made, both to protect the human rights of all refugees and migrants, and to counter hate speech against refugees and migrants.
               

                  The EU is always ready to engage with the new US Administration to follow up on these commitments, as well as on the many other achievements we have managed to build together in recent years, and which are today key fundamental elements of our European Union policy – from climate change to the Iran deal, from the Middle East peace process to our support for the UN system and a free and fair trade system.
               

                  On the basis of this very clear international agenda, we will work with the US administration as partners with full reciprocal respect. This is the European Union way. These are our principles, our values and our interests. I believe we have a responsibility, both towards our citizens and our partners in the region and beyond, in the world, to be true to our values and identity, and show leadership and strength.
               

(Applause)


Manfred Weber,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir haben heute das Thema Einreiseregelungen, aber wir wissen und spüren alle, dass es um mehr geht. Wir unterstützen die Position, die Federica Mogherini heute im Namen der Kommission vorgestellt hat, aber es geht – wie gesagt – um mehr.
               

                  Trump ist gewählt, er ist im Amt. Wir respektieren das, es war eine demokratische Entscheidung. Und wir als EVP wollen die Zusammenarbeit, wir wollen einfach miteinander reden – jeder in seiner Verantwortung –, miteinander Brücken bauen. Diesen Respekt vor dem Wahlergebnis, den muss man zunächst zum Ausdruck bringen.
               

                  Wir als EVP wollen auch die Differenzierung. Wenn Donald Trump beispielsweise sagt, er kämpft gegen die illegale Migration, dann hat er uns als EVP an seiner Seite. Wenn er sagt, er kämpft gegen den islamistischen Terrorismus, dann hat er uns als EVP an seiner Seite. Und wir freuen uns auch, dass nach dem Gespräch mit Theresa May und auch nach den Telefonaten mit Angela Merkel jetzt ein klares Bekenntnis zur NATO im Raum steht. Danke dafür! Aber das Positive ist leider Gottes nicht das, was überwiegt, wenn wir auf die Äußerungen von Donald Trump in den letzten Wochen und auf die Aktivitäten der letzten Tage schauen.
               

                  Amerika ist eigentlich das Land der Freiheit, die USA sind eigentlich das Land der Einwanderer. Das ist das Bild, das ich seit jungen Jahren im Kopf habe. Generalverdacht für einzelne Staaten, Generalverdacht für einzelne Religionsgemeinschaften: Das führt nicht zu Freundschaft und zu Abbau von Hass, das führt zu neuem Hass. Der kanadische Attentäter, der Muslime in Ottawa ermordet hat, hat sich explizit auf Trump bezogen.
               

                  Die USA waren für mich immer das Land des freien Marktes, der freien Marktwirtschaft. Jetzt erleben wir einen amerikanischen Präsidenten, der jede Handelsbeziehung abbrechen will, die TTIP-Gespräche beendet, das transpazifische Abkommen zerreißt. Wir als Europäer wollen den Handel, wir wollen die Partnerschaft im fairen Welthandel, und deswegen werden wir im Februar auch für CETA stimmen und damit ein klares Signal setzen. Wir unterstützen auch die Kommissarin Malmström bei allen Bestrebungen, mit Mexiko, mit Kanada, mit Japan, mit anderen ins Gespräch zu kommen und den Handel zu stärken. Wir wollen diesen Handel.
               

                  Die USA waren für mich immer – um noch ein drittes Beispiel zu bringen – das Land der Grundrechte, der Menschenrechte, für die gekämpft worden ist, für die gestorben worden ist. Und Trump stellt sich jetzt hin und sagt, dass Folter effektiv ist und er seinen Behörden freie Hand dafür gibt. Wenn ein Staat Folter anwendet, dann wird dieser Staat selbst zum Verbrecher. Und deswegen darf es dazu nicht kommen.
               

                  Es wurde heute bereits angedeutet, dass eventuell ein neuer US-Botschafter kommt. Einen US-Botschafter haben wir mit Nigel Farage schon hier sitzen, aber es kommt noch ein weiterer, der den Euro am Ende sieht, der den Brexitanfang als Anfang sieht. Und das ist die große neue Unabhängigkeit Großbritanniens, dass man jetzt anstatt nach Brüssel nach Washington fahren und alles genehmigen lassen muss. Aber ich möchte für die EVP-Fraktion auch sagen: Wenn wir einen Botschafter aus Amerika hier begrüßen müssten, der den Euro infrage stellt und der sich das Ende der Europäischen Union wünscht, dann kann er von den europäischen Institutionen nicht akkreditiert werden. Mit so einem Partner können wir nicht zusammenarbeiten.
               

                  Putin baut seine Machtsphäre aus, er setzt auf Krieg, um seine Interessen durchzusetzen, und er will ein schwaches Europa. Donald Trump hat die Wirtschaft, ‘America First’ im Blick. Er sieht, dass Europa und China die zwei großen wirtschaftlichen Konkurrenten sind, die Amerika auf Augenhöhe begegnen können. Auch er will ein schwaches Europa, ein zerstrittenes Europa, ein zerteiltes Europa. Deswegen geht es in den nächsten Wochen, Monaten und Jahren um grundsätzliche Fragen, nämlich darum, ob wir zusammenstehen oder nicht.
               

                  Wenn wir auf die Geschichte der USA und auch auf die Geschichte des Vereinigten Königreichs blicken, dann fallen mir Namen wie Roosevelt und Churchill ein. Das waren Politiker, die Seite an Seite für die Freiheit und gegen den Totalitarismus und den nationalen Egoismus gekämpft haben, die nicht zunächst auf den nationalen Egoismus geschaut, sondern für Werte gekämpft haben. Reagan und Thatcher haben den Kommunismus mit dem NATO-Doppelbeschluss gemeinsam in die Knie gezwungen, sie haben nicht zunächst egoistisch geschaut, was für das Land richtig ist, sondern was für die Welt richtig ist.
               

                  Beide Paare, die ich gerade beschrieben habe, haben für die Freiheit in dieser Welt gekämpft. Ich würde mir wünschen, dass das heutige führende Politiker auch machen. Donald Trump und Theresa May stehen leider Gottes für den nationalen Egoismus und nicht mehr für das Weitertragen der Flamme der Freiheit auf dieser Welt.
               

                  Die Welt verändert sich fundamental, und deswegen ist meine und die Bitte meiner Fraktion, dass Valletta am Freitag ein klares, starkes Signal aussendet, das bereits Donald Tusk in seinem Brief grundgelegt hat. Le Pen sagt, die EU sei ein Protektorat der USA, und ich glaube, dass Valletta zeigen kann, dass dem nicht so ist, dass Europa geeint und stark für das eintritt, was wir als unsere Werte bezeichnen.
               

Gianni Pittella,
a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, alcuni, diciamo la verità, pensavano che Trump sarebbe stato uno scherzo, quasi una barzelletta, e invece si sta rivelando un incubo. Non sottovalutiamo, quanto abbiamo sottovalutato nella storia, alcune personalità che si sono trasformate in dittatori e hanno seminato guerre e sangue.
               

                  Come ha detto giustamente Federica Mogherini, l'amicizia con il popolo americano è fuori discussione. Per noi è essenziale, feconda, rimane un punto fermo dei nostri sentimenti e delle nostre azioni, così come rimane forte l'ammirazione per gli Stati Uniti d'America, per quello che sono stati nella storia e per quello che sono. Ma proprio per questo diventa doloroso prendere atto di queste proposte, di questi provvedimenti che sta portando avanti Trump, che sono un attacco alla civiltà giuridica europea, ai valori fondamentali.
               

                  Diciamo le cose come stanno, on. Weber: il travel ban, diretto ai cittadini solo di alcuni paesi musulmani, non ha niente a che vedere con la gestione delle frontiere e con la lotta al terrorismo. È una bugia demagogica. Si fa il ban per alcuni e per altri no, con i quali Trump fa affari. Diciamo la verità, perché i cittadini hanno bisogno di parole chiare. È un attacco al diritto all'asilo e allo Stato di diritto, è un attacco che viene insieme ad altre cose, come il muro con il Messico. Le relazioni internazionali ne vengono a perdere, le relazioni con il Messico, con l'America latina, tutto il mondo viene infettato da questo virus di instabilità, di perturbazione. Io dico alle compagnie aeree: non lo assecondate, non rifiutate l'imbarco per gli Stati Uniti di passeggeri provenienti dalle nazioni prese di mira da Trump.
               

                  Ha ragione Jo Leinen, e qui ha ragione anche Manfred Weber, quando dice: se fosse nominato quell'ambasciatore non sarebbe persona gradita, perché non posso gradire uno che dice, prima ancora di essere nominato, ‘io vado là per distruggere l'Unione europea’. E dico alla signora May e al governo del Regno Unito: non si presti, la signora May, e non si presti il governo del Regno Unito a svolgere il ruolo di cavallo di Troia per distruggere l'Unione europea.
               

                  Dico anche che sarebbe bene che gli Stati membri (sono liberi di farlo) chiamassero i loro ambasciatori e si consultassero su ciò che sta succedendo negli Stati Uniti. Sarebbe anche un atto simbolico. E sarebbe anche bene che, sul suolo europeo, fino a quando questa tendenza non cessa, Trump non venga invitato.
               

                  Ho concluso. Anch'io sono, come la vicepresidente Mogherini, per la cooperazione, ma fino a quando Trump non cambierà questa linea, la porta dell'Europa non può che essere sbarrata nei suoi confronti.
               

Syed Kamall,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, according to a study by the Cato Institute – a well-respected and classically liberal US think-tank – No American has been killed since 1975 on US soil by a national from any of the seven countries listed in President Trump's executive order. So those of us who believe that law should be fair, that there should be equality under the law, that the primary functions of law should be enforcement of contracts and social order, will rightly be concerned by this arbitrary ban, which affects not only Muslims, but also affects Christians fleeing persecution and war. Sending a message that there is some inherent contradiction between being a good Muslim and being a good citizen of a Western democracy, simply plays into the arms of Daesh and other extremists who make exactly the same claim.

(Applause from certain quarters)

It plays into their arms because they make exactly the same claim when they are recruiting disillusioned and disconnected young Muslim men and women as terrorists. But whatever we in this Chamber may think, the fact is that Americans voted for a candidate who said what he thought, and now they find that they have a President who does what he promised to do. We must accept that this President, his priorities and these policies are the consequence of a growing tide of discontent to be found not only in middle America, but also in many of our countries. Electorates have lost faith in mainstream politicians on both sides of the Atlantic; electorates that have lost trust in politicians' ability to listen and act upon their legitimate concerns; electorates attracted by simplistic solutions offered by politicians on the edges of the political spectrum.
While we express our concerns over President Trump's executive orders, we must also realise that as long as the gains from globalisation are seen only in the portfolios of company directors and not in the pay packets of workers, as long as our migration and asylum policies are seen as more about compassion, diversity and political correctness, and less about ensuring integration, we will find politicians pursuing similar policies and making electoral gains in France, the Netherlands and elsewhere in the EU. So every time a mainstream politician dismisses those who disagree with the current direction of political travel in Europe and America, every time you dismiss them as racist or populist, this simply demonstrates an inability to offer a credible alternative.
In the meantime, no matter how strongly we feel about the current policies of the US President, let us all ask ourselves: what is more effective? The hot heads of protest or the cool heads of diplomacy? And let us make it clear to our American allies that decisions of the new US Administration in these executive orders, which lacked the support of Congress, which are arbitrary, which have been purely planned without preparation for the consequences, will not make America great again. Moreover, they will not strengthen, but only weaken, our transatlantic relationship. Let us also remember that friends are more likely to pay attention to friendly voices of reason, not raised voices of anger.

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. DAVID-MARIA SASSOLI


Vicepresidente


Guy Verhofstadt,
on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I will start from where Mr Pittella ended his intervention and also from where Mr Kamall started.
I do not understand something in your intervention, Mr Kamall. First of all you say, yes, it is not done, and then you say two phrases later that we have to accept it because he is elected. No, it is not because he is elected that he can go against human values and the values of the United States of America. Even an elected President with a majority – and he has no majority of the popular vote in the US – has to listen to the American Constitution, has to listen to the American judiciary. That is the starting point of my intervention.
In fact, some people are saying in the US that it helps security. That is nonsense. You have given the figures. Since 1975, all terrorists in the US came from three countries – Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon. None of them is on the list of seven countries and nobody came from those countries since 1975 as a terrorist. So it is pure discrimination, and pure discrimination in a broader approach, because it is not only about this religious ban. It is about fuelling populism and nationalism – that is what the Trump administration is doing for the moment, and that is not only by appointing Mr Farage as his spokesman here in the plenary, but it is also by having the idea to designate Malloch as the ambassador and, more importantly, and let's be aware of this, Steve Bannon, a member now of the National Security Council of the United States of America and a man who is openly saying that we want a worldwide right-wing movement to get rid of the European Union, to get done with the European Union, and they are sitting here. It is our Fifth Column, because Mr Farage is working with Mr Bannon. He sees him on a regular basis to effect one thing, which is to see how the European Union can be destroyed in the coming years. Not thinking, dear colleagues, of one thing, which is that it is a big risk to bid on nationalism and populism in Europe. We have had it already in the past. We have had it already in the 20th century. People would say that nationalism and populism was the solution for our continent and they created the most gross atrocities we have ever seen: 20 million deaths, Mr Farage, is what nationalism has cost in Europe. There is no family in the European Union which does not have a grandfather or a grandmother or a son or a daughter who was a victim of that nationalism and of that populism. And that is the reason why we created the European Union – to overcome that, to make a continent of peace.
Normally an American President – take Roosevelt, for example – wants to be the leader of the free world, and now I see an American President who wants to be the leader in the fight against the free world, against solidarity, and against tolerance. I think it is an existential moment for the European Union. We can only take one decision. We have the autocrat Putin who wants to defy Europe. We have President Trump, who has a populist nationalist view and wants to disintegrate us. We have the threat from the radical Islamists in the south and we have a bunch of people here who want to destroy within the European Union.
We can do one thing and that is unite, fight back as the European Union, and I hope in Valletta it will not only be the letter – and I support the letter of President Tusk on his behalf – that will be the conclusion. I hope for once that all European leaders have the courage to stand up together with the European Parliament and fight back against this bunch of nationalists and populists who want to destroy us.

(Applause)


Gabriele Zimmer,
im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Wir werden uns heute sicher nicht das erste und nicht das letzte Mal mit der Politik der Vereinigten Staaten und insbesondere der Regierung Trump beschäftigen müssen. Und ich danke Ihnen sehr, Frau Mogherini, dass Sie auch den Zusammenhang mit dem Zeitpunkt hergestellt haben, an dem Herr Trump sein Dekret zur Beschränkung oder zum Stopp der Einreise von muslimischen Bürgern veröffentlichte – dem 27. Januar. Das ist nicht einfach Gedankenlosigkeit gewesen, die Herr Trump da erkennen ließ, sondern das hat System bei ihm. Es hat System, weil er nämlich gleichzeitig – fast noch am gleichen Tag – den demokratischen Abgeordneten Schumer beleidigte, als dieser vor dem Hintergrund seiner Biographie, angesichts des Todes seines Großvaters und enger Familienangehöriger in deutschen KZs, darüber redete, was das bedeutet, wenn Menschen wegen ihres Glaubens ausgegrenzt werden, nicht einreisen dürfen, und Trump ihn fragte, welch schlechten Schauspiellehrer er denn gehabt habe.
                  

                     Ich glaube, es ist diese Art und Weise der Auseinandersetzung, die wir bekommen werden – darauf müssen wir uns einstellen. Wir sollten uns aber darüber im Klaren sein, dass, wenn wir beweisen wollen, dass unser System, dass die Europäische Union dem etwas entgegenzusetzen hat – dieser Verachtung von Menschen entgegentreten kann –, wir dann beweisen müssen, dass wir besser sind. Sie haben in einem Tweet darauf verwiesen, dass die Europäische Union ein sicheres Haus für Migrantinnen und Migranten sei. Nein, das ist es auch nicht.
                  

                     Also beweisen wir und setzen wir unsere Werte tatsächlich dieser Verachtung von Trump entgegen und sorgen wir mit einer anderen, mit einer solidarischen Migrationspolitik dafür, dass Menschen, die Schutz suchen, hier nicht als Wurzel des Übels betrachtet werden und als diejenigen, die Terror und Kriminalität zu uns bringen, sondern dass wir hier unseren Werten verpflichtet bleiben und hier gemeinsam agieren.
                  

                     Ich sage es nochmal: Was wäre nach 1945 aus den Nachkriegsdemokratien hier in Europa geworden, wenn vielen der Flüchtlinge, die gerade zur Zeit des Nationalsozialismus – des übelsten deutschen Faschismus –, als dieser brennend und mordend durch Europa und durch die Welt zog, damals kein Aufenthalt gewährt worden wäre? Wo wären wir hingekommen? Wie schmerzlich hätten wir sie vermisst, wenn sie den Nazis in die Finger geraten wären? Und genau das muss uns dazu verpflichten, dass wir uns auf diese Spielchen nicht einlassen. Aber nicht einfach nur wild zurückschlagen, sondern mit dem, was wir besser machen können, beweisen, dass wir etwas entgegenzusetzen haben und dass wir mit den amerikanischen Bürgerinnen und Bürgern, die sich zur Wehr setzen, hier auch kooperieren.
                  

                     Im Übrigen – das auch noch abschließend gesagt: Das, was mir in diesen Tagen wirklich Hoffnung gegeben hat, das ist, dass unmittelbar am Tag der Amtseinführung und auch in den Tagen danach überall in der Welt und insbesondere in den USA Tausende, Hunderttausende von Frauen sich gegen ein solches Menschenbild gestellt haben. Da geht es nicht nur um die Diskriminierung von Frauen, sondern es geht generell um die Achtung und den Respekt des Einzelnen – von Menschen, ob Frauen, ob ausgegrenzt, unabhängig von Herkunft, Nationalität, Glauben. Darum geht es, und das ist das, was wir auch bei uns durchsetzen müssen.
                  

                     Bekämpfen wir Trump und seine Ideologie, indem wir ihn beispielsweise auch daran hindern, in irgendeine Situation zu kommen, dass er tatsächlich den Knopf auslöst! Sorgen wir ein bisschen mehr für Sicherheit, schaffen wir die amerikanischen Atomwaffen von EU-Boden endlich ab! In Deutschland sind immer noch welche stationiert. Das macht auch mir Sorge.
                  

Ska Keller,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, the 45th President of the United States of America is truly opening a new chapter in the history of the US and in the history of democracy as well. Let us very clear: this ban on seven countries is not something that is put forward for security or one of the other reasons. It is very clearly a discriminatory act. It is targeting Muslims. Even though not only Muslims are hit, and even if it does not hit all Muslims, it is directed against people because of their religion.
Who could have imagined that such a thing could happen? Who could have thought that the freedoms and the rights that we all assume are normal and natural, that we have always had and think are guaranteed, can evaporate so quickly and can disappear so suddenly? This is apparently how liberal democracy dies. It vanishes very quickly with an executive order. The US built itself on religious freedom – that was one of the key figures of its founding – and on immigration. Now what is left of this American dream? How quickly did it vanish. But that is also the point isn't it? All the rights, the freedoms and the liberties that we take for granted are actually not for granted. They always have to be fought for. They have to be fought for every single day. Democracy is not something that you set up, you write into your constitution and then, voilà, it is there. No, you have to defend it every single day. The same goes for human rights. They are never guaranteed. You have to work for them.
Here in Europe we pride ourselves on living in a union of peace, democracy and the rule of law. We are proud to defend the idea of human rights in the world as well, but do we really do enough to safeguard those values? Don't we also restrict access at our borders? Don't we also have walls and fences? Do we not also – even in this Chamber sometimes – hear people who discriminate against other people based on where they come from and based on their religion? And what are we doing about that? Every one of us, including the governments of the Member States, need to be clear on which side we stand. Do we stand on the side of hate and of walls, or do we stand on the side of democracy and of building bridges?
I think we need to build our European Union stronger, and for that we need to get our act together when it comes to finally solving the economic crisis that is still leading to so much unemployment, especially for young people. We need to coordinate our foreign policy and we need to be champions of international law because there are not many other people out there in the world who will do so. We need to step up our role in the UN and also when it comes to climate change. Let us make Europe the counter-model to Trump, the light of liberty of human rights and the rule of law, and also of generosity. Let us be the ones who show justice and compassion. Let us make sure that we are not just speaking of those values, but are actually demonstrating them in everything we do.
The Statue of Liberty was once given by France to the younger sister, America – sisters in freedom and rights. I think we should build more statues of liberty. We need to put them in Lesbos and Lampedusa, where people arrive full of hope and fear. We need to put them everywhere where people are standing up for their rights and also for their neighbour's rights. Let us be the Europe that brings forward and champions those people who fight for their rights and the rights of others, no matter what their nationality, religion, sex or sexual orientation, and no matter where they come from. Europe needs to be building bridges and not walls. Let us do that together.

(Applause)


Nigel Farage,
on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, I can see that you are all very upset here this afternoon and I've no doubt that the events in the USA over the last few weeks have been a very profound shock to you; perhaps you're right. You see, what has happened here is somebody has stood on a manifesto for election, got into office and, within one week, said that he will hold faith with his own electorate. It is called genuine democracy – unlike the system we have in the European Union, where the unelected Commissioners like Mogherini here have the sole right to propose legislation. So I am sure that it's a great shock to you to see that a genuinely-elected democrat is doing what he was put in to do. And it must be, I would think today in Washington …

Presidente. – La invito a essere rispettoso…
                  

(Sorry, I can't hear you, mate.)


                     …nei confronti di questo Parlamento e delle funzioni istituzionali dei Commissari. Questo lo dobbiamo non solo per il rispetto istituzionale alla Commissione, ma anche per la benevolenza del Vicepresidente/Alto rappresentante Mogherini. La ringrazio.
                  

Nigel Farage (EFDD). – And out of institutional respect, President, to the truth, perhaps you will understand and agree with me that within the European form of law-making it is the unelected Commission that has the sole right to propose legislation. If I'm wrong in saying that, you can throw me out of this Parliament right here, right now, this afternoon.

Presidente. – On. Farage, io la richiamo soltanto a un atteggiamento rispettoso.
                  

Nigel Farage (EFDD). – I will be respectful alright, and perhaps you will be too – for the right of the leader of a political party that won the European elections in the United Kingdom in 2014.
It seems to me that with all the anti-Trump rhetoric that is coming from everywhere, actually what we are hearing is the true nature of the European project, which is genuine anti-Americanism. Trump is motivated by protecting the United States of America from Islamic terrorism, whereas what has happened in this room and in governments around Europe is you have welcomed these people into your own homes.
But can we just for a moment look at the facts, amongst all the hyperbole and the hysteria? All that Donald Trump has done is taken seven countries that were identified by President Obama as posing a risk to the USA. Obama had already put in place extreme vetting; what Trump has done is, for 90 days, to say ‘let's examine that vetting and see whether it is good enough’.
What I want to ask you, Mr Verhofstadt, and all the others, with your faux outrage today, is where were you when Obama in 2011 banned any Iraqi from going into the country for six months? Why do I hear no criticism in this Chamber, or from the Commission, of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and others, who have refused to take a single – not one – refugee or displaced person from Syria. And how can it be that on Holocaust Day last Friday, not a single one of you criticised the 16 countries in the world that ban Israeli Jews from even going to their country on holiday? What is this hypocrisy?
So perhaps what we need to do, Mr President, and through you to the Members, is to be a little bit more constructive. All of us here say we are democrats, well here is the chance to prove it. Let us invite President Trump to come here, to this European Parliament. I am sure that as democrats you would all agree that what we need to do is to have an open dialogue with the newly-elected most powerful man in the world. And if you throw that rejection back in my face then you prove yourself to be the anti-democratic zealots that I always thought you were.

(Applause from certain quarters)


Presidente. –
(Riferendosi all'intervento senza microfono dell'on. Verhofstadt ‘We should have Obama here in Parliament’) Grazie, on. Verhofstadt.
                  

Marcel de Graaff,
on behalf of the ENF Group. – Mr President, Mr Tusk recently said that the United States of America is as great a threat to the EU as Russia and the Islamic State. Is Mr Tusk suffering from irrational anxiety, from panic attacks that disturb his view on reality? President Trump has rightfully introduced a temporary stop on the entry of citizens from countries that were already identified by his predecessor Mr Obama – as Mr Farage has said already – as countries that pose a threat to US security. This argument to improve border controls before allowing people to enter is completely valid. In the EU, we are directly suffering from the consequences of failing border control. We have suffered attacks in Brussels, Nice, Paris and Berlin, and many have lost their lives or were severely injured.
Trump called the EU a mess, and he's right – it is a mess. The outcry against President Trump is pure hypocrisy, as Mr Farage has already said. Where were the protests against exclusion of Israeli citizens by the same Islamic countries that are now banned from the United States? You should be ashamed for jeopardising the lives of EU citizens because of the failing border controls in the EU. And I call upon Mr Tusk and the Commission to follow the example of President Trump: install national border control; keep jihadists out, not just from the seven countries that President Trump has singled out, but from many more that are responsible for the wave of illegal migrants in the EU.

(Applause from certain quarters.)


Bill Etheridge (EFDD). – Mr President, during Nigel Farage's speech a Member of the British Labour Party sat behind him with a sign, all the way through, and not till the end did someone come down to deal with that. I trust that something will be done to discipline this Member, because if not I will write my own sign and go and sit over there. It might say something like ‘sell-out’.

Presidente. –Abbiamo mandato i commessi a dire all'onorevole che non poteva esporre quel cartello.
                  

Κωνσταντίνος Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η επιλογή Trump εκφράζει ανακατατάξεις ανάμεσα σε μερίδες του κεφαλαίου των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών. Οι απαράδεκτες απαγορεύσεις και τα μέτρα καταστολής της διακυβέρνησης Trump συνιστούν επικίνδυνη εξέλιξη. Βάζουν στο στόχαστρο εκατομμύρια μετανάστες και πρόσφυγες, μεγάλα θύματα του καπιταλιστικού συστήματος που διαχειρίζεται και η διακυβέρνηση Trump. Στόχος είναι η μέγιστη κερδοφορία των αμερικανικών επιχειρηματικών ομίλων σε βάρος των Αμερικανών εργαζομένων. Οι κινήσεις οικονομικού προστατευτισμού των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών που συγκεντρώνουν δυνάμεις στην αντιπαράθεσή τους με την Κίνα, επιχειρώντας προσέγγιση με τη Ρωσία, οξύνουν τις αντιθέσεις, δρομολογούν ανακατατάξεις. Το Brexit, η στήριξη των λεγόμενων ευρωσκεπτικιστών, αποτελούν απάντηση μερίδας του κεφαλαίου στην Ευρώπη που δεν κερδίζει όσα υπολόγιζε στο πλαίσιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, αξιοποιώντας κιόλας και τη λαϊκή δυσαρέσκεια. Η συνοχή της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και της ευρωζώνης θα δοκιμαστούν. Πιθανός είναι και ο σχηματισμός άλλων συμμαχιών εξίσου αντιδραστικών με την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Οι λαοί πρέπει να απορρίψουν κάθε συμμαχία του κεφαλαίου και να βαδίσουν το δρόμο των δικών τους συμφερόντων για μια άλλη, νέα οργάνωση της κοινωνίας και της οικονομίας, αποδεσμευμένη από τις αλυσίδες των λυκοσυμμαχιών τύπου Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και ΝΑΤΟ.
                  

Federica Mogherini,
VPC/HR. – Grazie Presidente, la ringrazio anche per le parole di rispetto.
                  

                     I will switch to English because that might be better. Respecting the role of the Commission – and in particular, in my case being a Vice-President of the Commission and also a High Representative – is also a sign of respect for this Parliament, because I was asked to do this job by the European Parliament, which, to my knowledge, is elected, and, by the way, also by the European Council, which is composed of Prime Ministers who are elected.
                  

                     I see that there is a lot of confusion in some parts of the UK. The United States is a great country and a great democracy. America will have to deal with its own divisions and discussions. I know that, as Europeans, we specialise in making every crisis our own crisis, but it is clear that this is an American crisis that which will have to be dealt with by Americans. They will have to sort this out somehow, starting with the dangerous divisions and polarisations we are seeing in the American political, institutional and societal dynamics. But I am confident that our American friends will find their way out of these tensions and crises and continue to be the great country that most of you recognise that they are, have been, and will continue to be.
                  

                     What is up to us here is not to try and solve the American contradictions of the present, but to be clear on where we stand, to affirm our own values, our own policies and our own interests, and be true to them. Those of you who underlined this are completely right. This is also up to you in this Chamber, and to many others in the European institutions. Be strong and show leadership. We might have lost one important partner on some files, but this makes our leadership even more important, relevant, and, I would say, indispensable.
                  

                     All around the world, be it in our region or very far away, people are now looking to the European Union – maybe not in the UK, but in the rest of the world – as a point of reference with regard to multilateralism, free and fair trade, human rights, respect – which for us is the basis not only of institutional relations but also of human relations – and our own, in Italian we would say ‘humanism’. I am not sure if that works in English. Europeans are like this. Sometimes we are not proud enough of what we are, who we are and what we can be.
                  

                     I will end by saying that some great Americans, good friends, only a few months ago were reminding us, the Europeans – here in Brussels – that Europeans should believe in themselves as much as their friends in the world believe in them. I think that this is the time for us, as Europeans, to realise the potential we have, to realise the responsibilities we hold in this particular historic moment, and to be that strong point of reference that the world needs at this moment, in particular in our region.
                  

                     I was thinking of the paradox that we will have Prime Minister al-Sarraj from Libya here tomorrow. That was natural and the invitation came before the executive order came out, but a Libyan citizen will be here in Brussels discussing ways out of the Libyan crisis with us. When you ban something and build a wall, you might have the feeling that you are more secure, but you are actually building walls all around yourself and preventing yourself from having many opportunities. We Europeans are not like that. We will continue to be true to our values and to our way of working – the European way, which puts cooperation before confrontation. I think we will have to be proud of that and to do that even more.
                  

(Applause)


Presidente. – La discussione è chiusa.
                  


Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 162)



José Blanco López (S&D),
por escrito. – La UE debe reaccionar de forma contundente, clara y unida contra las medidas arbitrarias y contrarias al Derecho internacional adoptadas o anunciadas por la nueva Administración de los EE.UU., que se muestra hostil hacia la UE, hacia América Latina y hacia el conjunto de la comunidad internacional. La Delegación Socialista Española propone las siguientes medidas:
                  






1.


Solicitar a la Comisión Europea un informe jurídico sobre el impacto de las nuevas disposiciones migratorias norteamericanas, concretamente sobre los efectos del veto a la entrada en los Estados Unidos para los ciudadanos con doble nacionalidad, de un país europeo y de alguno de los estados afectados.










2.


Pedir a la Alta Representante Mogherini que llame a consultas al embajador de la UE en Washington.










3.


Negar el plácet a Ted Malloch, al que el presidente Trump pretende nombrar embajador ante la UE, por sus declaraciones hostiles al euro y a la propia existencia de la UE.










4.


Pedir a los Estados miembros que no reciban al presidente Trump mientras mantenga esta política de hostilidad y desprecio a los derechos humanos.










5.


Solicitar un debate con resolución en el próximo pleno para fijar la posición del Parlamento Europeo sobre las relaciones Europa-EEUU en este nuevo contexto.





Κώστας Χρυσόγονος (GUE/NGL),
γραπτώς. – Το διάταγμα του νέου προέδρου των ΗΠΑ που εκδόθηκε στις 27.1.2017, συνιστά προσβολή σε βάρος της ανθρώπινης αξιοπρέπειας. Με το διάταγμα αυτό ο νέος πρόεδρος των ΗΠΑ απαγόρευσε για 90 ημέρες την είσοδο στη χώρα του κάθε πολίτη επτά συγκεκριμένων κρατών (Ιράν, Ιράκ, Συρίας, Λιβύης, Σομαλίας, Σουδάν και Υεμένης). Μια τέτοια γενική απαγόρευση, για ανθρώπους οι οποίοι διαθέτουν ατομική θεώρηση εισόδου και άρα έχουν κριθεί από τις ίδιες τις αμερικανικές αρχές ότι δεν είναι επικίνδυνοι, συνιστά δυσμενή μεταχείριση στηριγμένη αποκλειστικά στο γεγονός ότι είναι φορείς συγκεκριμένης εθνικότητας, χωρίς να υφίσταται εμπόλεμη κατάσταση μεταξύ των ΗΠΑ και των κρατών αυτών. Είναι μάλιστα αξιοσημείωτο ότι τουλάχιστον στην περίπτωση του Ιράν δεν υφίσταται καν κάποια μείζονος σημασίας εσωτερική αναταραχή ή ανωμαλία.
                  

                     Στη βαθύτερη λογική του το διάταγμα της 27.1.2017 στοχοποιεί επομένως ανθρώπους ανεξάρτητα από τα ατομικά τους χαρακτηριστικά, απλώς και μόνο για να εξυπηρετήσει κάποιες πολιτικές σκοπιμότητες, συμβολικού ή άλλου χαρακτήρα, δηλαδή μετατρέπει αδιακρίτως τους πολίτες των επτά αυτών κρατών σε αντικείμενα προαποφασισμένης δυσμενούς μεταχείρισης από τις ΗΠΑ. Ελπίζω ότι τα αρμόδια αμερικανικά δικαστήρια θα αποδείξουν στον νέο πρόεδρο ότι δεν μπορεί να αγνοεί τα θεμελιώδη ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα.
                  

Eugen Freund (S&D),
schriftlich. – Noch hat der neue amerikanische Präsident kein Dokument unterschrieben, das direkte Auswirkungen auf Europa hat, aber indirekte: Wir haben das bei seinem Dekret gesehen, wonach keine Staatsbürger aus sieben moslemischen Ländern mehr in die USA einreisen dürfen – mit dem Resultat, dass sogar auf dem Flughafen in Wien Menschen aus dem Iran gestrandet sind, die ein gültiges Einreisevisum hatten. Sollen wir jetzt dem neuen amerikanischen EU-Botschafter die Akkreditierung verweigern, oder sollen wir gar Präsident Trump solange nicht nach Europa einladen, bis er die Einreiseverbote wieder aufhebt? Auch diese Vorschläge sind diskutiert worden. Ich bin der Ansicht, dass Europa nicht mit gleicher Münze zurückschlagen sollte – nicht zuletzt, weil unsere Flüchtlingspolitik auch nicht gerade ein Vorzeigeprojekt ist. Nein, Europa muss sich stärker auf eigene Beine stellen, näher aneinander rücken – auch das schafft Wärme, mit der man der Kälte, die über den Atlantik strömt, entgegenwirken kann. Und: So lange wird die Präsidentschaft von Donald Trump vielleicht gar nicht dauern. Ich bin nicht der einzige, der sagt, es könnte schon vor Ablauf der ersten Periode ein Amtsenthebungsverfahren geben. Damit würde man vielleicht Donald Trump loswerden, aber die USA würden von dieser prä-revolutionären Phase in eine noch schlimmere Krise schlittern.
                  

Eider Gardiazabal Rubial (S&D),
por escrito. – La UE debe reaccionar de forma contundente, clara y unida contra las medidas arbitrarias y contrarias al Derecho internacional adoptadas o anunciadas por la nueva Administración de los EE.UU., que se muestra hostil hacia la UE, hacia América Latina y hacia el conjunto de la comunidad internacional. La Delegación Socialista Española propone las siguientes medidas:
                  






1.


Solicitar a la Comisión Europea un informe jurídico sobre el impacto de las nuevas disposiciones migratorias norteamericanas, concretamente sobre los efectos del veto a la entrada en los Estados Unidos para los ciudadanos con doble nacionalidad, de un país europeo y de alguno de los estados afectados.










2.


Pedir a la Alta Representante Mogherini que llame a consultas al embajador de la UE en Washington.










3.


Negar el plácet a Ted Malloch, al que el presidente Trump pretende nombrar embajador ante la UE, por sus declaraciones hostiles al euro y a la propia existencia de la UE.










4.


Pedir a los Estados miembros que no reciban al presidente Trump mientras mantenga esta política de hostilidad y desprecio a los derechos humanos.










5.


Solicitar un debate con resolución en el próximo pleno para fijar la posición del Parlamento Europeo sobre las relaciones Europa-EEUU en este nuevo contexto.





Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto (S&D),
por escrito. – La UE debe reaccionar de forma contundente, clara y unida contra las medidas arbitrarias y contrarias al Derecho internacional adoptadas o anunciadas por la nueva Administración de los EE.UU., que se muestra hostil hacia la UE, hacia América Latina y hacia el conjunto de la comunidad internacional. La Delegación Socialista Española propone las siguientes medidas:
                  






1.


Solicitar a la Comisión Europea un informe jurídico sobre el impacto de las nuevas disposiciones migratorias norteamericanas, concretamente sobre los efectos del veto a la entrada en los Estados Unidos para los ciudadanos con doble nacionalidad, de un país europeo y de alguno de los estados afectados.










2.


Pedir a la Alta Representante Mogherini que llame a consultas al embajador de la UE en Washington.










3.


Negar el plácet a Ted Malloch, al que el presidente Trump pretende nombrar embajador ante la UE, por sus declaraciones hostiles al euro y a la propia existencia de la UE.










4.


Pedir a los Estados miembros que no reciban al presidente Trump mientras mantenga esta política de hostilidad y desprecio a los derechos humanos.










5.


Solicitar un debate con resolución en el próximo pleno para fijar la posición del Parlamento Europeo sobre las relaciones Europa-EEUU en este nuevo contexto.





Ramón Jáuregui Atondo (S&D),
por escrito. – La UE debe reaccionar de forma contundente, clara y unida contra las medidas arbitrarias y contrarias al Derecho internacional adoptadas o anunciadas por la nueva Administración de los EE.UU., que se muestra hostil hacia la UE, hacia América Latina y hacia el conjunto de la comunidad internacional. La Delegación Socialista Española propone las siguientes medidas:
                  






1.


Solicitar a la Comisión Europea un informe jurídico sobre el impacto de las nuevas disposiciones migratorias norteamericanas, concretamente sobre los efectos del veto a la entrada en los Estados Unidos para los ciudadanos con doble nacionalidad, de un país europeo y de alguno de los estados afectados.










2.


Pedir a la Alta Representante Mogherini que llame a consultas al embajador de la UE en Washington.










3.


Negar el plácet a Ted Malloch, al que el presidente Trump pretende nombrar embajador ante la UE, por sus declaraciones hostiles al euro y a la propia existencia de la UE.










4.


Pedir a los Estados miembros que no reciban al presidente Trump mientras mantenga esta política de hostilidad y desprecio a los derechos humanos.










5.


Solicitar un debate con resolución en el próximo pleno para fijar la posición del Parlamento Europeo sobre las relaciones Europa-EEUU en este nuevo contexto.





Benedek Jávor (Verts/ALE),
írásban. – Elnök Úr, Trump elnöki rendelete a menekültek és egyes országok állampolgárainak kitiltásáról, beleértve az Amerikában zöld kártyával rendelkezőket is semmi másra nem alkalmas, minthogy elmérgesítse a helyzetet. Pökhendi és fölösleges lépés, ami semmilyen módon nem járul hozzá az állampolgárok biztonsággal kapcsolatos – amúgy jogos – elvárásainak teljesítéséhez. Ráadásul jól láthatóan az amerikai elnök személyes üzleti érdekei jobban befolyásolták a lista pontos összeállítását, mint a biztonsági megfontolások – egyébként semmi más magyarázata nincsen annak, hogy például Szaúdi-Arábia kimaradt a listáról. Amit elért Trump ezzel a rendelettel, az pusztán annyi, hogy tovább rombolta az amúgy is gyenge bizalmat a nemzetközi szintéren és növelte a feszültséget.
                  

                     Márpedig a fokozódó feszültség eredménye nagy valószínűséggel további konfliktusok és újabb menekültek lesznek – azaz pont az ellenkezője a hivatalos célnak. Továbbá nem lehet eléggé hangsúlyozni, hogy a terrorizmus elleni harc keretei között is elfogadhatatlan a rendelet: nem lehet általános gyanúval élni embercsoportok ellen származásuk és/vagy vallásuk miatt. Ez az intézkedés tehát nem csak jogszerűtlen és ellentétes az emberiességgel, hanem egész egyszerűen ostoba, értelmetlen és eredménytelen – egy globális válsághoz vezető populista politikai manőver iskolapéldája.
                  

Barbara Kappel (ENF),
schriftlich. – Die emotionale Debatte rund um die Reisebeschränkungen nach dem Dekret des US-Präsidenten verlangt es, Tatsachen auf den Tisch zu legen: Es gibt kein generelles Einreiseverbot für Muslime in die USA, vielmehr gilt ein 90tägiges Einreiseverbot für Personen aus sieben muslimischen Ländern. Es sind dies der Iran, der Irak, Libyen, Somalia, Sudan, Syrien und Jemen. Die Auswahl dieser sieben Länder hat einen besonderen Hintergrund, denn bereits 2011 hat Trumps Vorgänger, Barack Obama, sechs Monate lang Visa für irakische Flüchtlinge ausgesetzt. Die genannten Staaten sind von der Obama-Administration als ‘Quellen des Terrorismus’ identifiziert worden. Die Trump-Administration hat Personen mit zwei Staatsbürgerschaften von diesem Einreiseverbot ausgenommen. Es gibt gute Gründe, diese undifferenzierte Einreisepolitik zu kritisieren; allein, der Sicherheitsaspekt dahinter ist berechtigt.
                  

                     Ebenso ist anzusprechen, dass seit 1948 Israelis in 16 muslimischen Ländern mit einem Einreiseverbot belegt sind. Die meisten davon befinden sich in der betroffenen Staatengruppe. Und Präsident Trump sagte dazu: ‘Um es klar zu machen: Dies ist kein muslimischer Bann. Hier geht es nicht um Religion, es geht um Terror und darum, unser Land zu schützen’. Wenn in den nächsten 90 Tagen ‘sichere’ Maßnahmen in Kraft gesetzt werden, dann werden die USA wieder Visa für diese Länder erteilen.
                  

Javi López (S&D),
por escrito. – La UE debe reaccionar de forma contundente, clara y unida contra las medidas arbitrarias y contrarias al derecho internacional impulsadas por la nueva Administración de los EE.UU., que se muestra hostil hacia la UE, hacia América Latina y hacia el conjunto de la comunidad internacional. La Delegación socialista española propone las siguientes medidas:
                  






1.


Solicitar a la Comisión Europea un informe jurídico sobre el impacto de las nuevas disposiciones migratorias norteamericanas, concretamente sobre los efectos del veto a la entrada en los Estados Unidos para los ciudadanos con doble nacionalidad, de un país europeo y de alguno de los estados afectados.










2.


Pedir a la Alta Representante Mogherini que llame a consultas al embajador de la UE en Washington.










3.


Negar el plácet a Ted Malloch, al que el presidente Trump pretende nombrar embajador ante la UE, por sus declaraciones hostiles al euro y a la propia existencia de la UE.










4.


Pedir a los Estados miembros que no reciban al presidente Trump mientras mantenga esta política de hostilidad y desprecio a los derechos humanos.










5.


Solicitar un debate con resolución en el próximo pleno para fijar la posición del Parlamento Europeo sobre las relaciones Europa-EEUU en este nuevo contexto.





Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D),
por escrito. – La UE debe reaccionar de forma contundente, clara y unida contra las medidas arbitrarias y contrarias al Derecho internacional adoptadas o anunciadas por la nueva Administración de los EE.UU., que se muestra hostil hacia la UE, hacia América Latina y hacia el conjunto de la comunidad internacional. La Delegación Socialista Española propone las siguientes medidas:
                  






1.


Solicitar a la Comisión Europea un informe jurídico sobre el impacto de las nuevas disposiciones migratorias norteamericanas, concretamente sobre los efectos del veto a la entrada en los Estados Unidos para los ciudadanos con doble nacionalidad, de un país europeo y de alguno de los estados afectados.










2.


Pedir a la Alta Representante Mogherini que llame a consultas al embajador de la UE en Washington.










3.


Negar el plácet a Ted Malloch, al que el presidente Trump pretende nombrar embajador ante la UE, por sus declaraciones hostiles al euro y a la propia existencia de la UE.










4.


Pedir a los Estados miembros que no reciban al presidente Trump mientras mantenga esta política de hostilidad y desprecio a los derechos humanos.










5.


Solicitar un debate con resolución en el próximo pleno para fijar la posición del Parlamento Europeo sobre las relaciones Europa-EEUU en este nuevo contexto.





Elena Valenciano (S&D),
por escrito. – La UE debe reaccionar de forma contundente, clara y unida contra las medidas arbitrarias y contrarias al Derecho internacional adoptadas o anunciadas por la nueva Administración de los EE.UU., que se muestra hostil hacia la UE, hacia América Latina y hacia el conjunto de la comunidad internacional. La Delegación Socialista Española propone las siguientes medidas:
                  






1.


Solicitar a la Comisión Europea un informe jurídico sobre el impacto de las nuevas disposiciones migratorias norteamericanas, concretamente sobre los efectos del veto a la entrada en los Estados Unidos para los ciudadanos con doble nacionalidad, de un país europeo y de alguno de los estados afectados.










2.


Pedir a la Alta Representante Mogherini que llame a consultas al embajador de la UE en Washington.










3.


Negar el plácet a Ted Malloch, al que el presidente Trump pretende nombrar embajador ante la UE, por sus declaraciones hostiles al euro y a la propia existencia de la UE.










4.


Pedir a los Estados miembros que no reciban al presidente Trump mientras mantenga esta política de hostilidad y desprecio a los derechos humanos.










5.


Solicitar un debate con resolución en el próximo pleno para fijar la posición del Parlamento Europeo sobre las relaciones Europa-EEUU en este nuevo contexto.




13.   State of the Energy Union (debate)

Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione sulla dichiarazione della Commissione sullo stato dell'Unione dell'energia (2017/2523(RSP)).
               

Maroš Šefčovič,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, once again I would like to thank you for the invitation and for the opportunity to present to you the Second State of the Energy Union Report, only a few hours after it was adopted this morning by the College. As you may remember, Parliament was one of my first stops in presenting the first report as well, and this is no coincidence. It reflects the importance I see in working very closely with you, the European Parliament, in co-piloting the Energy Union. Only through close partnership can we ensure that the legislative proposals of the November package will be adopted over the next nine months.
This is the objective I presented last week in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE), in line with the December Declaration of our three institutions. A quick adoption is important so that our proposals can be swiftly transposed by the Member States and put into action. It would also send an important message to EU citizens that, when it comes to the Energy Union, we mean business. ‘We’ being all EU institutions.
While negotiations on the legislative proposals are ongoing, my colleagues and I are not sitting and waiting. To the greatest extent possible, the Commission will already start the implementation of the Energy Union on the ground. This is one of the key messages of the second State of the Energy Union: while 2016 was a ‘year of delivery’, 2017 will be a ‘year of implementation’. What does that mean in practice? It means that, apart from the upcoming legislation on the low-emission mobility, we have delivered on all Energy Union proposals, and we are now ready for the next phase.
The second State of the Energy Union serves exactly for that next phase. It give us a good overview of where we stand and what has been achieved both at EU and national levels. Our thorough analysis shows that the European Union is largely on track. For instance, among major global economies, Europe is one of the most greenhouse gas efficient. This creates significant ‘first-mover opportunities’ for European companies. But we are in no way in a position to rest on our laurels. Other parts of the world are also speeding up their efforts; they are also modernising their economies, and they are also increasing their competitiveness. There is no room for complacency if we want to remain global leaders in areas such as clean technologies.
The State of the Energy Union Report therefore also looks forward and identifies the work that still has to be done; it sets the political priorities for this year. In line with the Energy Union Strategy, these priorities go far beyond energy and climate alone. The Energy Union is about accelerating the modernisation of our entire economy: making it low-carbon; making it efficient in the use of energy and resources; making sure our economy is socially fair and consumer-oriented; and strengthening the Energy Union's external dimension. In the current, ever-changing and volatile geopolitical context, we need European global leadership. This is true in the field of climate action but also for safeguarding our competitiveness, jobs and economic interests.
Such an over-arching approach implies strengthening the ties between the Energy Union Project and other European flagship policies, such as the circular economy, the Digital Single Market, the Security Union, our Skills Agenda, the EU's economy and climate diplomacy, our investment policies, and so on.
What does it mean in practice? Simply put, when we look at the modernisation of our economy, we will also need to look at: the huge job potential of the green economy; the heavy economic costs of air pollution; the threats of cyber-attacks, and many other areas. It means we must make sure that each and every new measure benefits consumers, especially the vulnerable ones. It means that we will make real progress this year on providing the missing infrastructure links. We will look deeper into how we can avoid stranded assets, for example when preparing the next list of Projects of Common Interest.
It means that we must step up even further our investment policies, and for this purpose we will set up investment platforms on the ground in all Member States. It also means that we will make Europe's global leadership more concrete by helping the developing world, Africa in particular, jump over the fossil age. These are just a few examples to give you the gist of the report. As you can see, a lot remains to be done.
With the State of the Energy Union, I am also launching a second Energy Union Tour. I will once again visit the Member States, and I hereby invite you to join me when I visit your constituencies. Even in the event that you cannot join me in person, I encourage you to help me bring the message of the Energy Union to your electorates. Help me convey the urgency of the energy transition, and the opportunities it brings to our citizens.
As I have mentioned earlier, we intend to make 2017 the Energy Union's ‘year of implementation’. I will therefore use this tour to campaign and push for the swift implementation of the Energy Union not only at national level, but also at local level, which is becoming increasingly important.
I will discuss, with government representatives, the importance of presenting their National Energy and Climate Plans. We will together ensure that drafts will be presented by the end of 2017. I will also emphasise the need for a broad consultation of the plans not only within the Member States with all relevant stakeholders, but also with the neighbouring Member States on a regional level.
At the local level, my tour will be a good opportunity to showcase some of the most promising and innovative projects of cities and regions. It is important that we provide such projects with a strong tail-wind and match them with financing. I am glad to share with you that we are actively working on that, in cooperation with the Committee of the Regions. Showing concrete progress on the ground will help our citizens to visualise and grasp the multiple benefits of the clean energy transition.
Distinguished Members, let me once again thank you for your support in realising our joint ambition. I will stop here, as I would like to listen to the comments and suggestions of the honourable Members on today's report.

Krišjānis Kariņš,
PPE grupas vārdā. – Priekšsēdētāja kungs, komisāra kungs, kolēģi! Ja padomājam mirkli, tad pēdējos 10-15 gadus mūsu enerģētikas politikai ir bijis viens galvenais mērķis. Un tas ir bijis cīnīties pret klimata pārmaiņām, samazinot CO2 izmešus. Visa enerģētikas politika faktiski bijusi pakārtota šim mērķim. Un es nesaku, ka šis mērķis ir bijis nepareizs. Bet tagad tas, ko Eiropas Komisija ir ierosinājusi, – šī astoņu likumprojektu pakotne – ievieš, manuprāt, sen vajadzīgu papildinājumu šim mērķim. Proti, mums ir jāsāk domāt ne tikai par klimata pārmaiņām, bet arī par mūsu iedzīvotāju un uzņēmumu konkurētspēju un enerģētikas cenu.
               

                  Un tas veids, kā mēs varēsim vienlaikus pieturēties pie saviem klimata pārmaiņu mērķiem un samazināt cenas patērētājiem, īpaši mūsu industrijai, ir, ieviešot ļoti elementāru principu, kas darbojas pilnīgi visur tautsaimniecībā, — konkurenci. Atbrīvojot tirgus ierobežojumus, mēs dosim pareizos signālus, lai rastos lielāka konkurence pret vai starp dalībvalstu enerģijas ražotājiem. Mums ir jāatceļ ierobežojumi — gan fiziski, gan regulatoriski —, lai šī konkurence varētu pastāvēt.
               

                  Konkurence nav iespējama situācijā, kur vēl pastāv plašas subsīdijas gan fosilajām degvielām, gan atjaunojamajai enerģijai. Tātad vienlaikus mums būs jāskatās, kā mēs varēsim saprātīgi samazināt tirgu kropļojošas subsīdijas visiem spēlētājiem, visām nozarēm, veicinot konkurenci, turoties, protams, pie mūsu klimata mērķiem, bet domājot par to, kā pazemināt cenu iedzīvotājiem un uzņēmējiem, lai celtu konkurētspēju.
               

Dan Nica,
în numele grupului S&D. – Domnule președinte, domnule vicepreședinte Šefčovič, vă mulțumesc pentru munca depusă pentru ca uniunea energetică să fie un proiect european prioritar și pentru livrarea pachetului energetic de iarnă, alături de colegii dumneavoastră din Comisie.
               

                  Uniunea Europeană importă în continuare mai mult de jumătate din necesarul energetic, dar se fac progrese în vederea diversificării resurselor, a rutelor și a furnizorilor de energie. Cu cât avem o mai bună eficiență energetică, cu atât vom fi mai puțin dependenți de furnizorii externi de energie. Eficiența energetică ne va permite să investim mai mult în crearea locurilor de muncă și în inovare. Banii ar trebui să fie mai bine cheltuiți pentru producția de energie durabilă, pentru creșterea eficienței energetice și actualizarea rețelelor de energie și pentru a asigura o energie curată și la prețuri accesibile pentru industrie și pentru cetățenii europeni.
               

                  Subliniez importanța interconexiunilor electrice și consolidarea liniilor interne pentru a integra în continuare piața internă a energiei electrice. Trebuie să facilităm fluxurile transfrontaliere de energie electrică pe teritoriul Uniunii, asigurând în același timp, securitatea sistemului.
               

                  În ceea ce privește regenerabilele, conform estimărilor Comisiei, 25 de state membre și-au depășit deja țintele indicative 2015/2016 în anul 2015. Deci, trebuie să vedem cum putem stimula investițiile în energiile regenerabile. De asemenea, o introducere mai largă a surselor regenerabile în sistemul energetic va avea nevoie de modificări importante în ceea ce privește proiectarea pieței de energie electrică.
               

                  Dezbătând Starea uniunii energetice, trebuie să ne concentram și pe viitoarele măsuri. De aceea, pachetul actual de energie trebuie să reprezinte o oportunitate de a lansa tranziția bazei noastre industriale. Vom fi capabili să utilizăm până la 177 miliarde de euro în investiții publice și private în 2021. Cu punerea în aplicare a politicilor adecvate, se pot crea 900 000 de locuri de muncă în Uniunea Europeană.
               

                  Puteți conta, domnule vicepreședinte Šefčovič, pe sprijinul nostru, al grupului nostru politic și vom întări prevederile acestui pachet energetic foarte important.
               

Zdzisław Krasnodębski,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Chciałbym tylko przypomnieć, że czysta energia jest oczywiście bardzo ważnym, jednym z najważniejszych celów unii energetycznej, natomiast jest jeszcze ten drugi cel, którego nie powinniśmy tracić z pola widzenia, mianowicie bezpieczeństwo energetyczne. To jest cel o wiele bardziej elementarny dla niektórych, więc często jest tak, że chcemy najpierw mieć energię, potem zastanawiamy, czy jest to czysta energia i to energia taka, za którą jesteśmy w stanie zapłacić.
               

                  Podstawą bezpieczeństwa energetycznego (o tym mówił już kolega) jest dywersyfikacja dostaw. Natomiast jeżeli patrzymy na dane statystyczne, to widzimy, że sytuacja nie poprawia się, bowiem według statystyk zależność Unii od importu surowców energetycznych zwiększyła się z 52% w 2010 r. do prawie 56% w 2015 r. i wydaje się, na co wskazują prognozy, że będzie się zwiększać do poziomu 60%, więc przy takiej wysokiej zależności od zewnętrznego zaopatrzenia w surowce energetyczne dywersyfikacja ma pierwszorzędne znaczenie dla bezpieczeństwa energetycznego Europy i powinna stanowić trzon unii energetycznej.
               

                  No i przede wszystkim jest sprawa nowych źródeł gazu i uniezależnienia się od dominującego dostawcy ze Wschodu, ale w tej kwestii odbieramy od Komisji zarówno sygnały pozytywne, jak i bardzo niepokojące. Pozytywne to np. strategia większego wykorzystania skroplonego gazu ziemnego oraz perspektywy wsparcia dla tzw. Bramy Północnej, która pozwoli na przesył gazu z Norwegii przez Danię do Polski i innych krajów kontynentu. Natomiast projekty uruchamiania przepustowości ze Wschodu, takie jak NordStream2 czy decyzja dotycząca gazociągu OPAL, stoją w ewidentnej sprzeczności z zasadami bezpieczeństwa energetycznego i są zupełnie niezrozumiałe dla wielu Europejczyków, a także podważają zaufanie do Komisji Europejskiej. Dotyczy to również kwestii rynków mocy – ta propozycja też jest kontrowersyjna, bo w zasadzie będzie uzależniała Unię od importu gazu. Prosiłbym o zastanowienie się nad tymi dwoma punktami, bo jest to niezwykle ważne dla wielu krajów i obywateli Unii Europejskiej.
               

Fredrick Federley,
för ALDE-gruppen. – Herr talman! Det är kanske något av det viktigaste som vi gör under den här mandatperioden när vi utarbetar den kommande energiunionen.
               

