Verbatim report of proceedings of 13 February 2017
Date: 2017-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Parliament, parliamentary debate








C_202402669EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series














18.4.2024







            13 February 2017
            VERBATIM REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF 13 FEBRUARY 2017
            
         
(C/2024/2669)

Contents







1.

Resumption of the session
3










2.

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










3.

Composition of Parliament : see Minutes
3










4.

Composition of interparliamentary delegations : see Minutes
3










5.

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










6.

Corrigenda (Rule 231): see Minutes
3










7.

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










8.

Documents received: see Minutes
3










9.

Questions for oral answer (submission): see Minutes
3










10.

Order of business
3










11.

Biological low risk pesticides (debate)
6










12.

Revision of the European Consensus on Development (debate)
16










13.

Cost-effective emission reductions and low-carbon investments (debate)
25










14.

Annual report on EU competition policy (debate)
43










15.

Promoting gender equality in mental health and clinical research (short presentation)
54










16.

Priorities for the 61th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (short presentation)
57










17.

Control of the Register and composition of the Commission's expert groups (short presentation)
60










18.

The role of whistleblowers in the protection of EU's financial interests (short presentation)
63










19.

One-minute speeches on matters of political importance
67










20.

Agenda of the next sitting
73










21.

Closure of the sitting
74




Verbatim report of proceedings of 13 February 2017
                  


PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. ANTONIO TAJANI


Presidente


(La seduta è aperta alle 17.00)

1.   Resumption of the session

Presidente. – Dichiaro ripresa la sessione del Parlamento europeo interrotta giovedì 2 febbraio 2017.
               
2.   Approval of the minutes of the previous sittings : see Minutes
3.   Composition of Parliament : see Minutes
4.   Composition of interparliamentary delegations : see Minutes
5.   Negotiations ahead of Parliament's first reading (Rule 69): see Minutes
6.   Corrigenda (Rule 231): see Minutes
7.   Signature of acts adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure (Rule 78): see Minutes
8.   Documents received: see Minutes
9.   Questions for oral answer (submission): see Minutes
10.   Order of business

Presidente. – Il progetto definitivo di ordine del giorno, fissato dalla Conferenza dei presidenti, a norma dell'articolo 149 del regolamento, nella riunione di giovedì 9 febbraio 2017, è stato distribuito. Sono state presentate le seguenti proposte di modifica:
               






 



Martedì











 



                        Comunico di aver ricevuto una richiesta da parte del gruppo dell'Alleanza progressista dei Socialisti e dei Democratici affinché il titolo della dichiarazione del Vicepresidente della Commissione/Alto rappresentante dell'Unione per gli affari esteri e la politica di sicurezza ‘Prospettive per la ripresa dei colloqui di pace in Medio Oriente’ sia cambiato in ‘La situazione in Cisgiordania, inclusi gli insediamenti’.
                     





                  Inoltre, il gruppo S&D ha richiesto che una risoluzione sulla situazione in Cisgiordania inclusi gli insediamenti, che è stata discussa il 22 novembre 2016, venga aggiunta alle votazioni di giovedì di giovedì 16 febbraio. C'è qualcuno del gruppo socialista che vuole illustrare la proposta?
               

Maria João Rodrigues,
on behalf of the S&D Group.— Mr President, concerning Tuesday's agenda my Group is proposing a change to the title of the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The new title should be: ‘The situation in the West Bank, including settlements’. That is our proposal.

Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Pane předsedající, takové vážné otázky přece tady nelze měnit na začátku pořadu jednání. Pokud jsme chtěli tuto debatu vést, měli jsme být na to dopředu upozorněni. A myslím si, že tato debata je poměrně závažná. A není možné ji tady měnit takovým způsobem, že si tady cvakneme a vždycky si řekneme, že budeme mít debatu k jinému tématu.
               

                  Já jsem zásadně proti a chci, abychom hlasovali proti změně názvu tohoto bodu pořadu jednání, protože si myslím, že navrhnout tuto změnu až tady je velmi, velmi nevhodné.
               

Maria João Rodrigues (S&D). – Mr President, I would like to clarify that our proposal regards changing the title. The other issue, which is a resolution, should be for another vote. That is our assumption.

Presidente. – Assolutamente sì. La prima proposta riguarda la modifica del titolo della discussione che dovrebbe diventare ‘La situazione in Cisgiordania, inclusi gli insediamenti’.
               

                  La seconda proposta è quella che una risoluzione sulla situazione in Cisgiordania inclusi gli insediamenti venga aggiunta alle votazioni di giovedì 16 febbraio. Quindi votiamo soltanto adesso sulla prima proposta che il gruppo socialista ha fatto, cioè se cambiare il testo in ‘La situazione in Cisgiordania, inclusi gli insediamenti’.
               

(Il Parlamento accoglie la richiesta)


                  Quindi, il titolo della dichiarazione del vicepresidente della Commissione/Alto rappresentante dell'Unione per gli affari esteri e la politica di sicurezza ‘Prospettive per la ripresa dei colloqui di pace in Medio Oriente’ è cambiato in ‘La situazione in Cisgiordania inclusi gli insediamenti’.
               

                  Adesso passiamo alla seconda richiesta del gruppo socialista. Se la vuole illustrare, onorevole, grazie.
               

Maria João Rodrigues,
on behalf of the S&D Group. — Mr President, our second proposal concerns Thursday's agenda. It consists of including in the votes a resolution on the situation in the West Bank, including settlements, to wind up the debate already held in November 2016. That is our proposal.

Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, de manière plus générale, je trouve que ce n'est pas sérieux de décider, le lundi soir, de changer le titre d'un débat et de proposer d'adopter un texte en 48 heures. Ce n'est pas sérieux, on travaille nos résolutions et nos rapports pendant des semaines, voire des mois. Là, c'est de l'improvisation.
               

(Il Parlamento respinge la richiesta)


Presidente. – Il gruppo Europa della Libertà e della Democrazia Diretta ha richiesto di aggiungere una discussione sull'applicazione omogenea del regolamento del Parlamento a tutti i gruppi politici, martedì mattina.
               

Nigel Farage,
on behalf of the EFDD Group. — Mr President, under normal circumstances, this debate should not be needed at all.

(Heckling)

My goodness me, you are scared, aren't you?
Under normal circumstances, we should not need to discuss the common application of rules to all Members and Groups in this House, but ever since the Brexit vote there has been persistent victimisation of every Eurosceptic Group in this Parliament, whilst, at the same time, we see the accusations in Der Spiegel of your predecessor, Mr Schultz, playing very fast and loose with the rules.
The reason I want this debate, Mr President, is to establish whether, under your new chairmanship, it is the intention of this place – and your intention, indeed – to treat all Members equally and fairly, regardless of their political opinions.

(Il Parlamento respinge la richiesta)


Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno rimane immutato.
               

Mercoledì


                  Il gruppo della Sinistra unitaria europea/Sinistra verde nordica ha richiesto di aggiungere una dichiarazione della Commissione su operazioni portuali e libertà di stabilimento nei porti spagnoli. Questa dichiarazione dovrebbe essere aggiunta, come quarto, punto dopo la relazione Delvaux sulle norme di diritto civile sulla robotica. Di conseguenza la seduta verrebbe prolungata fino alle ore 24.00.
               

                  Do la parola all'on. López Bermejo per presentare la richiesta del gruppo GUE/NGL.
               

Paloma López Bermejo,
en nombre del Grupo
GUE/NGL. – Señor presidente, solicito la ampliación de la sesión del miércoles para incluir una declaración de la Comisión sobre trabajo en la estiba y libertad de establecimiento en los puertos españoles. El Gobierno está amparándose en la Comisión para presentar una reforma que va más allá de la sentencia del TJUE y elimina el registro de estibadores, violando el Convenio n.o 137 de la OIT sobre el trabajo portuario, y los convenios colectivos. Queremos debatir con la señora Bulc si, para la Comisión, la libertad de establecimiento es incompatible con las normas de la OIT y, por lo tanto, si ampara una liberalización de los puertos que afectará a otros Estados miembros como son Finlandia, Francia, Italia, Rumanía, Suecia, Portugal o Polonia.
               

Wim van de Camp (PPE). – Voorzitter, wij als EVP-Fractie zijn tegen dit verzoek. Het betreft hier een geschil tussen de Spaanse regering en de Europese Commissie. De zaak is onder de rechter. Ik denk dat wij eerst af moeten wachten wat daar uit komt. Bovendien is het zo dat wij in Europa alleen over de hoofdlijnen van het sociaal beleid gaan en niet optreden in individuele zaken.
               

(Il Parlamento respinge la richiesta)


Presidente. – Sempre per mercoledì, il gruppo dell'Alleanza progressista dei socialisti e dei democratici ha chiesto che l'interrogazione orale sull'approvazione da parte della Commissione del piano rivisto della Germania che prevede l'introduzione di un pedaggio stradale venga anticipato da giovedì pomeriggio a mercoledì pomeriggio, come quinto punto dopo la relazione Delvaux sulle norme di diritto civile sulla robotica. La votazione si svolgerà nella tornata di marzo II.
               