                  Som flera kollegor har sagt så är det viktigt för att vi ska klara konkurrenskraften, att vi ska kunna hålla bra priser både för privatkonsumenter och för industrin, att vi ska kunna se till att vi är en progressiv del också när det kommer till det förnyelsebara, och inte minst energisäkerheten. Så att vi i en värld som blir alltmer orolig vet att vi klarar vår energiförsörjning till privatpersoner och till industrin.
               

                  Jag kommer själv att få förmånen att jobba med den delen som rör det förnyelsebara, och jag har idag noterat att kommissionens rapport om förnyelsebar energi har släppts, och som visar att vi redan är på god väg att nå det mål om 20 procent förnybar energi som är uppsatt till år 2020. Det är glädjande.
               

(Talaren godtog att besvara en fråga (‘blått kort’) i enlighet med artikel 162.8 i arbetsordningen.)


Maria Grapini (S&D),
Întrebare adresată conform procedurii ‘cartonașului albastru’
                     . – Domnule președinte, stimate coleg, ați spus, între altele, că 29% - procentul propus pentru 2030 raportat la 2012 — ar putea fi mai ambițios în ceea ce privește energia regenerabilă.
               

                  Pe de altă parte, ați spus că raportul arată că nu avem resurse suficiente pentru susținerea energiilor regenerabile și, pe de altă parte, vreau să vă întreb: credeți că este corect ca costul în certificatele verzi să fie susținut de populație?
               

Fredrick Federley (ALDE),
svar (‘blått kort’). – Herr talman! Det finns så klart flera saker vi kan göra. Jag är ju marknadsbaserad som liberal. Det gör att jag tror på en gemensam energimarknad där vi har en prissättning som drivs av marknaden.
               

                  Nord Pool-området kan jag rekommendera kollegorna att titta närmare på. Till exempel när kollegorna från Estland blev fullvärdiga medlemmar av Nord Pools energimarknad så har man sänkt kostnaderna för privatpersoner, man har ökat säkerheten och man har sänkt kostnader för industrin. Därmed har man också skapat en ökad efterfrågan, vilket gör att investeringarna kommer att öka framöver.
               

                  Jag tror inte att det framför allt är med politiska styrmedel vi gör det, utan genom att skapa en gemensam marknad och ha politiska mål så kan vi klara detta utan alltför mycket subsidier som faktiskt skadar den marknad där vi befinner oss.
               

Νεοκλής Συλικιώτης,
εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, συζητάμε συνεχώς για την κατάσταση της ενεργειακής ένωσης και κάθε φορά διαπιστώνουμε όλο και περισσότερα προβλήματα. Πέρασαν δύο χρόνια από τότε που ανακοινώθηκε η δημιουργία της ενεργειακής ένωσης. Στο διάστημα αυτό, το μόνο που έγινε είναι να προωθούνται πολιτικές για εξυπηρέτηση των αναγκών της ανταγωνιστικής αγοράς, για προώθηση των συμφερόντων των πολυεθνικών και για αύξηση των εξουσιών της Επιτροπής σε βάρος των κυριαρχικών δικαιωμάτων των κρατών. Κανένα ουσιαστικό μέτρο δεν λήφθηκε για τα σοβαρά προβλήματα που έχει η Ένωση, όσον αφορά τον ενεργειακό εφοδιασμό, την απουσία ενεργειακής ασφάλειας και την ενεργειακή απομόνωση στην οποία βρίσκονται κράτη και περιοχές της Ένωσης. Κανένα μέτρο δεν λήφθηκε για την ενεργειακή φτώχεια που ταλανίζει τους λαούς. Όσο υπάρχουν άνθρωποι στην Ένωση που στερούνται το δικαίωμα για ισότιμη και φθηνή πρόσβαση στην ενέργεια, ένα δημόσιο αναπτυξιακό αγαθό, τούτο θα σημαίνει ότι η ενεργειακή ένωση έχει αποτύχει. Εάν θέλουμε να καταπολεμηθεί η ενεργειακή φτώχεια, πρέπει να τερματίσουμε τις νεοφιλελεύθερες πολιτικές λιτότητας και, με ένα ολοκληρωμένο σχέδιο, να στηρίξουμε έμπρακτα εκατομμύρια συμπολίτες μας. Εάν είναι ειλικρινής η φιλοδοξία μας να πρωταγωνιστήσει η Ένωση στη ανάπτυξη των ανανεώσιμων πηγών ενέργειας, τότε πρέπει να διασφαλιστεί η προτεραιότητα εισόδου τους στα δίκτυα και να κατατεθεί μια ολοκληρωμένη πρόταση για την προώθησή τους. Εδώ βέβαια πρέπει να πω ότι βρίσκω θετική τη σημερινή δήλωση που περιέχεται στην ανακοίνωση της Επιτροπής, δηλαδή ότι τα κοιτάσματα φυσικού αερίου στην ανατολική Μεσόγειο είναι πολλά υποσχόμενα για την εφοδιασμό της Ένωσης αλλά πρέπει επίσης να τονίσω ότι, εάν είναι ειλικρινής ο στόχος που τίθεται για προώθηση των εγχώριων πηγών ενέργειας, τότε πρέπει να δούμε και έμπρακτα τη στήριξη του αναπτυξιακών προσπαθειών για τα κοιτάσματα στην αποκλειστική οικονομική ζώνη της Κύπρου.
               

Benedek Jávor,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, the energy union is much more than a framework strategy for secure, affordable and climate-friendly energy. Sixty years ago, cooperation in the field of energy in Europe led to the European Union. Today, the energy union is a unique opportunity for us Europeans to strengthen and reinforce this cooperation in troubled times.
For a well-functioning energy union, we clearly need a high level of investment and cooperation among the Member States – and not primarily, in terms of gas and electricity, for infrastructure, but also for upscaling renewables and increasing energy efficiency efforts and exploiting the clear synergies between these aspects.
The Commission again confirms in its report the determination of the Commission to make the European Union the world number one in renewables, but the legislative proposals of the winter package do not live up to the promises; rather they put brakes on the energy transition and simply do not address key problems and market distortions. There is no real incentive to cut fossil fuel consumption. It allows subsidies to fossil fuel and also keeps the privileges of nuclear energy. Loopholes in the Energy Efficiency Directive are left unaddressed as well. According to the report, there was a very modest 0.4% growth in the share of renewables in the EU's total energy use last year.
Clearly we must accelerate our efforts. The proposal still does not contain proper incentives for further deployment of renewables. Instead it undermines market access for renewable energy sources. While regulated household energy prices in about half of the EU are – rightly – identified as a problem, there are no effective proposals for dealing with energy poverty, instead of those distorting measures. I also see a lack of proper support for prosumers, such as energy cooperatives, to compete fairly in the market. The problem of energy dependency is also well addressed in the report, but the importance of energy efficiency in fighting against it is underestimated.
Finally, one issue remains almost untouched – the poor enforcement of the existing legislation affecting the energy market. This also implies that the Commission must make sure that nuclear installations are not exempted from public procurement provisions or competition law, which currently is not the case. Despite the report stating that we are well on track, I believe that a lot more needs to be done in order to achieve a unified energy market and a sustainable, secure energy system.

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


Tibor Szanyi (S&D),
Kékkártyás kérdés. – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Egy gyors egyetértésről szeretném biztosítani képviselő urat, hogy valóban nagyon fontosnak tartom az energiahatékonyság terén tett lépéseket – már csak azért is, mert valóban az energiaszegénységnek ez az egyik legjobb leküzdési módja. Viszont gyors kérdésem is lenne, kettő. Az egyik az az, hogy itt az összeurópai szinten hozott intézkedések, jogszabályokat – tán itt majd mindenki el is fogja fogadni – aztán utána, a hátuk mögött, a képviselők háta mögött lévő kormányok meg fütyülnek az egészre. Ön lát-e valami perspektívát, hogy hogyan lehet a kormányokat, a tagországokat rábírni, hogy legalább az energiamix dolgában egyeztessenek? Illetve a második, hogy hogyan lehet megfékezni a kormányokat, hogy össze-vissza, hasraütésszerűen alakítsák a fogyasztói árakat bizonyos helyeken?
               

Benedek Jávor (Verts/ALE),
Kékkártyás válasz. – Köszönöm a kérdést! Nagyon fontos témákra kérdezett rá Szanyi képviselő úr. Egyfelől a meglevő energiaszabályozásnak a végrehajtása, a kikényszerítése a tagállamokban egy kulcskérdés. És ebben azt gondolom, hogy a Bizottság nem használ föl minden rendelkezésre álló eszközt, hogy valóban végrehajtsák nemcsak az energiahatékonysággal, hanem a megújuló energiaforrásokkal, az energiapiacon a versenyjoggal, közbeszerzési joggal kapcsolatos rendelkezéseket. Itt feladatok vannak az Európai Bizottság előtt. Az ártorzítással kapcsolatban az energiaunió tervezete, illetve a téli csomag is elég világosan megfogalmazza, hogy ki kell vezetni ezeket az ártorzító rendelkezéseket. Azonban ezeknek a helyére olyan intézkedéseket kell bevezetni, amelyek hatékonyan gátat tudnak szabni az energiaszegénységnek. Ez elsődleges feladata mind a tagállamoknak, mind az Európai Bizottságnak.
               

Dario Tamburrano,
a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sono veramente contento di vedere nel cosiddetto winter package numerose proposte a favore dei prosumer e delle comunità dell'energia. Sicuramente è un passo in avanti, e me ne rallegro e me ne congratulo con il Commissario, ma vi sono allo stesso tempo dei passi indietro, a nostro modo di vedere, che potrebbero annullare invece qualsiasi progresso verso gli obiettivi climatici ed energetici che l'Unione si prefigge.
               

                  Ci rendiamo conto che non è facile gestire una situazione dove interessi così contrapposti vengono a concentrarsi a volte su un'unica persona, come il Commissario, e quindi sono solidale con Lei. Ritengo però che sia semplicemente scandaloso aver eliminato la priorità di dispacciamento per le rinnovabili. Vero è che le tecnologie verdi sono più mature ed economiche di qualche anno fa, ma finché le esternalità delle fossili non verranno computate e con i meccanismi di capacità ancora contemplati almeno fino al 2026, come sembrerebbe, parlare della stessa competitività con le altre tecnologie, di neutralità tecnologica, secondo me – per usare un termine che va di moda – è una fake news.
               

                  Torno quindi a sottolineare la distorsione del mercato indotta dai 300 miliardi di sussidi diretti e indiretti – la fonte è il Fondo monetario internazionale – che in Europa finiscono ad alimentare l'economia delle energie fossili. Quando si parla di neutralità tecnologica, il libero mercato si dimentica questo enorme elefante nella stanza che viene periodicamente ignorato.
               

                  Questo senza considerare i benefici climatici e geopolitici della transizione rinnovabile. Sappiamo che vi sono studi affidabili – ve li posso fornire, ma li conoscerete – che stimano il potenziale della produzione decentrata di energia da parte dei cittadini a livello europeo con dati impressionanti: nel 2030, 112 milioni di prosumer, comprese scuole, comunità locali e ospedali, avrebbero il potenziale, da soli, di rispondere al 19 % della domanda di energia nell'Unione europea; nel 2050 questa risposta arriverebbe al 45 % con metà dei cittadini coinvolti.
               

                  Nello stato dell'Unione appena adottato si fa cenno a meccanismi di finanziamento, e qui io arrivo con una proposta: manca un quadro normativo per quanto riguarda il crowdfunding, il crowdfunding transfrontaliero e il crowdfunding per investimenti di tipo numerativo. Quindi invito il Commissario a considerare una proposta del genere, a fornire un quadro legale perché in questo caso si potrebbero stimolare gli investimenti privati dei singoli cittadini e delle comunità di cui tanto abbiamo bisogno.
               

Barbara Kappel,
im Namen der ENF-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Herr Kommissar Šefčovič, ich möchte Ihnen zu Ihrer Initiative der Energieunion gratulieren, denn ich glaube, Sie tragen damit ganz wesentlich dazu bei, den Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union und auch den europäischen Bürgern die Ziele der Energieunion näherzubringen. Die Ziele der Energieunion sind wichtig, nämlich die Versorgungssicherheit, die Nachhaltigkeit und die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der Mitgliedstaaten zu steigern, hin zu einer ressourcenschonenden Wirtschaft, zu dezentralen Modellen und zu einer modernen Erzeugungstechnologie – so, wie Sie es gesagt haben: zur Modernisierung der Wirtschaft mit neuen Investitionsplattformen beitragen. Man könnte vielleicht auch aufgreifen, was Kollege Tamburrano gesagt hat.
               

                  Sie haben jetzt im Rahmen des neuen Winterpakets einen Modernisierungsfonds im Ausmaß von 10 Mrd. EUR vorgeschlagen. Ich glaube, dass das ganz wichtig ist, auch die ambitionierten Ziele des Winterpakets, nämlich Europa zum Weltmarktführer bei der erneuerbaren Energie zu machen, die Energieeffizienz um 30 % zu erhöhen und den Fokus auf den Verbraucher zu legen, damit der Verbraucher von günstigeren Preisen profitieren kann. Ich nenne als Beispiel nur das Ökomarkt-Design und das enorme Investitionspotenzial für die Unternehmen. Ich glaube, die Sache ist gut, und Sie, Herr Kommissar, sind ein guter Promotor dafür.
               

Janusz Korwin-Mikke (NI). – Kiedyś wymyślono telewizory, potem te kolorowe. Ludzie bogaci mieli kolorowe, a biedni nie, ale nie było podatku, żeby biednym ludziom kupować te telewizory. Dzięki temu po kilku latach również wszyscy biedni mieli kolorowy telewizor. Gdyby nałożono podatki, żeby wszystkim kupować kolorowe telewizory, to by ich nie mieli w ogóle albo mieliby na poziomie produktów sowieckich. To samo z energetyką. Bogate kraje mogą sobie mieć fantazję i walczyć o środowisko, a biednym krajom trzeba pozwolić robić tak, jak chcą. Kiedy się wzbogacą, to wtedy będą mogły sobie walczyć o środowisko. Akurat Polska potrzebuje energii z węgla: taniej. Chcę zwrócić uwagę, że w tym momencie Europa jest już skansenem w porównaniu z Chinami. Za chwilę Ameryka wystrzeli do przodu i będziemy również skansenem w porównaniu ze Stanami Zjednoczonymi, które kończą z walką z globalnym ociepleniem. Proszę łaskawie wziąć to pod uwagę.
               

Jerzy Buzek (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Gratuluję Komisji Europejskiej, że dostarczyła już niemal wszystkie rozwiązania legislacyjne Parlamentowi Europejskiemu – pracujemy nad nimi. Unia energetyczna staje się faktem, choć musimy ją jeszcze wdrożyć, a przede wszystkim musimy mieć stały kontakt z obywatelami, żeby czuli, jak ważna jest ona dla nich, bo nie wszędzie to dociera. To jest rzeczywiście unia energetyczna, unia obywateli, którzy mogą czuć się bezpieczni, a równocześnie mieć tańszą energię. To wszystko my wiemy, ale nie wiedzą tak dokładnie obywatele, a jest to jeden z czynników naszej integracji.
               

                  Ja chciałbym zapytać pana komisarza, jaki wpływ na naszą politykę energetyczną, a także na unię energetyczną będą miały ostatnie oświadczenia prezydenta Stanów Zjednoczonych? One są dla nas ważne, bo przede wszystkim, moim zdaniem, zagrażają realizacji porozumienia paryskiego – a przecież myśmy się umawiali, że wszyscy najwięksi emitenci (my nie jesteśmy tak wielkim emitentem jak Stany Zjednoczone) będą te reguły stosować – z czego wynikają konkretne wnioski i konkretne pytania dla nas. Przykładowo umawialiśmy się, że państwa członkowskie nie będą miały wiążących celów w zakresie oszczędności energii czy odnawialnych źródeł energii – czy cokolwiek się zmienia w tym zakresie? Mamy również propozycje ze strony unii energetycznej dotyczące ograniczenia emisji przy produkcji energii elektrycznej, a to dotyczy paliw kopalnych. Stany Zjednoczone idą w zupełnie innym kierunku, a takie ograniczenia mogą wyeliminować niektóre paliwa i spowodować, że energia będzie droższa. To bezpośrednio obniża konkurencyjność naszego przemysłu w wielu krajach.
               

                  I kolejna sprawa, już może bardzo konkretna – zadaliśmy Komisji Europejskiej bardzo ważne pytanie: czy są już znane podstawy prawne, w oparciu o które można by ocenić legalność budowy NordStream2? Prosiłbym o odpowiedź na te pytania.
               

Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D). – Commisaris, laat me beginnen met u te bedanken voor alle voorstellen die er liggen. Ik heb dat eerder al gedaan maar ik doe dat met heel veel overtuiging. U hebt daar hard aan gewerkt samen met uw collega's, maar u doet dat op een transparante, open manier, samen met het Parlement en met de stakeholders en dat apprecieert onze fractie enorm. We hebben hiervoor een debat gehad over het inreisverbod voor moslims in de Verenigde Staten en ik vond de replieken van de fractievoorzitters op één punt erg gelijklopend.We gaan meer dan ooit een Europese Unie hebben die er staat, die een oplossing biedt in zelfvertrouwen, dixit de andere vicevoorzitter van de Commissie, mevrouw Mogherini.
               

                  En dat moeten we ook in dit dossier doen, want vergeet niet dat er aan de andere kant van de oceaan ook een negatieve wind komt als het over klimaat en energie gaat en dus hebben we een eigen, zelfverzekerd beleid nodig. Daar moeten we resoluut voor gaan en deze fractie zal alle voorstellen die u doet ondersteunen, maar ook verder versterken. U kent onze ambities om op het vlak van energie-efficiëntie en op het vlak van hernieuwbare energie hogere targets te zetten, targets die ook bindend werken. Dat heeft in het verleden gewerkt. Waarom zou dat in de toekomst niet zo zijn?
               

                  En tot slot iets wat we vaak vergeten, maar de Commissaris weet dat: governance. Je hebt een zeer goede en sterke Europese gedreven governance nodig en ook op dat punt zullen wij samen met de andere fracties versterkte voorstellen indienen.
               

Julie Girling (ECR). – Mr President, this communication is very welcome, given the urgency around the need to mitigate the negative effects of climate change. Within the scope of the Energy Union Framework Strategy, I particularly welcome the increased focus on clean energy, rather than solely green energy. This is key. While the need for radical reductions in carbon are clear and well known, there are other notable pollutants such as NOx and PM which also have hugely detrimental effects on both human health and the environment, and these need to be addressed.
The Commission communication does mention health. I welcome the reference to the new NEC Directive and the reiteration – albeit only in a footnote – that in 2013 more than 450 000 people are estimated to have died prematurely from air pollution in the EU, and lost days at work caused by respiratory disease amount to a EUR 15 billion loss to the EU economy.
It is becoming ever more evident that the transition to clean – and not just green – transport must be given priority. I would like to see a clear preference given to investment in projects that combine the two objectives of lowering greenhouse gas emissions, and lowering other pollutants. This should include incentives at the level of the citizen. It is no coincidence that people experiencing fuel poverty are often also those who experience the worst possible health outcomes.
The transition to clean energy is already having a profound effect on the global energy market, and there are clear indications that clean energy is delivering record levels of investment, particularly in renewables and other new technologies. Let us make sure that we harness this momentum to create record-breaking levels of health improvement also.

Morten Helveg Petersen (ALDE). – Hr. formand! Jeg vil gerne starte med at takke næstformand Šefčovič for alt det hårde arbejde, han gør for at føre energiunionen ud i livet. Det er der virkelig god brug for! Denne status over energiunionen, som vi diskuterer i dag, viser jo med al ønskelig tydelighed, at der er brug for handling. Handling, hvis EU og Europa skal påtage sig det globale lederskab inden for klima, inden for vedvarende energi og inden for energieffektivitet. Og handling, hvis vi skal indfri målsætningerne for energiunionen og styrke den grønne omstilling. Det kræver ambitiøse målsætninger, mod, og det kræver handling! For vi kan jo se ud af rapporten her i dag, at der faktisk er lande, der bliver mere afhængige af import af energi udefra. Og vi kan se af rapporten, at de europæiske transmissionsnet ikke er rustet godt nok til at kunne håndtere denne integration af vedvarende energi, som er helt afgørende. Og vi kan se, at hvis vi sætter energieffektivitet højest, ja så kan vi gøre betydelige fremskridt, ikke mindst gennem at renovere bygninger. Det er initiativer, der sænker energiomkostningerne for de europæiske borgere, initiativer der samtidig forbedrer indeklimaet og skaber sunde bygninger, alt sammen samtidig med at man skabe lokale arbejdspladser, altså til gavn for os alle. Det kræver, at vi finder måder at frigøre også privatfinansiering på, så private midler kan komme i spil. Jeg hilser denne rapport velkommen, jeg ser frem til samarbejdet. Vi har en masse ting, vi skal gøre her i den næste periode, hvis vi skal påtage os et globalt lederskab.
               

Kateřina Konečná (GUE/NGL). – Pane předsedající, pane komisaři, je to již dva roky, co Komise s velkou pompou představila energetickou unii. Od počátku jsem byla velmi skeptická k naplňování velkých vizí ve zmíněném dokumentu. A realita mé pochybnosti potvrzuje – elektroenergetické sítě, které urgentně potřebujeme, se nijak nestaví ani podle všeho není společná páteřní infrastruktura v plánu. Trh s elektřinou je nadále nefunkční, společný nákup zemního plynu nefunguje a tak bych mohla dále pokračovat. Zato v oblasti legislativy jsme zavaleni tisíci stránkami nového zimního energetického balíčku. Vypadá to, že cílem evropské energetické unie je jen vytvářet stohy papíru.
               

                  A k samotnému projednávání dokumentů souvisejících s energetickou unií. Podle mě by se měly dokumenty jako ETS, ESR, LULUCF projednávat dohromady se současným zimním energetickým balíčkem vzhledem k tomu, že jsou úzce propojeny. Přitom jednání na Radě selhávají a Komise má podle všeho v plánu nejprve projednat governance energetické unie, o které si já myslím, že ji je potřeba projednávat až na posledy. To, co mě zajímá eminentně, je, aby občané Evropské unie měli peníze na zaplacení energií, a to se neřeší vůbec, pouze to občas někdo zmíní, že něco takového existuje a že je to prostě problém. Myslím si, že bychom od papíru měli přejít k praktickým činům, to by bylo pozitivnější.
               

Jakop Dalunde (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, we are in the midst of an energy revolution. Renewables are growing like never before and costs are falling rapidly. Now we have to seize the moment. I am, however, worried that the winter package proposed by the Commission is a missed opportunity if we want to unleash the full potential of the green transition. If we do not act now, we will not only fail in meeting our climate obligations, we will also miss out in reaping the rewards of being leaders of green innovation. We need to create a climate that attracts scientists from all over the world who want to come here and create breakthrough technologies, and we need to support the shift to new products and clean tech start-ups. Therefore, I call on my colleagues to stop protecting the old and start embracing the new. Only then will Europe be the true global leader in the green transition.

Roger Helmer (EFDD). – Mr President, the main element of the Commission's current proposal is the revision of the ETS system. You recognised the problem that you call carbon leakage. I call it driving energy-intensive businesses offshore, and you have decided to give these industries free allowances to redress the balance, but you have created your own catch-22: if you give them enough allowances to stay competitive you have no hope of achieving emissions targets, but to achieve your emissions targets you cannot give them enough allowances. You face a stark choice between competitiveness and emissions targets. You cannot have both. You are not cutting emissions; you are merely driving them offshore. You have also created a structure which involves perpetual market intervention and distortion and creates a field day for lobbyists and lawyers, as industries fight each other for an ever-decreasing pot of free allowances.
The proposal to offer a tiered structure for different industry sectors only exacerbates the problem, and the use of the top 10% as a standard implies that 90% of European industries will be at a competitive disadvantage anyway. We face competition from China with massive cheap coal-fired generation, and from the US where Donald Trump promises to make low-cost energy a main driver of the US economy. A few years ago, our new President, Mr Tajani, said that our energy policies were creating ‘an industrial massacre in Europe’. Today's proposals are the final coup de grâce.

Steven Woolfe (NI). – Mr President, we need energy. We need it to heat our homes, to provide the businesses that create our food, and we even need it for this Chamber. But energy has a cost. The EU wants a low-carbon secure and competitive economy; they have created this framework strategy for a resilient Europe with a forward-looking climate change policy.
This sounds positive, optimistic, an energy utopia – but it is not the reality people will live in, is it? EU policy will control the sources, flow, distribution, delivery and billing of the whole of the European energy industry. It will suppress national governments' abilities to provide the best energy services and prices for their people. In truth, once again, it is a classical big government power grab. Infrastructure will be paid for by the taxpayer, corporate subsidies will be paid for by the taxpayer, and higher bills will be paid for by the taxpayer, while all profits will be distributed between the EU and global corporations. The user is always the loser in the EU.

Bendt Bendtsen (PPE). – Hr. formand! Tak til næstformand og kommissær Šefčovič for redegørelsen. Jeg er enig med kommissæren i, at vi er godt på vej, dog har jeg allerede i dag hørt en række politiske indlæg og beklagelser, som i sidste ende nok bunder i, at det pågældende medlemsland har ladet deres borgere i stikken hvad angår energipolitikken i flere år. Med vinterpakken har vi altså et godt udgangspunkt, og vi har nu muligheden for her i Parlamentet at forbedre både tekst og indhold i pakken. Det er klart, at der ligger en række udfordringer. Vi skal mindske afhængigheden af vores import fra Putins Rusland og fra Mellemøsten. Vi skal skabe et indre marked for energi i Europa, og vi skal bruge den energi, som vi nu har i Europa med bedre. Der er masser af muligheder i de direktiver, der nu foreligger omkring energieffektivitet, vedvarende energi, elmarkedsdesign, governance mv. Som ordfører for energieffektivitet i bygninger kan jeg allerede nu konstatere, at der er masser af muligheder. En af de nødder, vi skal have knækket i det direktiv, det er at få udløst private midler til energirenoveringer. Vi ved jo, at de kun er nybygninger, der udgør halvanden procent af bygningsmassen om året. Den resterende gamle bygningsmasse i Europa er ineffektiv, dyr og dårlig. Derfor er der virkelig behov for at få udløst nogle private pensionsmidler i Europa.
               

VORSITZ: RAINER WIELAND


Vizepräsident


Miriam Dalli (S&D). – Viċi President, nibda billi nirringrazzjak, l-ewwel nett tal-impenn li wrejt fl-aħħar sentejn biex l-Unjoni Ewropea tibda tranżizzjoni lejn enerġija nadifa b'mod serju, ambizzjuż imma wkoll realistiku. L-ambizzjoni li qed turi l-Unjoni Ewropea fil-qasam tal-enerġija u t-tibdil fil-klima għalija huma pożittivi. Għalija huwa pożittiv ukoll il-fatt li l-Presidenza Maltija fil-Kunsill qed taħdem biex tikkonkludi liġijiet Ewropej mill-aktar importanti f'dan il-qasam.
                  

                     Illum il-ġurnata nemmen li wasalna fil-punt fejn irridu niffukaw aktar minn qatt qabel fuq il-konsumaturi fl-Istati Membri tagħna biex ikunu huma l-aktar parteċipi f'din it-tranżizzjoni enerġetika u klimatika.
                  

                     Noħlom li nara Energy Union fejn il-konsumatur ikollu l-aktar rwol importanti. Sorsi ta' enerġija rinnovabbli, bħall-pannelli tax-xemx, nemmen li jagħtu saħħa akbar lill-konsumaturi biex jieħdu deċiżjonijiet responsabbli. U allura minn konsumaturi passivi jsiru produtturi attivi; jistgħu jikkonsmaw dak li jipproduċu, jew inkella anki jbigħu l-enerġija li jipproduċu fi djarhom lejn il-grid elettriku, u anki huma jkunu jistgħu jagħmlu profitt.
                  

                     Illum il-ġurnata teżisti t-teknoloġija li tista' tgħin lill-konsumaturi jieħdu kontroll tal-konsum enerġetiku tagħhom bl-għajnuna ta' smart meters, kontijiet elettroniċi u anki kuntratti għall-provvista tal-elettriku b'elementi dinamiċi. Malta, il-pajjiż li ġejja minnu jiena, b'90% f'firxa ta' smart meters, huwa eżempju tajjeb ta' kif it-teknoloġija tista' verament tgħin lill-konsumatur. U allura, filwaqt li nirringrazzja lill-Viċi President, ngħid li aħna bħala Soċjalisti u Demokratiċi se naħdmu biex din il-proposta vera tkun ambizzjuża.
                  

Evžen Tošenovský (ECR). – Pane místopředsedo Komise, zimní energetický balíček považuji za nejzásadnější materiál, který byl v poslední době předložen. Je velmi důležité, aby výsledná legislativa byla rozumná a obsahovala technicky dosažitelné cíle. Je tedy potřeba přistupovat ke všem 8 legislativním návrhům velmi obezřetně a ne jen z hlediska velkých ambic dělat změny za každou cenu. Energetická infrastruktura se v EU tvořila 150 let a je nezbytnou součástí života všech lidí. Všichni potřebují svítit a topit za únosné tržní ceny a není tedy možné jakkoli ohrozit fungování energetické soustavy.
                  

                     Jsem rád, že Komise věnuje energetické unii takové úsilí. Evropská unie potřebuje efektivní energetiku. Věřím, že když se vydáme cestou moderních technologií s důrazem na bezpečnost, můžeme skutečně zlepšit celý energetický systém. Není však možné, abychom tento systém měnili pouze regulatorně seshora bez podpory konkurenčního prostředí, které je největším motorem nových technologií.
                  

Kaja Kallas (ALDE). – Mr President, three energy packages later we are still trying to achieve one important objective: make the Energy Single Market work for businesses, for consumers and for our environmental goals. Three packages later, the electricity market is still the fourth-lowest ranked service according to the Consumer Scoreboard. It shows one thing quite clearly: that protecting national energy production and sticking to rigid centralised systems is not the right answer. Therefore, one key objective for all of us in building the Energy Union should be to bring the European energy market up to speed with the 21st century by bringing technology and utilities together. But let us take smart meters, for instance, where, eight years after the Third Energy Package, some countries are still discussing whether the deployment of smart meters is relevant or not. In the meantime, some countries are already talking about advanced smart meters that provide real-time data instead of near real-time data, enabling real-time data flows and data-sharing within the energy markets, with this being absolutely essential to build competitive and innovative energy markets for tomorrow. Therefore, we should discuss whether smart meters should be made mandatory so that all consumers have real-time data and real-time control over their energy consumption.

Markus Pieper (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Europa ist auf einem guten Weg, seine Umweltziele zu erreichen. Wir sind Klimaweltmeister bei CO2, bei Erneuerbaren, bei Einsparungen. Aber wir sind auch Weltmeister bei Energiekosten für kleine Unternehmen und private Haushalte, gerade in rückständigen Regionen. Wir sind Weltmeister bei der Bürokratielast für die Industrie. Deshalb ist es gut, dass die Kommission die Folgen der Gesetzgebung dieses Mal genauer analysiert hat, überlappende Gesetzgebung vermeidet, genauer, aber noch nicht ausreichend.
                  

                     Ich glaube nämlich nicht, dass eine verbindliche Einsparvorgabe von 30 % für alle Länder und für alle Branchen Sinn macht. Denn diese Einsparvorgabe gilt auch für grüne Energie. Wenn wir grüne Energien in Autos und Gebäuden wollen, können wir nicht gleichzeitig diesen Strukturwandel durch Einsparzwänge für regenerative Energien verhindern.
                  

                     Aber damit leider noch nicht genug. Wir als Parlament – sprich die linke Seite, die Liberalen – wollen 40 % weniger Energieverbrauch. 40 %, obwohl die Folgenabschätzung der Kommission sagt, das würde das ETS-System konterkarieren. Wir müssten erneut eingreifen, Zertifikate vom Markt nehmen, die Industrie wäre erneut verunsichert und enttäuscht von Europa.
                  

                     Deshalb lasst uns auch beim Thema Energieeinsparung ambitioniert bleiben, aber bitte überziehen wir nicht, weil wir ansonsten Europas Industrie vertreiben. Wir sind gegen planwirtschaftliche Einsparzwänge, die auf Jahrzehnte angelegt sind. Wir sind für Energiegesetzgebung, die atmet, für maßvolle Energieeinsparung im Einklang mit Anreizen und Märkten.
                  

Martina Werner (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Zunächst einmal möchte ich mich für die guten Vorschläge zum Paket ‘Saubere Energie’ bedanken. Und jetzt liegt der Ball hier bei uns im Feld und natürlich auch beim Rat. Wir werden jetzt auf Hochtouren arbeiten, um noch in dieser Legislaturperiode die richtigen Weichen für eine europäische Energieunion fertigzustellen.
                  

                     Bei der Energieeffizienzrichtlinie und bei den erneuerbaren Energieträgern hat die Kommission gute und vor allem verbindliche Vorschläge vorgelegt. Das ist ein wichtiger erster Schritt. Ich sage aber auch hier ganz deutlich: Mut zu mehr Ambitionen. Für die Energieeffizienz schlägt die Kommission leider nur ein ‘Weiter so’ vor, obwohl die Ziele für 2020 bereits erreicht und weiterhin große Potenziale vorhanden sind.
                  

                     Wir Sozialdemokraten fordern daher ein 40%-Energieeffizienzziel auf EU-Ebene und verbindliche nationale Ziele. Verbindliche nationale Ziele sind von entscheidender Bedeutung, denn sie stellen sicher, dass alle Mitgliedstaaten auch ihre Hausaufgaben machen. Und auch bei den erneuerbaren Energieträgern gilt: Mut zu mehr Ambitionen. Und auch hier werden wir ein 40%-Ziel verfolgen, auch bei verbindlichen nationalen Zielsetzungen.
                  

Anna Elżbieta Fotyga (ECR). – Mr President, solidarity, as provided for in the Lisbon Treaty, should be a founding principle of the Energy Union. The construction of Nord Stream 2 and decisions about the Opal pipeline undermine this principle, making the countries of my region, in particular Ukraine, less resilient to Russian energy blackmail. Both projects also increase the European Union's dependence on one source of energy supplies. This should be considered by the Commission.

Gunnar Hökmark (PPE). – Mr President, I would like to thank the Vice-President of the Commission for his presentation.
You mentioned, Mr Šefčovič, that for you, 2017 means implementation and it means real business, and you can certainly prove that very easily because, as you know, there is one project that is in conflict with the whole idea of the European Energy Union and in conflict with its aims, and that is Nord Stream 2. It is increasing dependence on Russia and increasing dependence on gas. It is distorting competition and it is changing the architecture of the European energy markets. It will be a means for Gazprom to assume an even more dominant market position and it is also in conflict with the rules in the third Energy Market Package about unbundling.
So, if you want to make the project of Energy Union credible and stable, you need to act. You need to stand up for the legislation that we have and the aims we have, and take a clear view and clear action. It is very easy to prove that you mean business with Energy Union. Please do that.

Miroslav Poche (S&D). – Pane předsedající, já považuji zimní balíček za významný krok v nastavení nového energetického rámce v Evropě. Jak se vyjádřil pan komisař Šefčovič, jedná se o největší reformu evropské energetiky od zavedení centralizovaných systémů. Považuji návrhy v něm obsažené za správně reagující na měnící se povahu evropského energetického sektoru a na nové požadavky na uspořádání trhu. Nicméně spatřuji v tomto balíčku některé nedostatky. Především se jedná o směrnici o energetické účinnosti, kde není příliš reflektováno to, na co Parlament v posledních letech upozorňoval. Například článek 7, který v předložené podobě považuji za nedostatečný, který umožňuje pořád ještě mezery a výjimky, které byly přijaty v minulosti. Podobně bych rád zaznamenal mnohem větší podíl nízkouhlíkových zdrojů na energetickém mixu a to všechno bude naše frakce zdůrazňovat při projednávání tohoto balíčku.
                  

Anneleen Van Bossuyt (ECR). – We hadden vorige week al een interessante gedachtewisseling in de ITRE-commissie over de manier waarop we de energie-unie moeten aanpakken. Ik wil graag hier vandaag drie punten benadrukken.
                  

                     Het eerste punt is dat we rekening moeten houden met de betaalbaarheid van de voorstellen die op tafel worden gelegd. Voor mijn land alleen al bijvoorbeeld wacht er een rekening van 4,38 miljard euro om tegen 2030 ons energiesysteem aan te passen aan de nieuwe doelstellingen, en dan worden de kosten voor efficiëntie zelfs nog buiten beschouwing gelaten.
                  

                     Ten tweede is het ook belangrijk om het aantrekkelijk te maken om te investeren in energie-efficiëntie Daarvoor zou het mogelijk moeten zijn om de boekhoudregels van Eurostat aan te passen om de investeringen voor energie-efficiëntie eventueel te spreiden over verschillende boekjaren.
                  

                     Een derde element is wat de Commissie de smart financing noemt, namelijk dat ook de financiële instellingen aan boord moeten worden getrokken om het investeren financieel aantrekkelijker te maken.
                  

Herbert Reul (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Wir reden ständig darüber: Europa. Wir müssen uns darum kümmern, dass die Europäer Zustimmung zu dem europäischen Projekt haben. Wir kümmern uns ständig darum, dass Europa stark ist. Dann müssten wir uns eigentlich auch darum kümmern, dass Europa wirtschaftsstark ist, weil das die wichtige Voraussetzung ist. Deshalb ist es gefährlich, wenn man die ganze Energiepolitik nur nach klimapolitischen Gesichtspunkten ausrichtet. Da muss man auch den Faktor im Griff haben: Was hat das an Belastungen und Kosten zur Folge, welche Auswirkungen hat das auf die Bürger, auf die Verbraucher und auf die Wirtschaft? Das vermisse ich.
                  

                     Dann ist es auch nicht der Zeitpunkt, jeden Tag einen neuen Plan zu machen oder höhere Prozentzahlen zu verkünden. Das hatten wir bei Lissabon auch schon mal: höher, weiter, besser, die Allerbesten sein. Es ist viel klüger, kleine Schritte zu machen und Erfolge nachzuweisen. Nicht Pläne, sondern Taten werden gebraucht. Davon bin ich fest überzeugt.
                  

                     Da gibt es ein paar interessante Sachen in diesem Papierberg, der uns da vorliegt. Das Erste ist: Ich finde es klug, dass wir wegkommen von diesem Förder-Flickenteppich von Erneuerbaren, sondern die Vorgabe haben, das über Ausschreibungen zu organisieren, marktwirtschaftlich anzugehen. Ich glaube, das ist ein kluger Beitrag, der viele Kosten sparen kann.
                  

                     Es ist aber auf der anderen Seite überhaupt nicht intelligent, diese ACER – also der Versuch, die Leitungsnetze und die Überwachung der Leitungsnetze dadurch zu verbessern, dass man eine europäische Behörde noch größer, noch effektiver, noch wirkungsvoller macht, noch dicker aufbläst. Das ist nicht die richtige Antwort. Es klappt doch! Wir haben doch gar kein Problem im Moment, dass es nicht funktioniert bei den Leitungsnetzbetreibern. Was fehlt, ist das, was die Kollegin eben gesagt hat: dass nicht genug Leitungen da sind. Das ist aber kein Problem von Überwachung und neuen Behörden oder Organisationen, sondern von Investitionen. Und investiert wird nur, wenn diejenigen, die die Netze betreiben, damit auch Geld verdienen können.
                  

José Blanco López (S&D). – Señor presidente, la energía es clave para la cohesión de la Unión. La actual incertidumbre política en el exterior de Europa debe servir como revulsivo para fortalecer nuestro proyecto de unión energética. Creo que es crucial avanzar hacia un nuevo modelo, mejorar los objetivos para cumplir nuestros compromisos, mantener el liderazgo europeo en renovables. Por eso, la propuesta de la Comisión se queda escasa y hay que hacer una propuesta en materia de renovables más ambiciosa y, desde luego, manteniendo los objetivos vinculantes de los Estados miembros.
                  

                     Tenemos que avanzar hacia la independencia energética de Europa. Necesitamos proveer Europa de una energía segura, asequible y respetuosa con el medio ambiente y tenemos que aumentar la transparencia: la transparencia de precios para evitar situaciones como las subidas llamativas que por ejemplo se han dado en mi país, España, durante la pasada semana.
                  

                     Es una oportunidad para la modernización económica y para la creación de un empleo de calidad que además tenga en cuenta a los ciudadanos en situación de vulnerabilidad. Hay que dar una respuesta de…
                  

(El presidente retira la palabra al orador)


Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, the recast of the Renewable Energy Directive is a key part of the Clean Energy package. I am delighted that I will have the chance to work on the proposals that will shape European renewable energy policy for the decade to come and will decide whether we will achieve our goal of remaining the world leader in renewable energy technologies.
I have been asked on numerous occasions in the past week what my priorities for the Renewable Energy Directive are. The answer is very short: investor certainty. Ensuring the climate is right to attract investment into the European renewable energy sector is the key challenge we face in the recast of this directive. It will be important that we put in place an ambitious, but achievable and stable, legislative framework. This is something that we have failed to do in recent years, the biofuels area being a case in point.
In Europe we are often great at patting ourselves on the back in terms of decarbonisation efforts, but the reality is that the rest of the world is waking up to the potential of clean energy sources at a time when our investment is falling due to policy uncertainty. Europe's share of global investment in renewable energy has reduced from 50% in 2005 to 20% in 2014. European investment in renewable energy dropped by around 20% between 2014 and 2015 for the good reason that the rest of the world sees the benefits of renewable energy. Costs are coming down, but there is a great opportunity for us here and we must grasp it. It is not just about saving the planet: it is about economic benefits and job creation. We must support it with legislation.

Peter Kouroumbashev (S&D). – Mr President, I believe that reaching a 27% EU common target for renewables without setting national targets is not possible. One of the reasons for the success of the EU, and why the EU became a global leader for renewables, was our 20-20-20 programme with targets for each Member State. I do not believe in systems in which everybody is responsible for everything. Mr Šefčovič, if you want to fly with your – or our – Airbus 380 energy package, you must distribute as a good manager responsibilities to every member of the crew – responsibilities with higher priority than flexibility in each Member State. That is why I want to ask you, Mr Šefčovič, to initiate a revision of the European Council decision not to set national targets which was taken in October 2014. I hope that after the change of that decision I can wish you a safe flight with that Airbus 380 energy package.

Peter Liese (PPE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich möchte mich bei der Kommission bedanken, dass sie auch in der heutigen Mitteilung das Thema Energie und Klimaschutz in der Energieunion nach vorne stellt. Wir brauchen weiterhin Priorität für den Klimaschutz, auch nach der Wahl von Donald Trump, wo die Zeiten ein bisschen schwieriger werden. Aber es gibt ja ganz klare Signale von den internationalen Partnern, dass wir bei der Agenda nach Paris weitermachen. Vor einigen Jahren hätte ich nicht gedacht, dass beispielsweise China sich verpflichtet, weiterzumachen, selbst wenn in den USA eine gewisse Unsicherheit entsteht.
                  

                     Wir dürfen aber unsere Klimaschutzziele nicht so verwirklichen, dass wir die Industrie aus Europa vertreiben. In zwei Wochen haben wir in Straßburg im Vorfeld der Abstimmung über den Emissionshandel eine schwierige Diskussion, und ich glaube, wir brauchen eine gute Kompromisslösung. Das heißt, dass alle ihren Beitrag leisten müssen. Deswegen lege ich so viel Wert auf den Vorschlag, den Sie im November zum Thema Energieeffizienz gemacht haben. Wenn wir zum Beispiel im Gebäudebereich einen wichtigen Schritt tun, dann brauchen wir die Industrie nicht über Gebühr zu belasten.
                  

                     Und eben auch der Verkehr muss seinen Beitrag leisten. Hier warten wir noch auf einen Vorschlag. Ich hoffe, er kommt sehr bald, ich höre sogar, schon Freitag dieser Woche. Wir müssen den Flugverkehr weiter in den Emissionshandel einbeziehen, weil die Dinge, die auf internationaler Ebene besprochen wurden, noch nicht ausreichend klar und ambitioniert sind. Wir sollten, auch um die andere Industrie fair zu behandeln, den Flugverkehr nicht ohne Verpflichtungen davonkommen lassen.
                  

Patrizia Toia (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, noi tutti apprezziamo questo pacchetto, che costituisce senz'altro una delle strategie più integrate e determinanti dell'UE, perché sono in gioco diversi elementi. È in gioco la produttività del nostro sistema manifatturiero industriale, è in gioco l'ambiente, è in gioco anche la salute dei cittadini – penso proprio in questi giorni in quante città dell'Europa si soffre per la qualità negativa dell'aria, anche in città molto evolute, in regioni molto evolute, in paesi avanzati, e anche per le finanze, per i costi delle bollette sia per le imprese che per i cittadini.
                  

                     Però se vogliamo davvero fare una rivoluzione verde, dobbiamo alzare un po' l'asticella delle ambizioni. Lo diciamo da parte di un gruppo che è molto convinto di questo, che spera di avere una larga maggioranza in Parlamento, e lo diciamo a Lei, che è sensibile a questi temi. Alzare l'asticella delle ambizioni, per esempio, vuol dire avere target più alti sulle rinnovabili. Siamo a buon punto con quelli del 2020, ma guardiamo oltre, anche per la certezza delle industrie, e facciamo dell'Europa un punto avanzato, anche per l'industria europea relativa. Occorre poi rafforzare gli elementi di qualità e di novità. Penso ai consumatori e a tutte le possibilità dell'energia distribuita. Non è una nicchia, può diventare davvero… (viene interrotta dal Presidente).
                  

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D). – Mr President, I very much welcome Mr Šefčovič's work on this Energy Union, and it is one of the challenges we are facing in the Union. It is encouraging that the growth of the EU economy is starting to decouple from CO2 emissions, so economic growth is possible without increasing emissions. It is clear from the State of the Union speech that we heard, and which we saw in the papers, that more investment is needed, especially in electric transmission lines across the borders, to really create the reaches because with better functioning reaches we have better functioning energy markets. Despite all the efforts we have made in the EU and the Member States, renewable energy sources still constitute only 16.4% of the EU's final energy consumption. From these figures, I also think that we have to see that the EU cannot rule out any sort of renewable energy sources, not even biomass, but we have to guarantee they are sustainably produced. Energy efficiency in homes also very much improves people's quality of life.

Carlos Zorrinho (S&D). – Senhor Vice-Presidente, saúdo-o pela apresentação do relatório sobre o progresso das energias renováveis no quadro da União da Energia.
                  

                     Esse progresso é hoje mais importante do que nunca, porque com o início da nova administração americana iniciou-se também uma nova matriz no relacionamento político e económico à escala global.
                  

                     E nessa matriz, a energia, pelo seu papel na competitividade económica e no bem-estar das populações e pelo seu impacto na sustentabilidade do planeta, está e estará no centro da geopolítica e da geoeconomia nos próximos anos.
                  

                     A União Europeia tem sido líder na transição energética e tem de continuar a ser, combinando eficiência, segurança, integração de mercados, investigação, inovação e investimento nas infraestruturas.
                  

                     E as energias renováveis são o foco da diferenciação. Mas o progresso não é suficiente: 12% da energia total e 28,3% da eletricidade consumida é muito pouco.
                  

                     Temos de agir mais depressa, rever a diretiva das renováveis, apostar na descarbonização dos transportes e investir em novas interconexões. Eis três exemplos do que temos de fazer para andar mais depressa.
                  

Der Präsident. – Ich bedaure, dass ich im nun folgenden Catch-the-eye-Verfahren nicht alle gemeldeten Redner aufrufen kann, denn wir sind schon recht spät in der Zeit.
                  

Catch-the-eye-Verfahren


Μαρία Σπυράκη (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αντιπρόεδρε Šefčovič η ενεργειακή Ένωση μπορεί να αποτελέσει όχημα για να δημιουργηθούν δουλειές και για να επωφεληθούν όλοι οι πολίτες, αρκεί να κατορθώσουμε τελικά να βάλουμε τους πολίτες στην καρδιά αυτής της προσπάθειας. Για αυτό οφείλουμε να δράσουμε άμεσα, όπως είπατε, ιδρύοντας επενδυτικές πλατφόρμες στα κράτη μέλη αλλά οφείλει ταυτόχρονα και η Επιτροπή να σεβαστεί τις αρμοδιότητες στο ενεργειακό μείγμα. Στην Ελλάδα για παράδειγμα, αντικαθιστούμε σταδιακά τον λιγνίτη στην ηλεκτροπαραγωγή. Χρειαζόμαστε όμως στήριξη, ώστε να εξασφαλίζουμε επάρκεια και ασφάλεια σε ακραίες συνθήκες, επεκτείνοντας για παράδειγμα τη διακοψιμότητα ή διατηρώντας τα δωρεάν δικαιώματα, όπως ψηφίσαμε στην ITRE για την αλλαγή του ETS. Χρειαζόμαστε στήριξη και στην αντιμετώπιση της ενεργειακής φτώχειας, με στοχευμένη κοινοτική χρηματοδότηση αλλά και με ενθάρρυνση των ιδιωτών. Η αύξηση της ενεργειακής απόδοσης των κτηρίων και των κατοικιών στο Νότο θα μας δώσει δουλειές, θα δώσει κέρδη, θα μειώσει το λογαριασμό και θα ωφελήσει την υγεία των πολιτών, αρκεί να τα εξηγήσουμε όλα αυτά άμεσα, ώστε οι πολίτες να αγκαλιάσουν αυτή την προσπάθεια.
                  

Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, i mutamenti tecnologici, gli impegni politici in campo ambientale, il continuo mutamento della situazione internazionale e il crescente efficientamento energetico nella quasi totalità delle economie globali stanno imponendo trasformazioni importanti al mercato dell'energia.
                  

                     Eppure l'Europa dell'energia resta una sommatoria di mercati nazionali tra loro debolmente integrati, con scambi fisici irrisori, differenti meccanismi di funzionamento e un'ampia divergenza dei prezzi interni. È fondamentale che l'Europa ritrovi l'unità nel segno dell'energia, a cominciare dal tema di un mercato unico del gas: la dipendenza dalle importazioni dell'Europa evidenzia la necessità di un mercato comune europeo del gas naturale per garantire sia le capacità di stoccaggio che quelle di consegna, per poter assorbire senza traumi qualsiasi interruzione degli approvvigionamenti.
                  

                     Il fallimento di CECA ed Euratom, create per evitare il rischio di un'insicurezza energetica, deve indurci a riflettere sugli errori commessi e rilanciare con nuovo entusiasmo una politica energetica di ampio respiro, una Energy Union con un quadro normativo ambizioso e stabile.
                  

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Šefčovič, η ενεργειακή ένωση προϋποθέτει ίση μεταχείριση όλων και, αυτή τη στιγμή, κάτι τέτοιο δεν συμβαίνει όσον αφορά την Ελλάδα. Πρώτα από όλα, οι αγρότες μας, οι οποίοι βρίσκονται στους δρόμους διαμαρτυρόμενοι για τη φορομπηχτική πολιτική της τρόικας, πληρώνουν πανάκριβο το αγροτικό πετρέλαιο και τούτο διότι η τρόικα έχει επιβάλει αυξημένο ειδικό φόρο κατανάλωσης, γεγονός που δεν επιτρέπει στους ανθρώπους αυτούς να είναι παραγωγικοί. Δεύτερον, υπάρχει η περίφημη ενεργειακή φτώχεια. Ο ελληνικός λαός είναι φτωχοποιημένος. Ταυτόχρονα, ο ειδικός φόρος κατανάλωσης για το πετρέλαιο θέρμανσης έχει εκτιναχθεί στα ύψη. Ξεπαγιάζει όλη η Ελλάδα. Τούτο συμβαίνει, κύριε Šefčovič, διότι η τρόικα επιβάλλει αυξημένους φόρους. Είναι δυνατόν να συνεχιστεί αυτή η κατάσταση; Πώς θα προχωρήσει η Ελλάδα; Πώς θα βρεθεί σε ένα ανταγωνιστικό πλεονέκτημα; Αυτά είναι καίρια ερωτήματα, κύριε Šefčovič, και πρέπει να τα απαντήσετε διότι ο ελληνικός λαός δεν ανέχεται πλέον άλλο τις πολιτικές της τρόικας.
                  

Paloma López Bermejo (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, señor vicepresidente de la Comisión, la unión energética es un instrumento para el oligopolio energético, que aprovechará la liberalización del mercado para manipularlo a su antojo. Lo hemos visto estas semanas en el caso de mi país, en España, cuando se duplicaron los precios mientras se seguía exportando a Francia y una buena parte de la generación, incluidos los ciclos más eficientes, permanecía sospechosamente cerrada.
                  

                     ¿Impulsará la Comisión alguna investigación sobre estos hechos o su Comisión continuará aceptando actuaciones siempre a favor de las grandes eléctricas, lo mismo en las renovables que en el bono social, aun contraviniendo la normativa europea?
                  

                     Liberalización y poder de mercado para los grandes oligopolios son una y la misma cosa, y, por ello, son otras políticas, las de la soberanía energética, las que hay que impulsar. En sus documentos, los objetivos de eficiencia y de renovables carecen de ambición y, desde luego, hay ausencias lamentables. Y en cuanto a la distribución y comercialización, las referencias a la descentralización casan mal por su apuesta por el mercado, que en los grandes se van a comer a los pequeños.
                  

Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D). – Tikrai dėkoju už pateiktą energetikos dokumentų paketą, apie jų svarbą jau pasisakė prieš mane kalbėję kolegos, todėl manau, kad tikros, stiprios ir nepriklausomos energetikos sąjungos kūrimas turi remtis aiškiais ir nuosekliais planais, o veiksmai atitikti išsikeltus tikslus. Tačiau šiandien to pasigendame. ‘Nordstream 2’ projektas yra didžiulis išbandymas ne vien kuriamai energetikos sąjungai, bet ir visos Europos Sąjungos vienybės ir solidarumo patikrinimas. Projektas, kuris savo esme nėra ekonominio pobūdžio ir niekaip nesiderina su Europos Sąjungos išsikeltais tikslais – mažinti priklausomybę nuo vieno tiekėjo. Tai geopolitinio pobūdžio projektas ir todėl noriu paraginti komisarą imtis visapusiško ekonominio, aplinkosauginio ir politinio ‘Nordstream 2’ projekto vertinimo. Negalima leisti, kad šis projektas taptų valstybių narių susipriešinimo, nusigręžimo nuo solidarumo ir vienybės priežastis.
                  

(Ende des Catch-the-eye-Verfahrens)


Maroš Šefčovič,
Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank the honourable Members not only for their encouraging words and strong support, but also for the call to be even more ambitious in our efforts to transform the European energy system and to do it through robust governance. I would like to assure you that, whenever it is possible to improve our proposals, we are ready to work very closely with the Members of the European Parliament and with the Council to make sure that the proposal we put on the table last November really leads to the most profound transformation of the energy systems in Europe since they were built in today's centralised and fossil-fuel-centred way.
Our two afternoon plenary debates confirmed that we in Europe are following developments in the USA with growing anxiety. My colleague, High Representative/Vice-President Mogherini, was discussing with you one hour ago the problems with visas and the proper treatment of visitors to the United States. And I will, of course, say a few words about climate action and the Paris Agreement.
I want to make it very clear that, for us, the Paris Agreement is a historic achievement. It is a binding international treaty which was jointly negotiated, approved and ratified and has entered into force, and we are ready to continue our communication and exchange of views with the United States because we believe we have very strong arguments. The implementation of the Paris Agreement is important not only for preserving life on our planet, for preserving mankind, but also because it has huge potential for modernising our economy: from bringing electricity to the 1.3 billion people on this planet who do not currently have access to it to really accelerating the implementation and use of all the innovations we have in our labs and our companies.
I also want to make it very clear that Europe is ready to continue to lead in these efforts. I know that this readiness to provide leadership is very much welcomed by our partners across the world, be it on energy transition or climate action, be it in the area of development aid, where we want to use our clean technology to provide access to electricity to the peoples in Africa and in Asia, or be it on free and fair trade.
I hope that this realistic and pragmatic discussion will take place again in the United States because I can hardly think of any other nation which is so affected by weather-related disasters, be it hurricanes or whirlwinds, or any of the other tragedies we have seen on our screens.
You have been highlighting the importance of putting citizens as consumers at the centre of our efforts and using this energy transition to fight energy poverty and air pollution, and I absolutely agree with you. This is a must for the European Union. We cannot lose 450 000 people every year because of high pollution. We cannot have, on our TV screens, pictures of our cities which remind us of Beijing or Delhi, and we cannot accept the fact that 50 million Europeans have to choose between paying their energy bills or buying food for their families. Therefore, we are introducing what I believe will lead to a more common approach in fighting energy poverty. The European Observatory on Energy Poverty will be up and running by the end of this year. We will be talking about how, jointly with the EU Member States, we can tackle this challenge together.
We believe that energy efficiency is a very important part of the answer, and that new electricity market design, with strong rules on the procedure leading to disconnection, should be another very important lever for improving the situation of our citizens. I know that Europe's mayors – who very often are the first addressees of citizens' complaints about air pollution or energy poverty or vulnerable sections of society – are ready to work with us very actively in the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate & Energy.
I understand all those honourable Members who have reminded us of the importance of energy security. You know that we are dealing with that very seriously, and I think this is strongly reflected in our report: 22 out of 28 countries are actually better off; having better infrastructure and interconnectors with reverse flows is giving us much more confidence; the European market is much more liquid than it ever was before; we are open to LNG and to Caspian gas; and we are ready to develop the East Med gas reserve with its huge potential, probably as big as that of the Norwegian reserve.
We are also putting into practice rules which will no longer allow any abuse of a dominant position in the European market. In this context I would also like to thank and congratulate the Maltese Presidency because today they managed to secure the mandate for trilogue on the security of gas supply and I believe that, working together with the representatives of the European Parliament, this very important legislation on providing greater security of supply for European consumers will be agreed very soon.
The last two points I want to mention concern investment and infrastructure. I totally agree with Mr Kelly, who underscored the importance of regulatory stability, vision and the alignment of goals at global, European, national and local levels. We have to work on that, and if we achieve it I am sure that we will also be able to secure investment because this represents a huge investment opportunity for private investors and for cities, and I am sure there will be huge demand in terms of putting all the new and innovative technologies at the service of our citizens.
Mr Tamburrano suggested that we could use crowd funding, and this is actually one of the options we are studying under the Capital Markets Union. We are going to explore the possibilities here and look at how we can merge these two unions and use the potential of capital markets to invest in European energy infrastructure.
I totally agree with you when we talk about investment that it should be smart investment. We should be very careful about stranded assets. We should think twice about where we put both private and public money. And this leads me to my last point, on excessive infrastructure.
I was listening to you very carefully and I know very well your concerns on Nord Stream 2. I want to reassure you that European law would be fully respected, and that we are highlighting the fact that, even in such a harsh winter as this one, the transport capacity used for getting Russian gas to Europe is somewhere between 50% to 60%. I would emphasise too that we have consensus in the European Union – and the High Representative could be the best witness to that because we discussed it in the Foreign Affairs Council too – about the preservation and continuation of the Ukrainian gas transit route. There is consensus among all the EU Member States that we want to have it operational after 2019.
I would like to thank the honourable Members for a great debate. I am looking forward very much to working on our proposals which are on the table and on the proposals on low-carbon mobility which we are going to present in the course of this year.

Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
                  


Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 162 GO)



Clara Eugenia Aguilera García (S&D),
por escrito. – Ante la actual incertidumbre política debemos fortalecer nuestro proyecto de Unión energética. La energía es un pilar fundamental para la cohesión de los Estados. El segundo informe sobre el estado de la Unión de la Energía pone de manifiesto que la transición energética es un hecho. Pero corremos el riesgo de que varios Estados miembros no alcancen las metas para 2020. Debemos redoblar esfuerzos para encauzar esta transición correctamente hacía la próxima década. Considero crucial mejorar los objetivos para cumplir nuestros compromisos, principalmente en materia de energías renovables. Debemos mantener los objetivos vinculantes de los Estados miembros, para afianzar el liderazgo europeo en renovables y avanzar hacia una mayor independencia energética de Europa. Necesitamos proveer a Europa de una energía segura, asequible y respetuosa con el medio ambiente. Es necesario aumentar la transparencia en los precios de la energía, para incrementar la confianza de los consumidores y evitar la subida de precios que crean alarma social, como se ha dado en España en las últimas semanas. Esta transición energética es también una oportunidad para la modernización económica, y para la creación de empleo de calidad, que además evite que ciudadanos se encuentren en situación de vulnerabilidad energética.
                  

Petras Auštrevičius (ALDE),
in writing. – I believe that a true European Energy Union is crucial if we want to revive and modernise the entire European economy. By overcoming energy fragmentation or ‘energy islands’ we are moving to a cheaper, more efficient and cleaner energy era. I believe that the completion of the Energy Union is as well extremely important if we want to achieve the goals of the Paris climate change agreement. However, I am still very concerned by such projects as the Nord Stream II, which completely sabotage the main goal of reducing energy dependence on third countries such as Russia.

Simona Bonafè (S&D),
per iscritto. – La seconda relazione sullo Stato dell'Unione dell'energia evidenzia l'avvio della transizione verso un'economia a basse emissioni di carbonio per il raggiungimento degli obiettivi al 2020 riguardo a riduzione delle emissioni, efficienza energetica ed energie rinnovabili. La relazione sottolinea i buoni progressi per il completamento dell'Unione dell'energia: ad ora l'UE è sulla buona strada in particolar modo per quanto riguarda la riduzione delle emissioni e le rinnovabili, sempre più competitive, con un consumo totale di poco inferiore al 20%.
                  

                     Si tratta ora di passare alla fase successiva. Il Vicepresidente Šefčovič ha ben sottolineato l'opportunità di rendere il 2017 l'anno dell'attuazione concreta e effettiva dell'Unione dell'energia. La relazione ha una chiara impronta al futuro, definendo le priorità non solo per il settore dell'energia, ma tenendo ben in conto anche gli aspetti socio-economici, come la necessità di accelerare la spinta all'economia, valorizzando il potenziale occupazionale dei settori green in accordo con i trend di economia circolare e diplomazia climatica. Sono certa che il Parlamento contribuirà a consolidare questo percorso, a partire dal corposo lavoro che ci aspetta sui dossier legislativi del Pacchetto ‘Energia pulita per tutti gli europei’ presentato nello scorso mese di novembre.
                  

Cristian-Silviu Bușoi (PPE),
în scris. – Rolul Parlamentului European, în lucrul îndeaproape cu Comisia, este esențial pentru implementarea strategiei Uniunii uniunii eEnergetice. Mă bucură acest avans al Uninii Europene în materie de energie referitoare la țintele de emisii CO2, în comparație cu anul trecut, va trece la etapa următoare și anul acesta va fi anul implementării, atât la nivel național, cât și local. Noile propuneri referitoare la mobilitate cu emisii reduse de CO2 trebuie să consolideze Uniunea uniunea eEnergetică și acest lucru va fi posibil dacă aceasta va beneficia de o guvernanță robustă. Guvernanța trebuie să țină cont, în aceeași măsură, de eficiența și securitatea energetică, de interconexiunile electrice și consolidarea liniilor interne, de integrarea energiei regenerabile și de noile tehnologii folosite pentru producția energiei convenționale. Progresele în vederea diversificării resurselor, a rutelor și a furnizorilor de energie sunt vizibile, dar UE în continuare importă mai mult de jumătate din necesarul energetic. Avem nevoie de reducerea dependenței energetice prin eficientizare. Prin investiții, eficiența energetică va crea inovare și locuri de muncă, dar prin axarea pe producția de energie durabilă, se poate asigura o energie curată și la prețuri accesibile pentru industrie și pentru cetățenii europeni.
                  

Soledad Cabezón Ruiz (S&D),
por escrito. – Ante la actual incertidumbre política debemos fortalecer nuestro proyecto de Unión energética. La energía es un pilar fundamental para la cohesión de los Estados. El segundo informe sobre el estado de la Unión de la Energía pone de manifiesto que la transición energética es un hecho. Pero corremos el riesgo de que varios Estados miembros no alcancen las metas para 2020. Debemos redoblar esfuerzos para encauzar esta transición correctamente hacía la próxima década. Considero crucial mejorar los objetivos para cumplir nuestros compromisos, principalmente en materia de energías renovables. Debemos mantener los objetivos vinculantes de los Estados miembros, para afianzar el liderazgo europeo en renovables y avanzar hacia una mayor independencia energética de Europa. Necesitamos proveer a Europa de una energía segura, asequible y respetuosa con el medio ambiente. Es necesario aumentar la transparencia en los precios de la energía, para incrementar la confianza de los consumidores y evitar la subida de precios que crean alarma social, como se ha dado en España en las últimas semanas. Esta transición energética es también una oportunidad para la modernización económica, y para la creación de empleo de calidad, que además evite que ciudadanos se encuentren en situación de vulnerabilidad energética.
                  

Adam Gierek (S&D),
na piśmie. – Unia Energetyczna to budowa jednolitego rynku konkurencyjnej energii oraz realizacja europejskiego celu klimatycznego. Podstawowym narzędziem realizacji tych celów jest efektywność energetyczna. Chciałbym w tym miejscu powrócić do wątku podwojenia przepustowości Gazociągu Północnego. Istotny wpływ na wspomniane cele oraz na bezpieczeństwo dostaw może wywrzeć Nord Stream-2. Patrząc racjonalnie, pomijając polityczne niedomówienia, zadawnione spory i obawy wynikłe z doświadczeń historycznych, trzeba przyznać, że budowa drugiej nitki Gazociągu Północnego jest racjonalna. Konwersja energii z gazu na prąd jest co najmniej o 20% bardziej efektywna aniżeli z węgla, podczas gdy emisja CO2 to tylko 40% tej powstałej przy jego spalaniu. Dodatkowym fizykochemicznym aspektem jest duża elastyczność produkcji energii elektrycznej, co doskonale współgra z energią wiatrową. Turbiny gazowe to idealny sposób na efektywność podczas tzw. szczytowych poborów. Pozwoli to na wzrost efektywności energetycznej w UE do 30% i więcej. Konstruktorzy Nord Stream-1 (szkoda, że nie Jamal-2) doskonale rozumieli geopolityczną wyższość tego projektu. W przypadku nowego projektu niezbędna będzie metoda wspólnotowa. Należy rozważyć inwestycje z odgałęzieniami do krajów unijnych w rejonie Bałtyku, co umożliwi wspólnotową eksploatację oraz ustalanie cen. Uważam też za celowe rozważenie alternatywy dla Nord Stream-2 – powrotu do idei JAMAL-2. Zarazem należy dywersyfikować dostawy gazu ziemnego, rozbudowując terminale LNG.
                  

András Gyürk (PPE),
írásban. – Szeretném megköszönni Sefcovic alelnök úrnak a kitartó és kemény munkáját. Különösen fontosnak tartom a nemsokára elinduló energiauniós európai kőrútját, ahol ellátogat minden egyes tagállamba és meghallgatja azok álláspontját. Pontosan ez az emberközeli és nemzeti érdekeket szem előtt tartó hozzáállás az, ami Európát erőssé teheti. A Tiszta Energia Csomaggal az energiauniós integráció újabb fejezete nyílik meg. Úgy gondolom, hogy az energiaunió alapvető céljaiban mindnyájan egyetértünk. Az európai energiaellátást tegyük megfizethetővé, a piacokat versenyképessé, miközben állítsuk az Uniót egy fenntartható pályára. Az energiapiaci integráció megvalósításában azonban már jelentős kockázatok vannak. Ezeket a kockázatokat felfedezhetjük a Tiszta Energia csomagban is. Vigyáznunk kell, hogy ne kövessük el a ugyanazt hibát, miszerint minden változásra központosítással reagálunk. Véleményem szerint az Európai Unió ereje éppen a sokszínűségében rejlik. Az eltérő lehetőségekre adott eltérő megoldások hajtják előre a kontinenst és biztosítják a megújulást. Hiszem, hogy a jobb Európa nem mindig jelent több Európát. Az új kihívásokra nem minden esetben egy még újabb közös intézmény felállításban, hanem a szubszidiaritás erősítésében kell keresnünk a választ. Kívánom, hogy a most induló árampiaci reform szem előtt tartsa ezeket az alapelveket és nemcsak egy gyors, de megfelelő választ is találjuk a meglévő problémákra.
                  

Karol Karski (ECR),
na piśmie. – Realizacja postulatów unii energetycznej, zwłaszcza zapewnienie bezpieczeństwa energetycznego państwom członkowskim, jest jednym z największych wyzwań stojących przed KE. Bezpieczeństwo energetyczne powinno być nadrzędną zasadą przyświecającą Komisji przy opracowywaniu nowego prawodawstwa. Tymczasem opublikowany ostatnio ‘Pakiet czystej energii dla każdego Europejczyka’ pokazuje, że zmierza ona w całkowicie przeciwnym kierunku. W projekcie zaprezentowanym przez KE obawy budzą przede wszystkim kryteria, które będą musiały spełnić państwa członkowskie, aby uruchomić tzw. rynki mocy. Mechanizmy mocowe mają kluczowe znaczenie dla bezpieczeństwa energetycznego państw członkowskich borykających się z niedoborami energii.
                  

                     Każdy kraj powinien więc mieć możliwość kształtowania owego rynku na jak najkorzystniejszych dla siebie zasadach. Tymczasem KE proponuje, aby wprowadzić niezwykle restrykcyjny limit emisyjności (550 g CO2 na kilowatogodzinę) w odniesieniu do technologii, których będzie można używać przy budowie rynków mocy. Oznacza to dyskryminację technologii węglowych. Jest to zapis potencjalnie sprzeczny z traktatami unijnymi, które stanowią, że państwo członkowskie ma prawo ‘określania warunków wykorzystania jego zasobów energetycznych, wyboru między różnymi źródłami energii i ogólnej struktury jego zaopatrzenia w energię’ (art. 194 TFUE). Tymczasem propozycja KE dotycząca emisyjności jest próbą obejścia tej zasady i wywierania nacisku na poszczególne państwa, jeśli chodzi o dobór nośników energii. Dodatkowe zaniepokojenie wzbudza fakt, że Komisja stawia ochronę środowiska nad bezpieczeństwem energetycznym państw członkowskich.
                  

Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE),
în scris. – Prioritatea principală a Comisiei Europene în acest an trebuie să se focalizeze pe implementarea a ceea ce a fost deja adoptat în cadrul strategiei uniunii energetice. A doua prioritate trebuie să fie cum gerăm echilibrul între competitivitate și țintele de emisii CO2. Delocalizarea emisiilor de CO2, nu este o soluție. Consider că echilibrul trebuie găsit la nivelul sistemului de comercializare a certificatelor de emisii (ETS), care trebuie să devină un instrument eficace pentru a facilita trecerea la o economie competitivă și cu emisii scăzute de CO2. Negocierile pe textul legislativ ETS vor începe în curând. Subliniez că părțile negociatoare trebuie să țină cont imperativ de situația sectoarelor expuse la fenomenul de delocalizare a emisiilor și de limitarea închiderilor de întreprinderi în cadrul Uniunii, date fiind costurile indirecte suplimentare generate de schema ETS, care nu sunt compensate cum ar trebui.
                  

                     Noile propuneri referitoare la mobilitatea cu emisii reduse de CO2 trebuie să consolideze uniunea energetică și acest lucru va fi posibil dacă aceasta va beneficia de o guvernanță robustă. Guvernanța trebuie să țină cont, în aceeași măsură, de eficiența și securitatea energetică, de interconexiunile electrice și consolidarea liniilor interne, de integrarea energiei regenerabile și de noile tehnologii folosite pentru producția energiei convenționale.
                  

Csaba Molnár (S&D),
írásban. – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! A Bizottság nemrég kiadott téli energiacsomagja az európai energiaunió megteremtésének alapja, illetve Magyarország energiafüggetlenségének első építőköve. Az energiahatékonyság javításával, az épületek korszerűsítésével, a megújuló energia elterjesztésével végre leválaszthatjuk Magyarországot az orosz gázcsapokról. Ha nő az energiahatékonyság, nem csak olcsóbb lesz a rezsiszámla, de több tízezer minőségi munkahely jöhet létre Magyarországon. Az energiaunió kialakításában fontos a szélerőművek és napelemek elterjesztése, amelyek ma az energia legolcsóbb formái. Érthetetlen, hogy Magyarországon miért kellett ezeket betiltani. Az energiauniónak része az is, hogy megszűnnek a hosszú távú előnytelen gázszerződések harmadik országokkal.
                  

                     Ha például nem kötöttük volna újra tavaly az orosz gázszerződést, ma 40%-kal olcsóbban kapnák a magyarok a fölgázt. Mindezt, azért mert a világpiacról jóval olcsóbban vehetnénk gázt. Az energiaunió arra is jó lenne, hogy megakadályozza a felelőtlen kormányokat abban, hogy károkat okozzanak saját polgárainak. Az energiaunió jó a magyar embereknek, olcsóbb és kiszámíthatóbb energiát biztosít Magyarországnak, többet hagy a pénztárcánkban hónap végén. A Bizottságnak mihamarabb végre kell hajtania ambiciózus terveit, csak így lehetünk függetlenek az oroszoktól, csak így tarthatjuk alacsonyan a rezsiszámlákat.
                  

Marijana Petir (PPE),
napisan. – EU je na dobrom putu kada se radi o energetskoj politici. Europska energetska unija je trenutno u drugoj fazi razvoja, tj. 2017. godina je godina provedbe donesenog zakonodavstva koje se počinje primjenjivati, kako na europskoj razini, tako i na nacionalnoj razini. Gospodarstvo EU-a jedno je od najučinkovitijih ekonomija na svijetu po pitanju smanjenja emisije stakleničkih plinova te će, prema svim relevantnom pokazateljima, dostići zacrtane ciljeve za 2020. što se tiče energetske učinkovitosti i obnovljivih izvora energije. Jedan od važnih ciljeva Europske unije u okviru energetske unije je tranzicija prema gospodarstvu s niskom emisijom ugljika. U tom području potrebno je bolje iskoristiti potencijale država članica te na taj način osigurati brojna radna mjesta za građane EU-a te sačuvati konkurentnost.
                  

                     Postizanje energetske neovisnosti kao još jednog od ciljeva energetske unije utječe i na stabilnost gospodarskog rasta što je jednako tako od velikog značaja u trenutnoj turbulentnoj i prevrtljivoj globalnoj geopolitičkoj situaciji. Kako bi postigli željene ciljeve potrebno je ojačati energetsku povezanost između gospodarstava država članica EU-a. Provedbom tih ciljeva EU bi se približio energetskoj neovisnosti, što bi pozitivno djelovalo na gospodarstvo Unije pogotovo ako znamo da danas svakoga dana Unija troši više od milijardu eura za uvoz energije iz trećih zemalja.
                  

Pavel Poc (S&D),
písemně. – Děkuji místopředsedovi Šefčovičovi, že prezentoval druhou zprávu o stavu energetické unie v Evropském parlamentu ještě v ten samý den, kdy byla zveřejněna. Tato zpráva ukazuje tři zásadní věci. Zaprvé přináší dobrou zprávu, že modernizace hospodářství EU a přechod na nízkouhlíkové hospodářství se stávají realitou. Druhou je role obnovitelné energie. Ta je poprvé v historii ve srovnání s fosilními palivy nákladově konkurenceschopná a někdy dokonce i levnější. V celé Evropě dává práci více než jednomu milionu lidí, přitahuje více investic než řada jiných odvětví a objem našeho dovozu fosilních paliv se díky ní snížil o 16 miliard eur. Tento trend je ale zásadní udržet. Třetím bodem je schválení Pařížské dohody a její následná rychlá ratifikace, mimo jiné díky roli slovenského předsednictví. V současných podmínkách bude potřeba tuto dohodu bránit a prosazovat ještě důrazněji. Osobně považuji pokrok dosažený od zveřejnění první zprávy o stavu energetické unie v listopadu 2015 za velmi dobrý, přestože ta nejtěžší část – implementace – nás čeká až v tomto roce. Jak ve svém projevu podotkl komisař Šefčovič, energetická unie se netýká výlučně energetiky a klimatu. Nezapomínejme, že jejím účelem je uspíšit zásadní modernizaci celé evropské ekonomiky tak, aby byla nízkouhlíková a účinná z hlediska energie i zdrojů.
                  

Maria Lidia Senra Rodríguez (GUE/NGL),
por escrito. – Con respecto al paquete de invierno de energía de la Comisión Europea, me gustaría abordar hoy en este brevísimo espacio que tengo para expresarme algunos aspectos importantes: En primer lugar, decir que es necesario establecer objetivos más ambiciosos para las energías renovables y que estos objetivos sean también vinculantes para los Estados. En segundo lugar, garantizar el autoconsumo, definir qué son los cargos y los procesos desproporcionados e impedir que el autoconsumo sea penalizado como está ocurriendo actualmente en el Estado español. Debe quedar clara la no aplicación de cargos sobre la energía autoconsumida. Ampliar los colectivos que se pueden incluir dentro del concepto de autoconsumidores colectivos. Y, finalmente eliminar los agrocarburantes y preservar el uso de la tierra para la producción de alimentos, impidiendo los cultivos energéticos o la forestación de las tierras agrícolas.
                  

Adam Szejnfeld (PPE),
na piśmie. – Nie ulega żadnej wątpliwości, iż głównym priorytetem tworzenia unii energetycznej musi być wzmacnianie bezpieczeństwa energetycznego Unii Europejskiej w duchu solidarności i zaufania. Aby uodpornić Wspólnotę na zewnętrzne kryzysy energetyczne oraz zmniejszyć jej zależność od konkretnych paliw, dostawców i tras dostaw, konieczne jest podjęcie szeregu działań służących dywersyfikacji dostaw energii pod kątem źródeł, dostawców i tras. Tymczasem projekt Nord Stream 2 nie tylko stoi na przeszkodzie realizacji unii energetycznej, ale godzi również w solidarność i wzajemne zaufanie państw członkowskich. Niezrozumiała jest również postawa Komisji Europejskiej, która z jednej strony we wszystkich unijnych dokumentach strategicznych słusznie podkreśla konieczność doprowadzenia do znaczącej dywersyfikacji źródeł i dróg dostaw energii, z drugiej zaś akceptuje przedsięwzięcia inwestycyjne jeszcze bardziej uzależniające państwa członkowskie, w szczególności w Europie Środowej i Wschodniej, od gazu z Rosji. Gazociąg łączący Rosję i Niemcy pod Morzem Bałtyckim to inwestycja niezgodna z interesami Wspólnoty, fundamentami unii energetycznej i zapisami europejskiej strategii bezpieczeństwa energetycznego. Mam nadzieję, że Komisja Europejska podejmie w końcu działania uniemożliwiające realizację tego szkodliwego przedsięwzięcia.
                  

Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE),
in writing. – We must not ignore the wider geopolitical repercussions of our policies in the Energy Union. For instance, allowing the doubling of the capacity of the Nord Stream pipeline has a destabilising effect on Ukraine, since it will enable Russia to reroute all the gas currently transiting though the former. As you know, full-blown war recently returned to eastern Ukraine, with indiscriminate shelling of civilians and soldiers alike. Therefore, it would be extremely irresponsible to help Putin by giving him another weapon to strangle Ukraine. In hybrid warfare, financial destabilisation can play a very significant role. Furthermore, the rerouting of the gas from the Ukrainian pipeline would put our eastern Member States in a more precarious position, since we currently lack sufficient interconnectors for the gas to make its way back from Germany. The current political climate should push us towards decreasing our energy dependence on Russia, instead of further solidifying our ties with this unreliable partner by investing in new infrastructure projects, which would become stranded assets once we truly pursue our goal of becoming energy independent.

Miguel Viegas (GUE/NGL),
por escrito. – Este mercado único energético representa uma agenda indissociável dos objetivos dos grandes grupos europeus do setor e das potências que defendem os seus interesses.
                  

                     No essencial, defende a liberalização do ‘mercado da energia’, pressionando os Estados-Membros a acelerarem o processo de privatização do que ainda é público. Sem reconhecer que, contrariando miríficas promessas, nem trabalhadores nem consumidores beneficiaram com a liberalização.
                  

                     A energia é um setor estratégico, fundamental a um desenvolvimento económico soberano do país, apoiado no conhecimento científico, no progresso tecnológico e na sustentabilidade ambiental. Razão suficiente para dever ser conservado na esfera pública, sob escrutínio e controlo democráticos.
                  

                     Este relatório é incompatível com estes princípios. E esta é a nossa postura e a realidade vem, paulatinamente, dar-nos razão!
                  

Henna Virkkunen (PPE),
kirjallinen. – Tänään julkistettu energiaunionin tila -raportti osoittaa, että EU on saavuttamassa vuoden 2020 energia- ja ilmastotavoitteet. Päästöt ovat vähentyneet 22 prosenttia ja uusiutuvien osuus on nyt 16 prosenttia, kun molemmissa tavoite on 20 prosenttia vuonna 2020. Oikealla uralla siis ollaan.
                  

                     Kehitys myös osoittaa, että talouskasvu ja ympäristövastuu eivät ole toisilleen vastakkaisia pyrkimyksiä. Samaan aikaan kun EU:n päästöt ovat vähentyneet 22 prosenttia, bruttokansantuote on kasvanut 50 prosenttia. Kestävä kasvu on mahdollista. Kansainvälisesti vertailtuna eurooppalainen teollisuus on jo nyt maailman puhtainta. Tuotannon arvoon nähden me tuotamme vähemmän päästöjä kuin kilpailukumppanimme. Silti meillä on vielä paljon mahdollisuuksia lisätä energiatehokkuutta ja kehittää entistä puhtaampia teknologioita. Tämä avaa myös uusia vientimahdollisuuksia. Erityisen tyytyväinen olen siitä, että komissio on ottanut tavoitteen liikenteen dekarbonisaatiosta tosissaan. Paremmalla liikennesuunnittelulla, digitalisaatiolla sekä liikenteen sähköistämisellä ja kehittyneillä biopolttoaineilla pystymme leikkaamaan liikenteen päästöjä varsin merkittävästi jo seuraavina vuosina.
                  

                     Euroopan energiamarkkinoille tarvitaan lisää läpinäkyvyyttä, markkinaehtoisuutta ja tervettä kilpailua. Se edellyttää myös nykyistä parempia sähkön ja lämmön siirtoyhteyksiä. Tämä on tarpeen myös energiavarmuuden ja energiatehokkuuden parantamiseksi.
                  
14.   Managing migration along the Central Mediterranean Route (debate)

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung der Vizepräsidentin der Kommission und Hohen Vertreterin der Union für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik zur Steuerung der Migration über die zentrale Mittelmeerroute (2017/2547(RSP)).
               

Federica Mogherini,
Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, I believe that the upcoming informal summit in Malta, starting on Friday, will be an opportunity for us to show that efficient – and at the same time human – management of migration is possible and is a must, if we work together, both as Europeans in solidarity and in partnership with our friends, the countries of origin and of transit.
We must repeat once again, as we did here just an hour ago, that refugees must be welcome. This is a strong position that the European Union has and will continue to have. At the same time, without any contradiction – and, on the contrary, with some complementarity – we must say that the pain and the deaths caused by smugglers have to be stopped. I have seen with my own eyes people who have managed to survive – their stories are ones that nobody should have to live through, nobody should have to listen to. It is, first and foremost, a humanitarian duty not only to save lives but also to protect the lives of the people who are migrating.
As you know very well, in the last two years we have been working literally day and night to reduce human suffering, first and foremost, and to reduce the loss of life on the various routes leading to Europe: in the Mediterranean Sea, of course, but also in places where the loss of life and the violation of human rights are less evident to the TV cameras, in particular in the desert. In the central Mediterranean, our Operation Sophia alone saved more than 32 000 people last year. Each and every one of them represents a precious result for me in a war that we are at last waging as the European Union. We also apprehended more than 100 smugglers, who are now in the hands of the law.
Our migration compacts with five African countries have started to reduce substantially the irregular flows. For instance, the number of people crossing irregularly from Niger into Libya has decreased to its lowest level in years. We thus see that our action is starting to deliver in real terms, the first concern always being to save and protect human lives.
The report adopted yesterday by the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Development on the role of our external action on addressing the movements of refugees and migrants encourages me to keep on this path of closer cooperation with third countries, including in relation to regular channels for entry to the European Union. I would ask for your support on this specific point because, among the commitments made by the European Union with our partners at the Valletta Summit last year was that of working more on the regular channels for migration. The more we work to prevent irregular flows, the more we need to offer regular channels. We know very well that this is a difficult debate in each and every one of the Member States and also in this Parliament. It was not by chance that, back in December, the Commission increased the resources for various mobility opportunities, and this is just the beginning.
Last year we had more than 4 500 deaths at sea in the central Mediterranean. Believe me, I wish we could name each and every one of them because, as long as we refer just to numbers, it is much easier to forget them or to see this as a phenomenon. Each and every one of these people has a history, a story, a name and a future – or they should have had. Yet at times we do not even know their names. That is why all of us in the European Union need to do more, in a spirit of solidarity among Europeans and with our partners, who also have to take some ownership of the management of this problem. When we see people dying in the desert, or close to the Libyan coast, we need to have discussions with, and to help, our partners do their part to save lives and to make sure that the protection of human beings and their human rights is fully taken on board – and I will come back to that in a minute. We all need to do more, first of all to end the suffering, and to manage human mobility better.
Last week I presented a package of additional measures, worth EUR 200 million, that will feed into the discussion at the Malta Summit the day after tomorrow.
Migration has, of course, always existed. I have been accused many times of constantly pointing out, firstly, that, until a couple of decades ago, migration used to be from Europe to the rest of the world and, secondly, that if we had to live without migrants in all our societies and all our economies we would suffer a lot of negative consequences. Imagine the cost of non-migration to our European economies and you will realise that, indeed, we are talking not about a bad phenomenon but about a phenomenon that needs to be managed, first of all, as I have said, in order to protect human beings.
We all know that there is no easy way to stop the suffering and manage the phenomenon better. We know very well that the real solution implies, first of all, the economic development of Africa and also the democratic development of Africa. Here our daily work is ongoing, with the compacts with the five priority countries, the external investment plan, the trust fund, and the overall work we are doing in partnership, in particular, with Africa and also working – and I know Commissioner Mimica will be joining us for the following debates – in the framework of our cooperation and partnership with the African Union and the different countries in Africa, as well as with civil society and citizens in Africa, because we know very well that the key to development lies not only in the economy but also in society and a civil space in which Africans can find their place and their way.
Apart from that, we also have to focus now on what kind of quantitative and qualitative leap we can make in our joint work and the immediate steps we can take together and with our partners. So we name three proposals that will be on the table at the Malta Summit on Friday that I believe can be fully in line with the partnership approach we have taken on the central Mediterranean routes and with the African partnership from the beginning of last year and can also constitute a clear change and a clear step forward in having a more effective result.
First, we want to increase training for the Libyan coastguard. I am sure many of you remember a meeting we had here in this building several months ago with the cast and the director of Fuocoammare, the documentary film that is now nominated for an Academy Award. They told us one simple thing, among many others, namely that we should do something about the Libyan territorial waters because, while before we were seeing people dying close to Lampedusa in international waters, we are now seeing people dying in Libyan territorial waters. We cannot act inside Libyan territorial waters: that is a Libyan responsibility. But we can help and we can train and support the Libyan authorities in this work. This will be one of the things I will discuss tomorrow with Prime Minister al-Sarraj. It will not be the only one, but I will come to that in a minute.
Just a few days ago Operation Sophia launched the second package of training for a carefully vetted group of officials from the Libyan coastguard and navy and we now propose to increase the training even more substantially, including – and this is a very important point for me – human rights, women's rights and respect for international standards and obligations.
Secondly, we propose to step up our efforts on the southern borders of Libya at the point before the migratory flows enter a country that is, by definition, a difficult country in which to operate. We have already started to facilitate a common approach between Libya, Chad and Niger, in particular. Managing their common border is an interest they share, inter alia for security reasons. They see us as Europeans with our main focus always on the migration flows through Libya towards Europe – and I see a lot of attention paid to this, not in this Chamber but certainly in terms of public opinion – but there is also a flow of a different kind going from Libya to the south, to the Sahel and possibly connecting with the Lake Chad region and with Boko Haram. There is a security challenge there too: to control the border south of Libya in a more effective way.
So managing this common border is in their common interest as neighbours, and it is also in our interest as Europeans. We are active in the region with three missions and operations and are already training local security forces, including in respect for human rights. I stress this because, for me, this is a key component of all the training we do with local forces. These are powerful tools. We can make them even more powerful, improving cooperation among all actors in the region and taking a regional approach, including working with the African Union and its newly elected leadership, as we have the new African Union Commission President who was the Foreign Minister of Chad until a few days ago.
Thirdly, we will increase our support – at least this is my proposal – for the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and the UNHCR. For me this is key, because you can act to the north, at sea, and to the south, in the Sahel, but the presence you already have now in Libya is there and will not disappear by itself. We all know very well that the human-rights angle of this is extremely serious, so we have to find a way of addressing the dramatic situation of stranded migrants inside Libya in a very challenging security situation. In recent weeks I have met both Filippo Grandi, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and William Swing, the General Director of the IOM. Together we discussed ways in which the European Union can increase its support to the IOM and the UNHCR in order for them to work more, and better, inside Libya and chiefly in the places where the migrants are.
For me, cooperation with these two organisations is the best possible way to guarantee the protection of human rights for migrants inside the country. A first project, worth EUR 20 million, was adopted in December under the Trust Fund for Africa. It will allow IOM to offer alternatives to the first group of 5 000 stranded migrants and take action to improve the dreadful conditions in detention centres. I believe that this will be a key element of our policy, where we will need to work as a team – the UNHCR, IOM and the European Union, together with the Libyan authorities, in trying to create the conditions for this to work.
All these actions are designed with the bigger picture in mind. It is not an issue for today's debate, but I think it is essential to keep clearly in mind that the key element of our work is supporting peace and reconciliation in Libya. Again, as I said, this is not an issue for this debate, but this is my main work. Our work with Libya goes far beyond the issue of managing migration. I know this is the top priority for political parties, governments and public opinion in Europe, but believe me when I tell you that the main point for us is working on finding a political solution to the crisis in Libya. I discussed this with Martin Kobler, the UN Special Envoy, just a few days ago here in Brussels, and again this will be the main point we will discuss tomorrow with Prime Minister al-Sarraj here in Brussels. We will also be discussing it with the Foreign Affairs Council on Monday.
However, while we keep working to reach a political solution for Libya, there is much we can do in the meantime – working with the Libyan coastguard and navy, working with mayors and local authorities, working with Libya's neighbours – not only to the east and west but also to the south – as a Libyan neighbour ourselves, because the European Union is a neighbour to Libya, and, with respect, trying to help and trying to focus – as I said – on a political solution that can bring stable democracy to the country, uniting it more than it is now. We will continue to work in partnership along the lines we defined together in Valletta last year in partnership with our friends, not only the authorities but also civil society organisations, and in partnership with the international organisations and the UN system with which we are involved.
In a week's time in Malta we will have the first stocktaking exercise of the Valletta Summit action plan. Next week I will have the pleasure of initiating it, with the Maltese Foreign Minister, in order to see, with our African partners and the partners from the northern part of Africa, where we are on the implementation of the action plan and what is the way forward in terms of partnership. I believe that, as Europeans, we have finally started to play our part. We are starting to see some results. I mentioned the tens of thousands of lives which have at last been saved, but even if there was only one person dying at sea or in the desert, and whether we saw it or not, this is a responsibility and a problem that we are ready to try to solve.
Again, it is not just a European responsibility. It is also a responsibility we have to share with our African partners and, specifically here, our Libyan partners. I hope – and I believe – that the Heads of State and Government in Malta on Friday will commit even more strongly to saving lives, both at sea and in the desert, to fighting the smugglers and to protecting the dignity of all human beings. This also means being true to our values, and that links us to the previous debate here in this Chamber.

(Applause)


Der Präsident. – Vielen Dank, Frau Kommissarin Mogherini.
               

                  Frau Kollegin Winberg, ich habe Sie vorhin übersehen und hatte schon der Kommissarin das Wort erteilt. Sie hatten sich zur Geschäftsordnung gemeldet.
               

Kristina Winberg (EFDD). – Mr President, before we start the debate on this item I would make the following points: this item was added to the agenda after Beatrix von Storch tabled a major interpellation on managing migration in the Mediterranean, on behalf of …

(The President cut off the speaker)


Der Präsident. – Frau Kollegin! Das ist keine Wortmeldung …
               
This is not a point of order. Tell me which rule you are applying.

Kristina Winberg (EFDD). – Mr President, I do not have the rule, but this was something we tabled.

Der Präsident. – Frau Kollegin! Da haben Sie jede Möglichkeit, das zu publizieren. Aber das Instrument der Wortmeldung zur Geschäftsordnung ist dafür da, dass Sie sich eben zur Geschäftsordnung melden, und nur das. Wenn jeder sich immer zu Wort meldet, der einen Tagesordnungspunkt auf die Agenda gebracht hat, dann enden wir irgendwo.
               

Mariya Gabriel,
au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la haute représentante, tout d'abord merci de votre mobilisation et de nous rappeler encore une fois qu'il est de notre intérêt, en tant qu'Union européenne, en 2017, de ne pas perdre de vue la Méditerranée, parce qu'il est vrai qu'œuvrer à la sécurité de la Méditerranée, c'est investir dans notre sécurité, mais cela demande des actions coordonnées et la mobilisation d'un faisceau d'instruments.
               

                  Je voudrais attirer l'attention sur plusieurs points. La première urgence, vous l'avez dit, est de continuer à sauver des vies. Oui, face à l'impossibilité d'entrer dans les eaux libyennes, nous avons misé sur un soutien aux garde-côtes du pays. C'est la bonne approche. C'est pour cela qu'il est nécessaire de débloquer de nouveaux fonds pour ce projet. Mais ce n'est pas la seule solution. Il faudrait véritablement réfléchir à la façon de contrer les agissements des trafiquants qui exploitent la distinction entre ‘eaux territoriales’ et ‘eaux internationales’. Quel pourrait être le rôle de Frontex?
               

                  Je voudrais aussi poser une question sur le réseau Seahorse, qui devrait être opérationnel au printemps. Avons-nous un calendrier plus précis concernant les résultats à atteindre?
               

                  Deuxième urgence: stabiliser la Libye et s'assurer que les migrants y sont traités dignement. Oui, nous devons continuer à soutenir les efforts du pays, ne pas perdre de vue que la situation est fragile et nous devons porter une attention particulière aux frontières sud du pays. Je me demande dans quelle mesure certaines minorités, telles que les Toubous, pourraient être incluses dans la gestion des frontières.
               

                  Troisième point: les côtes de la Libye sont, en fait, le point de départ de 90 % des migrants souhaitant rejoindre l'Europe, mais la Libye n'est pas le pays d'origine des migrants. C'est pourquoi nous devons continuer à travailler avec les pays d'origine. Le Niger est un très bon exemple: 70 personnes en mai, 1 500 en novembre. Qu'en est-il des autres? Pour cela, effectivement, en tant qu'Union européenne, nous devons aussi continuer les efforts pour ouvrir des voies légales pour la migration.
               

                  Dernière question: nous ne devons pas perdre de vue des pays tels que la Tunisie et l'Égypte. Comment voyez-vous le rôle de l'Égypte dans la gestion de la migration? Le pays fait des efforts. Il est important que nous continuions à les soutenir.
               

Elena Valenciano,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, la verdad es que cuando se escucha hablar a la señora Mogherini una tiene tendencia a empezar por felicitarla y agradecerle el trabajo que está haciendo, del que somos todos conscientes.
               

                  Es verdad que la política exterior de la Unión Europea no había tenido demasiado papel en la gestión de los flujos migratorios, que estuvieron siempre dominados por los ministros del Interior, por la política de interior.
               

                  En este último año, tanto la Comisión como el Consejo han trabajado con mucha intensidad. Ahí están la cumbre de La Valeta, el nuevo marco de asociación, los pactos sobre migración, los diálogos de alto nivel y los acuerdos y no acuerdos firmados, por ejemplo, con Turquía o Afganistán.
               

                  De hecho, se ha producido algo bastante insólito y es que el peso de la política exterior se ha puesto en marcha con mucha energía, justamente para conseguir los objetivos que la señora Mogherini hoy describía con respecto a la ruta central del Mediterráneo.
               

                  Ahora la pregunta que debemos hacernos es si todo ese esfuerzo va en la dirección adecuada. Hay algunos resultados, es verdad, insuficientes, pero lo que más me importa es saber si el horizonte es el que debemos acordar. ¿Estamos de verdad consiguiendo respetar lo que la señora Mogherini siempre defiende: los derechos humanos, la dignidad de las personas que emigran? ¿Realmente pueden los esfuerzos de la Comisión y de este Parlamento más que los esfuerzos o la urgencia del Consejo en obtener resultados concretos sobre cuántas personas hemos conseguido que no entren en la Unión Europea? ¿Cuál de las dos potencias va a tener finalmente más fuerza? De esa respuesta depende en gran medida el futuro y yo creo que el prestigio de la Unión Europea.
               

                  La ruta del Mediterráneo central es hoy la más mortífera del mundo: en solo un mes han muerto más de doscientas personas. Conseguir la estabilización de Libia debe ser probablemente el elemento central, pero no solo. Creo que tenemos que seguir apelando al esfuerzo de los Estados miembros en la defensa de la dignidad…
               

(El presidente retira la palabra al orador)


Anders Primdahl Vistisen,
for ECR-Gruppen. – Hr. formand! Sandheden omkring EU's reaktion på migrationskrisen er, at der har været tale om en ineffektiv symptombehandling. Vi har i både 2015 og 2016 set omkring en million mennesker migrere til Europa, og alle initiativer indtil nu har kun resulteret i at skubbe flygtninge og migranter ud på en farligere rute, ikke i at løse de grundlæggende problemer, der giver incitamenterne til at komme fra nærområderne til Europa. Grundlæggende set er den eneste humane, den eneste realistiske og den eneste konkrete løsningsmodel på udfordringen omkring migration at implementere en variant af den australske model, hvor vi tager brødet ud af munden på menneskesmuglerne ved, at der ikke længere er et økonomisk incitament til at komme til Europa. En model, hvor vi hjælper flygtningene der, hvor de er flest, og der, hvor de svageste flygtninge befinder sig, nemlig i nærområderne. At vi sætter massivt ind med nødhjælp og sikre zoner i stedet for at tro på, at man kan forhindre verdens fattige i at komme til Europa, så længe det økonomisk er muligt at betale menneskesmuglere, med den klare viden i baghovedet, at man har en utrolig stor chance for at få mulighed for at blive, enten midlertidigt eller permanent, hvis først man finder veje til de europæiske myndigheder. Indtil vi indser det, vil alle vores forsøg i dette Parlament på at tackle problemstillingen kun skubbe folk ud på mere og mere farlige ruter og kun skabe mere nød og elendighed, både for de mennesker, det drejer sig om, og for de europæiske lande, der ikke kan håndtere situationen.
               

Cecilia Wikström,
on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would like to say thank you, Madam Commissioner, for your engagement, your commitment and your good intentions. It goes without saying that the European Union should always contribute to stability, growth and the protection of human rights and democracy in our neighbouring countries, but we must never, ever, outsource our own responsibilities and obligations in respect of migration policies and people in need, or externalise our borders.
In times where, on a daily basis, we witness what the ugly face of populism in power really means, all decent and progressive forces on this continent need to unite. We need to put our differences aside and take the bold steps required to preserve the values that created the foundations of this very Union on the ruins of the Second World War. Openness, respect, a rejection of nationalism and egoism and, instead, the promotion of human decency, these are what we must now engage in.
Europe flourishes when we work together, and when we act on the basis of visions and hope, rather than our fears and prejudices. I hope that is the spirit in which you will work in Valletta this weekend and I wish you much success. I hope we bring back the message that what we need now are shared values and shared responsibilities for the people in need. Please, Madam Commissioner, bring that message back.

Barbara Spinelli,
a nome del gruppo GUE/NGL. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Vicepresidente Mogherini, l'accordo con la Turchia non cessa di essere criticato, ed ecco che se ne profila uno con la Libia, ancora più inquietante.
               

                  Mi domando quale sia il senso delle proteste dei dirigenti europei contro Trump quando essi stessi predispongono operazioni legalmente discutibili e ignorano le raccomandazioni chiare espresse dal Commissariato ONU dei diritti umani, secondo cui i rimpatri in Libia non vanno fatti e neanche gli sbarchi in Libia in operazioni di search and rescue, perché i fuggitivi corrono rischi gravi: torture in campi di detenzione, violenze contro le donne, esecuzioni. Sappiamo dall'ONU che il pericolo non sono gli smuggler, sono i trafficanti, le milizie incontrollate e i funzionari pubblici di uno Stato fatiscente.
               

                  Al Consiglio vorrei chiedere che desista da accordi pericolosi, venerdì a La Valletta. Lo chiedo specialmente all'Italia, a causa dei trascorsi coloniali del nostro paese. Alla Commissione chiedo di uscire dalle doppiezze. Non si può al tempo stesso giudicare non replicabile l'accordo con la Turchia, dire che la prima preoccupazione è salvare le vite, e progettare l'addestramento e il finanziamento delle guardie costiere libiche e delle forze d'ordine libiche e il loro coordinamento con le nostre forze di frontiera…
               

(Il Presidente interrompe l'oratrice)


Judith Sargentini,
namens de Verts/ALE-Fractie. – Eerder vandaag tijdens het debat over het inreisverbod voor moslims van president Trump hoorde ik u, Commissaris Mogherini, zeggen dat de Europese Unie zich niet zal afwenden van mensen die recht hebben op bescherming. Ook zei u dat dat reisverbod slechts een tijdelijke en illusionaire oplossing is.
               

                  Dat ben ik helemaal met u eens, maar ik kan dat niet rijmen met uw voorstel om afspraken te maken met Libië en daar vluchtelingen op de kust tegen te houden én om daar ook nog eens dik voor te betalen. Vluchtelingen reizen niet naar Europa omdat er een gat zit in de grens, vluchtelingen komen naar Europa omdat ze vluchten voor oorlog of armoede of honger. Ontwikkelingsgeld weggooien om een gat in de grens te dichten terwijl we dat ook kunnen besteden aan kansen voor jongeren in Afrika, is dat nou niet precies waar u ons eerder voor waarschuwde, een tijdelijke en illusionaire oplossing? Als we Libië een vrijbrief geven om vluchtelingen tegen te houden en op te sluiten, dan doen we precies wat we Trump aanwrijven, dan wenden we ons af van de mensen die bescherming nodig hebben.
               

                  En u heeft het toch gelezen in ‘Die Welt am Sonntag’ over die Duitse ambassadeur in Niger die officiële Libische detentiekampen bestempelt als concentratiekampen zoals we die kennen uit nazi-Duitsland? Kampen waar mensen worden geëxecuteerd als ze overvol raken, als er ruimtegebrek is. Als we dat negeren, dan hebben we Trump niet nodig voor ons morele failliet.
               

Jane Collins,
on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, the Maltese Prime Minister, Mr Muscat, has predicted that the number of people crossing to Europe will reach record levels. Most of these people will come from Libya to Italy via people traffickers, as we know. The best way to stop these huge numbers of people illegally coming into Europe and to stop the large numbers of tragic deaths in the Mediterranean is surely to turn the boats back and process the migrants offshore. This is what Australia did, and it worked. That is why six European countries have now been in private talks with Australia, asking them which way to work things out, because they know that the EU way is failing. People traffickers are criminals. Only today, we have been warned by Italian officials that jihadis are actually plugging the gaps in funding for their actual campaign by smuggling people into Europe, because their oil money is running out. The EU, and many people in this Chamber, need to realise that their naive, soft-hearted approach to migration has not only failed, but has actually cost lives and funded terrorism and crime.

Mario Borghezio,
a nome del gruppo ENF. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'Alto rappresentante non eletto e indicato da un Presidente del Consiglio italiano anche lui non eletto non vuole ascoltare la voce di noi populisti, che invece siamo eletti dai cittadini.
               

                  Oggi a Bruxelles il leader libico propone di estendere alle acque libiche l'operazione Sophia, ma non ci dice, e non ce lo dice l'Europa, dove poi vuole portare attraverso queste navi i clandestini, i migranti. È questo il punto su cui i 15 minuti generici della relazione dell'Alto rappresentante non fanno chiarezza. Lo stesso comando della Commissione EUNAVFOR MED ci dice che fra un terzo e metà del totale della Tripolitania è collegato ai traffici di migranti, e noi dovremmo credere che queste forze governative collaboreranno con gli obiettivi che vengono richiesti da molti paesi europei, dai quali c'è la richiesta di respingimenti?
               

                  Voi usate un linguaggio molto generico: nella relazione si parla di una linea di protezione, ma non si dice da chi e da cosa, citate l'operazione Sophia ma fonti diplomatiche indicate da France Press ammettono che essa ha salvato, certo, le vite umane di cui ci parla sempre l'Alto rappresentante, ma è stata fonte di attrazione per i migranti. Questo è il fallimento di queste operazioni, sono solo fonte di nuova attrazione. Non finisce mai la storia, se non si dà vita a un'operazione seria di respingimenti che, per esempio, la Marina italiana sarebbe certamente in grado di indicare. Fornirete nuovi mezzi alla Marina libica, ma non sapete neanche chi la controlla. La controllerà, chissà, gente collegata magari al terrorismo. Chi lo sa, chi lo sa?
               

(Il Presidente interrompe l'oratore)


Ελευθέριος Συναδινός (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, στον μεταναστευτικό άξονα Λιβύης-Ιταλίας της Κεντρικής Μεσογείου η Ένωση εφάρμοσε, σε συνεργασία με τις ιταλικές αρχές, μια πολιτική ελέγχου και ναυτικής αποτροπής της ανεξέλεγκτης εισροής μεταναστών. Θέλω να κάνουμε μια σύγκριση μεταξύ Λιβύης-Ιταλίας και Ελλάδας-Τουρκίας. Η Ιταλία δύναται να παρακολουθεί και να επεμβαίνει, λόγω θαλάσσιας απόστασης, στα έμφορτα πλοιάρια που αναχωρούν από τις λιβυκές ακτές. Η Ελλάδα αδυνατεί να πράξει το ίδιο λόγω της μικρής απόστασης του νησιωτικού συμπλέγματος από τα μικρασιατικά παράλια. Η Ένωση σχεδιάζει ακόμη και την αποστολή δυνάμεων στη Λιβύη, λόγω της κυβερνητικής αστάθειας, για να καταπολεμήσει τα δίκτυα παράνομης διακίνησης μεταναστών. Η Τουρκία δεν καταπολεμά τα δίκτυα αυτά και αντιθέτως τα πριμοδοτεί, τα ελέγχει και απειλεί την Ένωση. Στην Ιταλία υπάρχει μια κύρια πύλη εισόδου. Στην Ελλάδα, κάθε νησί και μικρονησίδα αποτελεί αντίστοιχη πύλη και τα hot spots αυξάνονται με τους καταιγιστικούς ρυθμούς με τους οποίους αυξάνεται και η ανεργία των νέων. Θέλω να δώσω μια συμβουλή στην Ένωση: αν πραγματικά επιδιώκετε να αντιμετωπίσετε τις μεταναστευτικές ροές, μην κοιτάτε την Ελλάδα και την Ιταλία. Στρέψτε το βλέμμα σας στον κύριο ένοχο που είναι η Τουρκία.
               

Roberta Metsola (PPE). – Mr President, at this point in history it is difficult to have a debate on migration without taking the opportunity to reaffirm that the bottom line is that Europe remains committed to acting as a safe haven for those fleeing war and persecution and who are eligible for protection. Despite our long debate on how we should go about it, that must remain our core principle forged through the very worst of times. That must be the starting point for our discussions and we must be the example to the world on this issue. The situation in Libya remains precarious and the EU must stand ready to help without imposition. But while the Libyan people must remain masters of their own destiny, the EU does have a crucial role in helping with aid and expertise in helping Libya to build up its border management and its asylum systems, improving its law enforcement capabilities and helping in its fight against terrorism. We are already doing a lot as a Union, but we must stand ready to do more. It is only with a functioning Libyan State that we will ever have a proper chance to agree together on enhanced cooperation to sustainability and safely manage migration flows while defeating terrorism, destroying trafficking networks' business models and ultimately saving lives. That said, we must be careful to avoid giving the impression that a magic bullet addressing migration flows from Libya can suddenly appear from one day to the next. It is a lengthy process, and there are many steps yet to be taken before there are proper functioning State operators there. We have to acknowledge this or risk alienating our citizens on this issue and playing into populists' hands.

Knut Fleckenstein (S&D). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Über die Mittelmeerroute sind 2016 so viele Menschen gekommen wie noch nie zuvor. Über 4 500 Menschen sind ertrunken, und deshalb hat die Kommission bei allen Maßnahmen, die Leben retten können, die den Schleppern das Handwerk legen und die Lage der geschundenen Flüchtlinge in den libyschen Lagern verbessern unsere ganze Unterstützung.
               

                  Was ist das für eine perverse Haltung von Herrn Borghezio, zu kritisieren, dass man Flüchtlinge vor dem Ertrinken rettet, weil das doch wieder Lust macht, zu flüchten? Was für eine Haltung ist das?
               

                  Dennoch bleiben Fragen: Wie sieht es mit der Zusammenarbeit mit der libyschen Regierung nach dem Desaster aus, das wir dort mit angerichtet haben, zum Beispiel bei der Küstenwache, die ja überhaupt nicht zu den Mitteln der Regierung gehört, sondern jemand ganz anderem?
               

                  Aber eines ist nicht akzeptabel, nämlich dass in dieser Vorlage keine Zeile über die legale Immigration steht, keine Zeile über den Kampf gegen die Ursachen der Flucht, keine Zeile über Gedanken zu Dublin und Nachfolge, keine Informationen über Verpflichtungen der Mitgliedstaaten, endlich in die Fonds einzuzahlen.
               

                  Sie können ganz sicher sein: Dieser Rat wird erfolgreich. Sie fordern ihn nicht wirklich; das Bisschen, was Sie aufgeschrieben haben, wird er schon machen.
               

Marietje Schaake (ALDE). – Mr President, the High Representative spoke today about the European way, when we critically debated President Trump's executive order, and while I cannot agree more that the EU must step up to the plate, as a values-based global player, we are hardly in a position to preach on migration or on the treatment of refugees.
The deal, or so-called Statement, with Turkey, set the tone for cynical outsourcing of EU responsibilities. Doctors Without Borders refuses European funds as a result. And look at the failure of European Member State governments to secure our common borders, and to provide proper shelter for those fleeing war! They still do not have a common position on the war in Syria, and the numbers of people coming to our shores and dying at sea are still very high.
But instead of learning from past mistakes, this Turkey arrangement now risks becoming a blueprint for more deals, including with Libya. So I would like to know how refugee and migrant rights will be respected in a situation where camps are labelled as resembling concentration camps, and torture is taking place. How does managing borders square with the right to asylum and how do we make sure that EU …

(The President cut off the speaker)


Marina Albiol Guzmán (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, como respuesta a las inhumanas medidas anunciadas por el señor Trump, el señor Weber, líder de los conservadores europeos, salió rápidamente a aclarar que nosotros no levantamos muros sino que construimos puentes. Imagino que esos puentes son el puente con Turquía, con Afganistán, con Sudán, Pakistán o Nigeria para deportar a las personas a las que aquí se les niega la protección internacional. O a lo mejor el puente se refería a ese acuerdo que se va a firmar con Libia para que sea la guardia costera de Libia la que intercepte a las personas migrantes y refugiadas en el mar y las lleve de vuelta a Libia.
               

                  Hay un informe de hace dos meses de las Naciones Unidas en el que se documenta malnutrición, trabajo forzado, abusos sexuales, tortura y palizas en los centros de inmigrantes en Libia. Hay quien dice que son como campos de concentración. Pues es ahí adonde llevan esos puentes de solidaridad de la Unión Europea: a esos centros.
               

Barbara Lochbihler (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Amnesty International berichtete von schlimmsten Grausamkeiten gegenüber Flüchtlingen in Libyen, und ich wiederhole den bereits zitierten Bericht der Deutschen Botschaft in Niger, die von schwersten systematischen Menschenrechtsverletzungen in Libyen spricht. Ich zitiere wörtlich: ‘Authentische Handyfotos und -videos belegen die KZ-ähnlichen Verhältnisse in den sogenannten Privatgefängnissen.’ Derartige Berichte bestätigen, dass es keine Rückführungen von Flüchtlingen nach Libyen geben darf.
               

                  Mit der Ausbildung und Ausrüstung der libyschen Küstenwache wird aber auch deutlich, dass die Mitgliedstaaten versuchen, den Bruch des völkerrechtlichen Refoulement-Verbots zu umgehen. Politisch macht es aber keinen Unterschied, ob wir die Menschen selbst ins libysche Chaos zurückschicken oder die Küstenwache des Landes dazu befähigen. Wer dazu beiträgt, dass Menschen in libyschen Auffanglagern der Folter ausgesetzt werden, der hat Mitverantwortung für schwerste Menschenrechtsverletzungen. Alarmierend finde ich auch, dass die maltesische Ratspräsidentschaft der Kommission empfohlen hat, ihre Interpretation von Refoulement zu überdenken.
               

Vicky Maeijer (ENF). – : ‘Beheer van migratie en levens redden’: dat is de titel van dit debat en het zijn beide wel de laatste zaken die de Europese Unie het afgelopen jaar gedaan heeft. Want de EU beheert migratie niet, maar faciliteert het en Brussel redt geen levens, maar veroorzaakt meer slachtoffers. Want dankzij uw opengrenzenbeleid blijven die illegale immigranten maar komen. Op weg naar sociale voorzieningen, lekker gemaakt door jarenlang EU-beleid van gratis zorg, gratis huis en gratis geld. En zelfs nu niemand, ook hier, er niet meer omheen kan dat terroristen tussen de asielzoekers geen hysterie is maar de realiteit, zelfs nu gaat u hier vrolijk verder met het faciliteren, met het bevorderen van immigratie naar Europa en het bevorderen van het verlies van onze vrijheid en onze veiligheid. Genoeg is genoeg. Onze grenzen moeten dicht.
               