Maria João Rodrigues,
on behalf of the S&D Group. –Mr President, I confirm this proposal: to move this oral question on the Commission approval of the German revised plan to introduce road tolls to Wednesday, after the Delvaux report.

Françoise Grossetête (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, nous avons une session plénière particulièrement chargée cette semaine et nous avions été prévenus, depuis longtemps, que ce débat aurait lieu le jeudi après-midi.
               

                  Je rappelle, tout d'abord, que nous sommes bien évidemment entièrement d'accord avec ce débat et souhaitons qu'il ait lieu, mais nous souhaitons qu'il soit maintenu jeudi après-midi. Je rappelle que le jeudi après-midi est une journée normale de travail pour le Parlement européen, que cela figure dans le traité et a été confirmé par les deux arrêts de la Cour de justice. Il n'y a donc aucune raison de supprimer ce débat du jeudi après-midi, à moins d'en inscrire un autre à l'ordre du jour et d'intervertir.
               

                  Je rappelle que, par le passé, les débats du jeudi après-midi concernaient les urgences. Pour l'instant, ce débat sur le péage routier en Allemagne est prévu jeudi après-midi et nous demandons qu'il soit maintenu à cette date.
               

Presidente. – Prima di mettere in votazione, vorrei capire se l'on. Grossetête, a nome del gruppo del Partito popolare europeo ha una proposta alternativa.
               

(L'on. Grossetête conferma di non avere proposte alternative)


                  Si riferiva genericamente alle urgenze?
               

(L'on. Grossetête dissente)


                  Nulla impedisce, dal punto di vista del regolamento, che il dibattito possa essere tolto da giovedì pomeriggio, pero c'è un problema. Vi ricordo che qualora non si riempia la seduta di Strasburgo, è a rischio la minisessione di Bruxelles. Perché è stabilito che la minisessione di Bruxelles deve esserci se non si riesce a compiere tutto il lavoro previsto durante la sessione di Strasburgo.
               

                  Siccome già la Francia si è rivolta alla Corte di giustizia per la nostra decisione di votare il bilancio a Bruxelles e non a Strasburgo, credo che su questo argomento si debba essere molto prudenti. Ripeto, si può benissimo votare e togliere dall'ordine del giorno, però bisogna, a mio parere, cominciare a riflettere se si può il giovedì pomeriggio mettere qualche altro dibattito, perché se no sono a rischio le sessioni di Bruxelles. Quindi è previsto che si possa, in via eccezionale – e quindi sarebbe un'eccezione quella che andiamo eventualmente ad approvare oggi – però io tengo a far sapere alla plenaria quali possono essere le conseguenze di un'abitudine che tolga i dibattiti il giovedì pomeriggio. Era mio dovere informarvi. Ora metto ai voti la proposta del gruppo dei Socialisti e dei Democratici.
               

(Il Parlamento accoglie la richiesta)


                  Quindi ci sarà questa modifica dell'ordine del giorno: l'interrogazione orale è anticipata da giovedì pomeriggio a mercoledì pomeriggio, come quinto punto dopo la relazione Delvaux sulle norme di diritto civile sulla robotica. La votazione si svolgerà come detto nella tornata di marzo II.
               

Giovedì


                  A seguito di consultazioni con i gruppi politici, desidero sottoporre all'Aula la seguente proposta di modifica del progetto definitivo di ordine del giorno. La seduta inizierà alle 8.30 affinché i gruppi politici dispongano di un tempo di parola più lungo.
               

(Il Parlamento accoglie la richiesta)


(L'ordine dei lavori è così fissato)

11.   Biological low risk pesticides (debate)

Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione sull'interrogazione con richiesta di risposta orale alla Commissione sui pesticidi biologici a basso rischio di Herbert Dorfmann, Pavel Poc, Julie Girling, Frédérique Ries, Lynn Boylan, Bart Staes, Eleonora Evi, Mireille D'Ornano, a nome della commissione per l'ambiente, la sanità pubblica e la sicurezza alimentare (O-000147/2016 - B8-1821/2016).
               

IN THE CHAIR: MAIREAD McGUINNESS


Vice-President


President. – As announced by the President, the first item on the agenda is the oral question to the Commission on biological low-risk pesticides, by Herbert Dorfmann, Pavel Poc, Julie Girling, Frédérique Ries, Lynn Boylan, Bart Staes, Eleonora Evi and Mireille D'Ornano on behalf of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (O-000147/2016 – B8-1821/2016).
Before I invite the author of the question to take the floor, could I ask colleagues to leave the Chamber? Those of you who are not taking part in this debate, could you please leave the Chamber so that we can give the time to the speakers?
Please leave the Chamber or I shall name the offenders, and some of them are EPP colleagues. Thank you, colleagues.
We will now begin our debate on biological low-risk pesticides and I will invite the author of the question, Mr Poc, to take the floor.

Pavel Poc,
Autor. – Paní předsedající, pane komisaři, rád bych nejprve poděkoval všem kolegům, spoluautorům usnesení, za výbornou spolupráci, všem kolegům ve Výboru pro životní prostředí, veřejné zdraví a bezpečnost potravin za podporu. Toto usnesení prošlo výborem velikou většinou. Děkuji také panu komisaři, že se dnešní debaty účastní osobně, a věřím, že jeho přítomnost bude pro naše téma velkým přínosem.
                  

                     Používání pesticidů se nás dotýká všech. Tento problém je problémem, na který se dnes upírá, řekl bych, mnoho očí v evropské veřejnosti a je to tak právem, protože jenom v roce 2014 se podle Eurostatu v Evropské unii prodalo přes 395 tisíc tun aktivních chemických látek, které se používají v konvenčních přípravcích na ochranu rostlin. Ne samotných přípravků, ale 395 tisíc tun aktivních látek, to je potřeba si uvědomit.
                  

                     Jistěže pesticidy jsou samozřejmě primárně určeny k hubení rostlinných nebo živočišných škůdců. Není tedy možné se divit, že jsou to vesměs jedovaté látky. Horší je ale, že jsou také v mnoha případech rakovinotvorné a že jsou často schopny poškozovat lidské zdraví a lidskou reprodukci. Nežádoucí rezidua pesticidů dnes nacházíme v Evropě všude. Ve vodě, v půdě a konsekventně samozřejmě i v našem vlastním potravním řetězci. A tomuto chemickému koktejlu jsou vystaveny a jsou proti němu velmi málo odolné zvláště některé skupiny obyvatel, zejména těhotné ženy, děti a dospívající.
                  

                     Nikdo – ani já – nebude polemizovat s tezí, že evropští zemědělci musí být konkurenceschopní, ale nikdo také nesmí – a věřím, že nebude – polemizovat s tezí, že se tak nesmí dít na úkor zdraví evropské populace. Je tedy jasné, že je potřeba nejnebezpečnější látky regulovat a postupně vyřazovat a současně nabídnout zemědělské výrobě alternativní nástroje. Zemědělský sektor může a musí dostat k dispozici celou škálu nástrojů v rámci systému integrované ochrany rostlin, a to včetně přípravků na ochranu rostlin s nízkým rizikem. Ale náš postup v této oblasti je bohužel příliš pomalý.
                  

                     Tato rozprava a navržená rezoluce se proto zaměřuje specificky na jeden druh nízkorizikových pesticidů, a to pesticidy biologické, které mohou představovat funkční alternativu ke konvenčním přípravkům na ochranu rostlin a mohou přispět k dosažení udržitelného a efektivního zemědělství. Teoreticky jsou tyto pesticidy už nyní součástí unijní legislativy a mají být touto legislativou upřednostňovány, ale je to tak, bohužel zdá se, jenom na papíře.
                  

                     V Evropské unii je, pokud vím, v současné době schváleno pouze sedm účinných látek klasifikovaných jako nízkorizikové a šest z nich jsou účinné látky biologické. Dlouhý proces schvalování a registrace před uvedením na trh vytváří velkou ekonomickou překážku pro výrobce. Jsme přesvědčeni, že v Unii je potřeba zvýšit dostupnost takových pesticidů, které představují nízké riziko, a především přípravků biologického původu.
                  

                     Usnesení samozřejmě také apeluje na členské státy, protože podle nařízení (ES) č. 1107/2009 jsou účinné látky schvalovány na úrovni Unie, ale povolování samotných přípravků na ochranu rostlin, které tyto účinné látky obsahují, již spadá do působnosti členských států, a to je třeba si uvědomit. A členské státy by měly do svých vnitrostátních akčních plánů v oblasti ochrany životního prostředí a zdraví lidí začlenit používání pesticidů biologického původu představujících nízké riziko s mnohem větší intenzitou, než tak činí dosud. Návrh usnesení vybízí k širšímu využívání různých nástrojů, včetně pesticidů biologického původu, a to v souladu se zásadami integrované ochrany proti škůdcům. Usnesení také samozřejmě zdůrazňuje, že musí být uspokojena poptávka spotřebitelů po bezpečných potravinách, které jsou cenově dostupné a vyráběné udržitelným způsobem.
                  

                     Překážky, které brání zrychlenému postupu při posouzení, povolení a registraci pesticidů biologického původu představujících nízké riziko jsou známy. Víme, že situace by se měla co nejrychleji změnit, a návrh proto vyzývá Komisi, aby do konce roku 2018 předložila konkrétní legislativní návrh na změnu nařízení (ES) č. 1107/2009 nad rámec přezkoumání v souvislosti s iniciativou REFIT. Jsem si, pane komisaři, vědom Vaší pozitivní role v této oblasti, a proto bych rád, aby v této rozpravě zazněla i Vaše odpověď na otázky: Jaká legislativní a nelegislativní opatření v současné době projednává či přijímá Komise s cílem zvýšit dostupnost biologických pesticidů představujících nízké riziko? Jaká opatření zamýšlí Komise přijmout v budoucnu a jaký bude možný harmonogram těchto opatření?
                  

                     Děkuji Vám předem za Vaši odpověď a těším se na dnešní debatu o biologických nízkorizikových pesticidech.
                  

Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to discuss with you today the topic of biological low-risk pesticides. Let me start by stating that biological pesticides are fundamental innovations that may provide our farmers with sustainable options to protect their crops and preserve biodiversity. For that reason, we in the Commission, like you in Parliament, all support this excellent objective.
As you know, the Regulation for Placing Plant Protection Products on the Market requires a rigorous risk assessment of all plant protection products, and those of a biological nature are included in this assessment. Of course, assessing plant protection products means that biological substances are not automatically considered to be low risk. Indeed, micro-organisms and other natural substances can also be a danger to human health, so we need to look carefully at their properties and properly assess their risks in order to ascertain their safety.
To obtain the strict status of a low-risk product, biological substances must meet additional specific low-risk criteria. The regulation provides for specific criteria and requirements for micro-organisms. It contains incentives to facilitate the placing on the market of low-risk products. The extent to which these incentives are sufficient will be assessed in the evaluation of the regulation, which, as you may know, we have started under the REFIT programme.
The lack of availability of low-risk products depends on various stakeholders, from farmers to national authorities. Member States, in particular, have the responsibility of managing the sustainable use of pesticides and promoting greater use of low-risk pesticides and of all tools enabling the move towards greener agriculture. They should create better conditions for this to happen, and in particular they should launch awareness campaigns.
As for the Commission, we share the view that it is important to take action to increase availability of low-risk products and to expand the toolbox for farmers with more sustainable options to protect their crops. To do this, we have assumed our own responsibility and we are currently working on three actions. The first is the funding of research and innovation in plant protection. Over the years, more than EUR 100 million has been invested in this area, and the Commission will continue to commit funding to the pursuit of sustainable solutions under the future research programme.
The second concerns two regulatory acts. One is a Commission decision issued last September which prioritises the assessment of potentially low-risk substances for the renewal of their approval. When substances meet the criteria they will benefit from the relevant incentives in the regulation. The other is an amendment of the system for identifying low-risk substances. It will facilitate the identification of low-risk substances while fully safeguarding the high level of protection of health and the environment set in the EU regulation. I expect this amendment to be presented to the Member States for vote in March and then passed to the Council and Parliament for scrutiny.
The third area of action concerns the follow-up to the implementation of current measures. In 2016 the Commission supported the initiative of the Netherlands Council Presidency to draft an implementation plan to identify key stakeholders with a view to increasing the availability of low-risk plant protection products. This plan was endorsed in the Council last June. It contains 40 actions for Member States, the Commission and stakeholders. Given that the authorisation of low-risk products is the responsibility of Member States, it is important that they play their part. The Commission is committed to working together with the Member States to implement the plan.
Since the question which triggered this debate raises the issue of efficacy, let me highlight one of the actions identified in the implementation plan. The European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organisation is working on a standard for assessing the efficacy of low-risk products. It aims to guide Member States on how to take account, in the efficacy evaluation, of specific benefits of low-risk products. The Commission encourages the creation of this standard and its implementation by Member States.
To conclude, I am confident that the range of actions taken by the Commission will help to secure more sustainable alternatives for European farmers.

Norbert Lins,
im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen. Ich darf hier im Namen meines Kollegen Herbert Dorfmann sprechen, der leider noch nicht hier sein kann.
                  

                     Es geht uns nicht darum, hier konventionelle Pflanzenschutzmittel abzuwerten, sondern die Verfügbarkeit von alternativen Pflanzenschutzmitteln biologischen Ursprungs zu unterstützen. Denn Pflanzenschutzmittel biologischen Ursprungs mit geringem Risiko können sowohl für die konventionelle als auch für die ökologische Landwirtschaft eine tragfähige Alternative darstellen. Das Problem ist jedoch: Es gibt langwierige Genehmigungs- und Zulassungsverfahren, die vor der Vermarktung von Pestiziden biologischen Ursprungs mit geringem Risiko durchlaufen werden müssen. Und dies stellt ein erhebliches wirtschaftliches Risiko für die Produzenten dar, die oft kleine und mittelständische Unternehmen sind und eben keine Chemieriesen.
                  

                     Die derzeitigen Zulassungsverfahren für Pflanzenschutzmittel biologischen Ursprungs mit geringem Risiko sind langwierig und dauern bis zu zehn Jahren. Deswegen fordern wir einen spezifischen Legislativvorschlag zur Verbesserung dieser Situation innerhalb des Jahres 2018.
                  

Miriam Dalli,
f'isem il-grupp S&D. – Fil-fatt aktar ma jsir investiment f'sistemi konvenzjonali ta' pestiċida, erbiċida u anke kimika għall-biedja, mingħajr ma nħarsu lejn l-alternattivi bijoloġiċi aktar inkunu qegħdin nagħmlu disservizz lill-komunitajiet li qed ngħixu fihom. U dan għaliex, meta wieħed iqis ukoll l-użu ta' pestiċida tradizzjonali qed joħloq tħassib minħabba biża' ta' riskju għas-saħħa tal-bniedem, l-ambjent li ngħixu fih, l-ikel li nieklu u anke l-bijodiversità ekoloġika.
                  

                     Allura, quddiem din ir-realtà rridu nippromwovu metodi differenti. Metodi bbażati fuq il-ħtieġa li jkun hemm bilanċ fl-ekosistemi agrikoli, li nnaqqsu kemm jista' jkun l-użu ta' pestiċida li jkunu qed jagħmlu ħsara u li nippromwovu l-użu ta' alternattivi bijoloġiċi.
                  

                     Pestiċidi bijoloġiċi b'riskju baxx jistgħu jkunu soluzzjoni vijabbli. Jistgħu jikkontribwixxu għal biedja sostenibbli u lill-pubbliku jagħtuh serħan il-moħħ. Irridu ngħarfu però li jeżistu vantaġġi u żvantaġġi fl-użu ta' dawn il-prodotti u għalhekk li hemm bżonn ta' riċerka u innovazzjoni akbar fl-iżvilupp ta' dawn l-alternattivi.
                  

                     Però, kif qal il-kollega tiegħi, il-framework regolatorju Ewropew u anke fl-Istati Membri qed jostakola, sal-ġurnata tal-lum, il-promozzjoni ta' dawn l-alternattivi, għaliex sal-lum għadhom ma ġewx indirizzati kif suppost il-kwistjoni tal-awtorizzazzjoni, l-evalwazzjoni ta' kemm huma effettivi dawn il-prodotti u lanqas ir-riskji li jista' jkollhom u anke l-aċċessibilità għas-swieq.
                  

                     U għalhekk l-appell tiegħi lill-Kummissjoni Ewropea biex tieħu l-passi neċessarji ħalli tnaqqas l-ostakoli li jeżistu biex prodotti bijoloġiċi jkunu alternattiva vijabbli fis-swieq tagħna.
                  

Julie Girling,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, I support all calls for reducing the regulatory burden associated with bringing safe plant protection products to market and thus widening the toolbox available to farmers. This includes alternatives to conventional pesticides, such as these low-risk pesticides. However, my concern with this resolution is the narrow scope, with the focus only on biological low-risk pesticides when the resolution should be looking at all low-risk pesticides, in line with the Plant Protection Products (PPP) legislation.
I would also highlight the fact that there are genuine concerns about efficacy. Many biological low-risk pesticides are just not very effective and this is why they struggle to get authorisation. I do not support fast-tracking these products through a simplified authorisation procedure if they do not work. The point of a pesticide is to kill the pests, and if farmers use a pesticide believing it will work and it does not work, the fact is that, in the seasons it takes to realise that, the pest can take hold, as we have seen with cabbage stem flea beetle in the UK, particularly with oilseed rape. There we banned neonicotinoids: I am not arguing about that today, but the pest has taken hold to the extent that we are now not able to control it with other conventional pesticides.