Alessandra Mussolini (PPE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, salvare le vite umane in mare è una priorità, così come è una priorità non lasciare sfruttare le vite che abbiamo salvato in mare, e purtroppo in alcuni Stati questo accade.
               

                  L'intervento dell'Alto rappresentante si è concentrato sulla Libia. Questo è il punto centrale perché, così come noi abbiamo affrontato, piaccia o non piaccia, con l'accordo con la Turchia, la rotta balcanica e quindi l'interessamento orientale nel Mediterraneo, allo stesso modo noi dobbiamo affrontare, non da soli, ma con i partner e con i paesi limitrofi dell'Unione europea e i paesi terzi, il tema dell'immigrazione.
               

                  Noi stiamo affrontando in Parlamento il pacchetto delle sette direttive sul sistema di asilo comune europeo ed è molto importante soprattutto, oltre al tema della Libia, affrontare il nodo delle liste europee dei paesi sicuri, non liste nazionali ma liste europee. Questa è una cosa molto importante a integrazione del pacchetto per la risoluzione del problema.
               

Președinte: IOAN MIRCEA PAȘCU


Vicepreședinte


Elly Schlein (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, siamo molto preoccupati dalla volontà della Presidenza maltese di replicare l'accordo UE-Turchia con la Libia e lo siamo anche nel caso dovesse assumere forme diverse, come questa idea di formare la Guardia costiera libica affinché respinga le persone che provano a raggiungere l'UE.
                  

                     La Libia è un paese instabile, non ha firmato la Convenzione di Ginevra, di certo non si può considerare un paese sicuro. L'Alto Commissariato ONU per i diritti umani nel suo rapporto parla di torture, stupri, violenze di ogni sorta e un documento di un'ambasciata tedesca emerso proprio oggi paragona i campi in Libia addirittura ai lager. Quali altre prove servono? Nei giorni dell'incivile e illegale ordine esecutivo di Trump e della grande protesta che ne è sorta, noi dovremmo dare un segnale diverso.
                  

                     Pochi mesi fa a New York si è firmata una dichiarazione che impegna tutti a una maggiore condivisione delle responsabilità su rifugiati e migranti. Sapendo che l'86 % degli sfollati sono ospitati in paesi in via di sviluppo, come può l'UE fare la sua parte se ogni sforzo di Consiglio e Commissione pare teso ad esternalizzare le nostre frontiere e responsabilità? Accordo con la Turchia, migration compact e i check di inammissibilità inseriti nella riforma di Dublino che rischiano di creare un grosso filtro all'ingresso. Perché, invece, non lavorate con la Libia a un vasto piano di reinsediamenti per strappare le persone all'orrore che subiscono ogni giorno?
                  

Janice Atkinson (ENF). – Mr President, Ms Mogherini really excelled herself today with 18 minutes of complete hot air, as usual.
Let us go back to who created these problems in Libya. It was Blair, Sarkozy, Cameron, and Obama – all gone, and cheered on by this place – yet we are expected to clean up their mess. But I have an answer. We should consider building a wall. A wall of nation-state naval frigates to block this invasion. And then we deploy special forces, again nation state special forces, to destroy the people traffickers and their vessels.
Let us get tough, because our human rights and our safety as European citizens are under threat. Let us take a leaf out of President Trump's policies. Let us protect our borders, our way of life, our culture and our liberties because – I tell you – they are under threat, and I for one, as the only female UK politician that stood by Mr Trump, am actually in total support of what he is doing.
You have got such a rocket coming to you! You think Brexit was bad: well, Trump is with a nuclear warhead.

Jeroen Lenaers (PPE). – Meer dan 13 000 mensen zijn in de afgelopen jaren omgekomen op de Middellandse Zee en onze grootste prioriteit hier moet zijn om te voorkomen dat nog meer mensen hun leven verliezen door te verdrinken. Ik ben er van overtuigd dat de enige manier om dat te voorkomen is ervoor te zorgen dat mensen überhaupt niet in die gammele bootjes stappen. Dat betekent dus dat onze focus op de zuidkust van de Middellandse Zee moet liggen en dat we met de landen in de regio moeten samenwerken om grenzen te bewaken, om criminele smokkelaars aan te pakken en om vluchtelingen te beschermen en te bewaken. Daar sluiten de plannen die de Commissie hier vandaag presenteerde, ook mooi op aan.
                  

                     Maar het is natuurlijk niet nieuw. Sterker nog, het is iets wat we al jaren roepen. En als ik terugkijk op de afgelopen jaren, dan moet ik toch constateren dat de oogst wat mager is. Ik heb twee vragen daarover. Allereerst, in juni riep de Europese Raad op om voor het einde van 2016 tot meetbare resultaten te komen en de eerste migratie-overeenkomsten gesloten te hebben. Behalve in het geval van Niger, zie ik daar helemaal niets van terug en ik vraag me af tegen wanneer we daar eindelijk een beetje vooruitgang mee zullen maken.
                  

                     Het tweede punt over de Libische kustwacht: wat is een realistische termijn voor de Libische kustwacht om op gang te komen om die taken uit te voeren die u van hen verwacht? En waarom zie ik in het hele voorstel in de mededeling van de Commissie helemaal niets over bijvoorbeeld de volledige uitvoering van fase 2 en fase 3 van de EU-Navfor-missie en het mandaat dat daarvoor gegeven is?
                  

Miriam Dalli (S&D). – Minkejja li l-Unjoni Ewropea ilha snin titkellem dwar l-immigrazzjoni, dwar nies li jitilfu ħajjithom hekk kif jippruvaw jaqsmu lejn l-Ewropa, dwar mijiet ta' eluf ta' persuni jistennew biex jitilgħu fuq dgħajjes li jitilqu mil-Libja u dwar traffikanti tan-nies li jagħmlu l-flus minn fuq l-aktar vulnerabbli, ftit li xejn rajna soluzzjonijiet konkreti li verament għamlu differenza.
                  

                     Sorsi differenti bħalissa qegħdin jitkellmu dwar miljuni ta' persuni jistennew fil-Libja biex jaqsmu lejn l-Ewropa. Is-sitwazzjoni hija kritika u, la jikkalma t-temp, se nerġgħu niffaċċjaw influss qawwi ieħor mingħajr m'għandna soluzzjonijiet adegwati.
                  

                     Soluzzjonijiet effettivi jistgħu jintlaħqu jekk ikun hemm azzjoni diretta fuq it-traffikanti fl-istess ħin li jkollna kurituri umanitarji fejn persuni li qed ifittxu asil ikollhom id-dritt japplikaw, mingħajr ma jitilgħu fuq dgħajjes biex jimbarkaw fuq vjaġġ perikoluż, li minnu jagħmlu l-flus it-traffikanti.
                  

                     Neħtieġu skemi li jagħtu l-opportunità ta' passaġġ sigur u legali għar-rifuġjati u immigranti li għandhom dritt għall-asil b'mod ikkontrollat u effettiv fejn tkun tista' tingħata protezzjoni internazzjonali b'distribuzzjoni ekwa u ġusta. L-obbligi internazzjonali li dejjem iggwidawna għandhom jibqgħu jiġu mħarsa. Fl-istess ħin, hemm bżonn aktar minn qatt qabel li l-Unjoni Ewropea tkun proattiva u tiffoka aktar fuq ir-reġjun tal-Mediterran, fuq il-ħtieġa li titkellem u tinnegozja mar-reġjun tal-Afrika ta' Fuq u taħdem biex forsi nibdew naraw l-ewwel sinjali ta' stabilità f'reġjun daqstant problematiku.
                  

Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, érase una vez un infame deal con Turquía que nunca llegó a adquirir la categoría de acuerdo internacional y contra el que muchos levantamos la voz aquí, en este Parlamento Europeo, porque no solamente resultaba inhumano externalizar la llamada ‘crisis migratoria en el Mediterráneo’, sino, sobre todo, porque era una respuesta ineficaz. Lo único que hizo fue desviar la presión hacia el infierno libio, constituido ahora en una auténtica ruta maldita en la que tanta gente arriesga la vida y la pierde.
                  

                     Por eso resulta triste que muchos nos sintamos más identificados con la calidad del discurso, y sobre todo de la respuesta, del primer ministro canadiense, Justin Trudeau, que con la ofrecida hasta ahora por las autoridades europeas.
                  

                     Pero el Consejo se reúne en Malta y yo vuelvo a llamar la atención del Consejo sobre la necesidad de incluir, en una respuesta comprensiva y a la altura de los valores europeos, vías legales para que la inmigración pueda tener una oportunidad y, particularmente, para que los refugiados puedan oponer su demanda de protección humanitaria ante la Unión Europea. ¡Visados humanitarios bloqueados por el Consejo! Los visados humanitarios son imprescindibles para que podamos poner de una vez una respuesta humanitaria a esta tragedia en la que muchísima gente está arriesgando la vida y …
                  

(El presidente retira la palabra al orador)


Cécile Kashetu Kyenge (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, è un dato di fatto: in assenza di ulteriori interventi, i flussi migratori lungo la rotta del Mediterraneo nei prossimi mesi si intensificheranno. Nulla di sorprendente, mi viene da dire. Siamo di fronte ad un fenomeno strutturale che richiede interventi congiunti e politiche mirate e non azioni isolate dirette a bloccare i flussi verso l'Europa.
                  

                     Il salvataggio delle vite umane resta una priorità anche per la Commissione. Valutiamo insieme la scelta degli strumenti più idonei per coordinare le attività di ricerca e salvataggio. Non esternalizziamo le nostre frontiere nell'illusione di fermare i flussi migratori dalla Libia – poco importa se sulla terraferma o nelle acque territoriali – per poi condurli nei centri di detenzione, veri e propri lager dove si registrano gravissime e sistematiche violazioni dei diritti umani.
                  

                     Pensare che il successo di una politica migratoria si misuri soprattutto in termini di rimpatri e riammissione non fa che allontanarci da un'idea di gestione comune e globale che questo Parlamento ha adottato poco meno di un anno fa.
                  

Ana Gomes (S&D). – Cinco mil mortos no Mediterrâneo em 2016 e dezenas de milhares de refugiados em condições deploráveis na Grécia e na Bulgária evidenciam tragicamente que a Europa não tem sido capaz de gerir fluxos migratórios ao longo das rotas do Mediterrâneo ou outras, não tem um sistema de asilo comum a funcionar eficazmente e continua a alimentar o negócio das redes de traficantes ao não abrir vias legais e seguras para refugiados imigrantes, designadamente através de vistos humanitários.
                  

                     A Cimeira de Malta será um falhanço e uma vergonha se apostar na externalização das nossas responsabilidades e fronteiras. Apoiar a capacitação de estruturas líbias do ACNUR e da AOM para salvar e garantir tratamento com dignidade a refugiados migrantes e líbios, sim, Sra. Mogherini, mas não para impor acordos de readmissão ou réplicas do negócio ilegal com a Turquia a uma Líbia sem governação. Seria indecoroso e contraproducente.
                  

                     É imperativo que os nossos governos acordem, revigorem a solidariedade europeia para responder aos que de dentro e de fora, como Trump e o seu estratega Putin, querem destruir a União Europeia porque querem destruir a democracia e, para isso, cavalgam as forças xenófobas, racistas, nacionalistas, que nos querem impedir de cumprir as obrigações básicas relativamente a refugiados e migrantes.
                  

Intervenții la cerere


Michela Giuffrida (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, nel 2016 sono state più di 180 000 le persone che hanno provato a raggiungere le coste dell'Europa attraversando la rotta del Mediterraneo e sappiamo bene che purtroppo in tantissimi non ce l'hanno fatta ad affrontare questo inferno.
                  

                     Il piano presentato dalla Commissione avvia sì una cooperazione con la Libia, il nostro vicino più problematico: formare la Guardia costiera libica sul soccorso in mare può essere un primo passo, ma non è per nulla una soluzione per tutto il Mediterraneo e, soprattutto, per quei territori che non riescono più a sopportare – essendo stati lasciati da soli – il peso di centinaia di migliaia di persone che arrivano da tutta l'Africa, dal Medio Oriente e poi sulle coste libiche, siciliane, greche restano bloccate, a volte restano in veri e propri lager.
                  

                     L'Europa ha bisogno, lo sappiamo, di un diverso e risolutivo approccio e di un piano d'immigrazione interno, perché la solidarietà e la ricollocazione non hanno funzionato. Le cifre sui ricollocamenti sono ancora troppo basse, davvero inaccettabili. Allora ci auguriamo che il vertice di dopodomani abbia un approccio diverso anche su questo.
                  

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Mimica, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρέπει να στρέψει το βλέμμα της και την προσοχή της στα νησιά του Αιγαίου, τα οποία πλέον απειλεί ο Erdoğan να γεμίσει ξανά με πρόσφυγες και κυρίως με παράνομους μετανάστες, στα νησιά του Αιγαίου όπου έχουν εγκλωβιστεί 16.500 πρόσφυγες και κυρίως παράνομοι μετανάστες και των οποίων οι κάτοικοι δεν αντέχουν πλέον. Εάν επισκεφθείτε αυτά τα νησιά, οι κάτοικοι θα σας πουν ότι η κατάσταση έχει φτάσει στο απροχώρητο. Στη Σάμο, όπου θα βρεθώ το Σαββατοκύριακο, η κατάσταση είναι εκρηκτική. Το ίδιο συμβαίνει και στη Λέσβο, το ίδιο και στη Χίο, την οποία επισκέφθηκα στις 15 Ιανουαρίου. Και εκεί οι κάτοικοι αντιδρούν. Δεν αντέχουν πλέον άλλους παράνομους μετανάστες, διότι οι περισσότεροι που συγκεντρώνονται εκεί είναι παράνομοι μετανάστες. Κάτι άλλο που δεν αντέχουν είναι το να δημιουργηθούν νέα hot spots. Πρέπει επιτέλους να ληφθούν μέτρα. Πρέπει επιτέλους να γίνουν οι 66.500 μετεγκαταστάσεις από την Ελλάδα στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση.
                  

Ernest Urtasun (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente. Miren, la defensora del pueblo les acaba de decir y les acaba de criticar porque en el acuerdo, el no acuerdo, con Turquía no se hizo ni un impacto ni un análisis del impacto sobre los derechos humanos y les ha criticado por considerar a Turquía país seguro. No han resuelto estas peticiones y esas críticas de la defensora del pueblo y ahora ya se está planteando hacer un acuerdo parecido con Libia, en este caso para ayudar a la guardia costera a devolver a la costa libia a los refugiados que intentan llegar a Europa.
                  

                     Miren, Libia, además, quiero recordarles que es un país que no ha ratificado la Convención sobre el Estatuto de los Refugiados del año 51 y un país del que un embajador acaba de decir recientemente en Níger que tiene campos que son asimilables a los campos de concentración. Ante estas circunstancias, esto no puede continuar así y no se puede hacer este acuerdo.
                  

                     Y quiero recordar hoy también, porque hablamos de la gestión de la ruta del Mediterráneo central, que sigue habiendo muertos en el Mediterráneo porque no tenemos una operación de salvamento marítimo en el Mediterráneo. La operación Sofía no es eso. Y están ahora las ONG solas haciendo el trabajo que deberían hacer los gobiernos.
                  

Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, αφού απέτυχε παταγωδώς να ελέγξει τις ροές των παράνομων μεταναστών από την Τουρκία προς την Ελλάδα, ετοιμάζεται τώρα να δρέψει νέες ανάλογες δάφνες, προσπαθώντας να εμποδίσει την ροή παράνομων μεταναστών από τη Λιβύη προς την Ιταλία μέσω της Κεντρικής Μεσογείου. Στο πλαίσιο αυτό, σπαταλά χωρίς λόγο και χωρίς αποτέλεσμα μεγάλα ποσά τα οποία θα μπορούσε να διαθέσει προκειμένου να διορθώσει, να εξαλείψει ή, εν πάση περιπτώσει, να μειώσει τα προβλήματα που αντιμετωπίζουν οι αναξιοπαθούντες Ευρωπαίοι. Επίσης, θα μπορούσε να δώσει τα χρήματα αυτά στις χώρες από τις οποίες προέρχονται οι παράνομοι μετανάστες για να αποκτήσουν κάποια ανάπτυξη. Τίποτε από όλα αυτά δεν κάνει. Εξακολουθεί να εφαρμόζει την ίδια αποτυχημένη πολιτική. Ανέφερε προηγουμένως η κ. Mogherini ότι οι Ευρωπαίοι πρέπει να δείξουν αλληλεγγύη. Συμφωνώ. Πρέπει όμως πρώτα οι Ευρωπαίοι να δείξουν αλληλεγγύη προς τους Έλληνες που, για έβδομο συνεχόμενο έτος, υποφέρουν από την εφαρμογή των μνημονίων. Τι κάνει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, δίνει τετρακόσια ευρώ για κάθε παράνομο μετανάστη, του παρέχει δωρεάν σίτιση και υγειονομική περίθαλψη, …
                  

(Ο Πρόεδρος διακόπτει τον ομιλητή)


Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il Mediterraneo rappresenta una regione migratoria al centro della quale si colloca la frontiera di Schengen, la frontiera esterna dell'Unione europea. Eppure l'Europa si muove lentamente.
                  

                     L'eccezionale ondata migratoria che ha investito l'Europa ci mette di fronte a problematiche antiche, che richiedono risposte urgenti e concrete. Sono ancora troppi i migranti che muoiono lungo la rotta del Mediterraneo. È necessario stabilizzare i paesi da cui partono gli scafisti e spezzare definitivamente le reti che alimentano il traffico di esseri umani. La maggior parte di queste persone sono costrette a fuggire dal proprio paese a causa di conflitti, persecuzioni, violazioni dei diritti umani o situazioni di miseria.
                  

                     È indispensabile migliorare lo scambio di buone prassi con i paesi terzi. È necessario che l'Unione europea riesca a costruire una vera partnership comune con i paesi che si affacciano sul Mediterraneo, se davvero vuole affrontare in modo adeguato e coerente il problema.
                  

(Încheierea intervențiilor la cerere)


Neven Mimica,
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, on behalf of High Representative Madam Mogherini, I would like to convey her regret and apologies for not attending this parliamentary debate in full due to the conflicting agenda points that led her to the continuation of talks between Serbia and Kosovo this evening in Brussels.
This has indeed been a very interesting debate. As we have seen on previous occasions, the honourable Members hold somewhat divergent views when it comes to the issue of migration. However, I also take note that the large majority of the honourable Members support our approach to migration management, complementing our long-term efforts, such as the Partnership Framework, with the short-term measures outlined in our recent communication on the Central Mediterranean. I am very grateful for this support.
Even though some may like to present it in this way, there is no quick fix to the current situation. Only by applying a comprehensive and tailor-made approach – not replicating any other arrangements – continuing to save lives at sea, cracking down on smugglers and traffickers, addressing the root causes of migration and working more in particular with our African and international partners, will we be able to more effectively manage migration. This is what we will be taking from our debate today.

Președintele. – Dezbaterea a fost închisă.
                  


Declarații scrise (articolul 162)



Ангел Джамбазки (ECR),
в писмена форма. – Безспорно, дискусията за управлението на миграцията по маршрута през Централното Средиземноморие е важна, но фокусът на дебата според мен трябва да бъде по-скоро как да спрем миграцията по всички маршрути към Европа. Усилията ни трябва да се съсредоточат върху разрешаване на първопричините за миграцията от Африка и Близкия Изток, защото докато ситуацията там не се стабилизира, не виждам как миграционният поток ще спре.
                  

                     Подкрепям идеята за засилването на контрола по морските и сухопътни граници като временна мярка за справяне с тази безпрецедентна криза на сигурността. Не трябва, обаче, да се заблуждаваме в никакъв случай, че това ще е достатъчно. Трябва да съумеем да се преборим и с трафикантите и с тяхната изключителна изобретателност, граничеща с наглост и костваща все повече човешки животи.
                  

Kinga Gál (PPE),
írásban. – Európát a Földközi-tenger középső migrációs útvonalán keresztül illegálisan elérő migránsok túlnyomó többsége gazdasági bevándorló. Csak úgy lehet elejét venni annak, hogy az időjárási viszonyok javulásával -életüket kockáztatva- újra százezrek kíséreljék meg a Földközi-tengeren való átkelést Európába, ha kiemelten foglalkozunk a migráció külső aspektusaival is. Szükség lenne az EU-n kívüli biztonságos övezetek kialakítására, lehetővé kellene tenni a menedékjog iránti kérelmek EU-n kívüli vagy az EU külső határain történő feldolgozását, valamint migrációs és menekültközpontokat kellene létrehozni harmadik országokban. További megállapodásokat kellene kötnünk annak érdekében, hogy ne alakuljanak ki új, alternatív migrációs vonalak és az embercsempészek elleni erőteljesebb fellépésre is nagy szükség van. Fontos lenne ugyanakkor azt is elismerni, hogy a tengeri mentés nem vezethet automatikus törvényes belépéshez az EU területére, ugyanis ez arra ösztönzi az Észak-Afrikából érkező migránsokat, hogy rosszabbnál rosszabb állapotú hajókkal kíséreljék meg a veszélyes átkelést annak reményében, hogy kimentik őket. Ez a megközelítés pedig megegyezne az Európai Néppárt közgyűlése által 2016 novemberében elfogadott ‘Protecting Lives and Controlling Migration to Europe’ állásfoglalásával is, amely a pártcsalád migrációs politikáját tartalmazza. A Közép-Mediterrán térség mellett ugyanakkor továbbra is kellő figyelmet kell fordítani a nyugat-balkáni útvonalra, támogatni kell az ezen az útvonalon fekvő országokat is. Előreláthatólag márciustól jelentősen nőni fog az érkezők száma.
                  

Iratxe García Pérez (S&D),
por escrito. – Libia es actualmente origen de la inmensa mayoría de desplazamientos de refugiados e inmigrantes que se dirigen en travesías prácticamente suicidas hacia territorio europeo. El Consejo entiende que tras el polémico ‘acuerdo’ firmado con Turquía, la ruta este del Mediterráneo Este (Grecia) está ‘estabilizada’ y trata ahora de buscar medidas para taponar la salida irregular de inmigrantes desde Libia. Si la gestión realizada con Turquía ha supuesto duras críticas tanto en el aspecto legal como moral, las posibilidades que ofrece la caótica e inestable situación en Libia amplían la incertidumbre sobre las medidas que el Consejo Europeo puede acordar en su reunión informal en La Valeta este 3 de febrero. El Grupo socialista ha solicitado que se introdujera este punto en el Pleno para que el Parlamento pueda pronunciarse de forma previa a dicha cumbre y reclamar para la gestión migratoria un enfoque humanitario y respetuoso con el Derecho internacional, una política común europea de inmigración basada en el principio de solidaridad, coherente en sus facetas interna y externa, así como la apertura de vías seguras y legales que ofrezcan una alternativa para las miles de personas que continúan teniendo que arriesgar su vida para llegar a nuestras costas.
                  

Inmaculada Rodríguez-Piñero Fernández (S&D),
por escrito. – Libia es actualmente origen de la inmensa mayoría de desplazamientos de refugiados e inmigrantes que se dirigen en travesías prácticamente suicidas hacia territorio europeo. El Consejo entiende que tras el polémico ‘acuerdo’ firmado con Turquía, la ruta este del Mediterráneo Este (Grecia) está ‘estabilizada’ y trata ahora de buscar medidas para taponar la salida irregular de inmigrantes desde Libia. Si la gestión realizada con Turquía ha supuesto duras críticas tanto en el aspecto legal como moral, las posibilidades que ofrece la caótica e inestable situación en Libia amplían la incertidumbre sobre las medidas que el Consejo Europeo puede acordar en su reunión informal en La Valeta este 3 de febrero. El Grupo socialista ha solicitado que se introdujera este punto en el Pleno para que el Parlamento pueda pronunciarse de forma previa a dicha cumbre y reclamar para la gestión migratoria un enfoque humanitario y respetuoso con el Derecho internacional, una política común europea de inmigración basada en el principio de solidaridad, coherente en sus facetas interna y externa, así como la apertura de vías seguras y legales que ofrezcan una alternativa para las miles de personas que continúan teniendo que arriesgar su vida para llegar a nuestras costas.
                  
15.   Situation in South Sudan (debate)

Președintele. – Următorul punct de pe ordinea de zi este dezbaterea privind Declarația Vicepreședintelui Comisiei/Înaltului Reprezentant al Uniunii pentru afaceri externe și politica de securitate referitoare la situația din Sudanul de Sud (2016/2509(RSP)).
               

Neven Mimica,
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, honourable Members, when South Sudan became independent in 2011 there were high hopes for the future of the world's newest state. Six years later, those hopes lie in tatters. Although 18 months of brutal civil war were formally brought to an end by a peace agreement in August 2015, fighting continues throughout much of the country. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, continue to die each month.
On 1 December last year, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan noted that a steady process of ethnic cleansing was underway in the country, using starvation, gang rape and the burning of villages. The United Nations Secretary-General warned in November that South Sudan stood on the edge of the abyss, with a catastrophe imminent. Around one-and-a-half million refugees have fled to neighbouring countries, while almost two million persons are internally displaced. Some four million persons are short of food, with more than one million children under the age of five acutely malnourished. There is a danger of widespread famine later this year.
Faced with this bleak situation, the European Union is very much engaged in addressing these immense challenges. The European Union, as a witness to the 2015 peace agreement, is working vigorously to support its implementation. The European Union is an active member of the peace monitoring institutions established by the agreement and is providing financial assistance for implementation of parts of the agreement. The European Union works as closely as possible with the countries of the region and with the Intergovernmental Authority on Development and the African Union collectively to encourage implementation of the peace agreement. Although South Sudan, much to our regret, has not yet acceded to the Cotonou Agreement and is therefore not eligible for the full range of development support, the European Union remains committed to help. In 2016, the European Union provided EUR 143 million for humanitarian assistance to South Sudan, as well as for supporting the provision of basic services. We fear that this year's needs maybe even greater.
The European Union is also providing financial assistance to neighbouring countries to assist them to deal with the enormous influx of refugees. Let me take this opportunity to commend Uganda, in particular, for its compassion and efficiency in sheltering over 650 000 refugees.
The European Union has imposed an arms embargo against South Sudan and is lobbying – so far without success – for the United Nations Security Council to follow suit.
The European Union is particularly shocked at the gross violation of international human rights and international humanitarian law that have been perpetrated by all parties with complete impunity. An individual who orders or commits criminal acts of violence must be brought to justice. To this end, the European Union stands ready to support the African Union in establishing as rapidly as possible the hybrid court for South Sudan envisaged in the peace agreement.
Let us seize the opportunity today to send a number of clear messages to all parties in South Sudan. There can be no military solution to the divisions of South Sudan. All parties must observe the ceasefire in full and repudiate any speech inciting ethnic hatred. The United Nations mission in South Sudan must be allowed to exercise its mandate in full, and without hindrance. The regional protection force that was mandated by the UN Security Council last year to reinforce the United Nations mission in South Sudan must be deployed swiftly. The South Sudanese authorities must allow unrestricted humanitarian access to those in need. All parties must be brought into an inclusive political process based on the 2015 peace agreement, which remains a blueprint, if properly implemented, for establishing a functional institutional framework for the state of South Sudan.
We welcome the national dialogue announced by President Salva Kiir in December last year. Any step to foster dialogue and reconciliation between many groups in South Sudan is welcome. A political dialogue and consultation should be representative of, and trusted by, the entire population of South Sudan. Such a process should be initiated without delay and without obstacles. There is no shortcut to full and fair representation. I urge President Salva Kiir and the transitional government to look again at the structure of the national dialogue, with a view to ensuring that it is a generally inclusive process. In particular, we hope that a way can be found, and should be found, to allow the South Sudanese Council of Churches, which is widely seen as an impartial interlocutor, to play a central role in the national dialogue.
Let me also mention the Cotonou Agreement again. As mentioned, the development needs of South Sudan are evidently vast, yet we cannot release all the funds potentially available as long as South Sudan has not acceded to the Agreement. We urge the transitional government to move forward rapidly with accession. South Sudan is, sadly, a country which has known more war than peace.
The European Union will continue, in close coordination with the United Nations, the African Union, the United States and the countries of the region, to do everything it can to support the South Sudanese leadership to take decisive steps to embrace peace and to build a state that serves the interests of its citizens. Thank you very much for your attention. I look forward to our discussion.

Bogdan Brunon Wenta,
w imieniu grupy PPE. – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Pomimo dużych bogactw naturalnych Sudan Południowy – najmłodsze i jedno z najsłabiej rozwiniętych państw świata – staje w obliczu narastającego kryzysu humanitarnego i niestabilności. Spór polityczny między byłym i obecnym prezydentem przerodził się w brutalny konflikt. Odbywają się wewnętrzne przesiedlenia etniczne na masową skalę: ponad milion mieszkańców tego kraju szuka schronienia w krajach ościennych. Sudan Południowy na mapie świata określającej wysokość zagrożenia kryzysem humanitarnym znajduje się w samej czołówce.
               

                  Dlatego bardzo miło było usłyszeć od Pana o działaniach, które zostaną podjęte. Mam nadzieję, że będą bardzo szybko wprowadzane w życie, bo w przeciwnym wypadku będziemy mieli do czynienia z następną katastrofą humanitarną na międzynarodową skalę. Należy podjąć kroki mające na celu natychmiastowe zaprzestanie działań wojennych, któremu muszą towarzyszyć pokojowe konsultacje polityczne. W tym kontekście ważne jest zaangażowanie Unii Afrykańskiej, ale również Unia Europejska powinna działać na rzecz wzmocnienia współpracy międzynarodowej w celu wsparcia procesu pokojowego w Sudanie Południowym, aby uniknąć kryzysu humanitarnego.
               

Cécile Kashetu Kyenge,
au nom du groupe S&D. – Monsieur le Président, quatre ans de guerre civile, des dizaines de milliers de morts, trois millions de déplacés, des violences à caractère ethnique: un génocide est imminent. Tortures, assassinats, viols collectifs, enrôlement d'enfants soldats: les atrocités se multiplient.
               

                  Je condamne le désintérêt total de la communauté internationale face à la situation catastrophique au Sud-Soudan, dont témoigne le rejet d'une résolution imposant un embargo sur les armes et des sanctions par le Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies. Cela est absolument aberrant.
               

                  Depuis plusieurs semaines, les organisations humanitaires et les experts des Nations unies ont sonné l'alarme sur la situation pré-génocidaire. Un nettoyage ethnique est en cours depuis début décembre dans plusieurs régions du pays. Les Casques bleus ne parviennent plus à assurer la sécurité de la population et doivent se replier. Il s'agit d'une situation parmi les plus horribles du monde en matière de droits de l'homme.
               

                  Je rappelle la responsabilité des dirigeants politiques du Sud-Soudan, aussi bien celle du président, Salva Kiir, que de l'ancien vice-président, Riek Machar, de protéger leur population. Ils sont tous deux responsables d'atrocités effroyables et de massacres.
               

                  Il est urgent d'entreprendre un parcours de dialogue pour mettre en œuvre l'accord de paix et un cessez-le-feu.
               

                  Monsieur le Commissaire, je termine en vous demandant ce que peut faire l'Union européenne, avec tous ces instruments à sa disposition, dans la diplomatie et dans le respect de l'accord de Cotonou, pour stopper le regain du conflit et les violations des droits de l'homme au Sud-Soudan?
               

Charles Tannock,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, as an enthusiastic supporter of South Sudan's independence, it is very sad for me that there is so little to celebrate in its first five years in existence as an independent state. It has been plunged into civil war, and there have been widespread war crimes and atrocities committed ever since 2013. I naturally welcome the recent joint calls from IGAD, the UN and the African Union for a cessation of hostilities, and it is an encouraging sign today that rebel leader Riek Machar has indeed backed this call, but the fighting sadly goes on. I note that the King of Morocco is on an official visit today to South Sudan, and this coincides with Morocco rejoining the African Union after 35 years of absence. Dare I say, at a time when the European Union is shrinking thanks to Brexit, it is encouraging to see that the African Union is actually expanding.
A further source of expansion for the African Union could come from the re-recognition of Somaliland, a promise that was made to me in person by a South Sudanese leader prior to independence. We must now hope that the talks in South Sudan can return under the national dialogue format, reminding President Salva Kiir that it is only with peace that South Sudan and its people will be able to see the benefits of its abundant natural resources.

Marietje Schaake,
on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, the Commissioner has spoken of the immense challenges and the need to end the suffering of the people in South Sudan. Meanwhile, the UN Human Rights Committee has warned that South Sudan is on the brink of genocide, starvation, gang rape and fighting between militias escalating to levels that seem to amount to ethnic cleansing. The gravity of these crimes and the extraordinary violence, while there is impunity for the perpetrators, has to end.
Besides these atrocities, we see a crackdown on civil society and the media, preventing accountability and documentation. So it is very urgent that we act now as the European Union, as well as in context of cooperation with the African Union and the United Nations. We have to be aware that already hundreds of thousands have been killed since 2013 and over three million people have been displaced, and they in turn face starvation. It is crucial that the atrocities stop, a peace process is set up, and this cycle of violence, revenge, violence, revenge, must end.
I welcome the fact that there is an arms embargo in place, but we must be vigilant also on the export of systems that allow for the tracking and tracing of people – surveillance, hacking and exfiltrating information. There are known cases where, despite sanctions, systems from the EU have still been exported, including to South Sudan. So it is important that we ensure accountability and ensure that the EU takes a leading role in this terrible conflict.

João Pimenta Lopes,
em nome do Grupo GUE/NGL. – Senhor Presidente, o caso do Sudão do Sul não é o único na África de hoje. Na estratégia de dominação dos povos e pilhagem das suas riquezas, as grandes potências dividem Estados, fomentam guerras, se necessário intervêm militarmente, como na Líbia ou no Mali.
               

                  Não podemos desligar a situação atual do processo agraciado e promovido pelos Estados Unidos, União Europeia, Israel e seus aliados, aproveitando e exacerbando diferenças internas, a pobreza, injustiças sociais e diferenças étnicas, para alimentar um prolongado conflito que levaria à sua independência em 2011, num processo em tudo semelhante ao Kosovo.
               

                  Tudo em nome do controlo geoestratégico e do aproveitamento das consideráveis reservas de petróleo e de vários minérios da região do sul, que também hoje norteiam os interesses internacionais na região.
               

                  É necessário um apelo ao cessar-fogo e que se ponha termo imediato ao financiamento e venda de armas às diversas partes do conflito.
               

                  É necessária a defesa de uma solução pacífica e política para o conflito, livre de qualquer ingerência e intervenção militar externa.
               

Mario Borghezio,
a nome del gruppo ENF. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la situazione delle popolazioni del Sud Sudan è drammatica: su circa 12 milioni di abitanti, quattro e mezzo combattono tutti i giorni contro la fame, due milioni sono profughi interni e oltre 1,3 milioni sono rifugiati nei paesi confinanti, in primis l'Uganda.
               

                  Nel recente passato, una certa vulgata ci ha descritto il successo dell'autodeterminazione, il superamento dei vecchi assetti coloniali e la creazione di un governo di unità nazionale. È un quadro ottimistico, ma la realtà ha smentito questi fragili assetti perché, nonostante negli anni vi sia stata una massiccia iniezione di risorse per aiuti allo sviluppo e alla creazione di un sistema amministrativo, i rappresentanti delle due principali fazioni, il presidente Kiir e il vicepresidente Machar, hanno rotto la coabitazione governativa spinti da antiche spaccature etniche accentuate dagli interessi petroliferi in gioco.
               

                  La missione ONU si è rivelata impotente nel ristabilire lo Stato di diritto ed è unicamente riuscita a creare dei siti per la protezione dei civili che fuggono dalle violenze, mentre la Forza di protezione regionale autorizzata dal Consiglio di sicurezza è ancora lontana dal concretizzarsi. Ad oggi si fa più concreto lo spettro di un nuovo Ruanda. Per evitare questa tragica eventualità non bastano le iniziative umanitarie dell'ONU e quelle di singoli paesi come l'Uganda…
               

(Il Presidente interrompe l'oratore)


Eduard Kukan (PPE). – Mr President, the situation in South Sudan has been significantly deteriorating in the past months. Massacres, gang rapes and destruction, combined with hunger, are leading to the population fleeing the country. There needs to be a political solution to the civil war. This involves advances on the proposed national dialogue and a return to the 2015 agreement. The EU should contribute to the South Sudan peace process, especially in the area of justice, where our assistance can be instrumental. I would therefore like to support the earlier call by the Vice-President/High Representative to establish a hybrid court that will investigate the atrocities committed. This is why our political and diplomatic influence can bring actual tangible results for the South Sudanese population, who deserve much more than the current international community is offering to them.

Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, la crisis de Sudán del Sur es una de esas crisis que aparece y desaparece en los medios de comunicación pero que lleva con nosotros cerca de cuarenta años: Todo tipo de guerras destructivas por razones étnicas, por razones religiosas, por lucha por los recursos naturales.
               

                  Es un país relativamente joven, pero su población ha vivido estas décadas de guerra en torno y en el entorno. Y tengo que señalar que es el momento de que tomemos decisiones para apoyar a quienes han emprendido un éxodo a los países vecinos, a quienes se han desplazado dentro del propio territorio de Sudán del Sur, a quienes están en necesidad de ayuda humanitaria, que es prácticamente el conjunto de la población del país.
               

                  El 30 % del Fondo Fiduciario para África debe ser empleado en la asistencia humanitaria en el continente. Tenemos que proporcionar vivienda, tenemos que proporcionar alimentos y sanidad a aquellos desplazados, también ayuda financiera. Pero sobre todo quiero subrayar algo que ha dicho el señor comisario: tenemos que ser activos, no solo como testigos sino también como actores principales, en garantizar el proceso de paz. Tenemos que ser más activos en garantizar el embargo de armas y tenemos que ser más activos en perseguir a aquellos que están obstruyendo la consecución de la paz en el país.
               

Bas Belder (ECR). – Precies een week geleden verscheen er in de Nederlandse pers, in het Reformatorisch Dagblad, een indringend en indrukwekkend artikel over een opvanghuis voor straatkinderen in Juba, de hoofdstad van Zuid-Soedan. De titel van het artikel was al veelzeggend: ‘Bij schoten plat op de grond en zingen en bidden’. Het artikel typeerde ook raak de schrijnende situatie in Zuid-Soedan. De straatkinderen hebben allemaal één belangrijke les geleerd. Als er ooit soldaten aan de poort verschijnen met de vraag wie tot welk volk behoort, luidt het antwoord simpelweg: ‘Wij zijn allemaal Zuid-Soedanezen’. Dat is in de realiteit ver weg, maar het is de toekomst, hopen we. De toekomst van deze straatkinderen ziet er evenwel somber uit omdat zowel de Afrikaanse Unie als de Verenigde Naties waarschuwen voor een ophanden zijnde genocide in Zuid-Soedan. Beide organisaties hebben daarom recentelijk de noodklok geluid en pleiten voor een directe internationale interventie. Ik wil dat hier onderstrepen want het gaat echt fout.
               

Jaromír Štětina (PPE). – Pane předsedající, občanská válka v Súdánu je válkou na pokračování. Čtyřicet let trvala osvobozující válka jihosúdánských černých křesťanů proti chartúmskému režimu. Žil jsem tehdy v Jižním Súdánu. Zkoumal jsem symbiózu války a hladomoru, která se vyvinula v humanitární katastrofu, tři sta tisíc lidí zemřelo, více než milion skončilo jako uprchlíci.
               

                  Křesťanský Súdán se osamostatnil. Vzápětí v roce 2013 vypukla nová válka, tentokrát mezi samotnými obyvateli Jižního Súdánu. Chartúmský režim se se ztrátou Jižního Súdánu nesmířil. Důkazem jsou pokračující útoky na křesťany.
               

                  Připomeňme si, že koncem ledna byl k 20 letům vězení odsouzen český občan, křesťanský misionář Petr Jašek a spolu s ním súdánský pastor Hassan Abduraheem Taour a Abdulmon Abdumaw. Věřím, že chartúmská reprezentace pochopí, jak zničující je konfesní spor a poskytne odsouzeným milost.
               

Neena Gill (S&D). – Mr President, we have heard already that over the past three years in the conflict in South Sudan tens of thousands of lives have been lost, three million displaced and 70% of women in camps raped. This cycle of violence must be broken. We have an arms embargo, but what are we doing to enforce it internationally? Companies in Ukraine have been fuelling violence through the sale of more helicopters; this cannot remain without consequences, Commissioner. This conflict is the result of the failure by us and others to invest in inclusiveness at the point of independence, leaving ethnic divisions vulnerable to those vying for power internally. By mid-2017, five million in the country will be in need of food aid. We have to ensure long-term international commitment to food security and work with the region to re-open trade routes. I have a couple of issues, Commissioner. What steps have been taken to push for full implementation of the 2015 peace agreement? What are we doing to promote social cohesion so that South Sudan's children are not a lost generation? And how will we be coordinating a development and recovery programme, with an effective emergency response over the years to come?

(Interruption by the President)

After the Rwandan genocide we said ‘never again’. Let us hold to this.

Joachim Zeller (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Ich konnte vor sechs Jahren dabei sein, als unter großem Jubel der Bevölkerung der Südsudan seine Unabhängigkeit in einem Referendum erlangte. Nur hat diese Unabhängigkeit den Menschen keinen Frieden, keine Demokratie, keinen Wohlstand gebracht, weil diejenigen, die für die Führung des Landes zuständig sind, das Land im Bürgerkrieg versinken lassen und unsägliches Leid über die Menschen bringen.
               

                  Gleichzeitig ist aber der Südsudan auch ein Beispiel für das Versagen der internationalen Gemeinschaft. Weder die Ostafrikanische Gemeinschaft oder die Afrikanische Union noch die Vereinten Nationen sind in der Lage, dem Sterben und Leiden im Südsudan ein Ende zu bereiten. Eklatant ist, dass im Dezember auf Vorschlag der Vereinigten Staaten im Sicherheitsrat ein Antrag eingebracht wurde, ein Waffenembargo gegen den Südsudan zu verhängen. Dieser Antrag ist gescheitert. Nur sieben der 15 Ratsmitglieder stimmten für einen entsprechenden Resolutionsentwurf. Acht Länder, darunter die beiden Vetomächte Russland und China sowie die drei afrikanischen Staaten Angola, Ägypten und Senegal, enthielten sich. Für eine Verabschiedung der Resolution hätte es mindestens neun Ja-Stimmen gebraucht. Das ist eine Schande. Ich denke, hier helfen nur noch Sanktionen gegen diejenigen, die im Südsudan dafür verantwortlich sind, dass dort Menschen sterben müssen.
               

Intervenții la cerere


Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la situazione nel Sud Sudan è davvero drammatica. Si registrano violazioni diffuse e sistematiche dei diritti umani. Il governo continua a reprimere libertà fondamentali con arresti arbitrari di giornalisti e di leader politici e alle violenze si aggiunge una drammatica carestia. Nel Sud Sudan, secondo quanto denunciano gli organismi dell'ONU (la FAO, l'Unicef e il World Food Program), più di 30 000 persone rischiano di morire di fame e decine di migliaia sono le persone a rischio carestia.
               

                  Se non si vuole che la situazione precipiti ulteriormente è necessario che l'Europa e la comunità internazionale si mobilitino, anche in collaborazione con l'Unione africana, per favorire la riconciliazione nazionale e per sostenere un processo di ricostruzione politica ed istituzionale del paese. È necessaria una transizione politica del Sud Sudan verso forme di governo democratiche, transizione che potrebbe aiutare la popolazione sudanese e anche quella del Darfur ad uscire dall'attuale stato di sottosviluppo, di sofferenza e di morte.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η κρίση στο Νότιο Σουδάν έχει διαφύγει από το ραντάρ της παγκόσμιας δημοσιότητας. Αφού πέρασε μια περίοδο σχετικής ηρεμίας μετά το τέλος του εμφυλίου πολέμου που είχε ξεσπάσει το Δεκέμβριο του 2013, το Νότιο Σουδάν έρχεται πλέον αντιμέτωπο με την κατάρρευση της ειρηνευτικής διαδικασίας και την επιστροφή στη βία, σε τέτοιο βαθμό που υπάρχουν φόβοι για γενοκτονία. Περίπου εξήντα χιλιάδες άνθρωποι έχουν διαφύγει από τη χώρα, καθώς οι συγκρούσεις κλιμακώνονται το τελευταίο διάστημα. Οι βιαιότητες εντείνονται μετά την κατάρρευση της ειρηνευτικής διαδικασίας και βρίσκονται ήδη σε εξέλιξη πρακτικές εθνοκάθαρσης, με γνωρίσματα τον ακραίο λιμό, τους ομαδικούς βιασμούς και την καταστροφή χωριών. Επιπλέον, εκατομμύρια άνθρωποι που αντιστοιχούν στα τρία τέταρτα του πληθυσμού της χώρας δεν έχουν πρόσβαση σε βασικά αγαθά όπως είναι η τροφή, το νερό και τα φάρμακα. Η διεθνής κοινότητα έχει υποχρέωση να εμποδίσει αυτή την κατάσταση ώστε να μην επαναληφθεί ό,τι έγινε στη Ρουάντα.
               

(Încheierea intervențiilor la cerere)


Neven Mimica,
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, this has been a very useful exchange and I thank the honourable Members for their contributions and interventions. The people of South Sudan have suffered immensely over the past six years. The lives of much of the population continue to hang in the balance, threatened by brutal violence, famine and destitution. The European Union will continue to deploy all the instruments available – political pressure, sanctions, humanitarian relief, development assistance, support for international justice – with a view to encouraging the parties to replace conflict with dialogue, in the hope of securing a better future for South Sudan.

Președintele. — Dezbaterea a fost închisă.
               
16.   Rule of law crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in Gabon (debate)

Președintele. — Următorul punct de pe ordinea de zi este dezbaterea privind Declarația Vicepreședintelui Comisiei/Înaltului Reprezentant al Uniunii pentru afaceri externe și politica de securitate referitoare la criza statului de drept în Republica Democratică Congo și în Gabon (2016/2510(RSP)).
               

Neven Mimica,
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, honourable members, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Gabon are two countries in the Central African region that are experiencing serious political challenges related to the electoral process. As you know, our relationship is based on the principles and essential elements of the Cotonou Agreement and especially respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. And, of course, we support the implementation of the African Charter on elections, democracy and governance.
The stability of Gabon and the Democratic Republic of Congo is of primary interest to the European Union, but genuine peace, stability and development do not come through enforced preservation of the status quo and repression of opposition voices.
On the Democratic Republic of Congo, the European Union considers that the political agreement signed on 31 December last year represents important progress, with remarkable mediation done by DRC Catholic bishops. The challenge now is to implement and to do it quickly. It is imperative that the transition period towards elections be as short as possible. In order to achieve this, the bishops should not be left alone and the European Union will actively seek the engagement of the region, as well as the United Nations, in pushing Congolese political actors to implement the agreement. A new government reflecting the inclusive support for the agreement must be in place as soon as possible.
The DRC parliament will have a loaded agenda in its March session with the legislative acts necessary to move ahead with elections and the institutionalisation of the Comité National de Suivi, the oversight body that will also watch over the independence of the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission will then produce an electoral calendar that will reflect the urgency for holding elections and utmost care for the costs of the operation in a country that is experiencing a severe fiscal crisis and is failing to provide essential services to its population.
The European Union is ready to support this process politically and operationally, providing expertise when required to both national and international actors involved. The resolution of the Security Council that will be renewing the mandate of MONUSCO in March 2017, will be an important step in establishing a global consensus around the political agreement. This is important, as the legitimacy of President Kabila no longer rests on the constitution alone, but on inclusive political support for the agreement.
The European Union imposed restrictive measures in December. The warning given in the EU Council conclusions of 23 May 2016 still stands. Individuals responsible for violence and those trying to obstruct a solution to the crisis in the DRC will be targeted. We shall exert vigilance on the human rights situation, on fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, and we are dedicating increased resources to that effect.
Let me now address Gabon. The electoral violence following the presidential elections of 27 August last year and climate of fear, repression and intimidation that followed and continues today, is an issue of great concern. Arbitrary arrests, long-term detentions, inhuman conditions and excessive restrictions of freedom of expression, assembly and manifestation are alarming. Grave human rights violations, including alleged torture, extra-judicial killings and disappearances, call for an independent investigation without any delay. We strongly encourage an independent inquiry in Gabon to conduct a quick fact-finding mission.
We also welcome the initiatives by the Gabonese Government, the opposition and civil society to request a preliminary inquiry into the post-electoral violence from the International Criminal Court. The European Union has also activated the human rights defenders mechanism to protect civil society activists in Gabon whose personal security was at risk.
We cannot disregard the conduct of the elections. The conclusions of the EU Election Observation Mission were clear. They do not allow us to turn the page and to carry on with ‘business as usual’. EU relations with Gabon have been reassessed and the Gabonese Government was invited to an intensified political dialogue with the European Union. The dialogue aims to accompany the government in their announced electoral and institutional reforms, based on the Election Observation Mission's recommendations and to shed light on the human rights violations.
We expect the government to recognise its best interest to engage in this constructive diplomatic exercise in order to avoid further consequences. Some of them are mentioned in the draft resolution before this House, such as individual measures, a review of our development cooperation or consultation under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement.
In concluding, let me express my gratitude both for the debates and for the resolutions of the European Parliament, which reassure us in our firm diplomatic and development actions, and for your participation in the EU Electoral Mission. Let me thank in particular the Chief Observer, the honourable Member, Mariya Gabriel, for her dedication and courage.

Mariya Gabriel,
au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le commissaire, dernièrement, j'ai eu l'honneur de diriger les deux missions d'observation électorale de l'Union européenne en RDC et au Gabon. J'étais donc en première ligne pour observer toutes les irrégularités qui se sont produites pendant les deux processus, mais, aujourd'hui, je vais me concentrer sur le Gabon.
               

                  J'insiste tout d'abord sur la crédibilité, la neutralité et l'impartialité de la mission d'observation électorale. La mise en œuvre des recommandations que nous avons émises est la pierre angulaire de la poursuite de notre dialogue. De plus, il est impératif de se pencher davantage sur les violences post-électorales. Toute la lumière doit être faite sur ces exactions. Les responsables des violences post-électorales doivent répondre de leurs agissements. Nous ne pouvons pas nous conformer à l'impunité, nous n'avons pas le droit à l'oubli.
               

                  C'est pourquoi il est tout aussi impératif que le Haut-Commissariat des Nations unies aux droits de l'homme envoie une mission de toute urgence, et j'appelle les États membres à aider en ce sens.
               

                  Enfin, s'il vous plaît, si le dialogue politique ne donne pas de résultats, des sanctions ciblées, telles que l'interdiction de voyager ou le gel des avoirs, doivent être adoptées.
               

(Le Président coupe la parole à l'oratrice)


Elena Valenciano,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, en primer lugar, quiero manifestar mi apoyo al trabajo hecho por la misión de observación electoral presidida por la señora Gabriel y, también, mi conformidad con lo que el comisario ha expresado en relación con Gabón. Creo que tenemos que mandar un mensaje claro. En África, en algunos países africanos están ocurriendo muchas cosas que nosotros no deberíamos consentir, pero es verdad que nuestras posibilidades de actuación son reducidas. Pero, sobre esas posibilidades de actuación que tenemos, debemos ser firmes y contundentes.
               

                  ¿Cuántas veces hemos traído al debate de esta casa la situación en la República Democrática del Congo? Muchas veces. Hemos casi diseñado lo que iba a suceder, mes tras mes. Y, sin embargo, no hemos sido capaces de intervenir para frenar lo que está siendo, por una parte, una burla del presidente Kabila hacia su propio pueblo, pero también una burla hacia sus compromisos con las instituciones europeas.
               

                  Nosotros tenemos que repetir a los países africanos que la democracia es un juego de reglas que nadie puede saltarse. Y que, en el diálogo que mantengan con nosotros, los países terceros tienen que tener claro que nosotros no vamos a transigir con algunas de las derivas que se están produciendo, por ejemplo, en la República Democrática del Congo o en Gabón. Porque el posibilismo que a veces manifestamos para no acabar de romper nuestras relaciones con estos países, con estos Gobiernos, muchas veces acaba convirtiéndose en complicidad sin que nosotros lo queramos. Pero tenemos que romper ese círculo vicioso de posibilismo que acaba siendo el sostenimiento de muchos Gobiernos que no deberían gozar de nuestra confianza.
               

                  El diálogo es necesario porque no queremos abandonar ni a los gaboneses ni a los congoleños, pero las sanciones, dirigidas expresamente a los responsables, deben ser también parte de nuestra acción.
               

Charles Tannock,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, since our previous debate on the DRC last November, I am pleased that there has been some progress in reaching a settlement for fresh elections and the standing-down of President Kabila. The deal reached at the end of December was a breakthrough, and we must praise the work of the Conference of Catholic Bishops in Congo for mediating the talks.
There is, however, concern about the pace of progress towards elections. Recent reports of the escape of M23 rebel fighters from Uganda and their crossing into the DRC should also be a cause for alarm, with a risk of a return to fighting in the North Kivu province, which could potentially be exploited by Kabila as grounds for prolonging his DRC presidency.
Similarly, in Gabon we see huge violations of human rights and violence since the flawed presidential elections last August, so justice and reforms are absolutely essential in that country. Of course, the EU must maintain pressure on the Gabonese authorities to prevent a climate of impunity.

Pavel Telička,
on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, 2016 was in fact a dark year for the sub-Saharan part of Africa. While we saw some positive developments in the western part, such as elections and transitions of power, we have mentioned today some of the countries – and I could add more – that have gone through a very violent period.
What lies ahead of us are more elections in 2007. There will be presidential elections in Angola and people will go to the polls in Kenya, Liberia, Rwanda, Somalia, Sierra Leone, etc. All these elections represent a real challenge for the continent and for the international community, which means of course for the European Union as well. I must say that, if nothing substantial is done, we will be having the same debate in a few months from now.
So the issue is that there is a role to play – with an appropriate political role for the Africans themselves – for the African Union, the international community and the European Union. Commissioner, I appreciate that you have highlighted the repression, the sanctions, the monitoring and all the instruments that we have. You also highlighted one element which I would like to dwell on in a little more detail, which is that we do have human rights defenders, independent social media and vibrant communities in civil society. So our task is to provide them with the necessary support on time and in time. We must have this twofold ambition.

Marie-Christine Vergiat,
au nom du groupe GUE/NGL. – Monsieur le Président, au Gabon, les élections d'août dernier ont eu lieu, effectivement, en présence d'une mission d'observation de l'Union européenne, et donc avec l'accord du gouvernement en place.
               

                  Le rapport de la mission est accablant. Merci à nos collègues qui y ont participé, y compris parce qu'ils ont été victimes de menaces.
               

                  Ali Bongo aurait gagné de 6 000 voix. Les résultats du Haut-Ogooué, province d'origine de M. Bongo, avec une participation miraculeuse de 99,93 % et un score tout aussi miraculeux de 95,47 % en sa faveur, ont inversé les résultats.
               

                  Des heurts immédiats ont eu lieu, et ont atteint leur paroxysme le 1er septembre lors du saccage du QG de Jean Ping. Il y a eu de nombreux morts et d'incroyables violations des droits de l'homme qui se poursuivent.
               

                  La mission n'a pas tiré les conséquences de ces constats, sans doute en raison de la reconnaissance implicite des résultats par le gouvernement français.
               

                  Alors on peut demander des sanctions, une enquête indépendante, un dialogue politique, mais il faut d'abord dénoncer le résultat de ces élections truquées, c'est la meilleure façon de procéder.
               

                  C'est le respect que nous devons au peuple gabonais.
               

Michèle Rivasi,
au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, on a quand même deux pays, mais je dirais que c'est un peu deux poids, deux mesures. Pourquoi? Parce que j'ai apprécié, Monsieur le Commissaire, ce que vous avez dit sur la République du Congo. Je trouve qu'il y a eu – pourrait-on dire – un bon point pour l'Europe, parce que, face au coup de force que voulait faire Joseph Kabila pour se maintenir au pouvoir, on apprend aujourd'hui que, grâce aux pressions diplomatiques, à l'intervention de l'Europe et aux sanctions prises, il renonce et que, comme vous l'avez indiqué, un processus va être mis en œuvre. Même s'il est fragile, il existe, et il faut être vigilant.
               

                  Par contre, au Gabon, je trouve que l'Europe a été assez absente, peut-être aussi parce que la présidence française n'est pas assez dynamique pour montrer les aberrations qui ont eu lieu au niveau de ces élections. Le rapport qu'a fait Mme Gabrielle est très net. Il montre bien qu'il y a eu un bourrage d'urnes et que les résultats sont complètement aberrants. C'est là que l'Europe doit intervenir, pour prendre des sanctions. Ce que j'ai entendu au sujet des Gabonais, c'est qu'ils ne veulent plus de visas de circulation pour la famille d'Ali Bongo; pour les membres du gouvernement, les responsables du coup d'État et de la répression, ils veulent une interdiction de séjour et de circulation dans l'Union européenne, une interdiction de survol aérien et un gel des avoirs en Europe. Si on fait cela, cela fragilisera le régime, et on s'attend à une explosion de la population.
               

                  En même temps, comme vous l'avez dit, il faut encourager une enquête indépendante pour les violences post-électorales, parce qu'il ne faut pas que cela reste impuni, mais il faut que l'Europe soit plus active au niveau du Gabon.
               