Frédérique Ries,
au nom du groupe ALDE. – Madame la Présidente, dans la dernière enquête Eurobaromètre sur l'alimentation, la présence de résidus de pesticides dans les fruits, les légumes et les céréales apparaît comme la première préoccupation des citoyens européens; les chiffres sont éloquents, avec, par exemple, 95 % de méfiance en Grèce, 85 % en Italie et 72 % en Belgique, pour ne citer que ces quelques pays.
                  

                     À cette inquiétude, qui ne cesse de grandir en Europe, face à l'utilisation des pesticides chimiques et des risques qu'ils font peser sur la santé et sur l'environnement, nous devons répondre, bien entendu. Il est temps, il est urgent même d'offrir un choix plus varié aux agriculteurs comme aux amateurs ou aux jardiniers du dimanche. C'est, en substance, le message que nous envoyons avec notre résolution sur les pesticides à faible risque, qu'ils soient d'origine microbienne, végétale ou animale.
                  

                     Rien ne justifie, en effet – et cela a été dit par M. Poc, notamment –, que seules six substances actives biologiques classées à faible risque soient homologuées dans l'Union européenne. À titre de comparaison, il y en a plus de 300 dans le monde actuellement – aux États-Unis et au Japon, essentiellement.
                  

                     Nous insistons dans notre texte sur plusieurs points pour débloquer cette situation, concernant le cadre juridique en particulier. Notre demande est claire: premièrement, que la Commission nous présente une proposition législative pour mettre en place une procédure accélérée d'homologation des biopesticides avant la fin de 2018 et, donc, mettre une offre plus variée à la disposition des agriculteurs qui font le choix du durable; deuxièmement – et pour les jardiniers amateurs, cette fois, mais c'est important aussi –, faire des biopesticides l'option privilégiée aux côtés des autres méthodes non chimiques.
                  

                     Cette possibilité – ce droit de choisir que j'ai évoqué – ne signifie évidemment pas, à nos yeux, plus de pesticides, bien au contraire. Personnellement, je regrette d'ailleurs qu'à ce jour, seuls le Danemark et la France – je conclus, Madame la Présidente – se soient engagés dans un véritable plan de réduction assorti d'un calendrier et d'objectifs précis.
                  

Bart Staes,
namens de Verts/ALE-Fractie. – Voorzitter, we weten allemaal dat het gebruik van conventionele pesticiden in toenemende mate omstreden is wegens het effect op het milieu, de volksgezondheid en de fauna. Daarom is er behoefte aan een transitie richting een vergroening van het pesticidegebruik; vandaar dit debat vandaag: het bevorderen van het gebruik en de ontwikkeling van biologische pesticiden met een laag risico. Met de collega's hebben wij eigenlijk zes concrete eisen op tafel gelegd en ik zou daar de reactie van de commissaris iets specifieker over willen horen.
                  

                     Ten eerste is er behoefte aan een toename van het gebruik van pesticiden van biologische oorsprong. Die moeten in grotere mate beschikbaar zijn. Ten tweede moet er meer onderzoek en ontwikkeling plaatsvinden, want ze kunnen wel degelijk een alternatief zijn voor conventionele producten. Het Permanent Comité voor planten, dieren, levensmiddelen en diervoerders moet eigenlijk versneld de criteria goedkeuren voor risicoarme, werkzame stoffen. Ten derde moet de Commissie samen met de lidstaten eigenlijk de toelating, de beoordeling en de registratie van dat soort risicoarme gewasbeschermingsmiddelen versnellen. Ten vierde moeten de lidstaten het gebruik van die biologische pesticiden met een laag risico opnemen in hun actieplannen. Dat gebeurt veel te weinig. Ten vijfde mag het Refit-programma dat de pesticidenverordening zal beoordelen geen inbreuk vormen op de voedselveiligheid en op de veiligheid van de volksgezondheid. En ten slotte, commissaris, vragen wij u voor 2018 met een wetsvoorstel te komen voor een versnelling van de toelating van dit soort producten. Ik hoop dat u daarmee kunt instemmen.
                  

Eleonora Evi,
a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, anch'io ho sottoscritto questa risoluzione per chiedere alla Commissione di intervenire per facilitare l'introduzione nel mercato dei pesticidi di origine naturale.
                  

                     Per poter ridurre l'impatto ambientale e sanitario dei prodotti industriali, inclusi i prodotti agricoli, è necessario avere il coraggio di facilitare in ogni modo le imprese che credono nella green economy. Chi produce prodotti di nicchia e chi li usa, non è giusto che affronti lo stesso carico amministrativo e burocratico di coloro che non pagano le esternalità passive del loro operato. Con le molecole e pesticidi di origine naturale è possibile ridurre l'impatto complessivo dei trattamenti, grazie a riduzioni delle emissioni di inquinanti e di gas serra durante la produzione e a un ridotto impatto sulla biodiversità e sugli gli organismi non target e sulla salute umana.
                  

                     Una recente valutazione da parte dello STOA dei pro e dei contro dell'agricoltura biologica ha rilevato un positivo impatto del consumo dei prodotti biologici su alcuni disturbi cognitivi infantili riscontrabili agli attuali livelli di esposizione a pesticidi di sintesi. Quindi facciamolo per le generazioni future: l'agricoltura da problema può e deve diventare la soluzione.
                  

Mireille D'Ornano,
au nom du groupe ENF. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, les ravages de la Xylella fastidiosa dans le sud de l'Europe – notamment, depuis peu, en Espagne – sont connus. Une recherche de 2007 démontrant l'efficacité d'enzymes du lait de vache illustre le potentiel de substances biologiques dans la lutte phytosanitaire. Paradoxe d'une réglementation censée les favoriser, ces substances à faible risque peinent pourtant à obtenir les autorisations nécessaires. Ainsi, seules sept d'entre elles, dont six biologiques, sont autorisées dans l'Union européenne. Le paradoxe atteint son comble lorsque certaines huiles essentielles autorisées pour un usage culinaire se voient refuser ce sésame.
                  

                     Alors que la nocivité des produits phytosanitaires classiques semble établie et que leur efficacité se heurte à la résistance parasitaire, il est urgent de soutenir la recherche de solutions respectueuses de l'environnement et de la santé. Ce soutien est matériel, lorsqu'il s'agit de start-up, et réglementaire, avec une révision du règlement 1107/2009.
                  

Zoltán Balczó (NI). – Elnök Asszony, amikor ebben a Parlamentben szabadkereskedelmi egyezményekről tárgyalunk, mindenki büszkén mondja, hogy nagy európai uniós érték az élelmiszerbiztonság, az egészséges és minőségi élelmiszer. Ha évente kétszázezer tonna vegyi hatóanyagú növényvédő szert használunk föl, akkor ezt a minőséget, ezt az egészségbiztosítást nem lehet elérni. Igen, van alternatíva, az alacsony kockázatú biológia növényvédő szerek. S hogy ezeknek a hatékonysága kisebb, mint a vegyi anyagoké? Igen, de dönteni kell: mi az elsődleges cél? A nagyüzemek profitja, akik természetesen ezt az anyagot akarják csak használni, vagy a kis-, közepes és családi vállalkozások támogatása, amelyek éppen biztosítják ezt az egészséges és minőségi élelmiszert. Dönteni kell ebben a kérdésben, nyilvánvaló, az európai lakosság javára.
                  

Peter Liese (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Vor einiger Zeit haben wir uns hier im Plenum sehr kontrovers mit dem Pflanzenschutzmittel Glyphosat auseinandergesetzt, und ich finde, wir haben einen guten Kompromiss ausgearbeitet. Ich hoffe, dass die Mitgliedstaaten im zweiten Anlauf auf dieser Basis in der Lage sind, eine Entscheidung zu treffen.
                  

                     Alle, die sich seriös mit dem Thema auseinandersetzen, wissen, dass wir hier ein Dilemma haben. Wir können nachteilige Wirkungen auf Mensch und Umwelt nicht hundertprozentig ausschließen, insbesondere wenn Pflanzenschutzmittel nicht sachgerecht angewandt werden. Aber auf der anderen Seite ist es natürlich eine Illusion, insbesondere kurzfristig ist es eine Illusion, ganz Europa auf Bio-Anbau umzustellen. Und deswegen brauchen wir Alternativen. Wir brauchen Forschung und Entwicklung, wir brauchen Genehmigungsverfahren, die sachgerecht sind. Ich glaube, da kann man schon noch etwas beschleunigen, ohne dass die Wirksamkeit dieser neuen Alternativen in Frage gestellt wird. Deswegen unterstütze ich im Namen der Europäischen Volkspartei diese Entschließung und bitte den Kommissar und seine Mannschaft, tatkräftig zu arbeiten, damit wir möglichst schnell diese Alternativen auf den Markt bekommen – als Alternative für die Landwirte, aber auch zum Nutzen für die Verbraucherinnen und Verbraucher.
                  

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


Tibor Szanyi (S&D),
Kékkártyás kérdés. – Tisztelt Képviselő Úr, egyetértek abban, hogy az új és új technológiákat bátorítani kell, azok bevezetését különösen szorgalmazni kell. De miért hagyja ki azt a részt, hogy az egyébként tradicionális edukációval rendelkező vidéki termelők, idősödő farmerok, azok hogyan fognak tudni ezekkel megismerkedni?
                  

Peter Liese (PPE),
Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der ‘blauen Karte’
                        . –
                  

                     Das sehe ich etwas anders. Wir sollten die Möglichkeiten und die Innovationskraft auch der Landwirte nicht unterschätzen. Landwirte, auch wenn sie etwas älter sind, sind in der Lage, sich an neue Technologien zu gewöhnen und sich damit auseinanderzusetzen. Ich glaube, wir tun etwas für die Landwirtschaft, wir holen die Landwirtschaft aus der Ecke raus, wenn wir nicht nur konventionelle Pflanzenschutzmittel haben, sondern auch Alternativen. Wie Kollege Lins gesagt hat, ist das eine Alternative für den biologischen Anbau, aber auch für den konventionellen Anbau. Und ich glaube nicht, dass die Landwirte damit Probleme haben werden.
                  

Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, a furniza suficientă hrană de calitate pentru populația globală ce va atinge, potrivit estimărilor, aproape 10 miliarde până în 2050 va fi o provocare semnificativă. Deja cererea pune presiune majoră pe resursele naturale limitate, iar concurența pentru suprafața arabilă stimulează despăduririle.
                  

                     Prognozele în materie de climă arată că pământul cultivabil va fi amenințat și de alte fenomene, precum schimbările în cantitățile de precipitații sau impactul mai pronunțat al dăunătorilor asociat temperaturilor mai mari.
                  

                     În acest context, avem nevoie urgentă de soluții, avem nevoie de cercetări mai detaliate în privința pesticidelor cu risc redus și de proceduri mai bune de aprobare a acestora pentru a le pune pe piață. Procedurile actuale sunt prea lente, obligându-i pe fermieri să recurgă la pesticidele convenționale cu toate riscurile implicite pentru sănătate și pentru mediu.
                  

                     Soluțiile alternative, inclusiv produsele fitosanitare de origine biologică și alte metode biologice de control, ar putea sprijini și fermierii ce produc bio, dar și agricultura cu impact redus în general.
                  

                     Foarte mulți producători bio încă au dificultăți mari în a accesa fonduri europene din cauze ce țin de proceduri în continuare complicate. Accesibilitatea pesticidelor cu risc redus ar fi o măsură indirectă de suport ce le-ar aduce avantaje și acestora, dar și consumatorilor.
                  

Urszula Krupa (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Wszelkie działania propagujące wdrażanie biologicznych pestycydów niskiego ryzyka są bardzo potrzebne, nawet konieczne w celu zmniejszenia zagrożenia ze strony powszechnie stosowanych pestycydów chemicznych i innych wszechobecnych ksenoestrogenów, odpowiedzialnych za epidemię chorób nowotworowych, zaburzenia płodności, a nawet zaburzenia tożsamości płciowej. Tylko ograniczenie chemii w rolnictwie wraz z powrotem do środków biologicznych – przy zachowaniu procedury ostrożności i jednocześnie skróceniem wdrażania – jest w stanie poprawić jakość żywności i stan zdrowia konsumentów, tym bardziej że dwie trzecie światowej produkcji antybiotyków jest podawane zwierzętom, co prowadzi do antybiotykooporności. Wszelkie obawy rolników o wzrost kosztów czy zmniejszenie plonów są nieuzasadnione, co pokazują doświadczenia krajów, gdzie znacznie zredukowano zużycie pestycydów.
                  

(Mówczyni zgodziła się odpowiedzieć na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki (art. 162 ust. 8 Regulaminu))


Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D),
blue-card question. – What kind of measures do you think we would have to implement to help farmers to switch from conventional pesticides to biological ones?

Urszula Krupa (ECR),
odpowiedź na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Obecnie w Unii jest sześć środków, które są zaakceptowane, i myślę, że należy takie środki badać i wprowadzać. W tej chwili Panu nie odpowiem. Wiem tylko, że jest to konieczność, zwłaszcza w związku ze środkami chemicznymi, które są bardzo toksyczne i – tak jak powiedziałam, a jestem lekarzem – odpowiadają za bardzo wiele chorób.
                  

Rosa D'Amato (EFDD). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, un rapporto Ispra documenta in Italia un incremento di pesticidi nelle acque superficiali e profonde. Uno studio di Legambiente dal titolo ‘Pesticidi nel piatto’ attesta che un terzo dei campioni di frutta e verdura analizzati presenta residui di fitofarmaci. Sono in aumento i campioni che hanno fino a nove sostanze attive presenti contemporaneamente. Solo in Italia si distribuisce circa il 33 % delle quantità totali di insetticidi utilizzati nell'intero territorio comunitario e sono 800 i prodotti presenti attualmente sul mercato.
                  

                     I rischi per la salute umana, in particolare per i bambini, sono altissimi, pensiamo ai perturbatori endocrini. I danni arrecati agli ecosistemi, come nel caso del glifosato, l'erbicida più usato al mondo, il cui impatto sull'organismo è insidioso e si manifesta lentamente nel tempo, sono gravissimi. La Francia, però, già nel 2012 ha riconosciuto il morbo di Parkinson giuridicamente una malattia professionale da esposizione a pesticidi.
                  

                     La Commissione deve darci delle risposte, deve rendere conto ai cittadini di quanto sta facendo per proteggere la loro salute e quella del territorio in cui vivono. Chiediamo un'azione specifica entro due anni e non una procedura Refit che potrebbe richiedere fino a 10 anni e finire senza alcuna decisione. Questo vorrebbe dire danneggiare agricoltori e consumatori che hanno diritto a produrre e consumare prodotti con il più basso rischio possibile.
                  

                     Oggi la vera innovazione, caro Commissario, è adottare l'approccio agroecologico, migliorare la fertilità dei suoli, diversificare le produzioni, aumentare la capacità di sequestro di carbonio, garantire raccolti adeguati e affrontare il controllo dei parassiti e delle erbe, monitorando le dinamiche naturali.
                  

Angélique Delahaye (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, nous constatons que le nombre des substances actives disponibles sur le marché diminue régulièrement. Nous demandons à nos agriculteurs toujours plus de qualité et des produits de moins en moins chers. Pour cela, il faut investir dans la recherche et l'innovation et faciliter l'accès aux nouvelles molécules.
                  

                     Nous fixons des objectifs, et il est de notre devoir de donner à nos agriculteurs les moyens d'y parvenir. Malheureusement, les procédures actuelles sont des obstacles économiques importants pour les fabricants. C'est pourquoi nous appelons la Commission et les États membres à simplifier les procédures d'homologation et à changer les bonnes pratiques.
                  

                     Mais attention: faciliter l'accès au marché ne doit pas conduire à diminuer les analyses de risques effectuées sur ces produits. Il est essentiel de garantir la santé et la sécurité des consommateurs et des utilisateurs. Je me suis d'ailleurs opposée à une autorisation ad vitam aeternam. ‘Biologique’ n'est pas synonyme de ‘sans risque’. Après tout, c'est la nature qui a produit les poisons les plus violents. Cessons d'opposer ‘synthétique’ et ‘biologique’. Sur la base d'analyses scientifiques solides, utilisons les produits qui correspondent le mieux à nos besoins sanitaires, environnementaux et économiques.
                  

Christel Schaldemose (S&D). – Fru formand! Sidste år, da vi havde vores store debat omkring glyphosat, brokkede både landbruget og mange medlemsstater sig over, at vi i Parlamentet ville reducere forlængelsen af glyphosatlicensen. De sagde, at det var fordi, vi simpelthen mangler gode alternativer til glyphosat. I dag da diskuterer vi, hvad vi kan gøre for at sikre, at vi hurtigere og bedre får lavrisikobaserede pesticider på markedet. Jeg tror, at der er et stort behov for det, og derfor har vi brug for at få kigget nærmere på, hvad der er for nogle barrierer, der gør, at det er så svært at få dem på markedet. Det er uanset, om det er biologiske eller ikke-biologiske lavpesticidprodukter. Jeg tror, at vi har brug for at få kigget nærmere på, hvor barriererne er, og hvordan vi kan få fremskyndet en proces, som gør, at vi hurtigere kan få ikke-skadelige eller mindre skadelige pesticider på markedet. Det er der brug for både for landbruget, borgernes sundhed og for miljøet.
                  

Lynn Boylan (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, I am delighted that there was such unanimity on this oral question in Committee and hopefully this will continue into the plenary, because across the political spectrum, there is agreement that we need to increase the availability of low-risk bio-pesticides without further delay. Access to these types of pesticides not only increases the toolbox available to farmers but they also help to decrease the residue levels of pesticides in the soil, water and non-agri-products.
By calling on the Commission to come forward with a legislative amendment allowing for the establishment of a fast-track evaluation, authorisation and registration process for low-risk biological pesticides, we are also helping to resolve other pressing issues that are facing EU Member States, issues concerning biodiversity and exposure to carcinogens.
Also, by increasing the options for farmers we can help to tackle food waste. Twenty per cent of fruit and vegetables lost in the EU is lost in the fields. Also potentially, by increasing the access to low-risk biological pesticides, we can help the fight against antimicrobial resistance. Recent studies have suggested links between exposure to herbicides and the effectiveness of antibiotics. So increasing the availability and promoting the innovation of more low-risk biological pesticides is a win-win for farmers, consumers and the environment.