Mario Borghezio,
a nome del gruppo ENF. – Signor Presidente, se vi sono due paesi dell'Africa subsahariana che necessitano di una grande attenzione da parte dell'Unione europea, e forse di tutto il mondo civile, sono la Repubblica democratica del Congo e il Gabon.
               

                  Per quanto riguarda il Congo, certamente c'è molta preoccupazione circa l'attuazione degli accordi di San Silvestro, un grande risultato che però deve essere portato avanti con il concorso e l'attenzione delle autorità internazionali e delle istituzioni internazionali, visto che è così difficile la pacificazione fra queste fazioni così opposte e che procede in maniera molto lenta e sospetta la liberazione dei prigionieri politici. Mi sembra, come giustamente denuncia la Conferenza episcopale, un elemento fondamentale per chiarire le reali intenzioni del vecchio governo.
               

                  Per quanto riguarda il Gabon, direi che c'è preoccupazione per le violenze che continuano e io credo che si debba anche fare luce circa i brogli elettorali e la realizzazione delle elezioni in questi paesi, che rappresentano un dato negativo comune.
               

Bogdan Brunon Wenta (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Brak poszanowania zasad państwa prawa, konstytucji, podstawowych praw obywateli to działania, które przyczyniają się do niestabilności państwa i konfliktów. Kurczowe trzymanie się władzy przez prezydenta Kabilę doprowadziło do krwawego tłumienia pokojowych demonstracji, prześladowania opozycji oraz ograniczania wolności mediów. Co prawda udało się wynegocjować pomiędzy Kabilą a częścią opozycji porozumienie o zorganizowaniu w Kongo wiarygodnych wyborów w tym roku, ale niestety prezydent jeszcze go nie podpisał.
               

                  W Gabonie wybory prezydenckie zostały przeprowadzone w sposób chaotyczny, liczne nieprawidłowości zgłaszane przez misje obserwacyjne podważają ich wynik. Skutki zaprzysiężenia Alego Bongo na prezydenta były tragiczne: w państwie trwa kryzys, odnotowano liczne wybuchy przemocy, aresztowania oraz ograniczenie wolności słowa.
               

                  Chciałbym zaznaczyć, że sytuacja w Gabonie i DRK poważnie rzutuje na inne kraje Afryki Środkowej i stanowi zagrożenie dla stabilności tego regionu, dlatego władze obydwu państw muszą nawiązać otwarty dialog z przedstawicielami opozycji oraz przeprowadzić obiektywne śledztwa w sprawie przemocy i naruszeń praw człowieka związanych z wyborami.
               

Jo Leinen (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, Ali Bongo a manipulé les résultats des élections présidentielles au Gabon. Il n'est donc pas le président légitime de ce pays.
               

                  Par frustration, il a attaqué le camp de l'opposition. Il y a eu des morts et des blessés. Il a établi un régime de suppression et de peur dans le pays.
               

                  Le Parlement demande à l'Union européenne d'être prête à soutenir l'envie de démocratie, de justice et de liberté de la population, et surtout de la jeunesse, au Gabon.
               

                  Nous demandons que l'Union européenne utilise tous les instruments qu'elle possède pour sanctionner les personnes responsables, à commencer par Ali Bongo ainsi que d'autres personnes de son équipe et de son gouvernement.
               

                  Je pense qu'il faut que l'Union européenne ait le courage de prendre des mesures directes et efficaces, par exemple l'interdiction, pour ces responsables, de voyager ou de séjourner sur le territoire de l'Union européenne, ainsi que le gel de leurs avoirs.
               

                  C'est exactement ce que l'entourage d'Ali Bongo craint le plus: de ne plus pouvoir jouir des privilèges et des richesses issus de la corruption, de la fraude et de l'exploitation de la population du Gabon.
               

                  Je suis convaincu que nous agirons et j'espère aussi que la France ne bloquera pas de telles démarches et mesures.
               

Mark Demesmaeker (ECR). – Congo werd afgelopen zondag uitgeschakeld in de eindronde van de Afrika Cup, tot spijt van de voetbalgekke Congolezen. Maar het volk heeft natuurlijk andere zorgen. Het land ligt al veel langer uit het kampioenschap van democratische landen. En in tegenstelling tot het voetbal, waar een nederlaag altijd verschillende oorzaken heeft, ligt de reden voor het falen van de Congolese staat bij haar leiders. Coach Kabila, om nog een keer in voetbaltermen te spreken, houdt op een onverantwoorde manier vast aan de macht en de geschiedenis leert ons dat een oplossing nooit kan gevonden worden met een leider die het vertrouwen van z'n eigen volk kwijt is en de grondbeginselen van de grondwet en democratie met de voeten treedt. Met de bisschoppenconferentie werd een akkoord bereikt. In afwachting van verkiezingen moet de regering geleid worden door de oppositie. Maar Kabila leeft dit akkoord al niet meer na en weigert de door Étienne Tshisekedi aangeduide premier te benoemen.
               

                  Kabila is echter niet de oplossing van het probleem, hij is de oorzaak. Stabiliteit en rust kunnen alleen terugkeren wanneer hij van het politieke toneel verdwijnt en plaatsmaakt. Het is nog maar de vraag of dat gebeurt. Ik herhaal dan ook mijn dringende vraag: zal de EU werk maken van doeltreffende sancties tegen Kabila en zijn entourage?
               

José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE). – Señor presidente, señor comisario, señorías. El debate que estamos celebrando hoy y la votación que tendrá lugar mañana tienen un doble objetivo: por un lado, expresar la preocupación de este Parlamento por la situación de inestabilidad y violencia que están viviendo estos países —ya se han referido a ello la alta representante, el Consejo de Ministros de la Unión y, como nos recordaba el comisario, el Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas— y, por otro, afirmar la coherencia de las misiones de observación electoral de la Unión Europea, que son un buque insignia de nuestro proyecto y que han generado respeto, prestigio y credibilidad.
               

                  Por eso, hay que rechazar las presiones y las amenazas que se han vertido sobre la misión de observación electoral de la Unión Europea, que ha presidido nuestra colega, la señora Gabriel, y movilizar, señor presidente, todos nuestros esfuerzos para asegurar la estabilidad de esta región, de estos países, que son claves para el África central y para la región de los Grandes Lagos.
               

Cécile Kashetu Kyenge (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, la situation actuelle montre une profonde crise de la démocratie en Afrique centrale. Plusieurs pays sont marqués par des irrégularités électorales ou, tout simplement, le report indéfini des élections.
               

                  J'aimerais souligner la nécessité de garantir la séparation des pouvoirs dans tous les pays. Sans indépendance ni transparence, la démocratie au Gabon ne peut pas fonctionner correctement. Je dénonce la répression meurtrière, par les forces de sécurité, de manifestations pacifiques. Il faut mettre les auteurs de ces drames devant leurs responsabilités. Les dirigeants doivent écouter les doléances de leur peuple et je demande au Conseil de l'Union européenne de prendre rapidement des sanctions ciblées contre tous les responsables de la fraude et des irrégularités électorales, notamment au Gabon. Ces personnes ont de nombreuses attaches en Europe. C'est pourquoi le gel de leurs avoirs et les restrictions de leurs voyages les toucheront directement.
               

                  En ce qui concerne précisément le Gabon, je condamne aussi fermement le manque de transparence des élections, relevé dans le rapport final de la mission d'observation électorale. J'appelle les autorités gabonaises à mettre en œuvre toutes les recommandations, notamment la réforme du système électoral. Nous ne devons pas permettre à Ali Bongo, le président, de laisser pourrir la crise politique, comme cela s'est produit au Burundi.
               

                  Par ailleurs, je demande aux autorités gabonaises d'apporter un démenti formel quant aux allégations de corruption des membres de la mission, de manière à restaurer l'image de probité des institutions européennes.
               

                  En ce qui concerne la RDC, je termine en disant que les élections doivent maintenant être organisées dans de brefs délais et avant la fin de l'année 2017 pour que, enfin, Kabila puisse quitter le pouvoir et le céder pacifiquement aux nouvelles autorités.
               

Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, RDC et Gabon: deux pays face à un blocage politique majeur et à une dégradation de la situation de la sécurité et des droits de l'homme.
               

                  Je regrette qu'il ait été impossible d'adopter un rapport commun sur la limite des mandats présidentiels lors de la dernière assemblée plénière ACP-UE. Notre message doit être clair: le respect de la constitution et de la loi est non négociable. Il y a un point commun entre les situations en RDC et au Gabon: il s'agit de deux présidents qui s'accrochent au pouvoir, soit en violant la limite des mandats, soit en fraudant lors des élections.
               

                  L'UE doit mettre l'accent sur le soutien du dialogue politique entre le pouvoir et l'opposition, et se concentrer sur la prévention en utilisant davantage l'outil du dialogue politique dans le cadre de l'accord de Cotonou.
               

                  Domnule președinte, profit că vorbim despre statul de drept și vă cer să vă solidarizați cu cetățenii care în București manifestă tot pentru statul de drept, de data asta în țara dumneavoastră. Mulțumesc pentru atenție.
               

Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sono già state dette molte cose, ma io voglio sottolineare che gli appuntamenti elettorali del 2016 in Gabon e nella Repubblica democratica del Congo hanno confermato la cattiva salute in cui versa lo Stato di diritto di alcuni paesi nel continente africano.
               

                  Abbiamo messo sotto osservazione il Gabon e la Repubblica democratica del Congo e devo dire che, se da una parte fanno ben sperare le trattative mediate dalla Conferenza congolese dei vescovi cattolici, che hanno portato alla firma di un accordo politico secondo il quale Kabila si impegna a dimettersi dopo le elezioni che si terranno nel 2017, la situazione in Gabon appare invece molto lontana dal reale raggiungimento di un compromesso.
               

                  Credo che, da questo punto di vista, l'Unione europea debba impegnarsi fortemente nella tutela delle aspirazioni democratiche dei cittadini del Congo e del Gabon e condannare fermamente le minacce, le aggressioni e l'uso della forza.
               

Intervenții la cerere


Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il recente accordo che apre la strada ad elezioni pacifiche entro il 2017 nella Repubblica democratica del Congo è, finalmente, dopo un periodo di gravi tensioni, una buona notizia per questo paese di fondamentale importanza per la regione dei Grandi Laghi e per tutta l'Africa. Il Congo si è trovato ad affrontare in questi anni una situazione di insicurezza sociale, oltre che politica, di cui ha fatto drammaticamente le spese la popolazione civile, con le improvvise migrazioni interne o nei paesi vicini: un processo che va bloccato se non vogliamo trovarci di fronte all'ennesima catastrofe umanitaria.
               

                  È assolutamente necessario che l'Europa e la comunità internazionale lavorino per il rispetto degli accordi, la pacificazione nazionale del paese e per favorire l'instaurazione di un sistema politico democratico che consenta l'alternanza al potere, nel rispetto del dettato costituzionale. Questa è la condizione di base ed essenziale per tirare fuori il paese dalla difficile e pericolosa situazione in cui si trova.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το Συμβούλιο Ασφαλείας του ΟΗΕ έχει εκφράσει επανειλημμένα τις ανησυχίες του για την κατάσταση των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων τόσο στη Λαϊκή Δημοκρατία του Κονγκό, όσο και στη Γκαμπόν, ενώ και οι δύο χώρες έχουν εισέλθει σε περίοδο αποσταθεροποίησης. Συγκεκριμένα, η κατάσταση στους τομείς της ασφάλειας και των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων στη Λαϊκή Δημοκρατία του Κονγκό εξακολουθεί να επιδεινώνεται ενώ η απόφαση του Kabila να επεκτείνει τη θητεία του στον προεδρικό θώκο έχει προκαλέσει θύελλα αντιδράσεων στην αντιπολίτευση. Παράλληλα, η πρόσφατη ανακοίνωση της επανεκλογής του προέδρου Ali Bongo για μια τρίτη θητεία στην Γκαμπόν έγινε αιτία να προκληθούν βίαια επεισόδια στη χώρα, με 1100 συλλήψεις και τρεις θανάτους. Και οι δύο χώρες αντιμετωπίζουν πρόβλημα αστυνομικής βίας, η οποία χτυπά πλέον τους ακτιβιστές και τους αντιφρονούντες, ενώ οι πολυάριθμες συλλήψεις που καταγράφονται προκαλούν σοβαρές ανησυχίες για το κατά πόσο εξακολουθεί να υφίσταται κράτος δικαίου. Είναι σαφές πλέον ότι η διεθνής κοινότητα πρέπει να παρέμβει και στις δύο αυτές χώρες.
               

(Încheierea intervențiilor la cerere)


Neven Mimica,
Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. – Mr President, this has been a very rich exchange and I am grateful to the honourable Members for their very valuable interventions. I believe it will be an important reassurance to the people of both Gabon and the Democratic Republic of Congo that this House is following developments with such attention and cares sincerely about their destiny.
From this debate, I conclude that we all share a common interest in engaging with the Gabonese Government in determining whether there is a genuine willingness to implement the Election Observation Mission's recommendations on electoral reforms and on the investigation of human rights violations. If this is not the case, we will draw the consequences.
As regards the Democratic Republic of Congo, the European Union will remain vigilant and ready to use all instruments available to ensure that a transition period will end with democratic and transparent elections.
Finally, with the current volatile situation in both countries, let me remind you of the statements issued by the European Union, stressing that all parties must refrain from violence, from incitement or provocation, or from the use of excessive force. We will continue following both countries' situation closely in every dimension, as I am sure you will do, too. I can assure you that we will continue to use all the tools at our disposal to assist in bringing a durable solution to the current crisis. We undertake to keep you fully informed of developments.

Președintele. – Dezbaterea a fost închisă.
               

                  Votul, care va avea loc joi, 2 februarie 2017, înregistrează șapte propuneri de rezoluție, depuse pe baza declarației de la: ECR, ALDE, GUE, S&D, EFDD, Verts/ALE și PPE.
               


Declarații scrise (articolul 162)



Isabella Adinolfi (EFDD),
per iscritto. – Partendo dal presupposto che esistono specifici fondi dell'Unione europea per aiutare lo sviluppo democratico nei paesi terzi. Non è possibile non constatare che in paesi come il Congo e il Gabon la situazione politica e sociale è drammatica, vi è praticamente una totale assenza di democrazia. I governi attuali hanno preso il potere in maniera tutt'altro che democratica, causando fortissimi tensioni sociali e proteste. L'UE, avendo gli strumenti, dovrebbe agire per aiutare questi due paesi ad uscire da questa profonda crisi democratica.
               

David McAllister (PPE),
schriftlich. – Am 19. Dezember letzten Jahres endete offiziell die Amtszeit des Präsidenten der Demokratischen Republik Kongo (DRK), Joseph Kabila. Bereits vor den Präsidentschaftswahlen Ende November 2016, die absichtlich verzögert wurden, sowie danach kam es in der Hauptstadt Kinshasa und in weiteren Städten zu teils gewaltsamen Protesten. Die Unruhen im Land könnten zu erneuten Flüchtlingsströmen innerhalb Afrikas und zu einer steigenden Anzahl von Migranten in Europa führen. Die EU setzt sich deshalb zu Recht dafür ein, diesen Konflikt diplomatisch zu lösen. Das Europäische Parlament hat mit diesem Entschließungsantrag zur Krise der Rechtsstaatlichkeit in der DRK eindeutig Position gegen jegliche Gewaltanwendung bezogen.
               

                  An einer vergleichbaren Situation leidet Gabun. Dort haben Präsidentschaftswahlen mit dem Ergebnis stattgefunden, dass Präsident Ali Bongo die Wahl im August 2016 für sich entscheiden konnte. Allerdings gibt es ernsthafte Hinweise auf Wahlfälschung, insbesondere in seiner Heimatprovinz Haut-Ogooué. Sein Herausforderer, Jean Ping, hat in allen anderen Provinzen die meisten Stimmen erhalten. Nur das Ergebnis aus der Heimatprovinz Bongos führte letztendlich zu seinem Sieg.
               

                  In der DRK sowie in Gabun geht es den jeweiligen Präsidenten lediglich um den Machterhalt. Das Europäische Parlament verurteilt zu Recht die dadurch entstandenen Verletzungen der Rechtsstaatlichkeit und der Menschenrechte und fordert mit Nachdruck verfassungsgemäße Wahlen.
               

Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL),
písemně. – V rámci diskuse o lidskoprávních otázkách jsme se dnes zabývali obtížnou politickou situací v Demokratické republice Kongo a Gabonu, v obou zemích přetrvává období politické nestability a násilí, a to zejména v souvislosti s prezidentskými volbami v obou zemích. V obou těchto zemích shodně vypukly pouliční demonstrace, které byly násilně potlačeny, což vedlo k úmrtí řady lidí. Státní orgány tam ostře zasáhly proti členům opozice a občanské společnosti, kteří vyjádřili nesouhlas se stávající vládou. V rámci společného usnesení Evropského parlamentu vyjadřujeme lítost nad ztrátou lidských životů, hluboké znepokojení nad čím dál nestabilnější situací v obou zemích a naléhavě žádáme příslušné orgány, aby dodržovaly své mezinárodní povinnosti, zaručily lidská práva a důsledně dodržovaly zásady právního státu.
               
17.   Zero tolerance for female genital mutilation (debate)

Președintele. – Următorul punct de pe ordinea de zi este dezbaterea privind Declarația Comisiei referitoare la toleranța zero față de mutilarea genitală a femeilor (2017/2524(RSP)).
               

Věra Jourová,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, female genital mutilation (FGM) is one of the most serious grievous forms of violence against women. I am strongly committed to eliminating this practice. I stand for zero tolerance for it and I call on all of you to join me in this. I welcome the opportunity to discuss it with you today, ahead of the International Day of Zero Tolerance for FGM on 6 February.
The estimated figures are really shocking, with half a million women and girls being victims of FGM in Europe, and 125 million worldwide. Thousands of girls are at risk of FGM.
I would like to update you today on what the Commission has done in this area since we last discussed this serious issue in 2015. We have been following the 2013 action plan, the Communication ‘Towards the elimination of FGM’, and its five defined priorities: improving data collection and knowledge, prevention, prosecution, protection and eliminating FGM worldwide. In the strategic engagement for gender equality we commit ourselves to continue with the implementation of the measures set out in the communication.
I am proud to announce that this week a complex web-based knowledge platform, which serves as an online EU-wide multilingual resource and education centre for professionals, has been launched. It provides easily-accessible and culturally-appropriate information and support to professionals from diverse backgrounds across the EU. The aim is to raise awareness of FGM, to effectively deliver victim support and to protect women and girls living with, or at risk of, FGM. We reach out to all relevant professionals, including nurses, doctors, midwives, lawyers, judges, prosecutors, police officers, asylum officers, teachers, social workers, child protection professionals and also reporters and journalists. This project has gone live, also due the commitment of Parliament to this cause. I count on your further support to ensure a wide dissemination of the information on this new tool.
In addition, together with the European Institute for Gender Equality, we have developed a methodology to estimate the risk of FGM in different Member States, and we have funded a prevalence study to get more understanding of the phenomenon. We are working on the revision of the EU guidelines on the promotion and protection of the rights of the child. Preventive and protective measures against FGM are foreseen to be part of the recommendations towards Member States, notably with regard to children in migration. We are enforcing a correct and timely implementation of the Victims' Rights Directive, which is of particular importance for victims of gender-based violence, including FGM, as it ensures access to free-of-charge and confidential specialist support services, including trauma support and counselling.
In the proposed amendments to the Common European Asylum System we strengthen the safeguards for protection of persons with specific needs, including women applicants who have experienced gender-based harm. Access to medical care, legal support and appropriate trauma counselling and psychosocial care is to be ensured. The European Asylum Support Office has developed a practical support tool for the identification of persons with special needs and applies a training module on gender, gender identity and sexual orientation to officers.
Last, but not least, we are funding transnational projects that combat harmful practices such as FGM, both in the EU and beyond. In concrete terms, this means EUR 4.5 million in the Rights Equality and Citizenship Programme and EUR 11 million in the UNICEF Joint Programme on the abandonment of FGM.
Last year, I visited NGOs that help victims and support women who have undergone FGM and that focus on the prevention of girls from being cut. I have spoken to the women and men dedicated to ending this practice and listened to their concerns. One of the recurring issues was the prevailing lack of knowledge and understanding of professionals. This impedes girls and women in Europe from getting the best possible care and from having all their rights respected. If a doctor is surprised or horrified when an infibulated woman visits him or her, this can cause shame and certainly it would be a hurdle for visiting again and receiving appropriate care. If a police officer believes this is just a part of the culture, rather than a serious infringement of rights, coming forward can become so much harder. If a teacher has never heard of FGM, it will be impossible to pick up any signals and prevent a young girl from being cut. Hence, it is important to encourage all relevant professionals to act accordingly and provide care, protection and prevention. I believe the FGM platform we are launching these days, calling to unite to end FGM will be an important contribution to end this practice in Europe.
Finally, as you know, I have dedicated this year as a year of focused actions to combat violence against women. I will continue to fight harmful practices such as FGM as part of it, and count on your support.

PRZEWODNICTWO: BOGUSŁAW LIBERADZKI


Wiceprzewodniczący


Constance Le Grip,
au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, ce que nous dénonçons aujourd'hui est une véritable horreur qu'ont connue 500 000 femmes qui vivent aujourd'hui en Europe, au nom de prétendues pratiques traditionnelles, sociales, culturelles, religieuses. Dans le monde, d'après les chiffres de l'OMS, quelque 140 millions de femmes, de jeunes femmes, de jeunes filles, de petites filles, ont subi l'une ou l'autre forme de mutilations génitales féminines.
                  

                     Le 6 février — vous l'avez dit, Madame la Commissaire – est la journée internationale dédiée à la tolérance zéro à l'encontre des mutilations génitales féminines. Le Parlement européen s'est toujours engagé avec beaucoup d'opiniâtreté et de constance, au long des années passées, afin d'alerter l'opinion publique, de faire preuve de détermination et d'engagement dans la lutte contre cette forme absolument intolérable de violence faite aux femmes, dont – nous le savons bien maintenant, toutes les études concordent – les effets sur la santé, le bien-être, mais également sur les parcours de formation et d'éducation, sur les parcours professionnels, se font sentir très longtemps chez les victimes. Les mutilations génitales féminines constituent vraiment une atteinte intolérable à la dignité humaine, à l'intégrité du corps de la femme.
                  

                     Vous nous avez annoncé, Madame la Commissaire, un point très précis sur les actions engagées, ainsi que sur la plateforme qui vient d'être installée. Nous vous remercions pour ce point très précis, pour l'intensité de l'engagement, de la mobilisation dont vous faites preuve. Nous continuons à vous soutenir, à vous encourager, à aller toujours plus loin et, notamment, à mettre la pression – si vous me permettez cette expression – sur les États membres qui n'ont pas encore, pour ce qui les concerne, très concrètement et de manière très organisée, décliné un plan d'action volontaire contre cette pratique, encore une fois, intolérable.
                  

Iratxe García Pérez,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, comisaria. Hoy este Parlamento tiene que servir de altavoz para denunciar una práctica, para denunciar una tortura de las mujeres, una violación de los derechos humanos como es la mutilación genital femenina; una realidad que afecta a más de medio millón de mujeres en la Unión Europea y a cerca de 140 millones de mujeres en el mundo. Por lo tanto, damos la bienvenida a las propuestas que ha trasladado la señora comisaria sobre cómo prevenir, cómo luchar contra la mutilación genital femenina, porque creo que es fundamental exigir responsabilidades a las instituciones públicas en todos los niveles.
                  

                     Y no olvidemos que no estamos hablando exclusivamente de las mujeres de la Unión Europea, que también podemos contribuir a luchar contra esta práctica en el ámbito internacional. Por eso, en la política exterior y en la política de cooperación de la Unión Europea tengamos en cuenta esta situación para poder erradicar esta realidad.
                  

                     Y tengamos en cuenta también una cosa, y es que las tradiciones y la cultura tienen un límite y ese límite es el respeto de los derechos humanos, el respeto de los derechos de las mujeres.
                  

Jadwiga Wiśniewska,
w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo! Ponad 140 milionów kobiet na świecie – to są oficjalne dane – doznało okaleczenia narządów płciowych, ponad pół miliona kobiet w Unii Europejskiej. To jest niesamowity problem: w XXI w. kobiety doświadczają takich cierpień!
                  

                     W Parlamencie Europejskim jest Komisja Praw Kobiet i Równouprawnienia. Chcecie państwo dowiedzieć się, czy w opinii na temat poszanowania praw człowieka, którą w ubiegłym roku przygotowała ta komisja, znalazł miejsce ten problem? Pewnie pomyślicie: na pewno tak, znaczna część tej opinii pewnie była poświęcona temu barbarzyństwu. Otóż chcę państwa wyprowadzić z błędu: ani jednego słowa o okaleczaniu kobiet. Zajmijmy się tymi realnymi problemami. Te okaleczone kobiety krzyczą i proszą o pomoc. Nie spotykajmy się na seminariach i debatach – piękne panie z bogatych państw współczujące tym obrzezanym kobietom. Podejmijmy realne działania. Mówmy o tym, co dla tych kobiet jest najważniejsze. One czekają na naszą pomoc, one wołają – kobiety i małe dziewczynki, które również doświadczają tego cierpienia. Nie gadajmy, róbmy, pomagajmy! W sposób realny zauważajmy problemy kobiet. Apeluję do moich koleżanek z Komisji Praw Kobiet i Równouprawnienia: wy znacie tę opinię i nie wniosłyście tam poprawek dotyczących tej kwestii.
                  

Angelika Mlinar,
on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I think we can all agree here that there is no reason for young girls to suffer genital mutilation. There is no place for such a practice in any civilised society. This so-called tradition, like many others, is nothing but a violation of women's rights which goes back many centuries, and we can no longer tolerate it happening in the 21st century. We should be committed every day, not just on the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation as such.
The EU has been advancing on this file. However, we should strengthen the instruments at our disposal. As regards supporting victims of FGM, the provisions of the EU Directive on Victims' Rights apply to all victims of crime, including FGM. The signing of the Directive on Victims' Rights meant that tremendous progress was made in strengthening victims' rights. The European Parliament, as co-legislator, had as a clear objective to seriously recognise the needs of victims in criminal proceedings.
We now need to focus on the implementation of this important piece of EU legislation, which should have been transposed into national law by all EU Member States by November 2015. However, progress made on the transposition front is very disappointing. I would like to ask the Commissioner about the state of play of implementation. Another complementary tool in the fight against FGM was the Istanbul Convention as it was the first treaty to recognise that FGM exists in Europe and needs to be systematically addressed. I would therefore repeat my call on the Commission and on the Council to undertake whatever is needed to make the EU accession to the Istanbul Convention happen as soon as possible.

Malin Björk,
on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Mr President, the cutting of women's genitals and clitorises is a very serious form of violence against women. As colleagues have said, approximately 130 to 140 million women and girls have been victims of FGM. FGM is older than Christianity or Islam. It has nothing to do with religion, but it has all to do with patriarchy. It is also symptomatic for me that the clitoris almost everywhere has been systematically neglected and erased. Many people don't even know what it looks like, and the dictionaries in 2017 still get it wrong. This is what it looks like, a real-sized clitoris. This is a simple 3D print that I think every woman should be proud to be in possession of, because knowing your body is also a way to take back control, to take back power. This is being used by many FGM activists that fight against FGM, and it gives us the power to protect it.
Saying a firm ‘no’ to FGM for me also means that we have to have protective laws and we have to provide strong support to the grassroots organisations that work on this. But saying no to FGM also demands that we say no to all forms of patriarchal control of our bodies. Today we see the attacks on women's bodies from the likes of Trump with his awful gag rule that wants to threaten women's sexual and reproductive health and rights worldwide.
Colleagues, Commission, our message must be clear. These struggles are linked. We say no to FGM, support grassroots organisations. We say no to all forms of patriarchal control over our bodies, and we say yes to sexual freedom and choice for women and for proper sexuality education where we can learn about our rights, our women's rights and our bodies, and about the clitoris.

Terry Reintke,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, defending women's and girls' rights has actually become even more urgent in the last week, most recently when Donald Trump signed an executive order to reinstate the Global Gag Rule. This rule will not only cut funding for family planning organisations that give consultations on safe abortion but will also cut funding for very important things like HIV prevention, medical care and helping victims of female genital mutilation (FGM).
Now is the time for the European Union to step up and say that it is going to counterbalance what is being cut by the American administration, not only financially but also organisationally, and is going to support giving consultation and all medical care to victims of female genital mutilation, because female genital mutilation is a deeply traumatising form of sexualised violence.
We need to step up our efforts to fight against all forms of violence against women. I must say that I am very surprised by our colleagues on the right, who are now claiming that we never speak about FGM because actually the ratification of the Istanbul Convention would be a very important step to do exactly that. So once again the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation should be a reminder to you Commissioner, and also to all Member States, to ratify the Istanbul Convention and take these very decisive steps not only against FGM, but against all forms of violence against women.

Mylène Troszczynski,
au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, nous sommes tous d'accord pour dire que les mutilations génitales féminines sont des pratiques atroces et barbares et qu'elles vont à l'encontre de nos cultures et de notre civilisation européenne.
                  

                     Selon les derniers chiffres fournis par l'Unicef en 2016, 200 millions de femmes et de filles en sont victimes dans le monde, soit 70 millions de plus qu'en 2014.
                  

                     En France, on évalue le nombre de femmes et de fillettes victimes de cette pratique barbare entre 45 000 et 60 000. Ceci est intolérable.
                  

                     J'imagine que, comme moi, vous souhaitez que ces pratiques dangereuses aux conséquences très graves pour les femmes et jeunes filles qui en sont victimes cessent définitivement.
                  

                     Mais quelle est votre réponse ?
                  

                     Dans le rapport de Mme Honeyball sur la condition des femmes réfugiées, au paragraphe 15, il est dit: ‘il faut garantir une protection pour les victimes des mutilations génitales féminines (MGF) par l'intermédiaire de procédures d'asile systématiques’.
                  

                     Vous qui vous mêlez de tout dans les pays qui ne vous demandent rien, vous faites une fois encore preuve de lâcheté sur ce sujet et ne faites rien pour endiguer ce phénomène dans les pays concernés.
                  

                     En réalité, ce que vous allez créer, c'est une nouvelle voie d'accès à l'immigration.
                  

                     Encourager l'immigration massive, comme le fait l'Union européenne depuis des décennies, sans exiger l'assimilation des populations, revient à instaurer un communautarisme qui ne permet pas de protéger chez nous toutes ces femmes victimes de mutilations génitales.
                  

                     Dénoncer les mutilations génitales en cet hémicycle ne suffit pas, tout comme il ne suffit pas d'envoyer une enveloppe de dix millions d'euros à l'Égypte pour que cette pratique cesse.
                  

                     Laissons aux États membres, dont c'est la compétence exclusive, le soin d'agir. Apportons toute l'aide que nous pouvons aux pays qui luttent contre ces pratiques barbares et cessons cette politique migratoire destructrice, tant pour les femmes victimes de mutilations que pour nos pays.
                  

Diane James (NI). – Mr President, a case of female genital mutilation (FGM) in England is reported every 109 minutes. Just think of what that means in terms of incidence. The fact that there such a level of FGM is an absolute outrage, but practices based on cultural or quasi-religious beliefs are difficult to eradicate, and when family members are involved it is actually near impossible.
When authorities want to stop FGM being undertaken, but in many instances are prevented from doing so, then a resolution to the problem becomes that much more difficult. In the United Kingdom, I welcome and applaud the fact that schoolteachers, border officers and many public servants are now at the forefront of resources to stop FGM. This is not an EU matter: this is an issue for Member States, whose internal systems are best placed and can be directly resourced to thwart and stop this cruel and unimaginable horror – an affront to human decency.
The European Union call for zero tolerance for FGM is, as always, words. Nothing that this particular proposal identifies can be delivered because it all contradicts the EU stance on human rights, that is to say interference in travel freedoms, the right to exercise cultural practices, recognition of cultures and societies. But Member States can actually do something and that is what I want to see happen. If zero tolerance is achieved, it will be achieved by national governments.

Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). – Mr President, Madam Commissioner, female genital mutilation is a crime and it should be treated as such. These barbaric practices, as my colleagues have said, still affect millions of girls around the world and in Europe, and more are at risk. We are talking about serious breaches of the rights of girls, some of whom are aged as young as two years old, causing physical and psychological damage.
Commissioner, I welcome your commitment and action. It is time for the Member States to do more to enforce the existing legislation, to ratify and enforce the Council of Europe's Istanbul Convention on Violence against Women, and to accelerate EU accession to the Istanbul Convention. The Convention specifically criminalises female genital mutilation and provides specific measures for prevention and protection of victims, such as the training of judges and healthcare for victims.
To eradicate FGM we need to eradicate impunity and ensure that the perpetrators, and even the guilty parents, are prosecuted. Let us say it loud and clear: child abuse and gender-based violence can never be justified by any religion, any tradition or any culture.
The EU must do more in its external and humanitarian action. We have to support awareness-raising, education on child rights and the medical risks, and support the adoption of national laws banning this practice. We also have to work with activists in civil society at grassroots level to empower women and girls to speak up in their communities. It is about recovering their dignity and it is about respecting the integrity of girls' bodies.
I will finish by saying this: let us continue to join forces in tirelessly repeating that we have to stand up for zero tolerance for female genital mutilation, for as long as it takes.

Liliana Rodrigues (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, Caros Colegas, em 2015, no Quénia, Barack Obama disse o seguinte: ‘Não há desculpa para a agressão sexual ou a violência doméstica. Não há razão para que jovens meninas sofram mutilação genital.’ Essas tradições podem ter séculos, dizia Barack Obama, mas não têm lugar no século XXI.
                  

                     No próximo dia 6 de fevereiro, assinalamos mais um Dia Internacional de Tolerância Zero à Mutilação Genital Feminina e o problema persiste. Faz agora um ano que a União Europeia reiterou o seu compromisso com a eliminação desta prática.
                  

                     Esta violência escondida nada tem a ver com cultura. É pura tortura. É preciso um compromisso da comunidade internacional para a criminalização desta prática em todos os países. Quem trata mal as suas mulheres e crianças, não pode ser, de facto, um parceiro credível.
                  

                     Agradeço à Senhora Comissária a indicação do que tem sido feito mas tenho algumas perguntas concretas que gostava de ver respondidas.
                  

                     Que resultados há nas comunidades que levam a cabo esta prática? Como está a recolha e o tratamento de dados dentro e fora da União Europeia? E que medidas de punição estão a ser previstas? Por fim, que força temos nós para, em termos de política externa, combatermos precisamente este flagelo?
                  

Anneleen Van Bossuyt (ECR). – Ik ben blij dat we hier vandaag het debat hebben over genitale verminking. Europa mag het hoofd niet afwenden van dit probleem. Het is een vorm van geweld tegen vrouwen die niet alleen buiten onze Europese grenzen plaats vindt. Het is hier al aangehaald, onderzoek wijst uit dat het jammer genoeg ook in vele Europese lidstaten voorkomt, onder andere ook hier in België zelf.
                  

                     2017 is het Europees jaar van de strijd tegen geweld tegen vrouwen en als we hier echt gevolg aan willen geven, moeten we ons ook inspannen voor de meisjes en voor de vrouwen die het slachtoffer zijn van genitale verminking. Het gaat om mensen die hun land hiervoor zelfs ontvluchten. We hebben ook betere zorg nodig voor de meisjes en de vrouwen die het slachtoffer zijn geworden van genitale verminking en ik ben dan ook erg blij dat mijn voorstel voor een proefproject voor clitorale reconstructie voor vrouwen die het slachtoffer waren van genitale verminking, dit jaar Europese middelen zal krijgen. Dus dank u wel daarvoor.
                  

Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ο ακρωτηριασμός των γυναικείων γεννητικών οργάνων χωρίς να συντρέχουν ιατρικοί λόγοι αποτελεί μία απαράδεκτη, αναχρονιστική και βάρβαρη πρακτική η οποία πρέπει όχι μόνο να καταδικαστεί αλλά και να εξαλειφθεί πλήρως. Αποτελεί ντροπή για την πολιτισμένη ανθρωπότητα, τον 21ο αιώνα, να επιτρέπει να παραβιάζονται τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα των γυναικών και να ανέχεται να υπάρχουν κράτη τα οποία αντιμετωπίζουν τα κορίτσια και τις γυναίκες σαν ζώα, να αποδέχεται ή να αδιαφορεί για την κακοποίηση τους και για τα βιολογικά και ψυχολογικά προβλήματα τα οποία δημιουργούνται σε αυτές, προβλήματα από τα οποία ουδείς γνωρίζει πότε και αν ποτέ θα απαλλαγούν. Σύμφωνα με τα υπάρχοντα στοιχεία, 140 εκατομμύρια κορίτσια και γυναίκες σε χώρες της Αφρικής, της Μέσης Ανατολής αλλά και 500 χιλιάδες σε χώρες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ενώσεως έχουν πέσει θύματα αυτής της βάρβαρης πρακτικής. Κατά ποια έννοια λογικής και ηθικής ανεχόμαστε να αφαιρείται από τα κορίτσια για τις γυναίκες αυτές το ιερό δικαίωμα στη μητρότητα; Ως Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, οφείλουμε να ενεργήσουμε άμεσα ούτως ώστε να τιμωρηθούν παραδειγματικά οι δράστες αυτών των εγκλημάτων και να εξαλειφθεί πλήρως από όλες τις χώρες του κόσμου αυτό το απαράδεκτο έθιμο.
                  

Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (PPE). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, la mutilación genital femenina consiste en amputar total o parcialmente el clítoris. Si lo visualizamos, entenderemos más claramente la barbarie que sufren doscientos millones de mujeres y niñas en más de treinta países. Reconozco que no es fácil enfrentarse a este complejo entramado de discriminación, de costumbres, de desconocimiento y de religión que esclaviza a tantas niñas inocentes que sufren en silencio una mutilación que las marcará el resto de su vida.
                  

                     Es necesario cambiar la mentalidad para conseguir el abandono del cuchillo, que pone en peligro no solo la integridad física sino también la psicológica. Nuestra acción no debe ser agresiva, sino que tiene que apuntar a la sensibilización de las comunidades que lo practican y a la educación, ya que es la mejor manera de combatir esta lacra, que tiene una resistencia cultural muy fuerte. Las mujeres lo asumen, pero los impulsores son los hombres, evidentemente porque no los mutilan a ellos. Desgraciadamente, una mujer no mutilada es considerada impura, con lo cual sufre exclusión social.
                  

                     Sumo mi voz a todas las campañas de tolerancia cero contra la mutilación genital, que, aunque se practica mayormente fuera de Europa, también nos afecta aquí, ya que existen en nuestros países muchas niñas en riesgo, debido a las creencias familiares, aunque estos casos no siempre salen a la luz. Aunque hay signos de esperanza, ya que hay países africanos que han prohibido la ablación por ley, la realidad es que aún se sigue practicando clandestinamente.
                  

                     El camino es largo, pero todo el esfuerzo es poco para devolver la dignidad a tantas niñas indefensas, víctimas de una gravísima violación de los derechos del niño, o mejor dicho, de los derechos de las niñas.
                  

Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, I am proud to stand here with colleagues to reaffirm that the EU will continue to fight to end violence against women and girls, including the appalling practice of female genital mutilation (FGM), and this is another issue where European cooperation makes a real difference. We know that every year 180 000 young women and girls are at risk of FGM, so tackling that phenomenon must be a women-led effort in intercultural dialogue, actively supported by men in the community. We must support grassroots efforts working directly with communities, with mothers, grandmothers and sisters, to change attitudes and break a harmful cycle.
We need to fund and empower the social services needed to support victims as well as community activists. The fight against FGM must be a vehicle for women's empowerment and social inclusion, and I would like to extend my thanks to all the civil society organisations, and especially the End FGM network, who work on the ground and bring their advocacy and expertise to the European Parliament. Without you we could not do our work.

Mariya Gabriel (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, les chiffres sont choquants, oui, mais aujourd'hui, nous sommes aussi la voix de ces 200 millions de femmes et de filles qui ont subi une forme de mutilation génitale féminine. Il n'y a pas d'excuse, ni culturelle, ni religieuse, qui puisse justifier cela.
                  

                     D'abord, nous prêtons tous attention aux lois. Oui, des mesures légales ont été adoptées par un certain nombre de pays. Il faut les encourager, mais il faut surtout veiller à la mise en œuvre et à la sensibilisation.
                  

                     Pour ce qui est de la mise en œuvre: il est absolument nécessaire de continuer à insister sur la collecte de données. Cela nous donnera une idée de plus en plus claire de l'étendue du problème, cela nous permettra de recenser les bonnes pratiques, cela nous permettra de mettre en avant le mot ‘prévention’.
                  

                     J'insiste beaucoup sur la sensibilisation et les campagnes d'information. Ne perdons pas de vue ces instruments non conventionnels, qui ont des retombées positives: des pièces de théâtre dans les villages, la sensibilisation menée auprès des hommes par des imams au Mali, des bandes dessinées au Sénégal. Sensibiliser, dès le plus jeune âge, les filles et les garçons, œuvrer au dialogue entre les générations, assurer des formations pour éviter les mutilations génitales médicalisées, voici quelques-uns des défis que nous pouvons relever.
                  

                     Pour terminer, une question: comment pourrions-nous collaborer avec des organisations régionales, telles que l'Union africaine, afin de créer des synergies dans ce combat commun? Volonté réelle et coordination des actions sont indispensables. Le mot-clé, c'est ‘tolérance zéro’.
                  

Edouard Martin (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, ‘Je suis excisée et je ne veux pas que ma fille subisse cette pratique à son tour.’
                  

                     ‘Ma femme a accouché d'une petite fille, comment faire pour la préserver de l'excision? On aimerait la protéger, mais ma belle-mère insiste pour qu'elle soit excisée.’
                  

                     Ces témoignages sont réels et de telles pratiques se perpétuent hélas.
                  

                     En 2017, refuser l'excision reste encore un acte de bravoure. L'exciseuse qui enterre son couteau, la mère qui dit non à sa belle-famille, le médecin qui refuse d'être complice: toutes et tous prennent un risque en disant non aux mutilations.
                  

                     La pression sociale est très forte au nom de la tradition. Je ne vais pas rappeler ici l'horreur insoutenable de ces mutilations. Je ne vais pas non plus rappeler que ce Parlement a décerné le prix Sakharov à un homme remarquable, le Dr Denis Mukwege.
                  

                     Ici, je veux humblement dire bravo à toutes ces femmes et ces hommes qui ont dit: ‘Non, ces traditions ne passeront pas par moi’. À notre tour de les aider en disant non.
                  

                     Madame la Commissaire, ces femmes comptent aussi sur vous. Proposez-leur des solutions maintenant, car comme vous l'avez dit, il reste encore beaucoup à faire.
                  

Adam Szejnfeld (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Omawiamy dzisiaj zjawisko jednoznacznie karygodne i to nie tylko ze względu na wartości, które my tutaj w Europie wyznajemy. Mówimy o zjawisku, które jest de facto powiązane również z ograniczeniem wolności seksualnej kobiet i to ograniczenie jest uzasadniane najczęściej tradycją i religią, ale w zasadzie według mnie jest to uzasadnienie najczęściej nieprawdziwe. De facto chodzi o takie barbarzyńskie władztwo mężczyzn nad kobietami. Są to tacy mężczyźni, którzy chcą tę sferę seksualności kobiet mieć tylko i wyłącznie dla siebie i zasłaniając się religią czy tradycją, kultywują to barbarzyństwo, o którym mówimy. Ale tym trudniej jest z tym walczyć, bo z czymś, co jest uprawiane pod szyldem religii, a także tradycji bardzo ciężko wygrać.
                  

                     Dlatego potrzebne są działania na różnych niwach, na różnych płaszczyznach, nie tylko prawnych, bo de facto, z przykrością muszę to powiedzieć, prawo zawsze przegra z tradycją i z religią. Potrzebna jest edukacja społeczna, potrzebne jest zaangażowanie społeczeństwa obywatelskiego, organizacji pozarządowych, ale także wreszcie wciągnięcie we wspólne działania Unii Europejskiej i państw członkowskich także tych państw, w których ten proceder jest realizowany. Tego bym się spodziewał po Komisji Europejskiej.
                  

Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). – Domnule președinte, doamnă comisar, practicile de mutilare genitală constituie o formă gravă de violență împotriva femeilor și fetelor, reprezintă o încălcare inacceptabilă a dreptului lor la integritate fizică. Asemenea practici nu trebuie să fie justificate niciodată, nici de religie, nici de cultură și nici de tradiție.
                  

                     Doamnă comisar, salut angajamentul Comisiei în facilitarea schimbului de experiență și de bune practici pe probleme de mutilare genitală între statele membre. Utilizarea fondurilor Uniunii Europene pentru prevenirea acestor practici joacă un rol vital în protecția femeilor și fetelor, identificarea victimelor și în luarea de măsuri de combatere. Prevenirea mutilării genitale este o obligație internațională în materie de drepturile omului pentru fiecare stat membru și este nevoie de o abordare fermă și de o vigilență maximă pentru combaterea acestor practici.
                  

Zgłoszenia z sali


Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, in Europa mezzo milione di donne e ragazze vivono con le conseguenze fisiche e psicologiche di pratiche di mutilazioni genitali, eppure tanti Stati membri non hanno ancora un piano d'azione al riguardo. Occorrono una proposta di atto legislativo che istituisca misure di prevenzione contro ogni forma di violenza nei confronti delle donne e, come indicato nel programma di Stoccolma, una strategia che includa ulteriori piani d'azione comuni e strutturati per porre fine alle mutilazioni genitali femminili.
                  

                     Gli Stati membri dovrebbero far ricorso ai meccanismi esistenti, per esempio la direttiva 2012/29/UE, per proteggere donne e bambini e perseguire, condannare e punire i responsabili di reati di mutilazioni genitali femminili, anche se commessi al di là dei confini dello Stato membro interessato. È necessario dunque che il principio di extraterritorialità sia incluso nelle disposizioni di tutti gli Stati membri in materia di diritto penale affinché il reato possa essere perseguito allo stesso modo nei 28 Stati membri.
                  

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, σύμφωνα με έρευνα της UNICEF τουλάχιστον 200 εκατομμύρια κορίτσια και γυναίκες έχουν υποστεί ακρωτηριασμό των γεννητικών τους οργάνων σε τριάντα χώρες του κόσμου. Η Σομαλία, η Γουινέα, το Τζιμπουτί, η Σιέρα Λεόνε, η Αίγυπτος και η Ερυθραία είναι οι χώρες στις οποίες πραγματοποιείται πιο συχνά αυτή η απαράδεκτη και απάνθρωπη τακτική. Η μόνη θετική εξέλιξη σημειώνεται τελευταία στην Αίγυπτο, όπου η κυβέρνηση αποφάσισε να σκληρύνει τη στάση της απέναντι σε αυτό το βάρβαρο έθιμο και θέσπισε νόμο που προβλέπει επτά χρόνια κάθειρξη για όσους ασκούν τέτοιου είδους επεμβάσεις. Στην Ευρώπη, παρά τη ρητή απαγόρευση της συγκεκριμένης πρακτικής, ο αριθμός των γυναικών που έχουν υποστεί ακρωτηριασμό των γεννητικών τους οργάνων ανέρχεται, σύμφωνα με υπολογισμούς, σε μισό εκατομμύριο. Μερικές φορές o ακρωτηριασμός των γεννητικών οργάνων πάει χέρι-χέρι με τους αναγκαστικούς γάμους, κάτι που παρατηρείται στο Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο και σε άλλες περιοχές. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρέπει να λάβει μέτρα για να εξαλειφθεί πλήρως αυτού του είδους η απάνθρωπη μεταχείριση.
                  

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)


Věra Jourová,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, just like the last time when we had a heated discussion, today I feel very strong support from Parliament for all the strong and efficient measures we have taken against this barbarian habit – or to call it by its proper name, crime and torture. Thank you for this, because it is very encouraging.
I would like to comment on some of your proposals or comments. I spoke to many professionals, including the people working in the FGM Network, which was mentioned here by Ms Ward, and they always speak about very complex phenomena. Of course, I always say that we should do more law enforcement, and fight against this crime by means of criminal justice. But I always hear horrible stories about the custom of taking a girl to Africa for a summer holiday and then doing it to her there in Africa. When she comes back and the parents or the granny are on European soil could and should be prosecuted, the professionals tell me it would be further trauma for the girl. There are many stories of this kind, so we need to understand very well the complexity of this phenomenon and to use really efficient measures which will bring about a difference.
We speak about ‘zero tolerance’: there are several factors which are necessary. The first thing is political will. We must be absolutely clear that there is no excuse for it, based on some something like tradition or culture. This must be absolutely clear to everyone – all politicians, all influential people must know that this is a crime which must be punished. To my taste, we suffer from too much relativism in many other important things. Here, we should not do this.
The second thing – and I spoke about it before – is that professionals, from teachers to nurses, doctors, police and prosecutors, must understand what this is about and how to fight against it and engage with it. Thirdly, the law enforcement side, which I have also mentioned: there must be no excuse, but there must also be proper provision of care to the victims, because this must be balanced. And the fourth thing, which I find the most difficult but also the most important factor, is that we here with a kind of taboo. In violence against women, we fight against the fact that quite a large part of our societies think that it is normal. With FGM, we see that we have to fight against a taboo. I myself go to many conferences, I speak to many people, and I always mention FGM because it must be heard by hundreds of thousands of people in Europe, and I always receive the same reaction: ‘What? FGM in Europe in the 21st century?’ There is such a low awareness about this phenomenon that we have to do more, and I agree with some of the comments I heard here that it must not be at our seminars and conferences where the people who know about it are participating. We must not invade the open door – we have to address the communities where this barbaric habit is being carried out.
As you know we are now running a campaign against violence against women. To my disappointment, the Member States where we have identified high numbers – France, Portugal, UK, Sweden, Belgium, Cyprus, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain, and I am naming without shaming but we must be aware of where this happening – have not asked for money to fight against this. But I don't want to say that they are not doing anything, because they have their own policy, and it was said here clearly that first of all it is the task of the Member States to take the necessary action against this. But, coming back to the need to address the communities, we have opened the call for proposals for the NGOs, and I will encourage the NGOs from these countries which I mentioned to ask for the funding and to go more closely into the communities and to work on the ground. This is to be closed on 8 March. There is EUR 6 million. If you know about those NGOs who could help, please let them know. This is now a practical thing.
I know I have been speaking for too long, but I will finalise quickly. I have mentioned the Member States where we see high figures, but the statistics are still very inaccurate. We still do not have proper data collection, and this is also connected with the taboo factor. We have to be much better, and as I said we are working with the Agency on Gender Equality.
We are also pushing for the adoption of the Istanbul Convention. I will talk about it tomorrow with Maltese Minister Ms Helena Dalli, who is very much engaged with it. I hope we can achieve it at the March Council or in June. We have the signatures of 28 Member States, but the ratification of only 14, unfortunately.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for your support. FGM is one of those matters where I will always feel we do not do enough, that we need to do more, and that if we do it together it will be more successful. Thank you very much for your future cooperation.

Przewodniczący. – Pani komisarz Jourová, bardzo dziękuję, szczególnie za to ostatnie pani wystąpienie. Każda minuta, przez którą pani słuchaliśmy, była dla nas minutą zyskaną. Otrzymała pani na tej sali nie tylko wsparcie, o które pani się zwróciła – otrzymała pani zachętę, wręcz apel, i to ponad podziałami. Proszę działać, byle skutecznie. Bardzo dziękuję.
                  

                     Zamykam debatę.
                  


Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 162)



Carlos Coelho (PPE),
por escrito. – No próximo dia 6 de fevereiro assinala-se, uma vez mais, o Dia Internacional da Mutilação Genital feminina. Estima-se que existam, pelo menos, 200 milhões de meninas e mulheres que foram alvo desta prática, em clara violação dos seus direitos fundamentais. Na União Europeia apenas, dados de 2013, são ainda 180 000 meninas que, todos os anos, correm o risco de ser mutiladas.
                  

                     Desde 2013, foram já dados alguns passos. Recentemente, a título de exemplo, este Parlamento apelou à ratificação da Convenção de Istambul. Mas ainda muito está por fazer: políticas de proteção internacional adequadas, informações sobre as políticas nacionais, estatísticas mais regulares. É importante também avaliar o estado de implementação do plano de ação de combate. É por isso que o Parlamento deve – uma vez mais – assinalar esta data e apelar a um esforço reforçado.
                  

Andi Cristea (S&D),
în scris. – Mutilarea genitală feminină constituie o încălcare a dreptului fundamental la viață al fetelor și femeilor, la siguranță, demnitate, egalitate între femei și bărbați, la nediscriminare, precum și la integritate fizică și emoțională. La nivel global, se estimează că între 100 milioane și 140 milioane de fete și femei au fost supuse unei forme de mutilări genitale feminine, și, în cazul în care tendințele actuale continuă, încă 15 milioane de fete cu vârste cuprinse între 15 si 19 ani vor fi supuse acestei cruzimi până în 2030. Este esențial ca executivul european și SEAE să includă problema mutilării genitale feminine în cadrul dialogurilor anuale ale UE cu organizațiile societății civile în țările partenere în care există această practică și să continue să promoveze asigurarea unei protecții internaționale a femeilor expuse riscului de a fi supuse mutilării genitale în întreaga lume, în cadrul relațiilor lor cu țările terțe și în cadrul forurilor internaționale. De asemenea, este necesară o strânsă colaborare cu Uniunea Africană și cu Grupul african în cadrul ONU pentru adoptarea de noi inițiative care să consolideze lupta la nivel mondial împotriva mutilării genitale feminine și să sprijine inițiativele în materie de consolidare a capacităților organizațiilor publice și ale organizațiilor societății civile.
                  

Mireille D'Ornano (ENF),
par écrit. – Les mutilations génitales féminines affecteraient, selon l'Organisation Mondiale de la Santé, 100 à 140 millions de filles et de femmes dans le monde, essentiellement dans certains États d'Afrique ou d'Asie. Profondément ancrées dans certaines traditions ancestrales, ces mutilations constituent une forme extrême de discrimination, voire de persécution, à l'égard des femmes et des enfants, puisqu'elles sont réalisées généralement sur des jeunes filles de moins de quinze ans.
                  

                     C'est sans compter leurs complications parfois fatales puisque seules 18 % d'entre elles sont pratiquées par des professionnels de santé. En Europe, un demi-million de femmes et de filles ont subi, ou courent le risque de subir, ce type de mutilation dans l'Union européenne, selon une résolution du Parlement européen du 24 mars 2009. Ainsi, Madame le député, Malin Björk soulignait-elle dans un entretien en date du 6 février 2017 le risque pour certaines femmes migrantes de subir de telles mutilations en Europe, à moins qu'elles ne les aient subies dans leurs pays d'origine.
                  

                     Si la prévalence globale de ces mutilations tend à décliner, leur recrudescence en Europe souligne la dégradation de la condition féminine et appelle à une réponse pénale implacable des juridictions nationales.
                  

Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE),
kirjallinen. – Tyttöjen ympärileikkaus on yleinen käytäntö. Sitä tapahtuu Afrikassa, mutta on rehellistä todeta, että tyttöjä silvotaan myös Euroopassa. Perinne on karmaiseva ja aiheuttaa tytöille ja naisille elämänmittaista kärsimystä. Tilanteeseen ei kuitenkaan puututa sormea heristämällä vaan paremmalla koulutuksella ja yhteistyöllä. EU:n pitää nostaa tyttöjen silpomisen kitkeminen ulko- ja kehityspolitiikan kärkitavoitteeksi. Tähän tarvitaan tiivistä instituutioiden välistä yhteistyötä. Parlamentin valtuuskunnilla olisi hyvä olla yhteinen linja komission, ulkosuhdehallinnon ja EU:n edustustojen kanssa. Viestin ja toimintatavan pitää olla yhteisesti sovittu ja selkeä. Tavoitteena pitää olla tyttöjen ympärileikkausten kieltäminen lailla ja perinteen kitkeminen kaikkialla.
                  

Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D),
în scris. – Conform Organizației Mondiale a Sănătății, aproximativ patru milioane de fetițe suferă anual mutilare genitală. Această practică face parte din ritualurile și obiceiurile culturale locale în diferite comunități sau țări din Africa și Orientul Mijlociu, însă, din păcate, continuă să existe inclusiv în locuri unde este interzisă de legislația națională. Este nevoie de mai multă acțiune din partea Comisiei Europene. Aceasta trebuie să condiționeze ajutorul pentru dezvoltare de eforturile țărilor în curs de dezvoltare de a elimina acestă practică barbară. Astăzi, cer Comisiei să acorde o atenție deosebită cazurilor care au loc pe teritoriul statelor membre și să colaboreze strâns cu autoritățile locale și naționale pentru a combate ferm acest obicei. Nicio fetiță care trăiește pe teritoriul UE nu trebuie să sufere mutilare genitală.
                  

Igor Šoltes (Verts/ALE),
pisno. – Vsak dan in v vsakem delu sveta, v bogatih ali revnih državah, v vseh starostnih skupinah in vseh družbenih slojih se ženske in dekleta soočajo z nasiljem, predvsem s strani moških. Pohabljanje ženskih spolnih organov obsega vse spremembe in poškodbe ženskih spolnih organov za nemedicinske namene in je ena najhujših kršitev človekovih pravic, saj povzroča resne zdravstvene zaplete, vključno s smrtnimi žrtvami. Po podatkih Svetovne zdravstvene organizacije je vsako leto prizadetih od 120 do 140 milijonov žensk, 3 milijone deklet pa je v nevarnosti. To odraža globoko zakoreninjene neenakosti med spoloma in predstavlja skrajno obliko diskriminacije žensk in deklet. Obenem sta močno kršeni tudi njihova pravica do varnosti in pravica do življenja, kadar to nezaslišano ravnanje vodi v smrt.
                  

                     Da bi preprečili in dolgotrajno izkoreninili pohabljanje ženskih spolnih organov, so potrebni sistematični in usklajeni ukrepi s sodelovanjem in opolnomočenjem celotnih skupnosti, da se sproži jasen družbeni dialog, ki temelji na varovanju človekovih pravic in spodbujanju enakosti spolov. Ne glede na vrsto nasilja nad ženskami in dekleti sta ključnega pomena tudi močna politična podpora in usposabljanje družbe za reševanje problema, da se dokončno ustavi storilce in ženskam in dekletom po vsem svetu zagotovi varnost, enakopravnost in dostojanstvo.
                  
18.   Bilateral safeguard clause and stabilisation mechanism for bananas of the EU-Colombia and Peru Trade Agreement (debate)

Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dnia jest debata nad sprawozdaniem sporządzonym przez Marielle de Sarnez w imieniu Komisji Handlu Międzynarodowego w sprawie wniosku dotyczącego rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady zmieniającego rozporządzenie (UE) nr 19/2013 w sprawie wprowadzenia w życie dwustronnej klauzuli ochronnej i mechanizmu stabilizacyjnego dotyczącego bananów, zawartych w Umowie o handlu między Unią Europejską i jej państwami członkowskimi, z jednej strony, a Kolumbią i Peru, z drugiej strony, oraz zmieniającego rozporządzenie (UE) nr 20/2013 w sprawie wprowadzenia w życie dwustronnej klauzuli ochronnej i mechanizmu stabilizacyjnego dotyczącego bananów, zawartych w Umowie ustanawiającej stowarzyszenie między Unią Europejską i jej państwami członkowskimi, z jednej strony, a Ameryką Środkową, z drugiej strony (COM(2015)0220 - C8-0131/2015 - 2015/0112(COD)) (A8-0277/2016).
               

Marielle de Sarnez,
rapporteure. – Monsieur le Président, en décembre dernier, notre Parlement a ratifié le protocole d'accession de l'Équateur à l'accord de libre-échange conclu en 2013 entre l'Union européenne, la Colombie et le Pérou.
               

                  Premier producteur de bananes au monde et premier exportateur vers l'Union, l'Équateur va désormais bénéficier d'une diminution significative des droits de douane pour ses exportations vers l'Union. Cela change évidemment la donne et risque de déstabiliser à terme la filière européenne de la banane. Or, celle-ci joue un rôle économique essentiel dans les régions ultrapériphériques européennes. Elle est à l'origine de quelque 37 000 emplois. Rappelons aussi que la banane fait partie de la liste européenne des produits agricoles dits ‘sensibles’ et qu'elle répond à des normes de durabilité élevée en matière sociale, environnementale ou encore sanitaire, des normes qui ne sont pas appliquées dans la chaîne de production latino-américaine.
               

                  Dans ce contexte, il est donc très important que les producteurs européens de bananes soient mieux protégés. C'est pourquoi je suis très heureuse que la position de notre Parlement ait pu être entendue et prise en compte par la Commission et par le Conseil. Je remercie tout spécialement notre commissaire, Cécilia Malmström. Je veux également remercier le président de notre commission INTA, les rapporteurs fictifs et les collègues qui se sont fortement impliqués dans ce dossier.
               

                  Grâce à vous tous, nous avons un texte qui constitue une avancée substantielle et qui apporte des réponses concrètes pour préserver notre filière. Désormais, les producteurs seront, non seulement, mieux informés, mais ils seront aussi davantage impliqués dans le suivi de l'évolution du marché.
               

                  La Commission devra réaliser une étude annuelle et approfondie de la situation du marché européen de la banane et de celle des producteurs européens, y compris après l'expiration du mécanisme. Elle devra aussi impliquer les États membres et les parties prenantes, en leur permettant d'échanger dans le cadre de réunions ad hoc sur l'évolution du marché européen de la banane.
               

                  C'est important et cela répond directement à une demande majeure des producteurs. Cela va permettre d'instaurer un dialogue régulier entre les parties prenantes et la Commission et d'aborder l'ensemble des préoccupations des producteurs, telles que l'évolution des volumes et l'impact des importations sur les prix et sur la production européenne.
               

                  La Commission devra aussi améliorer ses bases de données statistiques afin de permettre un suivi beaucoup plus détaillé et plus régulier de la situation du marché européen de la banane, et faire en sorte que ces données soient plus accessibles.
               

                  Enfin, et c'est très important, un mécanisme d'alerte précoce est créé dès lors que 80 % du volume de déclenchement du mécanisme de stabilisation est atteint par l'un des pays couverts par le mécanisme. La Commission aura désormais l'obligation légale d'informer le Parlement et le Conseil par écrit. Elle devra également fournir l'ensemble des données statistiques et les volumes d'importation pour les huit autres pays couverts, afin que les parties prenantes puissent avoir un aperçu général de la situation et mieux prévoir les dépassements à venir. En cas de dépassement constaté des seuils par l'un des pays couverts par le mécanisme, la Commission aura une obligation légale d'agir, soit en suspendant temporairement les droits préférentiels, soit en démontrant qu'une telle imposition n'est pas requise.
               

                  La Commission devra procéder à une évaluation complète du fonctionnement du mécanisme à la date du 1er janvier 2019, soit un an avant son expiration. Si, à l'issue de cette évaluation, elle estime que la situation des producteurs s'est dégradée, elle devra étendre la période de validité du mécanisme après accord des parties prenantes. La Commission devra aussi continuer de conduire des analyses annuelles de la situation du marché, de celles des producteurs après 2020, et prendre des mesures en cas de dégradation de la production. L'ensemble de ces changements s'appliqueront au Pérou, à la Colombie, à l'Équateur, mais aussi aux pays d'Amérique centrale qui sont parties à l'accord d'association avec l'Union européenne.
               

                  Notre Parlement se montrera vigilant quant à l'application de la déclaration conjointe qui lie désormais nos trois institutions et quant au respect de l'engagement pris par la Commission lors de nos trilogues de faire précéder tout nouvel accord de libre-échange d'une étude d'impact sur nos régions ultrapériphériques.
               

                  Je forme le vœu que ce rapport soit adopté largement demain par notre Parlement. Nous aurons ainsi fait œuvre utile pour ces régions si importantes pour notre Europe.
               

Cecilia Malmström,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, following Parliament's consent on 14 December on the Protocol of Accession of Ecuador, I am very pleased to confirm that this agreement has been provisionally applied since 1 January this year. This is good news because a new trade agreement that creates new export opportunities for Ecuador – and of course opportunities for our goods and services – is also very good news for Ecuador. It is the first trade agreement with a developed country, an agreement that respects the level of development in Ecuador, and provides the opportunity for them to diversify the economy, reduce dependency on oil exports and raw materials and create new jobs for Ecuadorians.
I would like to thank the Committee on International Trade, and its rapporteur, Mr Scholz, for the work that it did to make this agreement possible. Since the agreement has been applied, the next step is, of course, to amend the banana stabilisation mechanism as well, and that is what we are debating today. This mechanism needed to be amended to incorporate Ecuador.
I very much welcome the constructive discussions and the agreement that we reached just before Christmas under the leadership of the rapporteur, Mrs de Sarnez, and also the co-rapporteurs, shadow rapporteurs and the Chairman, Mr Lange. The banana stabilisation mechanism, to which imports of bananas from Ecuador will be subject, is a good and efficient mechanism to ensure stability in the EU market in case of a surge in imports of bananas from Ecuador. Mrs de Sarnez gave a very long explanation of its content, but let me just reiterate the main points.
With the amendments proposed by this Parliament, the amending regulation further improves the mechanism. There will be an early warning mechanism when imports reach 80% of their relevant yearly threshold. Transparency will be improved, and data on imports will be made regularly available and in a user-friendly manner.
Finally, the institutions also agreed that before the stabilisation mechanism expires at the end of 2019, the Commission will assess the situation of EU banana producers. Even after the expiry, we will continue to regularly analyse the state of the market and the EU producers and, where necessary, take appropriate action. In the light of this provisional application of the trade agreement since January, I hope that this amended regulation on the banana stabilisation mechanism can be adopted, hopefully voted on with a big majority tomorrow, and then applied as soon as possible.

Gabriel Mato,
en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señor presidente, aunque el sector platanero europeo y, en particular, el canario siempre está amenazado, tras el acuerdo que vamos a votar mañana estoy seguro de que nuestro futuro va a ser muchísimo mejor, pero no ha sido fácil. Para muchos, era mucho más importante aprobar el acuerdo con Ecuador que garantizar el futuro del sector platanero. No lo era para mí, pero sí lo era para muchos y por eso agradezco, de verdad, a la comisaria que se implicara, casi en el último momento, pero fue suficiente que se implicara y que esto saliera adelante.
               

                  Porque tenemos que recordar la realidad: los productores de las regiones ultraperiféricas siempre son los perdedores de los acuerdos de libre comercio y por eso son importantes estas cláusulas de salvaguarda y el mecanismo de estabilización, porque quizá es el último recurso que tienen nuestros productores para hacer frente a las importaciones, muy a menudo lideradas por poderosas multinacionales que controlan los mercados a nivel mundial.
               

                  Cuando afrontamos este debate lo hacíamos teniendo muy claro que el mecanismo hasta ahora no funcionaba. No estaba funcionando bien y lo hemos visto con un ejemplo muy claro, el de Perú, que durante cuatro años ha sobrepasado ampliamente el umbral fijado por el acuerdo y no se había hecho nada al respecto. Por eso, entendíamos que había que modificar ese sistema y se ha modificado yo creo que en el buen camino.
               

                  No voy a explicar mucho las características, porque ya las han dicho tanto la ponente como la comisaria, pero sí creo que es bueno que haya ese mecanismo de alerta temprana que obliga a la Comisión a alertar al Parlamento y al Consejo cuando el volumen de importaciones alcance el 80 % de los umbrales. Y yo creo que también es importante que el sector, los propios productores, puedan participar también junto a los Estados miembros en el seguimiento de la evolución de los intercambios comerciales.
               

                  Transparencia, control, información y actuar en caso de necesidad son palabras claves en este nuevo sistema. Creemos que es muy importante que se pueda actuar en caso de deterioro grave de la situación del mercado y también después de 2020. Pero no hay que bajar la guardia. Debemos seguir trabajando en mejorar la comercialización de nuestra fruta. Tenemos, lo he dicho muchas veces, el mejor plátano del mundo, sin duda alguna, pero tenemos que ser capaces de competir frente a cualquiera si logramos que el consumidor siga prefiriendo el plátano europeo, el plátano de Canarias, antes que cualquier otro.
               

Juan Fernando López Aguilar,
en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor presidente, comisaria. Los socialistas españoles en el Parlamento Europeo damos siempre la bienvenida a los actos, instrumentos y acuerdos que expresan el compromiso político de la Unión Europea con América Latina. Y, por tanto, damos la bienvenida a los acuerdos comerciales multipartes, a los acuerdos comerciales con Colombia y Perú, y a su extensión a Ecuador. Pero, dicho esto, damos toda la importancia —y, desde luego, se la doy yo— al mecanismo de estabilización, y a la actualización y mejora del mecanismo de estabilización del plátano, que es como en Canarias llamamos al banano. Porque no podemos ignorar que existen productores de banano -plátano- en la Unión Europea, en regiones ultraperiféricas, y que el plátano mantiene cerca de treinta mil puestos de trabajo en esas regiones ultraperiféricas, siete mil de ellos en Canarias.
               

                  Por tanto, hay que decir con toda claridad que la Unión Europea cumple el deber de informar a este Parlamento Europeo, a través de la Comisión, en el caso de que se vaya a alcanzar el volumen máximo de importaciones de plátano procedente de esa región centroamericana, pero, sobre todo, de mantener su alerta temprana y su capacidad de respuesta. Porque los productores de plátano en las regiones ultraperiféricas no buscan aquí compensaciones sin más. Buscan, sobre todo, herramientas para defenderse. Para defenderse frente al incumplimiento de los términos señalados en el propio acuerdo.
               

                  Y eso exige mantener la alerta temprana, informar a este Parlamento Europeo -en eso consisten las mejoras introducidas- de cualquier situación que merezca la atención, el análisis, el seguimiento y la revisión anual, en su caso, de los términos concordados y, también, la previsión de la respuesta compensatoria, en su caso.
               

                  Por eso, damos la bienvenida a un acuerdo que es respetuoso con el medio ambiente, que tiene cláusulas de crecimiento y desarrollo regional inclusivo en América Latina, pero llamamos la atención de la Comisión sobre la imprescindible necesidad de observar estrictamente los términos del mecanismo de estabilización del plátano, pensando que es un producto de extrema sensibilidad en las regiones ultraperiféricas.
               

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica,
en nombre del Grupo ALDE. – Señor presidente, comisaria. Esta salvaguarda para los productos y productores de plátano canario que aprobamos esta semana es un éxito de la política europea. Es fruto de un trabajo colectivo en el que se han implicado los productores, el Gobierno de Canarias y los eurodiputados que trabajamos aquí — y, por supuesto nuestra ponente, Marielle de Sarnez, a quien agradezco su excelente labor — para que se escuche una voz europea. Escuchada, pese a que llega desde la ultraperiferia.
               

                  Destaco y reconozco la sensibilidad con que se acogieron las reivindicaciones canarias en la Comisión Europea y agradezco el trabajo realizado por la señora Malmström y su equipo, que han alcanzado un acuerdo que recoge todos los puntos críticos para evitar que la incorporación de Ecuador al Acuerdo Comercial con Colombia y Perú desestabilice esta industria europea.
               

                  Traslado, también, la gratitud de las instituciones canarias —de la Consejería de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca y de la propia Presidencia del Gobierno— por el éxito de este trabajo colectivo.
               

                  Y finalizo expresando nuestro compromiso en nombre de Coalición Canaria y del gobierno que preside con la protección del sector primario de esta región ultraperiférica.
               

                  Estamos aquí para recordar cada día la fragilidad en que viven estos productores frente a terceros países y para cooperar para que la Unión sea un marco útil de estabilidad, de apoyo, de impulso y de protección. Hoy lo hemos conseguido.
               

Helmut Scholz,
im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin! Das Gesetz zu den Schutzklauseln, insbesondere zu den begleitenden Maßnahmen für europäische Bananenbauern, das wir heute hier diskutieren, stellt einen guten Kompromiss dar, der sicherlich nicht einfach zu erreichen war, aber letztendlich doch in letzter Minute einen Handelskonflikt vermieden hat. Kleinbauern brauchen Schutz. Importeure und Exporteure brauchen Vorhersehbarkeit und Verlässlichkeit, und zwar in der Realität des wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Alltags aller beteiligten Seiten.
               

                  Das Gesetz bildet den letzten Baustein im Beitrittsprozess Ecuadors zu dem Handelsabkommen mit den Andenstaaten Peru und Kolumbien, für das ich hier Berichterstatter sein durfte. Ecuador wollte diesen Beitritt aus ökonomischen und politischen Zwängen heraus und zugleich, um den eigenständigen Weg nachhaltiger Entwicklungen des ‘Buen Vivis’ fortzusetzen.
               

                  Das heutige Gesetz soll uns bei unserer Aufgabe und Pflicht unterstützen, in den kommenden Jahren darüber zu wachen, dass das Abkommen positiv für das Wohl unserer Bevölkerung ist, und zwar auf der Seite beider Vertragsparteien. Ich hoffe, dass sich diesmal meine negativen Befürchtungen und die meiner Fraktion nicht bewahrheiten und dass wir mit diesem Abkommen einen Schritt vorankommen.
               

Molly Scott Cato,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, bananas are symbolic fruit. They play such an important part in the politics of some countries that the phrase ‘banana republic’ is used to describe a corrupt regime dominated by powerful corporations. How can it be rational that a tropical fruit which travels so far and bruises so easily is eaten more than any other in the UK?
This modified regulation enshrines even more of the worst aspects of our irrational relationship with this humble fruit. Its focus is to ensure supermarkets' ability to continue to use bananas as a loss leader, so that their price does not reflect their true environmental cost. It simultaneously increases the risk that Andean countries will lose the preferential tariffs which underpin the livelihoods of poor farmers in countries like Ecuador, where 200 000 families depend on banana production, and 56% of the banana plantations are smaller than 10 hectares.
The Greens' priority for trade is to ensure a comfortable life for all, without wasting energy and resources. Our priority for agriculture is to protect the livelihoods of small producers against the power of global corporations. This regulation does nothing to constrain the power of such powerful retailers, who undermine the minimum wage in the Ecuadorian banana sector. This so-called safeguard regulation dismisses social and ecological aspects of production, and should leave a bitter taste in the mouths of the millions of European consumers who choose a banana before other locally grown fruit.

Gilles Lebreton,
au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, l'ouverture du marché européen de la banane à l'Équateur est un risque majeur pour les producteurs antillais. En effet, l'Équateur est le quatrième producteur mondial de bananes: c'est un géant par rapport aux Antilles françaises.
               

                  Certes, la présente proposition de règlement prévoit des instruments de sauvegarde, mais aucun ne me paraît suffisant. Le plus important est un mécanisme de stabilisation, qui permet de rehausser les droits de douane en cas de dépassement d'un seuil de volume de bananes importées. Cependant, il n'a jamais été utilisé contre le Pérou, qui a pourtant dépassé ce seuil chaque année depuis 2013. Certes, la proposition tente de l'améliorer, en créant un mécanisme d'alerte précoce dès que 80 % du seuil est atteint et en assignant à la Commission une obligation de réagir, mais rien ne garantit que la Commission réagira effectivement.
               

                  Ces instruments de sauvegarde sont donc des leurres. J'accuse l'Union européenne de sacrifier délibérément les producteurs de bananes antillais sur l'autel de l'ultralibéralisme.
               

Fernando Ruas (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, a alteração regulamentar que debatemos hoje tem como foco principal a banana, que é um dos frutos mais consumidos na União Europeia, que absorve um terço das exportações mundiais, sendo a sua principal origem o Equador. Os produtores europeus estão concentrados nas regiões ultraperiféricas de Portugal, Espanha e França, e são responsáveis apenas por 11,4% do consumo europeu, aliás, o seu único mercado.
               

                  Em Portugal, a produção está localizada sobretudo na Região Autónoma da Madeira e ainda nos Açores, e constitui uma importante alavanca de desenvolvimento económico, de criação de emprego, de fixação das populações e, curiosamente, também da modelação paisagística que importa preservar.
               

                  Deste importante compromisso interinstitucional, realço a criação de instrumentos estatísticos fidedignos sobre a evolução das quantidades e dos preços das importações, a avaliação da situação dos produtores europeus e a apresentação de um relatório sobre a aplicação do mecanismo de estabilização para as bananas.
               

                  Destaco ainda a criação de um sistema de alerta sobre os efeitos das importações no mercado europeu e a adoção de eventuais medidas compensatórias. Finalmente, sublinho a possibilidade e o interesse em prorrogar a vigência destes mecanismos pós-2020, na sequência, aliás, do que é proposto pela própria relatora.
               

Eric Andrieu (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, dans la proposition initiale, la Commission considérait que le mécanisme de stabilisation pour les bananes fonctionnait parfaitement. Elle souhaitait ajouter seulement le terme ‘Équateur’. Nous n'avons pas partagé cette position et nous avons agi pour modifier et renforcer les mesures pour préserver la production européenne.
               

                  Je voudrais remercier l'excellent travail de Mme de Sarnez et l'écoute de Mme la Commissaire.
               

                  Nous le savons tous: ce mécanisme de stabilisation n'a jamais été appliqué ni pour la communauté andine, ni pour l'Amérique centrale.
               

                  Le système d'alerte précoce proposé et d'autres améliorations devront permettre de faciliter le déclenchement de ce dispositif dans l'intérêt de nos producteurs.
               

                  Je souhaiterais aujourd'hui que la Commission clarifie sa position sur la question du démantèlement tarifaire. Je souhaiterais, à ce titre, qu'elle s'engage à ne plus réduire le tarif qui a été ramené de 114 euros à 75 euros la tonne pour les bananes sud-américaines. Il s'agit là de protéger l'équilibre socio-économique déjà fragile de nos régions ultrapériphériques et des pays ACP.
               

Santiago Fisas Ayxelà (PPE). – Señor presidente, señora comisaria, la adhesión de Ecuador al tratado de libre comercio entre la Unión Europea y Colombia y Perú es, en términos globales, una buena noticia, ya que contribuye a la intensificación de los flujos comerciales y las inversiones entre las partes. Pero no hay que olvidar que Ecuador es el mayor exportador de plátanos a la Unión Europea, por lo que el refuerzo de la cláusula de salvaguarda ha sido una de las prioridades de este Parlamento para proteger el sector platanero de varias regiones periféricas europeas, entre ellas Canarias.
               

                  Me congratulo por el resultado del diálogo tripartito, por el que se ha llegado a un buen acuerdo, gracias, en gran parte, al tesón del señor Mato. Este diálogo tripartito incluye nuestras reivindicaciones sobre el establecimiento de un sistema de alerta temprana, un seguimiento del mercado eficaz y la posibilidad de medidas compensatorias a los productores. Creo firmemente que el acuerdo, junto con la cláusula, son una buena noticia para la Unión Europea. Además, el acuerdo fortalece la posición de la Unión en la región, favorecerá el crecimiento económico y, con la cláusula, protegemos a los productores de la Unión.
               

Francisco Assis (S&D). – As relações económicas e comerciais entre a União Europeia e os países da América Latina são da maior importância e julgo mesmo que, nas atuais circunstâncias internacionais, devem ser rapidamente incrementadas.
               

                  O Equador e a Colômbia, de onde provêm mais de metade das bananas consumidas na Europa são, aliás, o exemplo de dois países que merecem ser ajudados e apoiados pela União Europeia. Mas, por outro lado, não podemos esquecer que há 37 000 postos de trabalho que dependem, direta ou indiretamente, da produção de bananas em cinco países da União Europeia.
               

                  O meu país, Portugal, é o terceiro produtor de bananas da Europa. A Madeira e os Açores produzem cerca de 20 000 toneladas deste fruto todos os anos. Este setor deve ser acautelado, até porque esta atividade diz respeito a territórios ultraperiféricos, a ilhas geograficamente bastante isoladas e, por isso mesmo, menos capazes de diversificar a sua economia em caso de prejuízos graves.
               

                  Os mecanismos de proteção agora estabelecidos pela Comissão Europeia e agora afinados por este Parlamento, no sentido de um melhor acompanhamento e controlo, são um valioso contributo para corrigir desequilíbrios no mercado europeu, resultantes de aumentos substanciais nas importações de banana. Provam que as expetativas e preocupações dos produtores deste fruto, na sua maioria, aliás, pequenos produtores, não nos são indiferentes no quadro europeu.
               

                  A solução encontrada tem o mérito de salvaguardar os interesses europeus sem pôr em causa, o que nos parece igualmente importante, os interesses destes países da América Latina, cujos volumes de exportação de banana continuarão a ter margem para crescimento.
               

Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE). – Mr President, by joining the EU-Columbia and Peru Trade Agreement, Ecuador will enjoy improved access for the main exports to the EU, such as fisheries, cut flowers, coffee, cocoa, fruits and nuts. Although banana imports will also benefit from our preferential rate, an additional stabilisation mechanism will protect European producers from potential import surges.
A better and more stringent system of information, based on reliable statistics on the trends in imports of bananas from three countries to the EU, will be in place. In particular, when volumes of these imports reach 80% of the threshold the Commission must inform the European Parliament and the Council, giving them an analysis of the impact of these imports. However, preferences can be suspended if the annual threshold has been reached. With all this in place, I can fully support this proposal.

Cláudia Monteiro de Aguiar (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, gostaria de agradecer todo o empenho da Senhora Comissária e dos Colegas que trabalharam neste acordo, de tal forma que, hoje e amanhã, espero uma votação bastante positiva e uma aprovação deste acordo. Um acordo que salvaguarda todos os agricultores e produtores de banana europeus. A maior vitória em termos negociais foi alcançada.
               

                  A partir de agora, teremos uma cláusula de salvaguarda que poderá suspender as importações da América Central. A partir de agora, teremos acesso a mais informação sobre quantidades importadas. A partir de agora, será analisado o impacto das importações nas economias locais.
               

                  E que impacto têm estas importações em regiões como as nossas, as regiões ultraperiféricas? Os produtores de banana, quer nos Açores, mas sobretudo na Madeira, têm neste novo regulamento uma proteção efetiva. São cerca de 40 000 postos de trabalho salvaguardados e é todo um setor que contribui, direta e indiretamente, para o desenvolvimento económico e social das nossas regiões, que hoje e que amanhã, espero, saia reforçado.
               

Zgłoszenia z sali


Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'Unione europea importa circa cinque milioni di tonnellate annue di banane a fronte di una produzione di circa 650 000 tonnellate interamente destinate al mercato interno. Nei territori ultraperiferici dell'Unione, in particolare, il settore di produzione della banana svolge un ruolo economico fondamentale. Circa 40 000 posti di lavoro dipendono direttamente o indirettamente dalla produzione di banane ed il settore garantisce la sostenibilità dei collegamenti marittimi, permettendo di rifornire in modo regolare queste regioni.
               

                  La tutela di un settore così virtuoso ed economicamente rilevante perciò non può essere demandata solo a misure di limitazione delle importazioni. È opportuno invece investire sulla specificità della filiera europea puntando su innovazione e sostenibilità e mantenendo requisiti elevati per l'intero settore. Solo così è possibile creare effetti duraturi di stabilizzazione del mercato, evitando di concorrere ad un livellamento verso il basso nella qualità dei prodotti.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, από το Δεκέμβριο του 2012 η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση έχει υπογράψει συμφωνία ελεύθερων συναλλαγών με την Κολομβία και το Περού, συμφωνία που προβλέπει τη σταδιακή κατάργηση των δασμών για την μπανάνα, ύψους 75 ευρώ ανά τόνο, μέχρι την 1η Ιανουαρίου 2020. Παράλληλα και προκειμένου να αποφευχθεί η αποσταθεροποίηση της ευρωπαϊκής αγοράς και να μην ζημιωθούν οι παραγωγοί της Ένωσης, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση έχει θεσπίσει μια διμερή ρήτρα υποτιθέμενης διασφάλισης και έναν μηχανισμό σταθεροποίησης. Ωστόσο, δεδομένου ότι o τομέας της παραγωγής μπανάνας διαδραματίζει σημαντικό οικονομικό ρόλο σε διάφορα ευρωπαϊκά κράτη μέλη και απασχολεί άμεσα ή έμμεσα 37000 άτομα, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση θα πρέπει να αντιταχθεί σε οποιαδήποτε συμφωνία ελεύθερου εμπορίου αναμένεται να βλάψει τους Ευρωπαίους μπανανοπαραγωγούς, όχι μόνο στα Κανάρια νησιά, αλλά και στην Κρήτη και να οδηγήσει επίσης σε συρρίκνωση των μικρών επιχειρήσεων και σε απορρύθμιση των εργασιακών σχέσεων. Στόχος της Ένωσης πρέπει να είναι η προστασία των μπανανοπαραγωγών της Ένωσης και όχι η κερδοφορία των πολυεθνικών.
               

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)


Cecilia Malmström,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you for the debate here today. The free-trade agreement with Ecuador is a possibility to support Ecuador, its economy, its development and its efforts in diversifying its economy and giving new possibilities to the people. It also contains a chapter on sustainable development.
However, I know that there have been concerns by banana producers in the European Union, and that is why the amended regulation that we are about to vote on tomorrow is a good legislative tool, and I really hope that it can calm some of the concerns that you have expressed here on behalf of them. It is a tool that will guarantee the stability of the banana market and the long-term sustainability of this sector, which is so important for many Europeans, especially in our outermost regions.
The new regulation will provide more information. It will regularly be available, and imports will be monitored closely. It would be transparent and user-friendly, so that everybody can follow what is going on and get a full picture. You can be assured that the Commission – and I, personally – will be fully dedicated to this procedure, and we will be informing and engaging with you and the whole Parliament on this regularly, and we are of course ready to discuss at any moment if you have questions on this. Thank you very much again, rapporteur Mrs Samez, for the work you have done. I would also like to thank the rest of Parliament, and I am looking forward to the vote tomorrow.

Marielle de Sarnez,
rapporteure. – Monsieur le Président, je veux remercier chacun et chacune des intervenants, ceux qui ont parlé ce soir, je remercie à nouveau la commissaire Cecilia Malmström et je veux vous dire quelque chose de simple, je crois que nous avons là un très bon accord.
               

                  C'est un accord protecteur pour nos producteurs européens, c'est un accord protecteur pour notre outre-mer et pour nos régions ultrapériphériques, qui sont un formidable atout de notre Union européenne et qui doivent être valorisées. Je suis donc optimiste, je trouve que tout cela est très constructif et je forme le vœu que cet accord reçoive demain une large approbation de notre assemblée.
               

Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.
               

                  Głosowanie odbędzie się w czwartek 2 lutego 2017 r.
               


Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 162)



Paloma López Bermejo (GUE/NGL),
por escrito. – Es lamentable que, como resultado de la falta de iniciativa legislativa de este Parlamento, tengamos que aprovechar una propuesta técnica de la Comisión para introducir una demanda tan importante para los productores de plátano de Canarias como es el fortalecimiento de los mecanismos de salvaguarda frente a las importaciones. Apoyamos las enmiendas del Parlamento, pero mantenemos, sin embargo, nuestra oposición de fondo a la liberalización del comercio, que es la causa fundamental de las dificultades para la producción europea y que, al integrar a marchas forzadas a los países periféricos al mercado mundial, los condena a la dependencia económica de las grandes transnacionales occidentales. Lamentamos que la UE esté dispuesta a aceptar el fortalecimiento de los mecanismos de salvaguarda solo como contrapartida a una agresiva política comercial que, por desgracia, amplificará las dificultades por las que pasan nuestros agricultores.
               
19.   Sustainable management of external fishing fleets (debate)

Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dnia jest debata nad sprawozdaniem sporządzonym przez Linnéę Engström w imieniu Komisji Rybołówstwa w sprawie wniosku dotyczącego rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady w sprawie zrównoważonego zarządzania zewnętrznymi flotami rybackimi, uchylającego rozporządzenie Rady (WE) nr 1006/2008 (COM(2015)0636 - C8-0393/2015 - 2015/0289(COD)) (A8-0377/2016).
               

Linnéa Engström,
rapporteur. – Mr President, first I would like to thank everyone for the work they have done on this important report and the good cooperation and interesting discussions we have had on this topic, the sustainable management of the EU external fishing fleet.
We are about to raise standards in the management of the EU external fishing fleet. For many years the EU had a very bad reputation when fishing outside EU waters, but for the last ten years things have considerably improved with the control regulation, the IUU regulation and the reformed CFP in place. The report that we are going to vote on tomorrow is a regulation that is part of the EU control system on fisheries. It is actually the most fundamental one because it decides who shall have the right to fish outside EU waters.
We can be proud of ourselves for we have voted for a very ambitious Parliament position in the committee vote. On several points we have strengthened the Commission proposal, which I have to say was a very good proposal to start with. For instance, we have added that EU vessels can only get direct authorisations if there is a surplus of fish available that the coastal state cannot catch. We have added that fishing on the high seas must be based on a scientific evaluation, showing the sustainability of that fishing activity. We introduced the requirement that vessels returning to the EU fleet register must provide their complete flag history during their period off the register. But, above all, we agreed that the new public register on authorisations must also include the name of the owner of the company, as well as the beneficial owner. This would then mean that, for the first time, we will see who benefits from global fishing through a public register.
Tomorrow we will vote in plenary, and some things are still to be settled. It is an important principle that only EU vessels with a clean record of compliance should be able to fish outside EU waters. This is already a provision in the current regulation that we need to keep. Otherwise we undermine our own credibility in our work to curb the IUU fishing of other fishing nations. So it is crucial to reinstate Article 5.1(d) that fell in a tight vote in the Committee. I therefore urge you, colleagues, to vote against Amendment 30 and to support Amendment 78.
Another fundamental principle is the exclusivity clause in the sustainable fisheries partnership agreements. This is stipulated in Article 31 of the basic regulation. I agree that there could be situations when the Commission should try to reactivate so-called dormant agreements. This idea was adopted in Amendment 18 in the Committee vote. But under no circumstances should fishing vessels be allowed to engage in direct authorisations, just like that, if there has not been any protocol in force for three years. This is exactly what Amendment 48 suggests. It suggests that fishing could start again without any prior assessment of the situation, yet there can be many reasons why there is no protocol in force – for example that the fish stocks situation does not allow for more fishing or the coastal state wants to keep the resource to itself for political reasons. That is why the Commission first needs to assess the situation and check coherence with other EU policies, such as developing and foreign policies. The Commission needs to ensure a level playing field. So please join me and delete Amendment 48, which is in fact not in line with the basic regulation.

Karmenu Vella,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, my sincere thanks go to the rapporteur, Ms Engström, so thank you, Linnéa, for the work on this report, along with the other shadows and their teams, who have worked hard to find a good compromise in relation to this Commission proposal.
The proposal on the sustainable management of the external fleets is of prime importance to reinforce the role of the European Union as a key global actor in fisheries and in ocean governance. With the new rules, the Commission aims to create a benchmark at international level regarding the management and the control of external fleets. I am pleased to see that the overwhelming majority of the amendments tabled follow this objective overall, and even reinforce the key elements of our proposal. The Commission would therefore be favourable to these amendments as long as they do not lead to disproportionate administrative burdens for our Member States and for our operators. The efforts deployed so far to simplify the text, reduce administrative burdens and improve the consistency and structure of the proposal could be of inspiration during the upcoming trilogues.
In relation to the database I am confident we will be able to increase openness and transparency, while striking a good balance with respect for sensitive, personal and commercial data. In order to maintain the reputation of the EU's external fleet, we need to ensure that only good conduct vessels and operators complying with the rules are allowed to fish outside EU waters. Therefore, a clean record from sanctions for serious infringements in the last 12 months should be one of the conditions for a fishing authorisation.
Finally, as you know, the European Union is responsible for the activities of its vessels operating outside EU waters, and that is why it is particularly important to allow the Commission to withdraw the fishing authorisation of a vessel when the flag Member State does not take action to stop that vessel from causing damage. The Union has now become a strong global actor in shaping international oceans governance, and this has to be reflected also in our legislation and in our actions. I therefore trust that together we will manage to improve fisheries governance through better control and monitoring of our extended fleet. Let me thank you once again for this report and for the fruitful upcoming discussion. We look forward to further working with Parliament in a good spirit of cooperation.

Francisco José Millán Mon,
en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señor presidente, lo primero es felicitar a la ponente por su trabajo. Creo que hemos conseguido un texto algo mejorado disminuyendo la carga burocrática, sobre todo en los llamados acuerdos privados, mediante la introducción de un fast track; también se ha cambiado el procedimiento para otorgar las licencias, al permitir a los Estados miembros controlar mejor el proceso.
               

                  Lógicamente, también existen puntos con los que no estoy plenamente de acuerdo, entre ellos, el referente al registro de autorizaciones de pesca de la Unión (el artículo 39). El texto aprobado en la Comisión de Pesca me parece excesivo: exige la publicación de datos que pueden llegar a atentar contra la privacidad de las empresas y hacerles desvelar sus estrategias empresariales. Su propuesta original, señor comisario, me parece mucho más equilibrada.
               

                  Mi grupo político apoya la transparencia, pero este Reglamento tampoco me parece el idóneo para regular un asunto que tiene un carácter horizontal. Quiero detenerme en la llamada doble sanción, la del artículo 5, apartado 1, que entiendo que penaliza sin licencia a los barcos que hubieran sido sancionados un año antes de la petición de autorización.
               

                  Conseguimos eliminar esta disposición en la Comisión de Pesca, pero ahora —como ustedes ven— se vuelve a traer al Pleno con una enmienda. Esta norma, que puede resultar contraproducente, perjudicaría seriamente a la flota exterior de la Unión. Por sus características especiales, en muchos casos estos barcos no pueden reconvertirse y pescar en aguas de la Unión. La paralización de un año implicaría pérdidas económicas inasumibles. No es coherente tampoco con el Reglamento de base, que dice que la Unión Europea debe contribuir a actividades pesqueras sostenibles, económicamente viables y que generen empleo. Y, además, este requisito no se aplica a la flota que faena en aguas de la Unión, creando así una situación de discriminación. Por todo ello, yo pido el apoyo a la enmienda 30, que es la posición que se aprobó en la Comisión de Pesca.
               

                  Señor comisario, la legislación en materia pesquera debe tener en cuenta también su dimensión económica y social. No podemos hacer imposible la pesca de la flota pesquera europea en aguas de terceros países. Perjudicaremos al empleo, perjudicaremos a nuestras empresas y favoreceremos a las flotas de terceros países, que están mucho menos controladas y que pescan de forma no sostenible
               

Ricardo Serrão Santos,
em nome do Grupo S&D. – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, em primeiro lugar, tenho de felicitar a relatora pelo trabalho inclusivo que realizou com os relatores-sombra e as respetivas equipas. Podemos não concordar com alguns detalhes, mas tudo foi feito com abertura, clareza e empenho por parte de todos os grupos políticos que se envolveram na discussão de um regulamento que tem enorme relevância para a gestão das pescas externas.
               

                  Como o tempo é curto, quero focar três pontos essenciais.
               

                  Primeiro, penso que é essencial não expurgar este regulamento de uma disposição que já existia anteriormente e que permite penalizar o acesso a acordos internacionais de pesca a embarcações e mestres pescadores que cometeram infrações sérias. Seria um retrocesso histórico no contexto da legislação europeia.
               

                  Em segundo lugar, parece-me essencial garantir que haja transparência relativa à informação sobre as embarcações que pescam nas águas internacionais, quais as oportunidades de pescas associadas, quem são os seus armadores e, muito importante mesmo, quais são os beneficiários finais, isto é, quem são os beneficial owners. Temos de garantir que as pescarias europeias não são utilizadas como ferramenta para evasão fiscal ou branqueamento de capitais.
               

                  Por fim, gostaria de explicar porque me parece importante evitar que os acordos internacionais adormecidos se perpetuem. Ao certificarmos a legalidade e a transparência do setor, aquilo que é garantido precisamente por este regulamento, então também temos de assegurar que não se perpetuam acordos adormecidos em detrimento do interesse das frotas dos Estados-Membros da União Europeia, com efeito pernicioso a jusante e, enquanto estamos adormecidos, promovermos o estabelecimento de frotas duvidosas e malévolas.
               

                  Se queremos combater a pesca IU e a escravatura, e fomentar respeito pelo ambiente e pelas comunidades locais dos países terceiros, então não podemos permitir que os acordos internacionais europeus ineficientes se prolonguem, pelo menos, por mais de três anos.
               

Peter van Dalen,
namens de ECR-Fractie. – Ik wil dat de Europese vissers binnen en buiten de Europese wateren bijdragen aan een goed beheer van onze schepping en dat visserijactiviteiten binnen en buiten de EU-wateren gebaseerd zijn op dezelfde uitgangspunten. Zo staat het ook in het gemeenschappelijk visserijbeleid.
               

                  Duurzaam beheer van de visbestanden moet het uitgangspunt zijn. Alleen daar vissen waar dat verantwoord is, daarover ook transparant rapporteren en dan niet even omvlaggen naar dubieuze vlagstaten als dat uitkomt. Een Europese vlag achterop een vissersboot moet symbool staan voor een verantwoord beheer. Helaas hanteren de vissersschepen uit bijvoorbeeld China en Rusland andere principes. Europa mag daar niet aan meedoen, maar de Europese Unie moet het goede voorbeeld geven. We moeten erop blijven hameren dat foute vismethoden, waarbij de wereldzeeën grof worden leeggehaald, niet kunnen. En we blijven die landen erop aanspreken dat ze hun beleid moeten veranderen.
               

                  Het Commissievoorstel bevat een enkel punt dat ik niet kan steunen, met name het gegeven dat de Europese Commissie het recht zou hebben om vergunningen in te trekken. Ik vind dat Europa dat niet kan, dat is echt iets wat voorbehouden is aan de lidstaten. Maar voor het overige steun ik van harte het voorstel van de Commissie.
               

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica,
en nombre del Grupo ALDE. – Señor presidente, comisario. Quiero agradecer a la ponente y al resto el trabajo realizado y decir que la dimensión exterior de la PPC obliga a toda la flota europea a cumplir las mismas normas y a operar con los mismos principios dentro y fuera de nuestras aguas. Este Reglamento mejorará la transparencia, el control y la sostenibilidad de las actividades de los más de setecientos buques europeos que pescan bajo acuerdos con países terceros, al amparo de la legislación de las Naciones Unidas, mediante acuerdos privados o ejerciendo actividades en alta mar.
               

                  El primer éxito es, pues, controlar a la flota independientemente de su tipo de actividad, establecer procedimientos contra los cambios de pabellón abusivos y autorizar derechos de pesca solo cuando hay excedentes no utilizados por las comunidades locales. El segundo, establecer más y mejores medidas de control, como el registro electrónico de buques de la Unión Europea o la supervisión europea de las autorizaciones. El tercero, la seguridad jurídica que añade para todos los operadores.
               

                  Sin embargo, queremos que los criterios comunes de admisibilidad que deben exigirse para conceder licencias solo se apliquen a los buques y no a los operadores o capitanes. Queremos, así, evitar dobles sanciones para la flota y los operadores de los Estados que mejor han aplicado el Reglamento de control del año 2009. Desde el año 2015, la Comisión nos debe un informe de evaluación, pero sabemos que no en todos los Estados miembros las mismas conductas implican las mismas sanciones. En esa situación, con la propuesta original de la Comisión los países hasta ahora menos rigurosos en el control parten con ventaja.
               

                  Por ello, propongo votar a favor de la enmienda 30, letra d), y también, a favor de la enmienda 48, porque es necesario dar soluciones a favor de los acuerdos que están latentes.
               

Anja Hazekamp,
namens de GUE/NGL-Fractie. – (De spreker toont een grote foto van het visserijschip waarnaar ze in haar toespraak verwijst.) Dit is de Annelies Ilena. De Annelies Ilena is 144 meter lang en daarmee Europa's grootste monsterschip. Dit Nederlandse schip vangt 400 ton vis per dag. Het vangt meer vis per week dan 7000 Afrikaanse traditionele vissersboten in een heel jaar vangen. Als ik eraan denk wat voor verwoestingen de Annelies Ilena aanricht, dan schaam ik me dat ik een Nederlander ben. In Mauretanië kreeg dit schip de bijnaam ‘ship from hell’. En dat is niet zo gek. Het schip plunderde de hele West-Afrikaanse kust, en dit is slechts één van de tientallen monsterboten die Europa de wereld over laat varen om de oceanen leeg te vissen.
               

                  De helft van alle vis die we in Europa eten, komt uit de derde wereld en dat is onacceptabel. De Partij voor de Dieren steunt het voorstel om charterovereenkomsten tussen Europese industrievissers en ontwikkelingslanden te beperken. Wat ons betreft blijven monsterboten als de Annelies Ilena voortaan aan de ketting.
               

                  Voorts ben ik van mening dat de Europese landbouw- en visserijsubsidies moeten worden afgeschaft.
               

Marco Affronte,
a nome del gruppo Verts/ALE. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, per il mio gruppo si è già espressa la relatrice. Io userò questo minuto solo per fare un esempio di quanto sia necessario questo regolamento.
               

                  Molti anni fa, la Spagna ha adottato una legge molto apprezzata che assicurava che le disposizioni della PCP fossero applicate alle proprie imbarcazioni ovunque operassero. L'anno scorso, però, la Corte suprema spagnola ha superato l'applicazione di questo principio in una causa che avrà forti ripercussioni ad ampio raggio e potrà indebolire seriamente le possibilità della Spagna di rafforzare le disposizioni della PCP e quindi il controllo della pesca. Una nota impresa di pesca è stata accusata, tra l'altro, di aver falsificato documenti e commesso crimini contro l'ambiente pescando in Antartico, per un giro di affari di 100 milioni di euro. Purtroppo la sola legge spagnola non ha gli strumenti legali per condannare gli armatori, che potrebbero fare scuola per altre imprese di pesca illegale.
               

                  Questo caso dimostra l'assoluta necessità di un rafforzamento delle regole comuni nel controllo della pesca nelle acque esterne, così come nelle acque continentali. Gli Stati membri, da soli, chiaramente non sono in grado di farlo autonomamente. Come ha già detto la relatrice, questo regolamento è fondamentale ed è necessario, in particolare, votare contro gli emendamenti 30 e 48.
               

Mike Hookem,
on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, tonight we debate sustainability, and I see by the numbers tonight the importance this European Parliament puts on the jobs of UK fishermen. The common fisheries policy does not know the meaning of the word ‘sustainability’. In UK waters, the common fisheries policy allows non-British fishing ships to decimate the number of fish, devastate the breeding stock of whole species and destroy the livelihoods and prosperity of whole ports such as Grimsby and Hull. The report also talks of external waters and fleets. It is straightforward: the UK must use Brexit to regain control of our waters when the EU becomes an external fleet. They must take second place – play second fiddle to the needs of our ports and our boats. For too long, our waters have been stripped by others. It must stop, and I will do all I can to make it stop. So it must be goodbye to external fleets, goodbye to the CFP on our patch, and goodbye to unworkable rules. Then it can be: hello, real sustainability.

Gabriel Mato (PPE). – Señor presidente. Quiero expresar mi agradecimiento a la ponente y a todos los que han intervenido y, al señor Affronte, simplemente recordarle que se le ha olvidado solo decir algo que creo que es importante: que España es un claro ejemplo en cuanto a control y en cuanto a tener la flota más respetuosa del mundo.
               

                  Y dicho esto, lo que para algunos son elementos positivos, para mí creo que pueden llegar a ser absolutamente distorsionantes. Estamos hablando de la obligación de que existan excedentes. Estamos hablando del registro público, que, más allá de la transparencia, está —como ha dicho muy bien Paco Millán— vulnerando los mínimos principios de la propia estrategia que puedan tener comercialmente los operadores y la doble sanción.
               

                  Creo que estamos poniendo tantos obstáculos a la flota exterior —que es una de las flotas, ya digo, más sostenibles y más respetuosas— que parece que algunos quieren acabar con ella, y yo creo que es un tremendo error. Y el mayor ejemplo de ello es, y ahí discrepo de la ponente, la doble sanción. La enmienda 30 creo que hay que votarla, claramente, entre otras cosas, porque, ¿saben lo que podemos lograr? Que se esté penalizando a los países que aplican de manera más estricta el Reglamento de control y la reglamentación de las Naciones Unidas sobre la pesca. Estamos invitando a los países a una relajación en el control y en las sanciones. ¿Para qué? Para evitar la doble sanción y para evitar que se impida dar las licencias.
               

                  Hay que tener mucho cuidado. ¿Hay que controlar? Sin duda alguna. ¿Hay que sancionar? Sin duda alguna. Pero no podemos aceptar de ninguna manera una doble sanción que no tiene ningún tipo de sentido.
               

Clara Eugenia Aguilera García (S&D). – Señor presidente, estamos, como han dicho todas las personas que han precedido a mi intervención, ante un Reglamento importante. Yo quiero reconocer el trabajo tanto de la ponente, la señora Engström, como de los ponentes alternativos. Creo que se ha hecho un gran trabajo y creo que el resultado es equilibrado. El resultado. No se puede ganar todo, señora Engström, no se puede ganar todo. Yo creo que el resultado es bastante equilibrado, teniendo en cuenta que estamos hablando de un Reglamento importante, con una trascendencia fundamental, y yo creo que en eso se ha conseguido un equilibrio. Hay algunas cosas que me gustan más, como a algunos, y hay otras cosas que me gustan menos.
               

                  Pero —como ha dicho el señor Mato bien claro— la flota española es un ejemplo de control y no me gusta que, cuando se habla de la flota exterior, se diga que es una flota que está esquilmando absolutamente todo. Creo que se habla muy ligeramente de mucha gente que hay detrás de esto muy seria y muy trabajadora. Por tanto, dejemos ya de criminalizar en líneas generales. Hay gente que lo hace bien y gente que lo hace mal. Y hay países que controlan mejor y países que controlan peor.
               

                  En este caso, vamos a tener un buen Reglamento que simplifica el sistema actual, armoniza los requisitos en materia de datos y clarifica las responsabilidades de todos los agentes que intervienen; también da mayor coherencia a todos los Reglamentos. Por tanto, yo creo que es un acuerdo equilibrado. No se puede ganar todo. Demos a la flota exterior un buen Reglamento, pero que pueda seguir trabajando.
               

Czesław Hoc (ECR). – Była znakomita okazja, by nowe rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady w sprawie zrównoważonego zarządzania zewnętrznymi flotami rybackimi wprowadziło jasne, równe i sprawiedliwe zasady funkcjonowania floty rybackiej unijnej i floty państw trzecich. Tymczasem, niestety zamiast uproszczenia przepisów i procedur wprowadza się większe obciążenie biurokratyczne zarówno dla armatorów, jak i administracji państw członkowskich. Co więcej, flota unijna będzie mogła być dyskryminowana względem floty państw trzecich, bowiem statki państw trzecich nie będą musiały spełniać wszystkich wymogów administracyjnych. Zatem może dojść do wyparcia floty unijny z rynku przez flotę państw trzecich. Ponadto nakładanie na armatorów trudnych wymogów, to rozporządzenie może pozbawić wydawania upoważnień bezpośrednich. Jeszcze w kwestii poprawki 30.: rzeczywiście trzeba być bardzo ostrożnym, osobiście jestem przeciwko podwójnej karze.
               

Werner Kuhn (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Verehrter Herr Kommissar Vella, liebe Frau Kollegin Engström, herzlichen Dank auch für Ihr Engagement, gerade was die Verordnung über die Genehmigung der Fischereitätigkeit von Fischereifahrzeugen der Europäischen Union außerhalb der Unionsgewässer betrifft, aber die Verordnung gilt gleichfalls auch für Fischereifahrzeuge aus Drittstaaten, die in Unionsgewässern fischen. Deshalb müssen wir schon abwägen, und ich halte es für sehr vernünftig, dass hier ein Register über die Fanggenehmigungen angelegt wird und auch die Überwachung der Außenflotte sichergestellt ist und dass man die Genehmigung dafür erhalten muss, in den entsprechenden Fanggebieten operieren zu dürfen.
               

                  Und da rufe ich einfach nochmal die partnerschaftlichen Abkommen mit Drittstaaten auf, die wir hier im Parlament und auch im Fischereiausschuss jedes Mal intensiv diskutiert haben. Ob es um die Seychellen, Madagaskar, Mauretanien, Grönland oder Westafrika geht: Das haben wir alles miteinander besprochen. Deshalb ist es eigentlich nur vernünftig und sinnvoll, dass die Grundverordnung, die bei uns in den Unionsgewässern angewendet wird, auch außerhalb, in den Drittstaaten, in denen wir Fanggenehmigungen haben, in der operationellen Arbeit Anwendung findet. Da ist natürlich die Anlandeverpflichtung dabei, und da sind die TACs und Quoten auf wissenschaftlicher Basis, MSY und andere Referenzgrößen und natürlich auch die Kontrollinstitution dabei.
               

                  Aber weil immer wieder darüber debattiert wird, dass Europa mit einer Riesenflotte auf den Weltmeeren arbeitet und dort die Bestände zerstört: China und Indonesien und Indien gemeinsam haben mehr als 50 % der Wildfänge und der Aquakultur, Herr Präsident! Das wollte ich nur nochmal ganz kurz sagen. Europa ist mit 4,5 % an vierter Stelle, und deswegen ist es ganz wichtig, dass wir die europäische Fischereipolitik den anderen, die dort arbeiten, schon auch näherbringen und die illegale Fischerei bekämpfen.
               

Renata Briano (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio il Commissario, la relatrice – che non aveva un compito facile, perché il dossier era comunque impegnativo – e tutti i relatori ombra perché il compromesso a cui siamo giunti è sicuramente un buon lavoro, anche se ci sono alcuni aspetti forse ancora da perfezionare. La proposta di regolamento di cui stiamo discutendo è stata molto attesa perché risponde all'esigenza di riformare la gestione delle flotte da pesca esterne alla luce degli obiettivi e dei principi della PCP.
               

                  Il punto su cui vorrei porre l'attenzione di questa Assemblea è quello relativo agli accordi dormienti, che allo stato attuale provocano un vuoto normativo che potrebbe pregiudicare la sostenibilità della gestione delle risorse nelle acque esterne all'Unione europea. Si tratta infatti di accordi di partenariato il cui protocollo operativo è scaduto e non rinnovato e che comportano, per effetto della clausola di esclusività in essi contenuta, che non siano consentite autorizzazioni dirette a favore di imbarcazioni battenti bandiera UE. Il rischio concreto di questi accordi è che i paesi non UE che non riconoscono gli alti standard di sostenibilità come noi – per esempio la sostenibilità sociale ed economica – possano subentrare nella cattura delle eccedenze in maniera predatoria e che non tenga conto degli aspetti di cooperazione alla base dei nostri accordi.
               

                  Infatti, è necessario sottolineare che le flotte da pesca esterne dell'UE rappresentano la PCP a livello internazionale e l'Unione europea ha raggiunto risultati notevoli in termini di standard per la sostenibilità, che devono essere coerentemente raggiunti anche nella dimensione esterna. Solo in questo modo l'Unione europea potrà continuare ad essere un esempio positivo e credibile.
               

Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE). – Mr President, while seeking the sustainable exploitation of the seas, we should not forget about increasing the effectiveness of the current system. We also need to remember to promote a level playing field for Union operators, contrary to the third country operators. Most importantly, we have to create this level playing field. I am talking about the effective closure of the EU market for products coming from third country vessels that do not meet the requirements of this legislation. The EU should create a level playing field so that EU fishing vessels can compete with vessels from third countries.
Finally, I would like to mention the important Article 5.1(d). I fully agree with the fact that this point implies a double sanction for this sector and could seriously hurt the fishing activities of the long-distance fleet. We should not forget that the EU external fishing fleet is already subject to sanctions for serious infringements by the Control and IUU regulations. We have to remember this because it puts additional and unnecessary strain on our operators. In doing so, we will only hurt the sector and will also hurt the environment because we are the most important and most responsible operators on the seas all over the world.

Zgłoszenia z sali


Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'Unione europea non è totalmente in grado di sorvegliare la propria flotta ovunque essa operi e a prescindere dal quadro in cui si svolgono le sue attività. È dunque necessaria una rivisitazione del regolamento vigente sulle autorizzazioni di pesca.
               

                  Mi congratulo con il Commissario Vella e con la relatrice per il lavoro svolto. Penso che la Commissione abbia avanzato una valida proposta che consentirà all'Unione europea di controllare più efficacemente le proprie navi operanti al di fuori delle acque unionali, rendendo più chiare le procedure per il rilascio delle autorizzazioni ed introducendo norme comuni di ammissibilità per tali imbarcazioni. La proposta in questione garantirà condizioni di parità a tutte le attività di pesca esercitate da navi battenti bandiera dell'Unione assicurando che l'Unione europea adempia alle proprie responsabilità di Stato di bandiera nonché di Stato della proprietà beneficiaria.
               

                  Il regolamento sulle autorizzazioni di pesca offrirà anche un contributo concreto alla lotta contro la pesca illegale, non dichiarata e non regolamentata, dando così seguito al piano d'azione internazionale della FAO contro la pesca illegale, approvato dall'Unione europea.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ο υπερπόντιος στόλος της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης αποτελεί σημαντικό κομμάτι του συνολικού στόλου και συνεισφέρει στην απασχόληση και στην προμήθεια ψαριών στην αγορά της Ένωσης. Παρόλα αυτά όμως, ο ισχύων κανονισμός για τις αλιευτικές άδειες των συγκεκριμένων αλιευτικών δραστηριοτήτων έχει αποτύχει, επιδεικνύοντας σοβαρές αδυναμίες, αφού η δραστηριοποίηση των σκαφών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης εκτός των υδάτων της Ένωσης δεν ρυθμίζεται από τον τρέχοντα κανονισμό. Για το λόγο αυτό, είναι αναγκαία η ρύθμιση μιας βιώσιμης διαχείρισης του εξωτερικού στόλου. Επιπλέον, σε πολλά κράτη μέλη της Ένωσης, οι παράκτιες και νησιωτικές περιοχές αντιμετωπίζουν μια σημαντική οικονομική ύφεση που οδηγεί στη μείωση του πληθυσμού των περιοχών. Σε χώρες όπως η Ελλάδα που πλήττεται από τα μνημόνια και τα μέτρα λιτότητας, οι αλιείς βιώνουν τις συνέπειες του αγροτικού μνημονίου, με αποτέλεσμα την οικονομική ύφεση και την στοχοποίηση τους. Καθίσταται επομένως αναγκαίο για την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να ανασυγκροτήσει τον πρωτογενή τομέα, να δώσει έμφαση στη γαλάζια οικονομία, να αυξήσει τη χρηματοδότηση στον αλιευτικό τομέα και να ενισχύσει την απασχόληση ιδίως στα νησιά του Αιγαίου.
               