Catch-the-eye procedure


Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). – Apgailestauju, kad žemos rizikos biologiniai pesticidai vis dar negali būti plačiai naudojami Europos Sąjungoje. Ir mes puikiai žinome, kad pagrindinė kliūtis yra ilgas, lėtas ir sudėtingas sertifikavimo procesas. Tai tame yra ir mūsų kaltės dalis – Europos Komisijos, Europos Parlamento, nes mūsų valioje yra tai keisti. Lėta procedūra prieštarauja visų Europos Sąjungos vartotojų, ūkininkų bei inovatyvios pramonės interesams, ir aš viešojo intereso prasme nematau laimėtojų šioje situacijoje. Komisijos siūloma REFIT procedūra, ji truktų, kaip jau buvo minėta, nuo 8 iki 10 metų. Ir nematau jokios prasmės daryti, juos abu sieti tarpusavyje – REFIT procedūra gali eiti savo keliu, o žemos rizikos biologiniai pesticidai įvedami į rinką vėlgi savo keliu. Europos Parlamento Aplinkos komitetas išreiškė savo poziciją labai tvirtai, aš tikiuosi, kad trečiadienį tą patį padarys ir Parlamentas.
                  

Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, i prodotti fitosanitari a basso rischio, di origine biologica, rappresentano una valida alternativa ai prodotti fitosanitari convenzionali e questo sia per l'agricoltura tradizionale che per quella biologica. I nuovi meccanismi d'azione presenti in alcuni dei prodotti fitosanitari biologici di nuova generazione potrebbero infatti rappresentare un vantaggio importante, anche alla luce dell'evoluzione delle resistenze ai prodotti fitosanitari convenzionali.
                  

                     Tuttavia, un certo numero di Stati membri rifiuta l'autorizzazione ai prodotti contenenti sostanze attive a basso rischio di origine biologica a causa di una loro presunta minore efficacia. Sono dell'opinione che i prodotti fitosanitari a basso rischio di origine biologica dovrebbero rappresentare l'opzione preferita per gli utilizzatori laddove abbiano la stessa efficacia dei pesticidi convenzionali.
                  

                     Occorre dunque una revisione del regolamento relativo all'immissione sul mercato dei prodotti fitosanitari, finalizzata ad un miglioramento dell'attuale processo di registrazione delle sostanze basiche a basso rischio che, di fatto, si configura a volte come una specie di brevetto, rendendo difficile l'utilizzo di un prodotto avendo la stessa sostanza non registrata.
                  

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η χρήση συμβατικών φυτοφαρμάκων αμφισβητείται πλέον όλο και περισσότερο λόγω των κινδύνων που αυτά εγκυμονούν για την ανθρώπινη υγεία και το περιβάλλον, κυρίως όταν τα προϊόντα αυτά δεν έχουν αδειοδοτηθεί επίσημα ή όταν χρησιμοποιούνται με ασφαλισμένο τρόπο. Ωστόσο, οι γεωργοί πρέπει να έχουν στη διάθεσή τους μια μεγάλη ποικιλία για να μπορούν να προστατεύσουν τις καλλιέργειές τους και να αποφασίζουν ποιο μέτρο προσφέρεται για την προστασία των καλλιεργειών τους με τον πλέον βιώσιμο τρόπο. Τα βιολογικά φυτοφάρμακα χαμηλού κινδύνου θα μπορούσαν να αποτελέσουν μια εναλλακτική λύση έναντι της χρήσης των συμβατικών φυτοφαρμάκων και να συμβάλουν στην επίτευξη μιας βιώσιμης γεωργίας. Επομένως, προκειμένου να διασφαλιστεί η υγεία των ανθρώπων και η προστασία του περιβάλλοντος, θα πρέπει να αυξηθεί η διαθεσιμότητα των βιολογικών φυτοφαρμάκων στην αγορά έναντι των συμβατικών φυτοπροστατευτικών προϊόντων.
                  

Ulrike Müller (ALDE). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich freue mich, dass wir diese wichtige Debatte über Pflanzenschutzmittel führen, und ich hoffe, dass dieses Haus der Entschließung am Mittwoch zustimmen wird.
                  

                     Wir haben nämlich ein Problem: Die Lebensmittel sollen sicher, günstig und nachhaltig sein, bei möglichst geringem Flächenverbrauch. Gleichzeitig stehen den Landwirten aber immer weniger Pflanzenschutzmittel zur Verfügung. Wir dürfen hier die Landwirte nicht im Regen stehen lassen und müssen dringend dafür sorgen, dass ihnen eine breite Palette an Mitteln tatsächlich zur Verfügung steht. Nur so kann die Landwirtschaft allen Anforderungen gerecht werden.
                  

                     Mit dem Vorschlag einer vereinfachten Zulassung für Pflanzenschutzmittel mit geringem Risiko sind wir da auf einem guten Weg. Trotzdem bin ich nicht ganz glücklich mit der Debatte. Es wird ständig versucht, biologisch pauschal als gut und synthetisch als schlecht darzustellen. Beides stimmt nicht. Jeweils gilt: Die Dosis macht das Gift, und der verantwortungsvolle Einsatz bestimmt über Lebensmittelsicherheit und Nachhaltigkeit.
                  

                     Ich würde mich gerne weniger mit Ideologien beschäftigen, damit mehr Raum für die Stimmen der Praktiker und der Wissenschaft bleibt. Das ist zielführender.
                  

Andrzej Grzyb (PPE). Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! To bardzo ważna rozmowa na temat pestycydów biologicznych o bardzo niskim ryzyku. Wydaje mi się, że te środki są bardzo dobrą alternatywą dla rolnictwa organicznego – co się szczególnie podkreśla – ale również dla tego tradycyjnego. Podkreślono również tutaj, że rzeczywiście zmniejsza się również gama środków pochodzących z tradycyjnej chemii, a stosowanych jako pestycydy. Z różnych powodów, które zostały tu wymienione.
                  

                     Problemem jest proces rejestracji substancji aktywnych pochodzenia organicznego, ale również nieorganicznego, który jest wieloletni, kosztochłonny i również nie do spełnienia dla firm, które są spoza sektora tradycyjnej chemii pestycydów. Dostępność substancji biologicznej i innej niskiego ryzyka do produkcji pestycydów wymaga wsparcia zarówno ze strony Komisji Europejskiej, jak i państw członkowskich. I myślę, że obywatele, którzy coraz częściej poszukują żywności, która nie jest chroniona pestycydami, substancjami czynnymi pochodzącymi z syntezy chemicznej (ze względu na antybiotykoodporność, cywilizacyjne schorzenia, chociażby alergie), będą też bardzo wspierali ten kierunek naszego działania i myślenia.
                  

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Vytenis Povilas Andriukaitis,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I have listened closely to this very interesting debate and I am grateful to this House for taking such an active interest in this important issue. I have taken careful note of your views and opinions, which will of course be given due consideration by the Commission.
Some of you asked why so few low-risk active substances have been approved up to now, but may I mention once again that this is because of the very strict regulatory framework. Regulation 1107/2009 allows the identification of a low-risk active substance only when the substance is going to be approved or its old approval under Directive 91/414 is renewed. This is the reason why only seven – of course, six of them are biological – low-risk substances have been identified and have been in force from January 2016. However, the majority of potential low-risk substances approved under Directive 91/414 have been prioritised for a renewal assessment, which will be carried out in the next three years. We will, of course, see how we can intensify such a process.
Let me repeat that the Parliament and the Commission are united in supporting the broad aim of facilitating the wider use of biological low-risk, plant protection products, whilst ensuring that we maintain our high level of safety, because the European Union is very proud of the very strict regulatory environment and the very high food safety standards. Thank you once again for your valuable considerations and contributions.

VORSITZ: ALEXANDER GRAF LAMBSDORFF


Vizepräsident


Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
                  

                     Die Abstimmung findet am Mittwoch, 15. Februar 2017, statt.
                  


Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 162 GO)



Carolina Punset (ALDE),
por escrito. – El artículo 12 de la Directiva 2009/128 /CE de plaguicidas, establece el uso prioritario de productos fitosanitarios de bajo riesgo en las áreas utilizadas por el público en general y en las áreas protegidas. Los jardines municipales y las zonas periurbanas necesitan librarse de la presión de fitosanitarios químicos, que solo añaden más contaminantes al entorno donde crecen nuestros hijos. Por este motivo, es fundamental y urgente desarrollar un reglamento del que puedan disponer los agricultores fitosanitarios de bajo riesgo. Los esfuerzos de las pequeñas empresas innovadoras que han producido plaguicidas de bajo riesgo de origen biológico han fracaso en su intento de acceder al mercado europeo. Actualmente, solo siete productos con esta calificación están disponibles en un mercado abrumadoramente orientado a los productos químicos de síntesis. Esta resolución permitirá una acción específica en el plazo de dos años, en lugar de un procedimiento que podría durar cerca de diez años y que podría terminar sin ninguna decisión tomada. Esto no beneficiaría a los agricultores ecológicos ni a nuestros entornos habitados, ni a los consumidores que tienen el derecho a consumir productos alimenticios con el menor riesgo posible.
                  
12.   Revision of the European Consensus on Development (debate)

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über den Bericht von Bogdan Brunon Wenta und Norbert Neuser im Namen des Entwicklungsausschusses über die Überarbeitung des Europäischen Konsenses über die Entwicklungspolitik (2016/2094(INI)) (A8-0020/2017).
               

Bogdan Brunon Wenta,
sprawozdawca. – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Na wstępie chciałbym bardzo podziękować Norbertowi za świetną współpracę nad tym sprawozdaniem. Oczywiście dziękuję także za konstruktywne uwagi i współpracę wszystkim kontrsprawozdawcom.
               

                  W centrum naszego sprawozdania znalazło się odniesienie do celów zrównoważonego rozwoju Organizacji Narodów Zjednoczonych, a także odnowione zaangażowanie w likwidację ubóstwa oraz zwalczanie dyskryminacji i nierówności poprzez politykę rozwojową Unii i jej państw członkowskich.
               

                  Ważnym punktem sprawozdania jest spójność polityki wewnętrznej i zewnętrznej na rzecz rozwoju. To właśnie ona powinna być głównym elementem strategii Unii na rzecz osiągnięcia celów zrównoważonego rozwoju. Działania państw członkowskich i te na szczeblu Unii muszą wzajemnie uzupełniać się i wzmacniać, a także mieć na uwadze potencjalny wpływ na kraje rozwijające się. W tym aspekcie należałoby wprowadzić skuteczny mechanizm monitorowania i oceny tego wpływu.
               

                  Oficjalna pomoc rozwojowa powinna pozostać podstawą polityki rozwoju Unii. Z tego powodu także w nowym konsensusie powinno znaleźć się zobowiązanie do osiągnięcia przez państwa członkowskie celu w wysokości 0,7 % dochodu narodowego brutto do 2030 r.
               

                  Dobre sprawowanie rządów pełni szczególną rolę w zrównoważonym rozwoju, dlatego należy wzmocnić równowagę między wymiarem gospodarczym, społecznym i środowiskowym poprzez wspieranie krajowych strategii zrównoważonego rozwoju oraz mechanizmów i procesów dobrego zarządzania z uwzględnieniem udziału społeczeństwa obywatelskiego. Pomoc rozwojowa musi być skuteczna, dlatego też poczucie odpowiedzialności za własny rozwój, przejrzystość i demokratyczne włączenie wszystkich zainteresowanych stron mają kluczowe znaczenie.
               

                  W świetle kryzysu imigracyjno-uchodźczego należy podkreślić zasadniczą rolę współpracy rozwojowej w zwalczaniu przyczyn przymusowej migracji i przemieszczeń. Kraje stabilne politycznie są mniej narażone i podatne na sytuacje, które mogą doprowadzić do masowej i przymusowej migracji. Pomoc rozwojowa związana z migracją jest ważna dla ustabilizowania sytuacji, utrzymania funkcjonowania państw i zapewnienia godnych warunków osobom przesiedlonym.
               

                  Jeśli chodzi o związek między rozwojem a bezpieczeństwem, należy podkreślić, że instrumenty pomocy rozwojowej mogą być wykorzystywane na potrzeby polityki bezpieczeństwa, ale tylko w odniesieniu do celu, jakim jest eliminacja ubóstwa i wspieranie zrównoważonego rozwoju. Unia musi promować sprawiedliwy podział bogactwa przez kraje rozwijające się za pośrednictwem budżetów krajowych, to znaczy zarówno wewnątrz państw, jak i pomiędzy nimi. Europejska pomoc rozwojowa powinna rozróżnić sytuacje poszczególnych krajów i ich potrzeby rozwojowe. Wskaźniki mikroekonomiczne czy względy polityczne nie powinny służyć jako jedyne podstawy do takiego różnicowania.
               

Norbert Neuser,
Berichterstatter. – Herr Präsident, lieber Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! In der Tat haben Bogdan Wenta und ich sehr gut zusammengearbeitet.
               

                  Das war auch die Grundlage dafür, dass wir einen guten, mit vielen Kompromissen versehenen Text vorlegen können. Ich danke aber auch den Schattenberichterstattern Charles Goerens, der Maria und der Lola, für viele gute Initiativen und kritische Anmerkungen, denn wir konnten mit ihrer Unterstützung gemeinsam auch vieles von dem, was die NGOs uns vorgelegt haben, im Konsensus einbauen.
               

                  Die Entwicklungspolitik wird immer bedeutsamer, wir haben das im Ausschuss immer schon gewusst. Aber jetzt – durch die Flüchtlingsbewegungen – wird dies auch ein zentrales Thema. Deswegen ist es gut, dass wir jetzt den Konsensus bearbeiten. Er wird ein Manifest sein. Aber er muss mehr sein als nur ein Manifest. Er muss auch Ziele beinhalten und auch die Implementierung. Wir wollen als Ausschuss klar wissen, wie die Ziele in welchem Fahrplan von der Kommission angegangen werden, und wie die Mitgliedstaaten in die Finanzierung gezwungen werden können. Dafür brauchen wir ein klares Bekenntnis zu Monitoring und Evaluierung bei der Umsetzung.
               

                  Wir haben mit Malta eine gute Ratspräsidentschaft. Malta versteht es gerade in der Frage der Flüchtlinge auf der Grundlage der Erfahrungen, die das Land gemacht hat, sich einzubringen. Wir arbeiten gut mit der Kommission und mit dem Rat. Vielleicht schaffen wir es Ende Juni im Rahmen der European Development Days, unser Papier, unseren Konsensus zu verabschieden.
               

                  Neu – und deswegen ist es wichtig, dass wir den Konsensus haben – sind die globalen Nachhaltigkeitsziele, die eingearbeitet werden müssen. Dabei muss auch klar sein: Priorität hat in der Entwicklungspolitik weiterhin die Armutsbekämpfung, und die Würde der Menschen muss dabei im Mittelpunkt stehen. Wir müssen versuchen, Antworten auf die neuen Anforderungen zu geben: Flüchtlinge, Klimawandel und auch die allgemeine Werteausrichtung der EU, die uns von anderen Gebern wie China oder den USA unterscheiden. Wir sollten stolz darauf sein, dass wir entlang unseres Wertekatalogs Entwicklungszusammenarbeit betreiben.
               

                  Wir befürchten, dass in einer Reihe von neuen Finanzinstrumenten, die Flexibilität verlangen, die Rechte des Parlaments zu wenig berücksichtigt werden. Wir haben den Eindruck, dass mit einer erhöhten Flexibilität unsere Möglichkeiten als Parlamentarier eingeschränkt werden. Ich kann dem Rat und auch der Kommission nur den Hinweis geben: Wir im Ausschuss, wir sind auch kreativ, wir sind auch flexibel. Haben Sie keine Angst vor dem, was wir als Parlamentarier mit einbringen. Wir sind nahe an den NGOs dran und wir sind auch daran interessiert, dass wir zielgerichtet gute Ergebnisse beisteuern.
               

                  Wir müssen sehen, wie insbesondere der African Trust Fund und der Europäische Fonds für nachhaltige Entwicklung integriert werden können, und wie wir die Maßnahmen organisieren, um den privaten Sektor stärker einzubeziehen und auch für Investitionen anzulocken. Deswegen wollen wir als Parlamentarier in den Entscheidungsgremien dabei sein. Wir wollen mindestens einen Beobachterstatus haben. Ich unterstreiche noch einmal, was ich bereits gesagt habe: Von uns kommt eine ganze Menge Know-how, und es wäre gut, wenn dies auch gemeinsam genutzt werden könnte.
               

                  Wir als Parlament werden, glaube ich, morgen mit einer großen Mehrheit dieses Papier beschließen. Wir haben unsere Hausaufgaben gemacht. Ich denke, wir können insgesamt zufrieden sein. Warten wir es ab, wie die Ergebnisse mit Kommission und Rat aussehen.
               