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)


Karmenu Vella,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank everyone once again for this fruitful discussion.
This week, I had the pleasure of discussing with many of you the importance of ocean governance at the Seas, Rivers, Islands and Coastal Areas Intergroup. Your vote on this proposal will be a very important step towards improving ocean governance overall. It will contribute to the sustainable exploitation of global fisheries resources. The European Union must be seen to act responsibly outside its own waters if we expect others also to fish sustainably. We are accountable for the actions of our own fleets. We need to provide these vessels with clear, simple and coherent rules in order to ensure that fishing authorisations are granted on objective and proportionate eligibility criteria, and that vessel activities are constantly monitored and transparent. The Commission proposal, which you will soon discuss in trialogues, presents an approach that will achieve these objectives. I welcome Ms Engström's report, which reinforces our policy objectives and brings in some constructive suggestions as well.
Turning to some of the specific points raised by Members this evening, some of you do not agree that past serious infringements should be taken into account in granting authorisations – I am referring to Amendment 30. I think that this measure is proportionate and justified. We should ensure that only good conduct vessels are allowed to fish outside EU waters, and the absence of serious – let stress and underline the word ‘serious’ – infringements in the last 12 months is a good indication of good conduct. It is also a cost-effective way to control who can fish outside our waters and who cannot.
There were also some comments on the clawback clause. The European Union is responsible before third countries and international organisations for the activities of its vessels operating outside EU waters. Not having a legal basis to stop fishing vessels from causing harm without the impunity of the flagged Member State would put the European Union in a situation of not being able to comply with its international obligation of due diligence, as pointed out by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). The clawback clause allows the Commission to withdraw a fishing authorisation in cases where Member States do not stop fishing vessels flying their flag in the cases provided by the law and where those vessels continue fishing, causing harm.
There was also some mention of the dormant agreements and, although we sympathise, we cannot accept them for legal reasons. We understand that this is an important issue for a number of Members, and our proposal addresses direct authorisations with the objective of ensuring sustainability. This may eventually lead to our reviewing dormant agreements in the context of the negotiation of sustainable fishing partnership agreements.
Some comments were also made about the minimum length of vessel fleets. I have to say that it is very difficult to quantify the effect of the amendment, because we do not have information on high seas fisheries conducted by the EU vessels. However, to give you an idea, in 2015 there were around 70 000 EU vessels licensed to fish in our FMOs, with the bulk coming from the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). In the Mediterranean, most of the vessels are small-scale and normally fish on the high seas, although not adding a minimum length may bring problems of monitoring and control as well, because not all vessels are obliged to carry VMS, AIS and IMO numbers.
Some of you also expressed concern about data protection. As I have already said, we believe that the balance between information requirements and privacy in the proposal is the right one, but I am happy to look at proposals that would improve transparency within the limit of our data protection rules. I am sure that this will be an issue for intense discussion in the trialogues.
I look forward to further working with Parliament in a good spirit of cooperation as we take this file forward.

Linnéa Engström,
rapporteur. – Mr President, I would like to thank everyone here and Commissioner Vella for their contributions. I have some last points, and the first is that I really want to support the idea that we keep in the report the second part of Amendment 32, which gives the Commission the possibility to act if a Member State fails to. I think this is crucial as a provision to guarantee the level playing field among fleets. I hope that this will be confirmed in tomorrow's vote. I urge you to vote in favour of Amendment 32 – all parts.
The second point is that some colleagues claim that prohibiting vessels that have committed a serious infringement from fishing abroad would be a double penalty, and this is definitely not the case, as Commissioner Vella also stressed. It is an eligibility criterion designed to ensure that only vessels with a clean record are allowed to fish outside EU waters.
My last point: let me come back to Amendment 48. If vessels are allowed after three years of a dormant agreement to set up their own terms with a third country, they will be able to ignore those very provisions in the CFP that have served to improve EU standards. They could negotiate weaker terms despite the existence of a bilateral agreement, and that is not maintaining the high standards of the EU. It is serving to undermine them. So I urge you all to keep up the good standards of EU external fishing and to refer to, and vote against, Amendment 48. Once more, my thanks to all of you for the very good cooperation that we have had, and I am looking forward to working with you once more.

Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.
               

                  Głosowanie odbędzie się w czwartek 2 lutego 2017 r.
               


Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 162)



Carolina Punset (ALDE),
por escrito. – Con la propuesta de modificación del Reglamento sobre la gestión sostenible de las flotas pesqueras exteriores, Europa tiene una oportunidad para desmarcarse de las prácticas de pesca no sostenible. Establecer medidas de control eficaces para nuestras flotas es parte del objetivo de esta propuesta y pondrá a la Unión Europea como ejemplo de gestión sostenible de su flota pesquera, incluso en aguas de terceros países. En un mundo en proceso de cambio hacia economías compatibles con la conservación de los recursos naturales, el sector pesquero no puede estar ausente y, mucho menos cuando se trata de buques con bandera de la UE que operan fuera de sus aguas. Estos buques son la presencia visible de la Unión Europea en todo el mundo y tienen que mantener los altos estándares que el mundo espera de Europa. Por lo tanto, debemos evitar que los buques que han operado ilegalmente recientemente accedan a licencias de pesca en el extranjero. Este criterio de elegibilidad, diseñado para garantizar que sólo los buques con un historial limpio puedan pescar fuera de las aguas de la UE, es un criterio similar al que se sigue en el sistema europeo de puntos para infracciones de pesca graves.
               

Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D),
în scris. – Abordarea ecosistemică și precaută a gestionării pescuitului sporește transparența activităților de pescuit externe și face dificilă eludarea normelor PCP, limitând, în același timp, sarcinile administrative și sporind certitudinea juridică. Sunt de acord cu faptul ca, în vederea atingerii obiectivelor PCP, sunt necesare norme clare și cuprinzătoare și baze de date viabile în ceea ce privește autorizarea și monitorizarea navelor din UE, atunci când ele pescuiesc în afara apelor UE, dar și a condițiilor de autorizare a navelor de pescuit din țări terțe, care pescuiesc în apele Uniunii. Navele Uniunii Europene pot pescui în apele țărilor terțe fie în temeiul acordurilor de parteneriat în domeniul pescuitului sustenabil încheiate de UE cu respectivele țări terțe, fie ca urmare a obținerii unor autorizații de pescuit directe din acele țări terțe. Evident, autorizarea navelor de pescuit (cu toate elementele aferente) trebuie fundamentată pe baza unui set de criterii comune de eligibilitate. În acest sens, UE și statele membre trebuie să adopte măsuri adecvate pentru a asigura gestionarea și conservarea sustenabilă a resurselor marine, în contextul siguranței alimentare și al eradicării sărăciei. De asemenea, cooperarea este absolut necesară pentru transformarea lumii în care trăim prin conservarea și utilizarea durabilă a oceanelor, mărilor și resurselor marine.
               

Isabelle Thomas (S&D),
par écrit. – Grâce aux autorisations de pêche externes, nous fixons le cadre de la durabilité de nos activités de pêche dans le monde. Ces objectifs sont particulièrement ambitieux en matière de contrôle et de relations avec nos partenaires internationaux.
               

                  C'est grâce à un comportement irréprochable de nos pêcheries que nous parviendrons à maintenir notre image de leaders mondiaux de la durabilité pour lutter contre la pêche illégale, non déclarée et non réglementée, dite INN. Toutefois je tiens à vous alerter: la bataille contre la pêche INN ne peut pas avoir pour seul levier l'exemplarité de nos flottes.
               

                  La justice et l'équité imposent que nous soyons intransigeants avec nos partenaires qui ne respecteraient pas les règles du jeu. Dans cette lutte pour la durabilité de nos océans, notre seule exemplarité ne suffira pas à faire évoluer les pratiques, ce sont les accords commerciaux qui sont les talons d'Achille. Il est ainsi essentiel que nous utilisions tous les leviers dont nous disposons.
               

                  J'espère ainsi que les relations entre la DG Mare et la DG Trade pourront s'intensifier, afin que la Commission européenne adopte une approche cohérente de promotion de la pêche durable au niveau mondial.
               

PRESIDE: RAMÓN LUIS VALCÁRCEL SISO


Vicepresidente

20.   Implementation of Erasmus + (debate)

El Presidente. – El punto siguiente en el orden del día es el debate sobre el informe de Milan Zver, en nombre de la Comisión de Cultura y Educación, sobre la aplicación del Reglamento (UE) n.o 1288/2013 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 11 de diciembre de 2013, por el que se crea el programa ‘Erasmus+’, de educación, formación, juventud y deporte de la Unión y por el que se derogan las Decisiones n.o 1719/2006/CE, n.o 1720/2006/CE y n.o 1298/2008/CE (2015/2327(INI)) (A8-0389/2016).
               

Milan Zver,
Poročevalec. – Pred nami je poročilo o implementaciji Erasmus + programa, krovnega programa na področju izobraževanja, usposabljanja, mladih in športa, ki je bil formalno ustanovljen 11. decembra 2013 in začel delovati 2014. Poročilo je bilo sprejeto na odboru za kulturo novembra 2016 s spoštovanja vredno večino. Dovolite, da se ob tem prisrčno zahvalim vsem soporočevalcem političnih skupin, ki so tvorno sodelovali pri pripravi poročila in ga vsebinsko obogatili.
               

                  Toda to poročilo ima razvejane korenine. Vsebinsko so pri njem sodelovali tudi posamezniki, nevladne organizacije in izobraževalne institucije, ki se s to problematiko ukvarjajo širom po Evropi, tudi v praksi. Ta širina se mi je pri pripravi osnutka zdela koristna tudi za to, ker zaradi relativno zgodnje priprave poročila in kratkega roka implementacije programa nisem mogel uporabljati rezultatov uradnih raziskav in analiz, ker jih enostavno še ni bilo. Evropski parlament je izvedel dve raziskavi, tudi Komisija je dala na razpolago vse, kar je do tedaj imela zbranega o delovanju tega novega krovnega programa, ki ima v evropski javnosti izjemno veliko podporo. Hvala še enkrat za pomoč strokovnim službam Parlamenta in Komisije.
               

                  Znano je, da je Erasmus + nastal z združitvijo raznolikih predhodnih programov in da je zato izjemno kompleksen. Zato so poenostavitve, ki se nanašajo v glavnem na digitalizacijo prijavnih postopkov in projektov, še kako dobrodošle. Istočasno pa poudarjamo integriran pristop, saj Erasmus + združuje prav tako že prej uveljavljene programe, kot so Mladi v akciji, Erasmus Mundus, Erasmus, Grundtvig, Comenius in Leonardo da Vinci). Navzlic uveljavljeni horizontalni integraciji je Komisiji uspelo program funkcionalno decentralizirati ter prenesti pristojnosti – ali večje pristojnosti – na nacionalne agencije.
               

                  Splošna prepoznavnost programa Erasmus+ se je povečala, najpomembnejša odločitev v poročilu pa je, da program dobro deluje, da je prinesel vrsto novosti. So pa tudi slabosti, ki jih bo treba postopoma odpravljati. Kot primer naj navedem, da se deležniki včasih pritožujejo, da je še vedno preveč birokratskih ovir, da uporabnikom ni najbolj prijazna nova informacijska komunikacijska tehnologija, da je medresorsko sodelovanje premalo intenzivno, da je stopnja uspešnosti v nekaterih delih programa Erasmus + občutno prenizka in tako naprej.
               

                  Toda največji problem pa je razkorak med potenciali Erasmus +, ki se kažejo v velikem številu prijav, in realnimi finančnimi možnostmi. V nekaterih delih programa zavrnejo kar tri četrtine projektov (oziroma prijav), četudi so kvalitetni, ker pač ni dovolj denarja. 40-odstotno povečanje proračuna v tej finančni perspektivi bodo v realnosti občutili šele letos. To bo v naslednjih štirih letih povečalo absorpcijsko sposobnost Erasmus +, tako da bo po pričakovanjih do konca leta 2020 blagodati programa Erasmus + občutilo 4 milijone ljudi, večinoma mladih.
               

                  V naslednji finančni perspektivi bomo morali še povečati proračunska sredstva za ta program, saj ima neprecenljive pozitivne učinke
               

Tibor Navracsics,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, this year we are celebrating the thirtieth anniversary of Erasmus, one of the EU's biggest success stories. This is the perfect opportunity for us to take stock of how we have moved from Erasmus to Erasmus+ and to celebrate what we have achieved so far. It is also a greater opportunity to debate where we want to take the programme in the future.
I therefore welcome the fact that the European Parliament has appointed a standing rapporteur for the Erasmus+ Programme who keeps a critical eye on its implementation. I want to thank Mr Sver and his shadow rapporteurs for their positive and constructive report, and their suggestions, especially with a view to the upcoming mid-term evaluation of Erasmus+. I welcome this report, and I am very happy to comment on some of the points it raises.
I am fully aware that Erasmus+ had some teething problems in its first year. Merging various former programmes into one and trying to apply uniform rules to the whole programme was not an easy task, but we have overcome these initial difficulties I am therefore pleased that your report recognises the efforts the Commission has put and continues to put into improving the implementation of the programme. This would not have been possible without your regular feedback and without us closely cooperating with our stakeholders and national agencies who implement the programme at national level.
Your report rightly identifies the cross-sectorial approach as a main feature of Erasmus+. As you point out, we have seen many positive developments over the course of only a couple of years. What we do in education, training, youth and sport is much more visible. We have built bridges between these fears which has led to an exchange of ideas, and has also translated into a significant increase in the funding available to the benefit of all beneficiaries. Moreover, funding rules have been streamlined and simplified funding mechanisms such as lump sums have been widely introduced. Communication to beneficiaries has been streamlined and, finally, this leaner management has made the programme more flexible, so that it can respond to changing political priorities.
I am very proud that Erasmus+ is a much more open and inclusive programme than its predecessors. First of all, Erasmus+ is much more than student mobility. It is about learners in vocational education and training, and youth workers. It is about providing practical support to teachers and helping organisations and educational institutions to forge international partnerships. It is about kick-starting innovation across the fields of education, training and youth. It is about supporting our sports organisations, and much more. Erasmus+ also covers important horizontal dimensions. To name just one: language learning. Language learning is definitely a must in today's world. This is why Erasmus+ provides flexible online linguistic support in many languages. The programme also offers additional funding to disadvantaged learners, including people who come from difficult socio-economic backgrounds, or who have special needs, because these people are the ones who need the extra boost to participate in the programme.
I am happy to see that as a result of our efforts, one out of ten mobility participants come from disadvantaged backgrounds or have fewer opportunities. I believe that inclusion and accessibility go hand in hand. I am therefore glad to read in your report that you appreciate our attempts to simplify the application procedures through a range of digital solutions. We have established a strong relationship with our national agencies and beneficiaries. My services have put in place a long-term IT action plan to adapt our IT tools to the needs of participants and to make the tools as user-friendly as possible. We have already achieved high satisfaction rates here, but we will keep up the work. Thanks to the use of online application forms and the online programme guide, we are now moving to the next level of digitalisation. This is in line with the call included in your report.
Let me stress one more thing: if we are to ensure the future success of the programme and the positive impact it has on the lives of so many young people across Europe, we need adequate funding. Already now, the programme is heavily over-subscribed, and as you rightly say in your report, it creates frustration when high-quality projects have to be turned down for the simple reason of lack of funds. Given the back-loading of the programme, which means that most of the funds earmarked for Erasmus+ will be spent between now and 2020 when the current programme ends, we need an increase of funds for the next programming period, just to maintain current funding levels. The thirtieth anniversary of Erasmus+ this year provides us with an excellent opportunity to make the case for such an increase. As you know, just last week we organised a launch event at the Parliamentarium for a year full of anniversary events all across Europe. I would like to invite you all to get involved in these events, as we have so much to learn from listening to the Erasmus generation and their ideas. We need to involve them in building a stronger, better Europe.
Honourable Members, your report is a manifestation of our shared dedication to the programme and of our constructive relationship. I want to thank you for the time and effort you have devoted to drafting it. Let me assure you that your conclusions and recommendations will be carefully taken into account in the ongoing mid-term evaluation of the programme.
Together we can make sure that Erasmus+ will continue to be one of Europe's greatest success stories.

Michaela Šojdrová,
za skupinu PPE. – Pane předsedající, Erasmus+ hodnotíme všichni jako velmi úspěšný program, který přispívá ke zvyšování kvality ve vzdělávání, v zaměstnanosti a také k budování evropské identity. Nebojím se zde použít slovo ‘evropanství’. Všichni, kteří tento program využívají, nás žádají o to, aby program pokračoval, aby byl rozvíjen, aby byl zvýšen rozpočet, aby byla také zjednodušena administrativa. To všechno uvádíme ve své zprávě a za tuto zprávu chci především poděkovat kolegovi Zverovi, který se jí velmi podrobně věnuje.
               

                  Po necelých třech letech musím konstatovat, že značka Erasmus+ znamenala zviditelnění a zjednodušení komunikace. Všichni vědí, že se v něm najde mobilita i partnerství pro všechny skupiny, od učitelů přes žáky až po dobrovolníky a sportovce. Přesto máme požadavky na zlepšení. Navýšení rozpočtu o 40 % na toto období je výborné, ale budeme potřebovat více, aby úspěšnost byla ještě vyšší a také, aby efektivita byla vyšší, proto je nutné zjednodušit administrativu, např. zjednodušení příručky pro program.
               

                  Erasmus+ by měl také přispívat více ke zlepšení jazykových dovedností, k tomu by měla přispět příprava před výjezdem do zahraničí. Také bychom chtěli posílit program pro dobrovolníky, připravované sbory solidarity by neměly být konkurencí, ale naopak doplněním tohoto úspěšného dobrovolnického programu. Také podpora podnikatelského vzdělávání by měla pokračovat a mobilita učitelů by měla být povinnou součástí jejich kariérního postupu. Děkuji panu komisaři, že se tomuto programu věnuje a přeji všechno nejlepší do další třicítky.
               

Krystyna Łybacka,
w imieniu grupy S&D. – Panie Przewodniczący! Program Erasmus to jeden z najważniejszych programów, który współtworzy nowe pokolenie Europejczyków. Pokolenie, które w międzynarodowej mobilności i multikulturowości widzi szansę, a nie zagrożenie. Dlatego troską nas wszystkich musi być wysoka jakość programu, jego efektywność i przejrzystość. Omawiane sprawozdanie pana posła Zvera właściwie identyfikuje problemy. Ja chciałabym zwrócić uwagę na trzy aspekty tego programu.
               

                  Po pierwsze – dostępność. Mimo pewnej poprawy nadal utrzymuje się społecznie selektywny charakter udziału w mobilności. Wielu osób o niskich dochodach bez pomocy osób trzecich nie stać na uczestnictwo w programie. Aby zwiększyć możliwość uczestnictwa dla tych osób konieczne jest, panie komisarzu, dostosowanie wysokości dotacji do kosztów utrzymania w kraju goszczącym.
               

                  Sprawa druga – budżet. Mówił o tym pan komisarz. Rzeczywiście środki są niewystarczające z uwagi na ogromną popularność programu, ale dlatego niedopuszczalne jest tworzenie nowych, nawet dobrych, programów, które są finansowane z programu Erasmus, takich jak między innymi Europejski Korpus Solidarności. Proponuję także, by dla tych dobrych projektów, które są odrzucane z uwagi na brak środków, wprowadzić patent wyróżnienia ich, tak żeby miały priorytet w sięganiu po środki z innych źródeł.
               

                  Po trzecie – kredyty studenckie. Konieczna jest krytyczna ocena instrumentu gwarancji kredytów studenckich. Tylko sto trzydzieści osób skorzystało dotąd z tego instrumentu. Apeluję do Komisji, aby w konsultacji z Parlamentem przedstawiła strategię ponownego rozdziału części budżetu, która prawdopodobnie nie zostanie wykorzystana do roku 2020.
               

                  Ostatnie pytanie, które stawiam – jaki wniosek z tego udanego programu płynie dla systemów edukacji państw członkowskich? Najważniejszy – mobilność edukacyjna powinna być stałym fragmentem podstaw programowych, zarówno w kształceniu akademickim, jak i w doskonaleniu zawodowym. Mam głęboką nadzieję, że państwa członkowskie tak właśnie uhonorują trzydziestolecie Erasmusa.
               

Ангел Джамбазки,
от името на групата ECR. – Г-н Председател, уважаеми колеги, Еразъм+ е програма – пример за успех в Европейския съюз, и се надявам с общи усилия това да продължи. В комисията по култура и образование ни бе предоставена възможност да работим върху този доклад за приложението на програмата в продължение на около година и смятам, че е много важно такива доклади да има, за да може чрез нас, народните представители, да се отчита и гледната точка на гражданите, както и на всички заинтересовани страни.
               

                  Заедно с моите колеги работихме по този доклад, бяхме затрупани от мнения на граждани и на организации. Прекалено сложната административна процедура беше едно от често срещаните оплаквания и затова направих препоръки и изменения в тази насока. Националните агенции, както е известно, играят много важна роля в тази програма и смятам, че е от голямо значение да има обмен на добри практики помежду им, за да се постига бърз напредък и да се установява и изкоренява проблематиката бързо и ефикасно.
               

                  Програмата Еразъм+ в моментния си вид бе създадена през 2013 г. за програмния период 2014-2020 г., с интегрирането на програми като: ‘Учене през целия живот’, ‘Младежта в действие’, ‘Еразмус Темпус’. Както при всяка новост е необходимо известно време, за да се стиковат процедурите и координацията. Програмата е много полезна по отношение на формиране на качества в младите, както и на онези, които искат да се обучават на по-късен етап.
               

Hannu Takkula,
ALDE-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, haluan alkuun kiittää hyvää esittelijää Milan Zveriä hyvästä työstä. On ihan totta, kuten täällä on Milan Zverin ja komissaarinkin johdolla todettu, että Erasmus-ohjelma on erityinen menestystarina Euroopan unionissa ja koulutuspolitiikan alalla. On hyvä muistaa, että vietämme sen 30-vuotisjuhlaa ja että nekin ihmiset, jotka muuten suhtautuvat melko kriittisesti taikka kielteisesti koko eurooppalaiseen prosessiin, ovat kuitenkin sitä mieltä, että Erasmus+ on ollut menestystarina. Sitä kautta on nostettu eurooppalaista koulutustasoa, vaihdettu parhaita käytäntöjä ja näin ollen viety Eurooppaa eteenpäin.
               

                  Haluamme kuitenkin ohjelmasta entistä paremman ja sehän on ollut tämän väliarvion ajatus. On paikallaan edelleen alleviivata muutamia asioita, mitkä ehkä vielä voivat parantaa tätä ohjelmaa. Yksi niistä on se, että vielä pitäisi yksinkertaistaa hakuprosesseja, jotta erityisesti vapaaehtoisjärjestöt voisivat tulla paremmin mukaan erilaisiin ohjelmiin. Me tarvitsemme sektorit ylittävää yhteistyötä myöskin koulutuksen saralla. Myöskään opintolainatakausjärjestelmä ei ole oikein ottanut tuulta purjeisiin eikä se ole onnistunut, koska pankkisektori hylkäsi aloitteen. Myös sillä puolella täytyy tehdä uusia aloitteita sillä tavalla, että kaikilla eurooppalaisilla on mahdollisuus ottaa osaa Erasmus-ohjelmaan. Sitä pitää myös kehittää jatkossa.
               

                  On erittäin tärkeätä, että Euroopan kansalaiset voivat hyötyä mahdollisimman laajasti tästä ohjelmasta. Voin sanoa, että erityisesti hakuprosessien osalta tarvitsemme yksinkertaistamista. Ei muuta kuin menestystä edelleen tälle hyvälle ohjelmalle.
               

Curzio Maltese,
a nome del gruppo GUE/NGL. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, dunque, cerchiamo di capire: siccome Erasmus è stato uno dei pochi vanti di questa istituzione, ha funzionato bene per 13 anni e ha creato dei cittadini europei, allora noi abbiamo deciso di cambiarlo. E invece di ispirarci ai valori fondanti della nostra Unione, per esempio quello del diritto all'istruzione, lo vogliamo trasformare in un sistema di imitazione di un sistema che ha fallito in America, cioè il prestito studentesco. Questo è quello che sta realmente accadendo.
               

                  Da quando nel 2014 è stata approvata la nuova versione di Erasmus, Erasmus+, accanto a cose importanti che noi abbiamo appoggiato, come la trasparenza, la semplificazione burocratica e l'integrazione delle discipline, è stato introdotto questo virus, che è quello del prestito studentesco. Si tratta di un sistema che negli Stati Uniti ha provocato e sta provocando un collasso economico, una bolla di 1 300 miliardi di debito – largamente debito inesigibile – che rischia di travolgere un sistema intero di credito. Per fortuna, devo dire, in Europa è stato usato pochissimo, da 130 studenti in questi tre anni in soli tre paesi.
               

                  Quindi dovremmo cambiare strada e tornare all'Erasmus, che ha avuto successo. Noi invece stiamo andando avanti su una strada che distruggerà uno dei pochi strumenti amati e giustamente popolari di questa istituzione per inseguire dei modelli che hanno fallito altrove e dare altri argomenti all'antieuropeismo, che ne ha già abbastanza.
               

Helga Trüpel,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Wir haben gerade den 30-jährigen Geburtstag von Erasmus gefeiert. Wir haben über zehn Millionen, insbesondere junge, Menschen erreicht. Also, es ist klar: Es ist eine wirkliche europäische Erfolgsgeschichte. Das Budget ist in dieser Planungsperiode um 40 % gestiegen, aber es ist klar: Auch das reicht noch nicht.
               

                  Aber ich will vor allem mal kurz kucken, was noch geändert werden muss, um das Erasmus-Programm besser zu machen: Kleine Schulprojekte sollten stärker gefördert werden, die Bedeutung des formalen und informellen Lernens sollte anerkannt und insbesondere die Bedeutung des informellen Lernens sollte gestärkt werden. Wir müssen benachteiligte Jugendliche mehr berücksichtigen und bei der internen Mittelverteilung mehr Geld für Jugendliche im Bereich Sport vorsehen. Und auch alle Antragsverfahren und auch die elektronischen Leitfäden sollten vereinfacht werden.
               

                  Ich möchte noch auf drei Extrapunkte zu sprechen kommen: Der europäische Solidaritätskorps ist im Prinzip eine gute Sache – auch ich unterstütze das –, aber er darf nicht aus den Mitteln von Erasmus + bezahlt werden, sondern die Mittel, die es jetzt dafür gibt, sollen für die Schwerpunkte von Erasmus + verwendet werden. Das gleiche gilt für die Idee des Interrailtickets: Auch das ist gut, wenn junge Menschen die Möglichkeit haben, damit zu reisen, aber es darf nicht aus den Mitteln des Erasmus-Programms finanziert werden. Und dann gibt es die Idee – und ich bin gerade bei der Politik von Trump sehr bereit, über die Notwendigkeit einer neuen Sicherheitspolitik in Europa nachzudenken –, aber man sollte die Mittel aus Erasmus jetzt nicht als Erstes für mögliche militärische Kooperationen nutzen.
               

                  Also konzentrieren wir uns auf die eigentlichen Aufgaben, darauf, für einen Erasmus, für den wir jetzt so gekämpft haben, weiter die Mittel auszubauen, und wenn es zusätzliche gute Politikbereiche gibt, dann muss dafür frisches Geld besorgt werden.
               

Isabella Adinolfi,
a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, innanzitutto vorrei ringraziare il relatore per il lavoro fatto e per lo spirito di collaborazione mostrato. La relazione che ci accingiamo a votare costituisce un buon punto di equilibrio raggiunto tra i gruppi. Se il programma Erasmus+ rappresenta infatti uno dei programmi con più successo tra quelli europei, ciononostante alcuni aspetti dello stesso possono essere migliorati e la relazione ha il pregio di riconoscerlo. Così, ad esempio, si sottolinea come lo strumento di garanzia dei prestiti non abbia raggiunto i risultati prefissati e si chiede una sua valutazione critica. A mio avviso non è possibile assolutamente che gli studenti, per poter partecipare al programma, debbano indebitarsi. È inaccettabile che chi dispone di poche, a volte pochissime risorse debba essere anche gravato di un ulteriore fardello. È la collettività che deve farsene carico.
               

                  Un altro aspetto sul quale correttamente si pone l'accento è quello relativo al fatto che, se da un lato è corretto riconoscere il ruolo del volontariato nell'ambito di questo programma, dall'altro, però, il volontariato non può in nessuno modo sostituire la forza lavoro e gli investimenti pubblici. Infine, giudico positivi i richiami alla necessità di una semplificazione delle procedure amministrative, che spesso si sono dimostrate troppo farraginose.
               

                  Vorrei chiudere il mio intervento con una riflessione di ordine generale: il programma Erasmus viene sempre citato – come hanno fatto anche i miei colleghi – come esempio positivo per dimostrare che l'Unione europea in fondo funziona e può generare risultati positivi. Se però il successo di Erasmus è indubbio, non dobbiamo cadere nell'errore di usare questo programma come uno strumento di propaganda a favore dell'Unione europea, perché quest'ultima è affetta da troppi mali che non possono e non devono essere sottaciuti, a cominciare dalle politiche di austerità. L'accettazione del progetto europeo non può essere qualcosa di acritico. L'Unione deve ritornare a essere una comunità, a porre i cittadini al centro del proprio progetto e, per fare ciò, il programma Erasmus sicuramente ha costituito e costituisce un buon punto di partenza.
               

Dominique Bilde,
au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, je tiens tout d'abord à remercier le rapporteur car il a su, dans ce rapport à mi-parcours de la mise en œuvre d'Erasmus +, recueillir les principales informations nécessaires, notamment celles concernant le retour des agences nationales sur la transition avec les précédents programmes et leurs attentes concernant les améliorations nécessaires.
               

                  Le rapport indique, malgré quelques progrès, qu'il reste de gros efforts à faire en matière de simplification administrative puisque 75 % des agences nationales font encore face à des difficultés dans ce domaine.
               

                  J'appuie également le rapporteur dans sa volonté de rééquilibrer la part de financement entre les petits et les grands projets.
               

                  En ce qui concerne le budget, je prends note de l'augmentation de 12,7 % du budget total en 2017 par rapport à 2016. Cependant, je tiens à souligner que ces nouveaux fonds alloués n'auront un impact positif concret que dans la mesure où ils feront l'objet d'une gestion responsable.
               

                  Enfin, je soutiens le rapporteur dans sa volonté d'améliorer l'accessibilité du programme, notamment pour les personnes handicapées et les personnes issues des zones rurales ou montagneuses.
               

Ева Майдел (PPE). – Г-н Председател, уважаеми г-н Комисар, скъпи колеги, ‘Еразъм’ е не просто една от най-известните програми на Европейския съюз, но и една от най-развилите се през годините. Преди 30 години програмата наистина започва като схема за мобилност на студенти, а днес ‘Еразъм+’ означава обучение на ученици и на студенти на всички възрасти, стажове, доброволчество, младежки обмени, професионално обучение за възрастни, спорт.
               

                  Програмата е пример как Европейският съюз непрекъснато надгражда върху успешните проекти и политики и доставя конкретни резултати на своите граждани. Точно затова, когато настояваме за увеличение на финансирането на ‘Еразъм+’, ние не просто искаме повече студентски обмени, ние искаме по-добре обучени работници с повече качествени умения за успех в 21-ви век, ученици, знаещи повече езици, студенти с професионален опит от чужда страна.
               

                  Достатъчен е един пример, за да разберем значението на ‘Еразъм+’ за сформирането на европейското самосъзнание сред младите. През 2015 г. страната, изпратила най-много студенти по ‘Еразъм’, е Великобритания. Тук с млади хора се шегуваме, че ако програмата днес навършваше петдесет години, може би ‘Брекзит’ нямаше да се случи. Ще се радваме да видим по-голям достъп за основни училища от малки градове да получат същия шанс както езикови гимназии от големи градове и да изпратят ученици и учители на обмен.
               

Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, for me the Erasmus programme is the biggest success story of the EU. In 2014 alone, the programme provided the UK with more than EUR 79 million in grants and allowed 36 734 British people to study, train or volunteer abroad. These grants helped – and continue to help – young people enhance their skills and employability and intercultural awareness. They also encourage young people to participate in democratic life. Compared to previous generations of programmes, the new Erasmus+ provides stronger support for learners from disadvantaged backgrounds, which I welcome. By funding cooperation projects, Erasmus+ also fosters modernisation and EU-wide collaboration, which in turn stimulate innovation, creativity and improved job prospects.
Leaving the EU will have a major impact on higher education in the UK, with an important loss of income due to a fall in the numbers of EU nationals studying in the UK. Losing access to EU funding, such as Horizon 2020 grants, which accounts for a quarter of all public investment in UK research could further tarnish the attractiveness of the UK as a place to study for international students, including those from non-EU countries. Furthermore, by ending freedom of movement, a hard Brexit would deprive future generations of young Britons of the chance to broaden their minds, learn a foreign language, enjoy a new culture and gain a valuable European experience.

Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já se chci připojit ke svým předřečníkům, kteří v zásadě chválili program Erasmus+. Jako praktičtí politici asi dobře víme, že pokud něco z Evropské unie jasně funguje a lze, zvláště u mladých lidí, jednoznačně deklarovat pozitivní stránku Evropské unie, tak je to právě program Erasmus+. Alespoň takovou já mám praktickou zkušenost z České republiky, pokud se potkávám jako vysokoškolský kantor se studenty, tak hovoříme-li o Erasmu+, všichni zde cítí a vidí jasné pozitivum.
               

                  Mimo jiné jsem přesvědčen, a je to zvláště důležité pro nás, pro bývalou postkomunistickou zemi, Erasmus umožňuje, aby mladí lidé poznávali, jak fungují jiné země EU, a aby do budoucna méně podléhali populistickým řečem některých politiků, kteří staví svou vizi na antievropské notě, na antievropské ideologii. Takže já to velmi vítám, ale jsem rád, že tato zpráva popisuje jasná konkrétní zlepšení a jasné konkrétní problémy, které by měla Komise řešit, a které by měly činnost Komise ovlivnit. Nebudu to zde všechno vyjmenovávat, je to otázka mobility nejen vysokoškolských studentů, ale i např. učňů, mobility mladých začínajících podnikatelů. Jsou to otázky související s dostatkem peněz, zvláště pro země východní a střední Evropy. Těch peněz není moc a často nestačí. Je to otázka vzájemné mobility, nejen studentů z postkomunistických zemí na Západ, ale do budoucna je třeba podporovat i právě, aby studenti ze západní Evropy více jezdili do střední a východní Evropy, atd. Takže děkuji a návrh podporuji.
               

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


Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Elnök Úr, az Erasmus program vitathatatlanul az Európai Unió egyik legsikeresebb programja, segítségével fiatalok milliói tapasztalhatták meg, milyen egy másik tagállamban élni, ezáltal erősítve az európai összetartozás gondolatát. Bár az EU-nak kevés hatásköre van az oktatás terén, mégis felhasználom ezt az alkalmat, hogy felhívjam a figyelmet azokra a milliókra, akik nem vesznek részt az Erasmus programban. Ők vannak többen, és sajnos egyes tagállamok oktatási rendszerei súlyos versenyképességi hátrányt jelentenek nekik. A megváltozott munkaerőpiaci viszonyokra, a megváltozott világra fel kellene készítsék a tagállami oktatási rendszerek a fiataljainkat, ez azonban egyes országokban nem történik meg.
               

                  Évtizedes lemaradással küzdenek ezek az országok és ezáltal a teljes Unió veszít versenyképességéből, tehát ez is közös ügyünk. A jelenleginél erőteljesebben kellene közelíteni egymáshoz a tagállami rendszereket, másképp ez a súlyos különbség konzerválódni fog a tagállamok között.
               

Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Erasmus+ è il più importante strumento di sostegno nei settori dell'istruzione e della formazione della gioventù. I risultati dello studio sull'impatto del programma Erasmus confermano che chi ha studiato o si è formato all'estero ha il doppio delle probabilità di trovare lavoro rispetto a chi non ha simili esperienze. Dallo studio emerge però anche il perdurare della selettività sociale nell'iscrizione ai programmi di mobilità in alcuni Stati membri.
               

                  Le ineguaglianze all'interno degli Stati membri e tra gli stessi stanno rendendo difficoltoso l'accesso al programma in quanto ostacolano i candidati che dispongono di un reddito inferiore. Molti studenti lavoratori rinunciano a partecipare ai programmi a causa della potenziale perdita di reddito. L'eliminazione degli ostacoli alla mobilità rappresenta un passaggio indispensabile per garantire la parità di accesso a questo programma. Ritengo che la Commissione e gli Stati membri debbano aumentare la dotazione finanziaria per favorire la partecipazione di coloro che non sono in grado di partecipare per motivi economici e cercare ulteriori possibilità per agevolarne la mobilità affinché Erasmus+ possa effettivamente diventare accessibile a tutti.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, από το 2017 και έπειτα αναμένεται να υπάρξει αύξηση της χρηματοδότησης για το πρόγραμμα Εrasmus+, καθώς η χαμηλή χρηματοδότηση για την περίοδο 2014-2016 είχε σαν αποτέλεσμα πολύ χαμηλά ποσοστά επιτυχίας ορισμένων τμημάτων του προγράμματος και καθώς υψηλός αριθμός αιτήσεων απορρίφθηκε με αποτέλεσμα τη διάψευση των προσδοκιών πολλών αιτούντων. Δεδομένου όμως ότι στις χώρες της Ένωσης παρατηρούμε ακραίες ανισορροπίες ως προς τα ποσοστά ανεργίας, η χρηματοδότηση του Εrasmus+ θα πρέπει να προσαρμοστεί στις οικονομικές ανάγκες κάθε χώρας. Το πρόγραμμα θα μπορούσε να αποτελέσει ανάσα για τους νέους και ειδικά για τους Έλληνες που πλήττονται από τα μνημόνια και την ανεργία. Αυτή τη στιγμή τα όνειρα των νέων παιδιών για ένα καλύτερο αύριο πέφτουν στο κενό, καθώς βλέπουν ότι η αγορά εργασίας στην Ελλάδα δεν μπορεί να τους προσφέρει μια θέση που να ανταποκρίνεται στις ανάγκες τους αλλά και στο μορφωτικό τους επίπεδο. Για τους λόγους αυτούς μεταναστεύουν μαζικά στο εξωτερικό. Είναι επομένως αναγκαίο η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να διαθέσει περισσότερα κονδύλια στις χώρες που πλήττονται από υψηλά ποσοστά ανεργίας όπως η Ελλάδα.
               

Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, trideset godina, desetak milijuna sudionika, stotine milijuna eura uloženih u naše građane. Veliki kapital za Europsku uniju. Uloženo u mladost, uloženo u učenje, uloženo u ljude koji danas zajedno s nama stvaraju Europu. I mislim da je to zaista s pravom često rečeno kao jedan od najboljih programa koji je uopće Europska unija osmislila, kao jedan od zaštitnih znakova Europske unije.
               

                  Međutim, zamolio sam za riječ da bih Vam, poštovani gospodine povjereniče, ukazao na još jedno iskustvo koje postoji, a to je program Euroodiseja, koji postoji u sklopu Skupštine europskih regija i gdje partnerstvo jedinica lokalne i regionalne samouprave, dakle regija i gradova, stvara nešto slično kao što je Erasmus+. Ja vas pozivam da razmislimo i da stvorimo partnerstvo ne samo sa zemljama članicama već i s mnogim regijama i gradovima koji imaju fondove za svoje studente, za svoje mlade ljude. Mislim da tu leži još jedan veliki potencijal za stvaranje jednog još jačeg programa Erasmus.
               

Bogdan Brunon Wenta (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Jak dzisiaj słyszymy, wszystkie wystąpienia koleżanek i kolegów świadczą o tym, że jest to bardzo dobry program, szczególnie jeżeli spojrzymy z perspektywy 30 lat sukcesu integracji europejskiej. Ale jak z każdym instrumentem, który dobrze funkcjonuje, wiele dzisiejszych wypowiedzi i komentarzy dotyczy także troski o to, jaki jest, był i będzie Erasmus+. To jest problem związany z sukcesem, ale na sukces trzeba zawsze pracować i go wspomagać. Nie będę już powtarzał tych wszystkich argumentów, jakich wiele koleżanek i kolegów użyło, ale fakt, że w okresie 2014-2020 program zaoferuje dalsze możliwości studiowania, szkolenia lub wolontariatu 4 milionom Europejczyków, jest interesującym elementem. Nie byłoby to możliwe bez zwiększenia budżetu – 40-procentowy wzrost środków oraz integracja wszystkich programów w zakresie kształcenia i szkolenia młodzieży daje efekt w postaci programu Erasmus+. Poza tym – co bardzo ważne z mojej osobistej perspektywy – wreszcie uwzględniono w nim sport. Ale aby sukces programu miał wymiar długofalowy, istotne jest, by Komisja prowadziła działania w kierunku dalszego zwiększania budżetu programu, także w kolejnym okresie jego realizacji, oraz kontynuowała wysiłki na rzecz uproszczenia procedur związanych z programem. Przede wszystkim apeluję o przejrzysty przekaz dla beneficjentów programu, a także o udoskonalenie narzędzi przysługujących agencjom narodowym.
               

Tiemo Wölken (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Dies ist meine erste Rede in dem Hohen Haus, was für mich eine besonders große Ehre ist. Ich freue mich, dass ich diese Rede zum Erasmus+-Programm halten darf. Als junger Mensch kenne ich viele Unionsbürgerinnen und Unionsbürger, die davon profitieren.
               

                  Das Programm leistet einen unschlagbaren Beitrag für das Zusammenwachsen in der Europäischen Union, gerade auch durch die Öffnung hin zur beruflichen Ausbildung. Der Bericht unterstreicht die enorme Bedeutung von Erasmus+. Gerade in Grenzregionen leistet Erasmus einen wichtigen Beitrag zur beruflichen Ausbildung. Wir sollten das Programm in diesem Bereich weiter stärken und es auch ermöglichen, dass Auszubildende, die unter der Woche wieder in ihr Heimatland fahren, die Finanzierung und Förderung erhalten. Dies gilt zum Beispiel im Bereich der Pflege.
               

                  Die Förderung von Europas Jugend ist ein wichtiger Beitrag für die Zukunft der Europäischen Union und lässt uns weiter zusammenwachsen. Daher ist dieses Programm so wichtig.
               

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, susțin acest raport și îl voi vota cu mare plăcere. Am lucrat și am cunoscut foarte mulți tineri care au parcurs acest proiect. Erasmus+ este un pas înainte. Deși vizibilitatea programului a crescut, personal, cred că trebuie îmbunătățite încă și trebuie simplificată accesarea, mai ales. Capacitatea de absorbție există în Europa, dar este nevoie de o creștere a fondurilor, având în vedere solicitările tinerilor, mai ales în țările din est.
               

                  Domnule președinte, vă rog să întrerupeți ședința. Nu cred că așa se poate desfășura în plenul Parlamentului o intervenție.
               

El Presidente. – Por favor, Señorías, guarden silencio.
               

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, apreciem că există un raportor permanent pentru Erasmus, precum și prevederea evaluării la jumătatea perioadei și sper că evaluarea să fie urmată și de măsuri. Așa cum au menționat și alți colegi sunt încă probleme de rezolvat și cred, domnule comisar, că este păcat să fie respinse proiecte care sunt bune, chiar dumneavoastră ați confirmat acest lucru.
               

Victor Negrescu (S&D). – Domnule președinte, voi face referire la subiectul aflat pe ordinea de zi, mă refer aici la Erasmus+ care sărbătorește anul acesta a 30-a aniversare și, cum au spus și antevorbitorii mei, a ajutat deja milioane de tineri și profesioniști în educație. Dar, până în 2020, Erasmus+ trebuie să sprijine alte două milioane de studenți din învățământul superior. 650 de mii de tineri aflați în formare profesională, 500 de mii de voluntari și tineri în schimburi de experiență, 800 de mii de lectori, profesori formatori, dar, cu toate acestea, doar 7% din tinerii europeni pot beneficia astăzi de această oportunitate.
               

                  Cu 17 miliarde dintr-un total de un trilion de euro cât avem bugetul european pentru perioada 2014-2020 este prea puțin pentru a îndeplini obiectivele unui astfel de program. De aceea, trebuie să ne asigurăm că Erasmus+ este finanțat corespunzător și este implementat în așa fel încât rata de participare să fie mai mare. Sunt multe lucruri care se pot face prin scăderea cofinanțării, recunoașterea orelor de voluntariat ca și cofinanțare în proiecte, încadrarea mai bună a participanților sau sustenabilitatea proiectelor.
               

                  Cred că împreună Parlamentul European și Comisia pot face mai multe pentru a permite ca acest program să fie mai eficient.
               

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


Tibor Navracsics,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to thank everyone for their participation and remarks in the debate. Both the critical and the supportive remarks are very useful to us in building up the project for the years to come and the upcoming multiannual financial framework.
Indeed, the Erasmus programme, which started its career 30 years ago as a student mobility programme, transformed into a very complex programme with higher education aspects. It is no longer only about student mobility, but strategic alliances among higher education institutions, the exchange of ideas and best practices, and a strong and institutionalised cooperation among higher education institutions. It has a chapter on volunteering which can be very useful for young Europeans to gain experience and skills in volunteering which can be used on the labour market. We have some funding programmes for sports, especially for grassroots sports, and we have projects in youth policy as well. This means that Erasmus+ is today much more than a student mobility programme. It is a complex programme for the future because it not only helps young people to find their own place in today's and tomorrow's societies, but it also helps them to develop a complementary European identity which is not antagonistic to local, regional or national identities, but complements them. It adds to their personality and thereby hopefully helps European integration in this very critical period.
There is, of course, a lot of room for improvement. That is why I thanked you for all the remarks which raised the issue of funding. The structure of the Erasmus+ budget is an incremental one, which means that from 2017 until 2020, there is a 10% increase in the budget, which means wider opportunities in the future. I thank you for all the critical remarks on the administrative burden. We are working on simplifying procedures and IT solutions. I understood Mr Jakovčić's remarks on possible synergies. Together with local authorities or regional authorities, I think that could be a good opportunity for broadening the social and geographical appeal of Erasmus+ in the next period of the lifespan of that programme.
All in all, Erasmus+ is a success story. We have to protect all the achievements and to improve the structure and the outcomes of Erasmus+. That is why we offer some additional policy instruments aimed at helping young people to use the best opportunities in Erasmus+, for instance the student loan or the apprenticeship and traineeship programmes in Erasmus+. In the future we would like to broaden its social appeal and we would like to make it more available for those people who come from social circumstances and a social environment which are not so fortunate.

Milan Zver,
Poročevalec. –Hvala vsem za dobro razpravo o Erasmus +. Naj ob koncu poudarim, da imamo pred sabo implementacijsko poročilo in da z njim ne moremo radikalno spremeniti razmer. Lahko pa jih korak za korakom postopoma izboljšujemo in Evropska komisija bo še letos pripravila vmesno poročilo in bo lahko na podlagi lastnih ugotovitev sproti odpravljala morebitne pomanjkljivosti.
               

                  Novi evropski program Erasmus + torej uživa prijazno podporo vseh evropskih institucij, še posebej pa Parlamenta, in ne dvomim v jutrišnjo pozitivno glasovanje.
               

                  Torej v tem kratkem obdobju njegovega življenja smo mu, Erasmusu + seveda, izdatno povečali proračun in odpravili nekatere tehnične težave, kot so…kot je poenostavitev postopkov prijav, lažja dostopnost manjšim organizacijam v programih. Izboljšalo se je medsektorsko sodelovanje, uvedena je bila večja decentralizacija pri delovanju programa, še posebej pa so pomembni pozitivni odzivi sodelujočih v programu in povečanje zanimanja za sodelovanje v njem. Zato bo potrebno v prihodnje še naprej odpravljati prepad med omejenimi proračunskimi zmožnostmi in širokimi potenciali programa.
               

                  In za konec naj zaključim s spoznanjem, da v realnosti Erasmus + pridobiva na veljavi in da predstavlja tako v osebnem, socialnem in gospodarskem smislu neprecenljivo dodano vrednost za prihodnji razvoj Evropske unije.
               

El Presidente. – Se cierra el debate.
               

                  La votación tendrá lugar mañana.
               


Declaraciones por escrito (artículo 162 del Reglamento)



Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D),
raštu. – Daugelis ES piliečių Europos Sąjungos švietimo, mokymo, jaunimo ir sporto programa ‘Erasmus+’ vertina kaip svarbią priemonę veiklai švietimo, mokymo, jaunimo ir sporto srityse remti ir laiko ją sėkmingu Europos integracijos pavyzdžiu. Kalbant apie programos matomumą, daromos dvi išvados. Viena vertus, skirtingas programas sujungus į vieną bendrą programą padidėjo ES paramos matomumas, o tai lėmė ir didesnį visuomenės bei politikų dėmesį. Kita vertus, ne viena suinteresuotoji šalis kritiškai vertina tai, kad dėl bendro programos sudėtingumo dabar nepakankamai matomi įvairūs sektoriai. Supaprastinimo tikslas didžiąja dalimi pasiektas pradėjus taikyti keletą naujų priemonių, pavyzdžiui, parengus skaitmeninius paraiškų teikimo proceso ir projektų valdymo sprendimus. Nemažai suinteresuotųjų šalių taip pat palankiai vertina tai, kad įvesta vieneto kainos sistema – taip buvo supaprastintas programos finansų valdymas. Vis dėlto pirmieji dveji su puse įgyvendinimo metų buvo neabejotinai sunkūs ir buvo iškilę sunkumų. Kol kas Komisija yra patobulinusi įgyvendinimo priemones ir toliau įgyvendina veiksmus. Tačiau norint, kad programa būtų išties sėkminga, dar daug turi būti atlikta.
               

Andrea Bocskor (PPE),
írásban. – Először is szeretnék gratulálni Milan Zver kollégámnak a jelentés elkészítéséhez. Az idén 30 éves mobilitási program keretében eddig több mint 3 millió diáknak volt lehetősége külföldi egyetemen tanulni. Az Európai Parlament a továbbiakban is támogatni fogja ezt a nagyszerű mobilitási programot, hogy minél több fiatal részt vehessen benne és a tudás mellett kulturális élményekkel, tapasztalatokkal, új készségekkel gazdagodjanak. A fiatalok munkaerőpiaci esélyeinek javításához fontos a többnyelvűség, ezért több olyan projektre van szükség az Erasmus+ program keretében, mely nyelvtanulásra, a többnyelvű kommunikációra ad lehetőséget. Az Erasmus+ fő vonzereje, hogy a külföldi egyetemeken, intézményekben tapasztalatot szerző fiatalok olyan készségekkel és tudással gazdagodnak, melyek pluszt jelentenek számukra a munkaerőpiacon vagy vállalkozás beindítása során. Úgy gondolom, hogy a programnak kiemelten kell kezelni és támogatni a kisebbségi nyelven történő nyelvtanulást is. Szinte valamennyi regionális és kisebbségi nyelvi közösség számára nehézséget jelent nyelvei fennmaradásának és fejlesztésének biztosítása. Az Erasmus+ programnak minden diákot támogatnia kell, függetlenül attól, hogy a diákok a többségi vagy nemzeti kisebbségi közösséghez tartoznak-e. A nyelvi mobilitás nemcsak azt jelenti, hogy a kisebbségi közösséghez tartozók megtanulják a többségi közösséghez tartozók nyelvét, hanem fordítva is, lehetővé téve a többségi közösséghez tartozók számára, hogy szorosabb kapcsolatokat ápoljanak a kisebbségi nyelvi közösségekkel és jobban megértsék kultúrájukat.
               

Viorica Dăncilă (S&D),
în scris. – Peste 9 milioane de participanți direcți și alte milioane de beneficiari indirecți – acesta este un bilanț satisfăcător pentru proiectul de mobilitate pentru studenți lansat în 1987. A 30-a aniversare a programului Erasmus coincide și cu aniversarea a 60 de ani de la semnarea Tratatului de la Roma, care promovează o uniune tot mai strânsă în Europa. Această platformă de mobilitate și de cooperare europeană și internațională a oferit și oferă în continuare posibilitatea ca persoane din medii diferite să se reunească, să dobândească competențele necesare pentru a avea o viață împlinită și independentă, să își găsească locul în societate și să dezvolte un sentiment de identitate europeană. Din păcate, există încă o serie de bariere care îngreunează accesul la program pentru studenții cu venituri mici sau care provin din mediul rural, pentru persoane cu nevoi speciale și persoane care provin din medii defavorizate, bariere care trebuie îndepărtate prin efortul comun al tuturor statelor membre.
               

Andor Deli (PPE),
írásban. – Tisztelt Képviselőtársaim! Az immár 30 éves Erasmus+ olyan a 80-as és 90-es évek európai uniós programok alapjaira épül, mint például a Socrates, vagy a Leonardo da Vinci. Az Erasmus+ a legnagyobb költségvetéssel rendelkező ilyen jellegű program az európai történelemben. Eddig több mint 3 millió diáknak volt lehetősége ezáltal külföldön tanulni. Ami külön megelégedéssel tölt el, hogy ez az első alakalom, amikor az EU ilyen formában támogatja a sporttevékenységet, amelyet különösen fontosnak tartok az egészség megőrzése szempontjából is. A milliós részvevői számok magukért beszélnek. A felmérések szerint azok a fiatalok, akik külföldön is tanultak, sokkal nagyobb eséllyel pályáznak egy későbbi munkahelyre.
               

                  Ez nagyon fontos annak fényében, hogy számos tagállamban igen magas a fiatalok körében a munkanélküliség. Remélhetőleg a következő években is ilyen sikeresen folytatódik az Erasmus+, és még nagyon sok fiatal gazdagodik külföldi tapasztalattal, amelynek később óriási hasznát tudja venni.
               

Beata Gosiewska (ECR),
na piśmie. – Jako polska posłanka chciałam odnieść się do sprawozdania w sprawie wdrożenia rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady ustanawiającego Erasmus+, unijny program na rzecz kształcenia, szkolenia, młodzieży i sportu. Rozpoczęty w 2014 roku, program Erasmus+ połączył kilka pomniejszych programów w dziedzinie kształcenia, szkolenia i młodzieży, a dodatkowo po raz pierwszy uwzględnił sektor sportu jako nową dziedzinę objętą wsparciem. Aktualnie jest on głównym narzędziem wspierania działań w dziedzinie kształcenia, szkolenia, młodzieży i sportu i jako taki powinien być pozytywnie oceniony i dalej realizowany.
               

                  Niestety kształt sprawozdania z wdrażania programu Erasmus+, zawierającego rekomendacje co do jego dalszego rozwoju, zmusił mnie do powstrzymania się od oddania głosu. Sprawozdawca pomija problematyczne aspekty programu, a także propozycje ich korekty, mimo że są one nieustannie wskazywane przez samych zainteresowanych, czyli środowiska akademickie. Ponadto przedstawienie w sprawozdaniu mobilności jako głównego celu programu, a zapominanie o jego prawdziwym celu, jakim jest podnoszenie jakości kształcenia, nadaje programowi Erasmus+ charakter konsumpcyjny. Niepokojącym jest również zaproponowany przez sprawozdawcę zwrot ku tzw. umiejętnościom miękkim, a nie jak dotąd promowanie zdobywania realnej wiedzy. Reasumując, program ramowy Erasmus+ osobiście oceniam jako niezwykle cenny i będę wspierała jego realizację, jednak kształt sprawozdania, jego założenia i próba przemycenia w jego treści wielu polemicznych sformułowań wzbudziły mój niepokój.
               

Krzysztof Hetman (PPE),
na piśmie. – Program Erasmus to jeden z najlepiej rozpoznawanych i pozytywnie ocenianych programów unijnych. Trzydziesta rocznica jego powstania to dobra okazja nie tylko do świętowania, ale także do szerszej refleksji nad tym, jak go jeszcze ulepszyć oraz jak inne polityki i inicjatywy mogą czerpać z tej historii sukcesu. Podwyżka budżetu na ten rok o ponad 12% to dobra decyzja. Uważam, że tylko odpowiednio wysokie środki zapewnią tak niezbędne dla powodzenia tego programu podejście włączające. Ważne jest także, aby w pełni wykorzystać potencjał nie tylko wymian studenckich, ale także wszystkich pozostałych elementów programu, gdyż Erasmus+ to także wymiana kadr czy współpraca uczelni, co nie zawsze jest równie widoczne. Wraz z nową perspektywą finansową do programu zostały też wprowadzone nowe elementy, ale ich widoczność wymaga jeszcze wzmocnienia. Program Erasmus może pochwalić się jasnymi, wyraźnymi rezultatami, i to w dużej mierze przesądziło o jego powodzeniu. Zgadzam się ze sprawozdawcą, że aby utrzymać ten trend, należy zachować przejrzystość tego programu, zmieniając jedynie to, co wymaga uproszczenia i co ułatwi korzystanie z programu przez beneficjentów. Poszczególne cele powinny natomiast zachować swój odrębny budżet, co ułatwi ich realizację i wzmocni skuteczność. Uważam, że wiele z tych zasad może znaleźć zastosowanie także w przypadku innych programów unijnych.
               

Vladimír Maňka (S&D),
písomne. – Program Erasmus plus zohráva zásadnú úlohu pri posilňovaní európskej identity a integrácie. Prispieva ku kvalite vzdelávania. Má vysokú mieru úspešnosti. Absolventi tohto programu aj podľa štatistík majú omnoho väčšiu šancu získať zamestnanie. Zároveň je to významný prvok v oblasti mobility, vzdelávania a odbornej prípravy mládeže a celoživotného vzdelávania. Je potrebné zamerať tento projekt viac aj na stredoškolskú mládež. Treba zároveň zjednodušiť pravidlá, zabezpečiť zrozumiteľnosť a výklad pojmov, používať paušálne financovanie a skrátiť lehoty uhrádzania platieb, ktoré sú často problémom pre menšie organizácie pri zapájaní sa do projektov. Ide o podporu učiteľov, študentov, program podporuje športové organizácie. Poskytuje flexibilnú podporu jazykov na internete. Každý desiaty účastník projektu pochádza zo znevýhodneného prostredia alebo má špeciálne potreby. Program má omnoho viac záujemcov, ako dokážeme pokryť. Preto musíme žiadať o ďalšie navýšenie financovania.
               

Luigi Morgano (S&D),
per iscritto. – In 30 anni d'attività, il programma Erasmus ha contribuito ad arricchire la vita di molti giovani europei, migliorandone competenze e capacità, aprendo loro ‘finestre’ verso nuove culture, incoraggiandone la partecipazione alla vita democratica, nei propri paesi e non solo, aumentandone, concretamente, le possibilità d'occupazione.
               

                  Ad oggi, circa 4 milioni di ragazzi e giovani, e ben 125 000 istituti hanno beneficiato di questo programma. Più di due milioni di studenti universitari, 500 000 volontari, 800 000 educatori, 650 000 tirocinanti hanno deciso di attuare parte della propria formazione all'estero. Questi numeri confermano l'importanza del programma.
               

                  Nella relazione sull'attuazione di ERASMUS + se ne riconoscono le grandi potenzialità e, proprio alla luce di queste, la necessità di prevederne un'ampia possibilità di accesso, risolvere le questioni legate alla decentralizzazione del finanziamento delle azioni chiave, coinvolgere parti interessate e beneficiari nelle riunioni del comitato di programma di ERASMUS+.
               

                  Investire in formazione ed educazione e sostenere la mobilità transnazionale, per motivi di studio o di lavoro, può e deve essere la strada da percorrere per, allo stesso tempo, sostenere la crescita dell'economia reale e dell'occupazione; contrastare il pericoloso diffondersi di sentimenti di intolleranza ed esclusione sociale e promuovere un senso di comune cittadinanza europea.
               

Algirdas Saudargas (PPE),
raštu. – Programa ‘Erasmus+’ yra viena iš sėkmingiausių ES programų, todėl neabejotina, kad ji turi būti tęsiama, plėtojama ir tobulinama. Svarbu tai, jog sujungtos visos švietimo ir mokymo bei jaunimo programos ne tik padidino programos matomumą, bet ir tuo pačiu prisidėjo prie jaunų žmonių europietiškos tapatybės kūrimo, sąmoningo santykio su Europa formavimo bei kultūrinio dialogo. Įvertindamas šios programos teigiamus aspektus, siūlyčiau vengti skubotų struktūrinių pertvarkų, tačiau privalome tobulinti finansinius mechanizmus, bei mažinti biurokratiją. Ypatingas dėmesys turi būti skirtas tiems, kurių nepakankamos asmeninės finansinės lėšos sukuria kliūtis naudotis programa. Pritariu mintims, jog būtina didinti programos ‘Erasmus+’ finansavimą, bei užtikrinti finansinį skaidrumą ir efektyvumą.
               

Ivan Štefanec (PPE),
písomne. – Počiatočná koncepcia programu Erasmus+ a jeho komplikovanosť si vynútili jeho zefektívnenie v prospech tých, ktorí ho využívajú. Tento prístup umožňuje spoluprácu medzi jednotlivými odvetviami tohto programu a sektormi vzdelávania, ktoré Erasmus+ otvára mladým ľudom a tým, ktorí si želajú ho využiť. Okrem toho sa snažíme odstrániť nespravodlivosť, ktorá môže nastať pri výbere kandidátov, a zjednodušiť existujúce nástroje tohto programu namiesto pridávania ďalších.
               

Jutta Steinruck (S&D),
schriftlich. – Wir haben gerade das 30-jährige Jubiläum des Erasmus-Programms gefeiert. Das Erasmus-Programm steht wie kaum eine andere Initiative für das Zusammenwachsen der jungen europäischen Generation. Mit dem Programm haben wir über 10 Millionen junge Menschen erreicht. Damit ist es das erfolgreichste europäische Bildungsprogramm. Ich bin mir sicher, dass wir in Zukunft noch mehr junge Menschen erreichen können. Aber die letzte Neuigkeit, dass Gelder aus Erasmus+ für die Free-Interrail-Idee ausgegeben werden sollen, zielt in die falsche Richtung. Erasmus+ zeichnet sich dadurch aus, dass es nachhaltige Bildungsziele und Ausbildungsziele verfolgt. Die Interrail-Idee ist überhaupt nicht dafür geeignet, gerade junge Menschen aus sozial schwächeren Familien anzusprechen und ihnen Perspektiven für eine gute Bildung zu bieten. Ich bitte Sie also darum, die EU-Gelder sinnvoller in eine Ausweitung der bestehenden Erasmus+-Programme zu investieren.
               

Patricija Šulin (PPE),
pisno. – Erasmus+ je eden najbolj uspešnih programov Evropske unije in poleg znanj, spretnosti, zaposljivosti ter zmanjšanja tveganja za dolgoročno brezposelnost mladih Evropejcev spodbuja tudi k aktivnemu državljanstvu in socialni vključenosti mladih.
               

                  To vse so v današnjem času, ko se Evropska unija sooča z največjo krizo od njene ustanovitve, kar se kaže v padcu zaupanja državljanov v EU, še toliko pomembnejše vrednote, na katerih moramo graditi. Zato pozdravljam predlog Komisije, ki je do konca sedanjega večletnega finančnega okvira predlagala povečanje za 200 milijonov evrov.
               

István Ujhelyi (S&D),
írásban. – A hatályos alapszerződés értelmében az Unió kompetenciái az oktatás, képzés területén változatlanul a tagállamok közötti ‘együttműködés ösztönzésére, bátorítására, szükség szerinti kiegészítésére’ korlátozódnak, és a tagállamok kizárólagosan döntenek a nemzeti oktatási és képzési rendszereiket érintő valamennyi kérdésről. A tagállamok közötti színvonalbeli eltérés azonban egyre mélyebb szakadékokat hasít, amit az EU nem nézhet továbbra is ölbe tett kézzel. Az oktatás, képzés mindenkori színvonala, eredményessége és hatékonysága nem csupán a gazdasági versenyképesség, a növekedési potenciál erősítésének kulcseleme, de a jólét gyarapításának, a társadalmi összetartozás megőrzésének és újrateremtésének egyik legfontosabb záloga is. Ezért az oktatás az Európai Unió kiemelt prioritású területe kell, hogy legyen. Az Erasmus+ programot ki kell bővíteni a középfokú oktatásban és szakképzésben részesülőkre is, ennek forrását pedig érdemben meg kell emelni.
               

Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE),
na piśmie. – Sprawozdanie w sprawie wdrażania programu Erasmus+ uznaję za kluczowe zarówno z perspektywy przeglądu realizacji programu w ciągu ostatnich dwóch i pół roku od jego ustanowienia, jak również z perspektywy formułowania zaleceń co do jego dalszego wdrażania. Zaznaczam również, że wnioski zarysowane przez sprawozdawcę i innych członków Komisji Kultury i Edukacji powinny stanowić wartościowy materiał poglądowy dla Komisji Europejskiej podczas sporządzania oczekiwanego na koniec 2017 roku sprawozdania z oceny śródokresowej programu. Jako sprawozdawca budżetowy Komisji Kultury i Edukacji PE na lata 2016 i 2017 szczególną uwagę pragnę zwrócić na aspekty związane z finansowaniem Erasmus+. Budżet programu udało się znacząco zwiększyć w stosunku do jego poprzedniej edycji. Ten wchodzący w życie w tym roku, a sięgający 40% wzrost stanowi sygnał, że polityczna i ekonomiczna wartość programu została zauważona. Dostrzegając i doceniając poczynione dotychczas działania na rzecz usprawnienia środków wykonawczych procesu wdrażania programu, pragnę podkreślić, że konieczna jest nieustająca kontrola efektywności jego zarządzania finansowego dla podtrzymania wysokiego poziomu skuteczności programu oraz niezaprzeczalnego miana jednego z flagowych sukcesów integracji europejskiej.
               
21.   An integrated approach to Sport Policy: good governance, accessibility and integrity (short presentation)

El presidente. – El punto siguiente en el orden del día es el debate sobre el informe de Hannu Takkula, en nombre de la Comisión de Cultura y Educación, sobre un enfoque integrado de la política del deporte: buena gobernanza, accesibilidad e integridad (2016/2143(INI)) (A8-0381/2016)
               

Hannu Takkula,
esittelijä. – Arvoisa puhemies, arvoisa komissaari, hyvät kollegat, liikunnan puute on Maailman terveysjärjestö WHO:n mukaan neljänneksi yleisin kuolemaa aiheuttava tekijä. Meidän on liikuttava enemmän myös Euroopassa. Urheilupolitiikka ansaitsee sektorirajat ylittävää pohdintaa ja lisää resursseja.
               

                  Euroopan unionilla on ollut toimivaltaa urheilun alalla nyt seitsemän vuoden ajan. Mietintöni arvioi tätä kehitystä ja on nykyisen vaalikauden ainoa yksinomaan urheilua käsittelevä mietintö. Se sisältää Euroopan parlamentin politiikkasuositukset jäsenvaltioille, urheilujärjestöille ja komissiolle, joka tänä keväänä tekee Euroopan unionin urheilupolitiikan väliarvion.
               

                  Konkreettisia ehdotuksia ovat muun muassa liikunnallisen aktiivisuuden lisäämiseen tähtäävät toimet, kuten esitys arvonlisäverovähennyksestä ja muista taloudellisista kannustimista ruohonjuuritason urheilulle. Erityisesti haluamme painottaa sitä, että ruohonjuuritasolla eri puolilla Eurooppaa ihmiset voivat liikkua. Siellähän se perusta on.
               

                  Mietinnössä tuodaan esille myös urheilun laaja taloudellinen merkitys yhteiskunnalle. Urheilusektori kasvaa muuta taloutta nopeammin työllistäen jo tällä hetkellä noin kolme ja puoli prosenttia Euroopan unionin kansalaisista. Tästä urheilusektorin boostista voisivat myös muut sektorit ottaa oppia Euroopassa. Liikunta parantaa kansanterveyttä ja vaikuttaa näin positiivisesti myös ikärakenteeseen. Ikärakenteen muutoksesta kärsivien jäsenvaltioiden kansantalouksiin tällä on suora yhteys.
               

                  Urheilu on myös jokaisen ihmisen perusoikeus. Se auttaa integroitumaan paremmin myös yhteiskuntaan. Siksi urheilu- ja liikuntapalvelujen tulee olla tasavertaisesti kaikkien, niin vammaisten, maahanmuuttajien, nuorien kuin vanhustenkin, saatavilla. Urheilun saavutettavuus on asia, jonka tulee näkyä nykyistä selkeämmin Euroopan unionin urheilupolitiikassa. Erasmus+ -ohjelma, josta juuri äsken keskustelimme, on loistava ohjelma ja menestystarina, mutta sekin tarvitsee lisäpanostuksia nimenomaan urheilun osalta.
               

                  Kaikki varmasti tiedämme myös, että järjestäytyneessä urheilussa on esiintynyt ikäviä korruptio- ja dopingtapauksia, jotka ovat tahranneet urheilun mainetta. Tässä mietinnössä vaaditaan nollatoleranssia urheilussa esiintyvälle korruptiolle sekä annetaan ehdotuksia usein julkista tukea saavien urheilujärjestöjen hyvän hallinnon kehittämiselle. Urheilujärjestöjen hallinnon ja rahavirtojen tulee olla läpinäkyviä.
               

                  Korostamme myöskin urheilun integriteetin varmistamista ja siihen tähtääviä toimia, kuten sopupelien ja dopingin vastaista taistelua. Nämä ovat kansainvälisiä urheilun mainetta tahraavia ongelmia, joiden ratkaisemisessa myös Euroopan unionilla ja sen jäsenvaltioilla on tärkeä rooli.
               

                  Haluan tässä lopuksi esittää toiveen, että Euroopan komissio ottaa huomioon tämän mietinnön ehdotukset urheilupolitiikan väliarviossa. Koska ehdotuksia on paljon, tulee seurantaa jatkaa myös tämän kevään jälkeen. On myös tärkeää seurata ehdotusten toteutumista jäsenvaltioissa ja urheilujärjestöissä. Sen vuoksihan me näitä ohjelmia teemme, emme vain johonkin hyllylle mappiin vaan että ne tulisivat käytäntöön ja että ne tulisivat myös toteutetuiksi eri jäsenvaltioissa ja urheilujärjestöissä.
               

                  Sen vuoksi ehdotan, että järjestämme vuosittain tämän urheilumietinnön ehdotusten seuraamistapaamisen täällä Euroopan parlamentissa yhteistyössä Euroopan komission, neuvoston ja sidosryhmien kanssa. Näin voimme osaltamme varmistua siitä, että tämä laajasti koottu urheilua koskeva Euroopan parlamentin kanta voisi tulla käytännössä eläväksi ja toimivaksi todellisuudeksi kaikissa Euroopan unionin jäsenvaltioissa. Kiitoksia.
               

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


Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já bych chtěla poděkovat kolegovi Takkulovi za předložení této zprávy. Vítám zejména návrhy na zvýšení dostupnosti sportu pro všechny skupiny obyvatelstva.
               

                  Jak už on sám zmínil, tak nedostatek fyzické aktivity je čtvrtou nejčastější příčinou úmrtí na světě a podle stejné organizace byla třetina dětí ve věku mezi šesti a devíti lety v Evropské unii obézní a to v roce 2010. To je, myslím, dost alarmující zpráva. Samozřejmě: fyzická aktivita, podpora tělesné výchovy a sportu jsou zásadní podmínkou pro to, abychom také s tímto negativním vývojem něco udělali.
               

                  Já souhlasím s tím, že jsou to především členské státy, které jsou zodpovědné za podporu sportu, ale na úrovni Evropy tímto vysíláme signál, že Evropská unie podporuje sportovní aktivity jako nástroj proti rozvoji sociálně patologických jevů, v boji proti těmto jevům a také pro zlepšení zdravotního stavu obyvatelstva.
               

Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, I welcome the call for an integrated policy in sport adopted by this report, which addresses a broad range of issues, such as the challenges linked to racism and homophobia, the social aspects of sport and the need to ensure inclusive access, including for people with disabilities, the contribution of sport to wellbeing and health – notably mental health, and the need to strongly combat unethical practices such as match fixing, corruption and doping. Integrity is a vital component of sport. We must restore trust in sporting institutions and re-establish the values of solidarity, peace and social inclusion that sport can engender. The EU should pay particular attention to the issue of human rights in sport. The circumstances surrounding the preparation of the 2022 World Cup in Qatar are deeply regrettable. It is estimated that 4000 people might die before the first ball is even kicked. The EU must condemn the abuses that have been taking place. Sport must remain a vehicle for promoting human rights, not a justification for breaching them.
Finally, I'd like to address the issue of gender equality in sport and the fair representation of women in governing bodies: having more women in sport decision-making would have a positive outcome, not only on the transparency and accountability of sports organisations and access to sports activities for women, but might also counter the poor media coverage given to women's sport and the socially discriminating and sexually stereotyped reporting found in the media.

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ο αθλητισμός αποτελεί ένα μεγάλο και ταχέως αναπτυσσόμενο τομέα της οικονομίας των κρατών μελών της Ένωσης και συμβάλλει σημαντικά στην ανάπτυξη και την απασχόληση, ενώ παράλληλα διαδραματίζει σημαντικό ρόλο στη ζωή των Ευρωπαίων πολιτών. Ωστόσο, η εικόνα του αθλητισμού αμαυρώνεται συχνά. είτε μέσω του χουλιγκανισμού και της βίας που αποθαρρύνουν τους φιλάθλους από το να παρακολουθούν αθλητικές διοργανώσεις, είτε από τα διαρκώς αυξανόμενα κρούσματα ντόπινγκ τα οποία παραβιάζουν τις ηθικές αξίες και αρχές του αθλητισμού. Ταυτόχρονα, διάφορες πανευρωπαϊκές ομοσπονδίες Επαγγελματικού Αθλητισμού αποτελούν κράτος εν κράτει, επιβάλλουν καθεστώς αναγκαστικής ετεροδικίας και έχουν μετατραπεί σε ad hoc μονοπώλια που παραβιάζουν τους κανόνες περί ανταγωνισμού στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, ενώ καταχρώνται τη δεσπόζουσα θέση τους στην ευρωπαϊκή αθλητική αγορά. Απέναντι στις περιπτώσεις διαφθοράς στο χώρο του αθλητισμού θα πρέπει να υπάρξει μηδενική ανοχή ενώ ο Παγκόσμιος Οργανισμός Αντιντόπινγκ θα πρέπει να λάβει περισσότερα μέτρα για να χτυπήσει το ίδιο το ντόπινγκ σε παγκόσμια κλίμακα.
               

Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, htio bih svakako podržati izvještaj uvaženog kolege Takkule, u svim onim elementima kada govorimo o važnosti sporta, o utjecaju sporta, pogotovo na mlađu populaciju, ali i na one starije, pa i na one malo punašnije kao što sam ja, na primjer.
               

                  Htio bih, međutim, dati dvije dimenzije. Dimenziju onih država kao što je, recimo, Hrvatska, iz koje ja dolazim, koja ima vrlo velike i uspješne rezultate. Vrlo mala zemlja, vrhunski sportaši u nogometu, košarci, vaterpolu i rukometu, sve sam svjetski vrh. Veliki problemi u izgradnji sportskih objekata i sportske infrastrukture. U malim mjestima, u malim gradovima, tu trebamo zaista omogućiti financiranje sportske infrastrukture jer bez toga, naravno, nema ni aktivnog sporta. Mnoge zemlje, pogotovo one koje su siromašnije, imaju velikih problema s tim.
               

                  S druge strane, želim naglasiti dimenziju turizma i sporta, gdje zaista možemo naći mnogo poveznica i tu pozivam isto tako Komisiju da ozbiljno razmisli kako razraditi program financiranja turističke odnosno sportske infrastrukture kroz turizam.
               

Bogdan Brunon Wenta (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Gratuluję posłowi Takkuli za to ważne sprawozdanie w momencie, gdy reputacja sportu, wizerunek federacji sportowych jest mocno nadwyrężony. Parlament Europejski musi wysłać silny sygnał polityczny do federacji, związków, sportowców i kibiców, że zasada fair play obowiązuje nie tylko na boisku, ale także przy zarządzaniu w sporcie. Kluczowa sprawa to dobre zarządzanie w federacjach sportowych, które są na szczycie europejskiego modelu sportu. Ostatnie skandale pokazały, że konieczne są głębokie zmiany i reformy. Należy również podjąć wysiłki zmierzające do zapobiegania działaniom o charakterze przestępczym stanowiącym zagrożenie dla sportu: dopingowi, handlowi ludźmi czy wykorzystywaniu nieletnich. Chciałbym też wezwać prezydencję maltańską do działań umożliwiających podpisanie i ratyfikację konwencji Rady Europy o ustawianiu wyników zawodów sportowych (match-fixing). Jako były sportowiec doceniam szczególnie poparcie w sprawozdaniu skutecznych systemów kariery dwutorowej oraz dostępu do dalszego kształcenia się i mobilności dla sportowców.
               

Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, innanzitutto congratulazioni al collega per l'ottima relazione. Una sempre maggiore attenzione al benessere fisico individuale fa crescere anche il bisogno di politiche che tengano in debito conto lo sport, al di là della sua dimensione professionale. L'attività sportiva viene diffusamente percepita come un diritto fondamentale e tutti, inclusi i gruppi socialmente più vulnerabili, quali gli anziani, i migranti e le persone con disabilità, devono avere le stesse possibilità di accedervi.
               

                  L'Europa è costretta ad affrontare gravi sfide sociali e ha bisogno di tutelare e rafforzare ogni strumento capace di generare inclusione, tolleranza e un confronto positivo. La priorità, pertanto, deve essere quella di indirizzare le risorse verso attività sportive che producano coesione, che siano sostenibili e che apportino effettivamente un valore ai luoghi che le ospitano. Non si può certo dimenticare il valore economico e simbolico dei grandi eventi sportivi, ma ritengo che solo con investimenti mirati a garantire a tutti il diritto allo sport risponderemo realmente alle esigenze dei cittadini europei.
               

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


Tibor Navracsics,
Member of the Commission. – Thank you President. Honourable Members of the European Parliament, we normally see sport as a vehicle for our health and well-being, but sport is more: it mirrors the values that our societies are built on, and in today's polarised world, sport is also a tool for building bridges.
Since the European Parliament's report by Santiago Fisas Ayxela back in 2011, the way in which sport is organised, watched, televised or gambled on has changed. This has important implications for the amount of money flowing into sport and sporting events, more specifically, and how this money is distributed. What is more, sport has never been as closely scrutinised as it is today, either through technology, social media or investigative journalism, and this has uncovered some home truths about sport. This is why this report is welcome. We have to readjust our focus to take recent developments into account. Mr Takkula, you and your shadow rapporteurs have gone to great lengths to recognise all these aspects precisely at a time when the topic of integrity is a top priority for the global sports movement and the public alike. Let me assure you that the Commission will continue its work to protect the integrity of sport. We strongly support the call to find a solution to unblock the signing and ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions. It is important that the EU and the Member States who wish to participate can play a strong part in implementing the Convention from the very beginning. Good governance should be embedded within the culture of sport, become part of its DNA, so that sport can continue to inspire us all. This is paramount not only to safeguard the integrity of sport and its credibility, but also to help sports organisations to do their work more effectively. That is why I launched an initiative in September last year inviting sports federations to sign up to, and put in practice, good governance principles. Some have done so, but this can only be a first step. I will continue to urge all sports federations in the EU to stand up and be counted.
Your report also rightly highlights the importance that needs to be attached to accessibility. I fully support this focus and the call to ensure the sport is accessible to everyone. The Commission is committed to helping to ensure that persons with a disability can participate in sport activities. The Commission proposal for a directive harmonising accessibility in the EU – the so-called European accessibility Act – will also contribute to this goal. Sport can play a vital role in fostering social inclusion and help us build inclusive societies. It can provide positive role models to young people. It can make an important contribution to help integrate migrants in the EU. In fact, sport has the potential, matched by few other areas, to promote values such as tolerance, solidarity, respect and understanding between nations and cultures both within Europe and beyond.
The report also highlights the economic impact of sport, as well as its potential for providing young people with opportunities to develop skills – skills that enable them to find fulfilling work and become independent active citizens. This is of great importance to the Commission.
Sport faces many challenges. To tackle them, we must all work together: sports organisations, the Commission, Member States and civil society. And we have to work across policy areas. We will continue to use all our instruments to support and encourage Member States and sport bodies. The sport chapter of Erasmus+ can play a key role here. Indeed, the report suggests actions in many areas that we are already supporting through Erasmus+. These include promoting grassroots sport, fighting match-fixing, fostering social inclusion, protecting young athletes and helping to preserve traditional sports.
The report also comes at a time when Member States and the Council are discussing new priorities for their cooperation in this field and the structure of the next EU work plan for sport. Your report will provide valuable input to these discussions.
To conclude, this report identifies the same challenges and priorities that the Commission is working on. I am very pleased to see that the European Parliament is a strong ally supporting our work. I therefore very much welcome this initiative, and wish to thank Mr Takkula, in particular, for his commitment.

El Presidente. – Se cierra el debate.
               

                  La votación tendrá lugar mañana.
               


Declaraciones por escrito (artículo 162 del Reglamento)



Dominique Bilde (ENF),
par écrit. – Ce rapport est un texte ‘fourre-tout’ tentant d'évoquer tous les aspects relatifs au sport. On y trouve quelques bonnes idées, notamment concernant la lutte contre le dopage ou la corruption. J'ai d'ailleurs tenté, en commission, d'étoffer ces propositions en rappelant le nouveau défi que constitue le dopage technologique, ou encore en soulignant les dangers représentés par le communautarisme présent dans certaines associations sportives au niveau local.
               

                  Si je me félicite de certaines mesures présentes dans le rapport comme la lutte contre les êtres humains, particulièrement des athlètes mineurs, je déplore que le texte n'aille pas assez loin dans d'autres domaines. En effet, le rapporteur affirme la nécessité d'assurer la sécurité des manifestations sportives sans mettre en cause le terrorisme et les défis sécuritaires à relever.
               

                  Par ailleurs, je crois urgent d'assurer la durabilité sociale, économique et écologique de ces grandes manifestations, leur intérêt économique immédiat ne devant pas supplanter la viabilité des territoires. Enfin, je regrette que ce texte sur le sport soit transformé en outil idéologique en faveur de l'intégration des migrants, au détriment, par exemple, d'une amélioration de l'accessibilité aux infrastructures sportives pour les sportifs handicapés.
               

Birgit Collin-Langen (PPE),
schriftlich. – Ich befürworte die gemeinsame europäische Sportpolitik. Sport ist mehr als eine Freizeitbeschäftigung oder Leistungssport. Sport stellt ein Mittel zur Integration von Menschen über kulturelle, ethnische, gesellschaftliche und nationale Schranken hinweg dar. Daher begrüße ich länderübergreifende Sportveranstaltungen und Initiativen, die Flüchtlingen, Migranten und Asylbewerbern die aktive Teilnahme an Sportwettkämpfen ermöglichen.
               

                  Eine wichtige Forderung des Berichts ist auch eine Null-Toleranz-Politik gegen Korruption im Sport. In diesem Zusammenhang unterstütze ich die Forderung nach einer verantwortungsvolleren Verwaltung und mehr Transparenz.
               

Tamás Deutsch (PPE),
írásban. – A sport meghatározó szerepet tölt be az uniós állampolgárok millióinak életében, a sporthoz, fizikai tevékenységhez való jog alapvető jog. A testedzés jótékony hatásai vitathatatlanok: jobb életminőséget eredményez, segít a betegségek megelőzésében, támogatja az aktív öregedést, és pozitív hatást gyakorol a társadalom egészére, hiszen átlépve származási, vallási hovatartozást, segíti a befogadást, kohéziót, integrációt, támogatja a kölcsönös tiszteletet és megértést a különböző kultúrák között. Két fontos szempontra szeretném felhívni a figyelmet. Először is, a sport hitelességének és vonzerejének megőrzése érdekében nélkülözhetetlen a sport tisztaságának, integritásának, átláthatóságának biztosítása, annál is inkább, mivel egyre nagyobb összegek forognak a sportszektorban, a versenysport területén, a sport tulajdonképpen gazdasági tevékenységgé is vált.
               

                  A korrupció, valamint az illegális teljesítményfokozók, drogok használata olyan területek, melyek ellen nemzetközi erőfeszítésekkel és együttműködéssel kell fellépni. Továbbá támogatni kell az élsportolók mobilitását, hogy pályafutásuk végén sikeresen el tudjanak helyezkedni. A versenysport napi edzések hosszú óráit jelenti, az eredményekért naponta küzdenek meg és hoznak áldozatokat a sportolók. Fontos, hogy amikor sportpályafutásuk véget ér, helyet tudjanak találni a munkaerőpiac egyéb területein. Ilyen irányú törekvéseiket tehát aktívan támogatni kell.
               

Krystyna Łybacka (S&D),
na piśmie. – Sport to nie tylko rywalizacja i emocje kibiców. Sport to także ogromny potencjał wychowawczy. Dlatego właśnie wyeliminować musimy ze sportu wszelkie przejawy korupcji, dopingu i nieuczciwych praktyk, tak aby nie utracić tej istotnej wychowawczej roli sportu. Sport może także pomagać w kształtowaniu postaw prospołecznych i w walce ze współczesnymi wyzwaniami takimi jak radykalizacja i ksenofobia. Sport ma również ogromne znaczenie w procesie włączania społecznego grup defaworyzowanych oraz osób niepełnosprawnych. Potrzebne są więc projekty edukacyjne promujące równość szans, uczciwą rywalizację i praktyki w sporcie, nawiązujące do antycznych wzorców harmonijnego rozwoju umysłu i ciała. Program Erasmus+, o którym przed chwilą dyskutowaliśmy, to ważne narzędzie polityki Unii w dziedzinie sportu, dzięki któremu możemy wspierać projekty antydopingowe i dobre zarządzanie w sporcie. Istotnym jego elementem powinno być także usprawnienie systemu kariery dwutorowej, aby zadbać o przyszłość sportowców po zakończeniu kariery sportowej.
               

Victor Negrescu (S&D),
in writing. – Article 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union offers the European Union new competences for sports, contributes to the promotion of sport issues and provides for EU actions aimed at developing the European dimension in sport. The report highlights the main issues in sports that still need to be addressed, such as the value of sport, fairness of sporting competitions, opportunities and jobs, tourism, traditional sports and games, training, mobility and zero tolerance for corruption in sports. This report states that Erasmus+ continues to be the most effective tool in EU sports policy while calling for more funds to be allocated to sports under the programme. It is important for sports to provide a positive and sustainable legacy in sport events while also enhancing cohesion, tourism and local businesses in the organising cities and countries.
22.   One-minute speeches on matters of political importance

El presidente. – El siguiente punto son las intervenciones de un minuto sobre asuntos de importancia política (artículo 163 del Reglamento).
               

Siegfried Mureșan (PPE). – Domnule președinte, stimați colegi, în timp ce purtăm această dezbatere, în România, mai mult de 300 de mii de oameni protestează în stradă, în frig, împotriva unei ordonanțe de urgență adoptate aseară de către Guvernul României, prin care se fac modificări esențiale la Codul penal, modificări care dezincriminează abuzul în serviciu. Această ordonanță va duce la oprirea mai multor anchete în desfășurare, vor beneficia mulți oameni politici acuzați de corupție, inclusiv Președintele Parlamentului României. Politicienii corupți doresc să afecteze justiția, care a început să funcționeze în România. Este cea mai mare lovitură dată justiției din România de la căderea comunismului, în urmă cu douăzeci și șapte de ani.
               

                  Ce este de făcut? Solicit tuturor partenerilor internaționali să exercite presiune asupra Guvernului României pentru ca aceste modificări adoptate aseară să nu între în vigoare în termenul stabilit peste zece zile. De ce este important ca Europa să fie alături de oamenii din România acum? Deoarece cetățenii României așteaptă ca Uniunea Europeană să îi apere în lupta cu politicienii corupți.
               

                  Susținerea de care Uniunea Europeană se va bucura în România în viitor depinde direct de susținerea pe care Europa o va da în aceste zile poporului român.
               

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, mă pregătisem să vorbesc despre Raportul MCV – zece ani pentru România și, sigur, în numele cetățenilor doream să solicit Comisiei, după zece ani, în sfârșit, ca acest raport, să fie ridicat având în vedere că nu există niște criterii cuantificabile prin care să se compare rezultatele în mersul justiției dintr-o țară în altă țară în Uniunea Europeană.
               

                  Evident că evenimentele din România mă obligă să ridic și eu această problemă, dar o voi ridica prin ceea ce spun asociațiile profesionale ale judecătorilor din România și anume au semnalat faptul că prin intervenția președintelui țării de la nivelul CSAT serviciile de informații au primit girul de a interveni ilegal în actul de urmărire penală și mai vreau să citez din declarația unui judecător al CSM: ‘prezența intempestivă a președintelui țării la ședința CSM de astăzi reprezintă o evidentă imixtiune de netolerat în activitatea justiției’.
               

                  Așadar, mă bucur că mâine va fi o dezbatere plenară și am solicitat o dezbatere în Comisia LIBE și la noi acasă pentru a se vedea care este situația cu adevărat.
               

Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-н Председател, уважаеми колеги, извънредни обстоятелства ме принудиха да променя и моето изказване и тези извънредни обстоятелства са една изключително агресивна и нагла провокация, на която станахме свидетели в последните часове, а именно – обявяване в турски страници и сайтове на знаме на българските турци. Това знаме изключително много напомня на знамето на турците в окупирания Кипър, окупиран от турската армия.
               

                  Тези действия на турската държава са изключително притеснителни, защото са заявка за сепаратизъм и са заплаха за териториалната цялост и интегритета на българската държава и на българската държавност. Няма да позволим подобно вмешателство, подобно на това в Кипър. И аз искам остро да възразя тук срещу действията на турската администрация и на кандидата за нов турски султан, а именно г-н Ердоган.
               

                  Заявявам ясно, че обявяването на знамена на каквато и да било българска общност е напълно неприемливо и няма да позволим върху териториалната цялост и националния суверенитет на Република България да бъде оказвана каквато и да било заплаха.
               

Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, in June 2016, I and a poultry producer complained to the European Commission about the abuse of the flat-rate VAT scheme in Ireland. Despite new legislation being passed, we still have delays and hold-ups with no serious attempt to counter this abuse. Yet, one year ago, emails between Irish Revenue and Finance explicitly showed knowledge of this abuse: in one of these emails, it states ‘abuse of flat-rate addition happening in certain sectors’. Examples include avoidance in the poultry industry, where the price of poultry feed is artificially inflated by the processor, who contracts with the farmer to rear poultry, resulting in an inflated amount of flat-rate VAT addition, etc. This is been happening in some cases since 2004, and yet it continues. So what does this say to VAT-compliant farmers and processors? What does this mean for other agricultural sectors that have to compete? And finally, in the same week that Commissioner Vestager was in Dublin speaking about illegal staid aid to Apple, is this illegal state aid to the poultry sector?

Marina Albiol Guzmán (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, las medidas anunciadas por el señor Trump, como el veto a personas musulmanas, la construcción del muro con México o sus declaraciones sobre la tortura chocan frontalmente con los derechos humanos y es importante dar una respuesta contundente, pero sin hipocresías.
               

                  Nos alegramos de que hoy alcen la voz contra Trump quienes guardaron silencio cuando Obama deportó a casi tres millones de personas, quienes no dijeron nada ante las torturas en Guantánamo o quienes parecen no saber que el muro lo empezó a construir el señor Bill Clinton. Ahora la situación con Trump es mucho peor, pero quizá no hubiéramos llegado hasta aquí si no se hubiera callado entonces. Y hay también quien intenta aprovechar las brutalidades de Trump para esconder sus vergüenzas, como el señor Rajoy, diciendo que no está a favor ni de vetos ni de fronteras. No le estaría nada mal al señor Rajoy darse una vuelta por Ceuta y por Melilla.
               

Jordi Solé (Verts/ALE). – Señor presidente, la semana pasada el presidente de Cataluña explicó en este Parlamento la determinación de su Gobierno de que en Cataluña votemos sobre nuestro futuro político a más tardar este septiembre. Lo haremos a través de un referéndum de independencia. Un referéndum que si es acordado con el Estado español se hará y, si no, también. Porque tenemos un mandato democrático al que no pensamos renunciar y lo haremos de forma legal, legítima, democrática y pacífica, como se hacen las cosas en Europa.
               

                  Mientras algunos pretenden intimidar la vía democrática, amenazando con precintar los colegios electorales y llevando a nuestros políticos a los tribunales, nosotros seguimos imperturbables en el camino de la democracia.
               

                  Desde Cataluña queremos contribuir de manera directa como nuevo Estado miembro a forjar y reforzar este espacio común de libertad, progreso, solidaridad y justicia que queremos que sea la Unión Europea.
               

                  Ejerceremos la democracia: votaremos, decidiremos y nos quedaremos en la Unión Europea para mejorarla.
               

Gilles Lebreton (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, la Turquie est en proie à des règlements de comptes de grande ampleur à la suite du putsch manqué de l'été dernier.
               

                  Le président Erdoğan a en effet entrepris de réprimer tous ceux qui lui font peur: 40 000 personnes ont été arrêtées et 90 000 fonctionnaires limogés.
               

                  Parmi les suspects figurent une quarantaine de militaires turcs de l'OTAN qui ont demandé l'asile politique à l'Allemagne.
               

                  Non content d'avoir bafoué tous les principes du droit pénal, Erdoğan se livre aujourd'hui à un odieux chantage contre l'Union européenne. Il menace de rompre l'accord de mars 2016 sur les migrants si l'Allemagne ne lui livre pas les 40 militaires.
               

                  Mme Merkel avait négocié cet accord fragile dans le dos de ses partenaires. Il est juste qu'elle en subisse, aujourd'hui, les conséquences.
               

                  Hélas, la France les subira aussi, comme les autres États européens, car l'éventuelle ouverture de la vanne migratoire turque submergerait toute l'Union.
               

                  Il est grand temps que la France reprenne sa souveraineté pour contrôler ses frontières et négocier elle-même les traités qu'elle veut, avec qui elle veut.
               

Σωτήριος Ζαριανόπουλος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, τελευταία, με δηλώσεις του Κουαρτέτου ευρωπαϊκών κυβερνήσεων και της ελληνικής κυβέρνησης ΣΥΡΙΖΑ/ΑΝΕΛ, καθώς και των άλλων κομμάτων που ψήφισαν το τρίτο μνημόνιο, για το πότε θα κλείσει η αξιολόγηση του, εκφράζονται μεν αντιτιθέμενα συμφέροντα εντός της Ένωσης και κοροϊδίες περί καλής Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και κακού Διεθνούς Νομισματικού Ταμείου αλλά για το λαό όλοι συμφωνούν: νέο μνημονιακό πακέτο με εργασιακή ζούγκλα και τέταρτο μνημόνιο, μετά το 2018, με κόφτη δαπανών για ματωμένα πλεονάσματα, μείωση του αφορολόγητου των φτωχών, νέο τσάκισμα συντάξεων. Δεν εκβιάζεται η κυβέρνηση αλλά ο λαός, απ` όλους, για να μην αντιδράσει. Grexit, εκλογές, εκκλήσεις εθνικής ενότητας για μια ακόμα σφαγή του. Η κυβέρνηση τα συμφώνησε. Την απασχολεί μόνο πόσο ηρωικά θα τα πλασάρει, όχι αν, αλλά πότε θα νομοθετήσει τα μέτρα. Τα άλλα κόμματα την πιέζουν να βιαστεί. Οι φτωχοί αγρότες στην Ελλάδα που τσακίζονται με φόρους, ψηλό κόστος, χαμηλές τιμές, Κοινή Αγροτική Πολιτική που επιδοτεί μεγαλοαγρότες ξεριζώνοντας τους υπόλοιπους, στήνουν μπλόκα σε ολόκληρη την Ελλάδα. Μονόδρομος επιβίωσης του λαού είναι η γενίκευση τους, είναι η κοινωνική συμμαχία για την ανατροπή.
               

Francesc Gambús (PPE). – Señor presidente, señor comisario. Hoy quiero hacer llegar a este Pleno una historia que empezó en Barcelona y ha llegado hasta Lesbos. Una voluntaria catalana, que se encuentra en uno de los campos de refugiados de este territorio, le pidió a su madre que le enviara toda la ropa térmica y de montaña que pudiera recoger, debido a las bajísimas temperaturas que están viviendo. La madre empezó a enviar mensajes de WhatsApp a sus amistades y este mensaje se convirtió en una cadena que ha desbordado todas las expectativas. El resultado, en muy pocos días: cinco tráileres con más de mil cajas de ropa recogida, que ya están repartidas en Lesbos.
               

                  Esta es una buena expresión, una más, estoy seguro, de la solidaridad de los europeos, pero choca radicalmente con la inacción de los Estados. Los gobiernos estatales son incapaces de encontrar una solución que garantice los derechos de los que huyen de la tragedia de la guerra. Todos estamos interpelados para ayudar urgentemente. Por eso, si el reto para estas familias de Barcelona que simplemente empezó con un WhatsApp ha traspasado fronteras y se ha hecho realidad en pocos días, los Estados y demás instituciones, pero sobre todo los Estados, ¿no serán capaces de ayudar, socorrer y acoger a los refugiados?
               

Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). – Domnule președinte, în această seară și chiar în acest moment au loc proteste în România, la care s-au produs violențe în rândul forțelor de ordine, dar și în rândul celor prezenți la protest. S-a aruncat cu petarde și pietre în forțele de ordine cu dorința de a provoca autoritățile să producă victime. Acest lucru nu s-a produs, dar cred eu că acest lucru îi discreditează pe cei care au contribuit la aceste proteste, având aici în sală membri care susțin acest lucru.
               

                  Mai mult, a apărut informația că Direcția Națională Anticorupție, principalul organism de luptă împotriva corupției, vrea să deschidă o investigație împotriva premierului, a membrilor guvernului, a funcționarilor civili din Ministerul Justiției care au participat la redactarea celor două acte normative. Acest lucru este de neînțeles și de neacceptat într-un stat membru al Uniunii Europene.
               

                  Cred că dezinformarea nu este mai importantă decât democrația în Europa.
               

Marek Jurek (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie i Panowie Posłowie! Francuskie socjalistyczne władze podjęły działania w celu wprowadzenia drastycznej cenzury wobec wypowiedzi w obronie życia dzieci nienarodzonych. Władze Unii Europejskiej – tak gorliwe w tropieniu realnych lub urojonych zagrożeń praw człowieka – przyjęły to z milczącą aprobatą. W efekcie pierwszy – a i tak skrajny – projekt przygotowany w Zgromadzeniu Narodowym został jeszcze zradykalizowany w Senacie. Te represyjne działania wobec Francuzów broniących najpierwszego z praw ludzkich – prawa do życia najsłabszych – stanowią ponure świadectwo totalitarnego dryfu współczesnej Europy, a milcząca aprobata, o której przerwanie apelowałem do przewodniczącego Timmermansa, kompromituje obecne władze Unii Europejskiej.
               

Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, dvadeset i pet godina zagovaram dobrosusjedske i prijateljske odnose između Hrvatske i Slovenije. Međutim, danas moram upozoriti Komisiju na niz neprihvatljivih radnji i izjava koje čujemo od slovenske vlade i njenih ministara.
               

                  Slovenska vlada i dalje gradi žicu na granici između Hrvatske i Slovenije potpuno nepotrebno i na potpuno nepotrebnim mjestima. Također, moram reći da ministar poljoprivrede i dalje najavljuje da ćemo se iscrpljivati oko jednog slučaja koji je Komisija rješavala i, vjerujem, riješila, slučaj oko terana. Međutim, kulminacija je izjava ministra vanjskih poslova koji kaže da će u slučaju da Hrvatska ne prihvati arbitražu oko granice u Piranskom zaljevu Slovenija otežavati prolaz gostiju prema turističkim odredištima na hrvatskoj obali i drugdje u Hrvatskoj.
               

                  To su neprihvatljive izjave, to nisu dobrosusjedske izjave, to nije prijateljstvo među državama koje su susjedi i koje vezuje mnogo toga u zadnjih stotina, stotina godina. Očekujem od Komisije da dobro razmisli o onome što će učiniti narednih mjeseci.
               

Xabier Benito Ziluaga (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, dos noticias coinciden en el mismo tiempo: por un lado, se está decidiendo si la central de Garoña, en Burgos, deberá permanecer abierta otros veinte años más; por otro lado, se aprueba la construcción de un almacén de residuos nucleares en la central nuclear de Almaraz, en Cáceres. Portugal ya ha presentado una reclamación y esperamos que la Comisión Europea resuelva contra este disparate. ¿Es una casualidad? Nada más lejos.
               

                  Estas dos noticias siguen un hilo conductor. Siguen una estrategia: la estrategia del Gobierno del Partido Popular por alargar la vida del ya de por sí envejecido parque nuclear del Estado español. Gobiernos autonómicos, técnicos, plataformas ciudadanas y, por supuesto, también desde esta Cámara nos vamos a seguir oponiendo a esta grave amenaza; una amenaza capitaneada por un gobierno títere de las eléctricas; un gobierno que quiere seguir otorgando beneficios al oligopolio, pero no es capaz de crear un bono social que evite las muertes por pobreza energética. Como dice esta chapa, ‘Garoña, ni de coña’.
               

Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Elnök Úr, Románia államfője nemrég az Európa Tanács Parlamenti Közgyűlése előtt állította, hogy Romániában modellértékű a nemzeti kisebbségek védelme, hiszen kisebbségi németként államfővé választották. Nem hinném, hogy modellértékű az, hogy a több, mint félmilliós német kisebbség mára pár ezerre apadt, hogy a csatlakozás előtt megígért kisebbségi törvényt elszabotálták, hogy a kisebbségek anyanyelvhasználatát büntetik, szimbólumaik használatát, az anyanyelvű oktatást korlátozzák, hogy a '89 után töredékében visszaszerzett közösségi javait, ingatlanjait újraállamosítják, és az 1918-as gyulafehérvári határozatban megígért autonómiát azóta is letagadják. Minden esetben az lehet a kisebbségek helyzetének fokmérője, hogy a közösség maga, illetve a választott képviselői hogyan értékelik azt.
               

                  Egy országban élő nemzeti kisebbségek helyzetéről maguk a kisebbségek mondjanak ítéletet. Esetünkben ne a román állam első embere, aki megválasztása előtt többször leszögezte: német származásúnak, de román érzelműnek vallja magát.
               

Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la spirale della crisi economica ha reso precaria la vita di milioni di cittadini europei. L'Italia ha pagato un prezzo altissimo in termini di perdita di posti di lavoro. Le ultime rilevazioni ISTAT declinano dati inquietanti: tassi di disoccupazione giovanile che superano il 40 % in un tasso di disoccupazione generale al 12 %, dati di molto superiori a quelli dell'eurozona.
               

                  La creazione di nuovi posti di lavoro deve divenire la priorità assoluta per l'Italia e per l'Europa. Va messo in campo un grande piano di azione, un piano che preveda riforme di investimenti nell'edilizia sociale, nelle infrastrutture fisiche e digitali e nelle infrastrutture educative. Il governo italiano sta facendo il massimo per migliorare le condizioni del paese in chiave di sviluppo e creazione di nuovi posti di lavoro, ma è chiaro che serve il contributo decisivo dell'Europa. Occorre una politica economica più flessibile ed espansiva, che possa permettere al nostro paese di superare le difficoltà e contrastare in modo efficace povertà e disoccupazione. Anche e soprattutto così si costruisce l'Europa.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, χθες συμπληρώθηκαν 21 χρόνια από την κρίση του 1996 στα Ίμια, όπου τρία στελέχη των ελληνικών Ενόπλων Δυνάμεων, ο υποπλοίαρχος Χριστόδουλος Καραθανάσης, ο υποπλοίαρχος Παναγιώτης Βλαχάκος και ο αρχικελευστής Έκτορας Γιαλοψός έπεσαν για την πατρίδα. Την Κυριακή 30 Ιανουαρίου 2017, οι τουρκικές Ένοπλες Δυνάμεις προέβησαν σε μία ακόμη άκρως προκλητική κίνηση που συνιστά άμεση αμφισβήτηση της εδαφικής ακεραιότητας της Ελλάδος. Μια τουρκική πυραυλάκτατος στην οποία επέβαιναν ο αρχηγός των τουρκικών Ενόπλων Δυνάμεων, στρατηγός Hulusi Akar, μαζί με τους αρχηγούς του τουρκικού Στρατού, του Ναυτικού και της Αεροπορίας παραβίασε τα ελληνικά χωρικά ύδατα και προσέγγισε τις ελληνικές βραχονησίδες των Ιμίων. Και όλα αυτά, σε μια χρονική στιγμή, όπου η τουρκική Πολεμική Αεροπορία παραβιάζει καθημερινά τον ελληνικό εναέριο χώρο. Μόνο σήμερα έγιναν 138 παραβιάσεις, ενώ η ηγεσία της Τουρκίας αμφισβητεί διαρκώς τα κυριαρχικά δικαιώματα της Ελλάδας στο Αιγαίο, με αποκορύφωμα τις προκλητικές και επικίνδυνες δηλώσεις του Erdoğan για αναθεώρηση της Συνθήκης της Λοζάνης. Ο ελληνικός λαός δεν ανέχεται τις προκλήσεις της Τουρκίας και του Erdoğan και τους απαντά ‘Μολών λαβέ’.
               

Jozo Radoš (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, prema izvješću Europskog revizorskog suda iz 2016. godine, europske morske luke čine 3/4 ukupnog prometa s trećim zemljama Europske unije. No, to izvješće Europskog revizorskog suda otkriva i da ne postoji strategija razvoja morskih luka Europske unije. Sud je analizirao 37 projekata od kojih je samo 18 projekata u promatranih 13 godina bilo realizirano, a ostali projekti nisu imali ex ante analizu, što je dovelo do neučinkovitih projekata i velikog rasipanja novca.
               

                  Sud je već 2012. godine upozorio da je potrebna konsolidacija europskih pravila pomorskog prometa i stoga pozivam Europsku komisiju da konačno predloži Europskom vijeću i Europskom parlamentu strategiju razvoja pomorskog prometa u Europskoj uniji.
               

Paloma López Bermejo (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, quiero hacerme eco de una iniciativa de asociaciones LGTB y sindicatos por la que se solicita al Gobierno de España que acabe con la exclusión de las personas con VIH en la función pública. Es lamentable que las instituciones públicas perpetúen el estigma y la discriminación contra este colectivo, cuando deberían ser pioneras en la defensa de los derechos de las personas con VIH en el trabajo, tal y como recoge la OIT en su Recomendación n.o 200.
               

                  Pido la solidaridad del Parlamento Europeo con esta lucha, pero también pido a la Unión Europea que actúe en consecuencia. El principio de no discriminación está inscrito en la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales y en el Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea y debemos usar instrumentos como la Directiva de igualdad de trato en el empleo en un sentido amplio, en línea con las Naciones Unidas, para acabar con estas barreras. No podemos dejar que prejuicios obsoletos sigan vigentes en la legislación de los Estados miembros, contradiciendo uno de los derechos más fundamentales de las personas con VIH: el derecho a un trabajo digno y sin discriminaciones.
               

Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – Domnule președinte, există momente în viața unei națiuni când viitorul îi este hotărât în stradă. Aceasta se petrece acum în România, după ce lupta anticorupție a fost blocată de guvernul PSD-ALDE, un grup infracțional organizat care a acaparat țara. Așa l-a numit cel mai mare scriitor român de azi.
               

                  În seara aceasta, jumătate de milion de cetățeni își strigă indignarea în peste 50 de orașe. Cuvintele lor sunt aspre: sfidare, lașitate, ciuma roșie. Dar speranța n-a murit. ‘Vrem în Europa, nu să fim umiliți!’ strigă mulțimile. ‘Legea e lege pentru toți, nu-i făcută pentru hoți!’ Așa vorbește strada. Este o uriașă revoluție pașnică.
               

                  Adineauri, lideri PSD iresponsabili au mobilizat ultrașii din galeriile de fotbal pentru a discredita protestele din București.
               

                  Le cer socialiștilor europeni să se dezică de colegii lor din România și să solicite retragerea ordonanțelor guvernului PSD-ALDE. Chem Comisia Europeană să intervină, cum a făcut și în 2012, pentru protejarea statului de drept!
               

Victor Negrescu (S&D). – Domnule președinte, pentru că dezbaterea despre situația în România are loc doar peste câteva ore, voi vorbi în această seară despre un alt subiect, la fel de important. Mă refer aici la buget și la măsurile economice pentru anul 2017 pentru că sunt sigur că toate forțele politice din România sunt consecvente în a asigura stabilitatea economică a țării. De aceea, vreau să asigur toți partenerii noștri că, din punct de vedere al parametrilor trasați de Comisia Europeană, bugetul nostru pentru 2017 respectă pe deplin toate obiectivele asumate. De aceea, în cadrul bugetului avem prevăzute finanțări pentru o serie de măsuri importante, precum creșterea veniturilor din sănătate și educație, creșterea salariului minim și a punctului de pensie, dublarea burselor pentru studenți și transportul gratuit pe calea ferată.
               

                  Toate aceste proiecte sunt destinate pentru a asigura o bunăstare cetățenilor în domenii cheie în proiecte cheie și, mai ales, dorința noastră de a ne încadra în bugetul general european pe 2017.
               

                  Am ieșit din logica austerității și suntem convinși că, având și fiind consecvenți împreună toate forțele politice, stabilitatea economică a României poate fi menținută.
               

Ángela Vallina (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, la semana pasada estuve en Tenerife para mantener varias reuniones sobre preocupaciones medioambientales que, lamentablemente, son muchas en las islas. Uno de los colectivos con los que me reuní fue la plataforma Canarias por un territorio sostenible, que se moviliza para evitar un deterioro aún mayor del rico patrimonio que tienen estas islas en su ecosistema.
               

                  Una nueva amenaza planea sobre Canarias ante los proyectos de la ley de suelos y la mal llamada ‘ley de islas verdes’, que ya denunciamos ante la Comisión Europea desde Izquierda Unida en este Parlamento hace unos meses.
               

                  La propia Comisión Europea ha reconocido que, a pesar de la declaración de interés autonómico por parte de las autoridades canarias, los proyectos han de cumplir los requisitos de protección que establece el Derecho medioambiental europeo.
               

                  Desde el Parlamento Europeo vamos a seguir vigilantes en este tema y la Comisión Europea ya ha abierto una investigación sobre estos proyectos de ley. Hago un llamamiento al Gobierno de Canarias para que rectifique.
               

                  Actuemos desde aquí, desde la Unión. Y apelo también al principio de precaución para que no tengamos que lamentar más daños irreparables en el valioso medio natural de las islas Canarias cuando ya sea, como siempre, demasiado tarde.
               

Daniel Buda (PPE). – Domnule președinte, guvernul PSD condus de Liviu Dragnea și Sorin Grindeanu a reușit să arunce România într-un haos incomensurabil prin modificarea pe ascuns a Codului penal și de procedură penală. Grație guvernului PSD, România este astăzi pe cale să devină o țară e impredictibilă, nefrecventabilă, o țară în care investitorii vor avea rezerve să mai investească.
               

                  Într-un context politic extrem de complicat, când politicile externe se resetează și se creează noi axe din Europa până în America, ori din Africa până în Asia, guvernul PSD lasă România în afara jocului, și, aș putea spune, în voia sorții.
               

                  Apreciez că se impune emiterea de îndată a unei ordonanțe de urgență prin care să se abroge ceea ce s-a adoptat în acest domeniu și mutarea dezbaterilor în parlament, unde decizia trebuie să fie luată doar în urma consultării tuturor factorilor și instituțiilor implicate, dar și a celor cu expertiză în domeniu.
               

                  Nu în ultimul rând, solicit în mod public demisia guvernului PSD ca fiind o măsură absolut necesară pentru credibilizarea României.
               

Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Pane předsedající, pane komisaři, Evropská unie je založena na úctě k lidským právům, k důstojnosti každého jednotlivce a je potřeba neustále dávat najevo, že to není žádná fráze, že to jsou hodnoty, které budeme bránit, když je to třeba.
               

                  Chtěl bych poukázat na jeden případ porušování práv občanů Evropské unie. Je to případ českého humanitárního pracovníka Petra Ježka, který byl tento víkend odsouzen k více než 20 letům vězení na základě vykonstruovaného obvinění z protistátní činnosti a špionáže. Pokud vezmeme v úvahu podmínky v súdánských věznicích, rovná se takový trest prakticky trestu smrti. Evropa jako celek se musí spojit a vyvinout dostatečný nátlak na Súdán, aby byl Petr Ježek co možná nejdříve osvobozen. Práva občanů Evropské unie jsou totiž nezcizitelná a jejich porušování má být hájeno napříč státy Evropské unie.
               

Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, chtěl bych mluvit o tématu, které se týká jedné z forem závažné trestné činnosti v rámci Evropy, a to je pašování zvířat z východní části Evropské unie do západních zemí. Jedná se o pašování statisíců psů a koček, tzv. domácích mazlíčků, a my jsme zde na plénu několikrát hovořili o tom, že je třeba proti tomuto pašování zakročit. Já tady chci vyzvat Komisi, aby urychlila přípravná opatření, o kterých se zde hovořilo na plénu, aby se více hovořilo a připravily se návrhy případných registrů psů a koček. A aby i orgány činné v trestním řízení na evropské úrovni více spolupracovaly.
               

                  Chci informovat, že u nás v České republice je nyní v Parlamentu návrh veterinárního zákona, který má zavést registraci psů, který má dát jasné podmínky pro čipování a pro veřejný registr. Ale pokud toto téma nebudeme řešit na evropské úrovni, pak opatření v jednotlivých státech budou pouze polovičatá a tuto formu závažné trestné činnosti na evropském kontinentu nevymýtíme.
               

El Presidente. – Con esto se cierra este punto.
               
23.   Agenda for next sitting: see Minutes
24.   Closure of the sitting

(Se levanta la sesión a las 23.45 horas)



ELI: 
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)