Neven Mimica,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the Committee on Development and particularly the co-rapporteurs, Mr Norbert Neuser and Mr Bogdan Wenta, and the shadow rapporteur colleagues, who have put together this excellent report.
Representatives from this Parliament and the European Union Member States are working together with the Commission services and the European External Action Services towards a new European Consensus on Development. This would represent a paradigm shift in development cooperation under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and enable us all to better respond to the more complex and interconnected challenges the world faces today. This resolution, ably prepared by the Development Committee, is an important contribution to that discussion.
The European Union's global leadership in development is nowadays needed more than ever, as underlined in the EU global strategy. The rest of the world expects ambition from us in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and its sustainable development goals: an Agenda based on openness, multilateralism and the objective of shared prosperity.
An ambitious new European Consensus on Development would be a very important part of our wider implementation of the 2030 Agenda. It will also contribute to supporting the implementation of the landmark Paris Agreement on climate change.
I was glad to see this House calling the revision of the Consensus timely and necessary. The Commission presented its proposal for a new European Consensus in November, which provides the basis for the discussions ahead. A proposal for a shared vision and framework for action in development policy for the European Union and its Member States.
The Commission is looking forward to a successful conclusion of the discussions between the institutions within the first half of this year. This would allow for signature at our flagship event, the European Development Days in early June, and would provide the opportunity to present our new Consensus internationally at the United Nations High Level Political Forum for Sustainable Development in July.
Your resolution, like the Commission's proposal, contains a strong affirmation on poverty eradication as the primary objective of EU development policy. This needs to come up clearly in the new Consensus. The resolution also recognises the challenges and opportunities posed by changes in the development landscape, including global trends, increased fragility and instability, and the 2030 Agenda. These would also need to be systematically addressed by our new Consensus.
The resolution notes the changes brought about by the Lisbon Treaty, which puts the objectives of development policy in the framework of the Union's broader external action. In this context, among other things, the resolution highlights the necessity to find new ways of achieving development priorities in fragile and conflict-affected countries, including by linking up more closely with humanitarian actors.
Under the setup of the Lisbon Treaty, which aims at ensuring greater coherence of the Union's policies and coordination with Member States, the principles of development effectiveness and policy coherence for development and the links with other policies, such as migration, security, energy, climate, gain ever greater importance. There is so much here that we can agree on.
There are also issues which we will want to discuss in greater detail in the context of the upcoming tripartite discussions. I see this resolution as an excellent contribution to this joint endeavour and I wish to thank once again the Chair and the members of the Development Committee, and in particular the co-rapporteurs. I look forward to hearing your views in the debate today.

Maurice Ponga,
au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, je souhaitais tout d'abord féliciter nos deux corapporteurs, M. Wenta et M. Neuser, pour l'excellent travail réalisé.
               

                  Dans ce rapport, le Parlement exprime de manière claire ses priorités politiques pour le futur cadre de notre coopération au développement. Grâce au travail réalisé, le Parlement européen va pouvoir entrer en négociation avec le Conseil et la Commission afin que le nouveau consensus européen sur le développement contribue à la réalisation des objectifs de développement durable, les ODD, adoptés à New York en septembre 2015.
               

                  J'avais proposé de nombreux amendements qui ont été repris dans le rapport et j'en suis heureux. Je pense notamment à la nécessité de renforcer la coordination entre nos États membres dans le cadre de la programmation et de la mise en œuvre de notre aide au développement. Je pense également à l'importance de porter notre attention sur des défis globaux, tels que les questions migratoires, sécuritaires mais également environnementales, et notamment la question de l'accès à la gestion de l'eau ou encore la nécessité de prendre en compte la dimension culturelle dans nos actions de coopération.
               

                  Nous devons rendre notre aide au développement plus efficace. Cet objectif est crucial tant pour nos pays partenaires que pour nos pays européens.
               

Linda McAvan,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, I think the Commissioner has seen there is a big consensus in this Parliament on the importance of getting the new consensus on development. Commissioner, we will work with you and the Maltese to get an agreement in the timescale you spoke about.
You also said that there are interconnected challenges. Your document is only one part of how the EU must address the SDGs. The internal aspect is very important, and that is why we place emphasis on policy coherence for development in our response to the proposal.
I want to pick one issue here, and that is tax. We want to deliver on the whole Addis Agenda. Yes on the 0.7% aid. Yes on more private sector investment. Yes on making sure more tax revenue is collected. We know that DG DEVCO has a small unit on tax issues, but I wonder how much the wider tax issues of development are understood across the Commission, and how are you working across the whole Commission to get a proper tax policy that will deliver on the SDGs?

Charles Goerens,
au nom du groupe ALDE. – Monsieur le Président, le consensus européen de 2005, qui reste une référence incontournable en matière de coopération au développement, est un recueil de principes et d'objectifs plus ou moins précis, selon les cas. Rappelons aussi que le consensus est un accord interinstitutionnel, approuvé par la Commission, le Conseil et le Parlement européen, qui vise à donner à la politique de développement une base solide permettant à l'Union européenne de construire un avenir commun avec ses partenaires du Sud.
               

                  Le respect des principes de l'état de droit, de non-discrimination et de cohérence des politiques, qui veut que l'action dans le domaine du développement ne soit pas mise en échec par des interventions dans d'autres domaines, est au cœur même du rapport que nos collègues Neuser et Wenta ont exposé.
               

                  Le problème est moins de s'entendre sur des engagements en la matière que de faire en sorte qu'ils soient tenus, et c'est précisément là que le bât blesse: que vaut l'engagement de porter l'aide publique au développement à 0,7 % du PIB s'il n'est pas tenu? Ne serait-il pas judicieux de prévoir, outre l'objectif du financement, un mécanisme politique susceptible de le faire respecter?
               

                  Ne pas prévoir ce mécanisme revient à perpétuer l'arlésienne, qui consiste à annoncer toujours le même événement, tout en sachant qu'il ne se produira jamais. Dans le même ordre d'idées, la cohérence des politiques restera lettre morte tant qu'on ne se dotera pas d'un mécanisme d'arbitrage permettant de trancher dès lors que deux ou plusieurs départements divergent dans un domaine important.
               

                  Enfin – et j'aurais dû commencer par là –, avons-nous tous la même conception de ce que veut dire ‘la politique de développement de l'Union européenne’? De mon point de vue – et c'est la raison pour laquelle j'avais introduit un amendement –, c'est le respect de la dignité de l'homme par l'éradication de la pauvreté.
               

Lola Sánchez Caldentey,
en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señor presidente, estimados colegas, ¿queremos una política de cooperación que se adapte a lo que establece la Agenda de Desarrollo Sostenible de las Naciones Unidas? Entonces, el Consenso Europeo sobre Desarrollo debe basarse en tres puntos.
               

                  Uno, reforzar la coherencia de las políticas para el desarrollo, porque estas políticas no pueden seguir siendo un compartimento estanco. Hay que ser transversales, entender que todas nuestras políticas tienen un efecto en el sur global, es decir, hay que ser coherentes.
               

                  Por ejemplo, nuestra política comercial y de inversiones debe dejar de empobrecer y de preocuparse solo por el beneficio de unos pocos. Debemos apostar por un comercio justo en línea con los derechos humanos y con el beneficio de todos.
               

                  Además, debemos desarrollar marcos vinculantes en materia de derechos humanos, es decir, leyes que garanticen que todo lo que llega a los mercados europeos, por ejemplo, no esté fabricado en condiciones de explotación o manchado de sangre.
               

                  Como segundo pilar, debemos reforzar la financiación para el desarrollo. Y, aquí, decimos que es inaceptable que no hayamos alcanzado aún el compromiso histórico del 0,7 %. Debemos apoyar también sistemas fiscales justos, progresivos y redistributivos de manera universal, y combatir, de una vez por todas, el fraude fiscal.
               

                  Y, por último, no engañar al contribuyente, porque la ayuda oficial al desarrollo tiene dos objetivos: uno, la erradicación de la pobreza, y dos, la reducción de las desigualdades. Cualquier otro uso, como el control de flujos migratorios o externalizar el control de fronteras, es malversación de fondos públicos.
               

                  Y, ya para terminar, quisiera agradecer el buen trabajo y la actitud dialogante que han tenido los compañeros Wenta y Neuser al haber elaborado este informe.
               

Maria Heubuch,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Vorab herzlichen Dank an die Ko-Berichterstatter Bogdan Brunon Wenta und Norbert Neuser für die offene und gute Zusammenarbeit. Die Europäische Union ist dabei, ihre Politik, ihre Entwicklungspolitik ganz neu auszurichten. Und wenn es nach der Kommission und den Mitgliedstaaten geht, soll die Entwicklungspolitik in Zukunft im Dienst der Migrations- und Sicherheitspolitik stehen, denn seit der Migrationskrise bestimmen nur noch unsere Innenminister über Europas Außenpolitik. Gelder werden von den Ärmsten der Armen genommen und sollen nun für Militär und für Grenzkontrollen zur Verfügung stehen. Hier kann das Parlament nicht einfach zusehen und sendet mit diesem Bericht ein ganz klares Signal.
               

                  Das Ziel der Entwicklungspolitik muss auch weiterhin die Reduktion der Armut bleiben. Für Grenzen, für Sicherheit, für Militär gibt es andere Instrumente und andere Budgettöpfe. Wenn wir immer mehr Gelder umschichten und immer neue Prioritäten dazukommen, was bleibt dann in Zukunft für langfristige Projekte, was bleibt für Bildung, wieviel für Landwirtschaft? Ich befürchte: nicht viel.
               

                  Der Bericht von Norbert Neuser und Bogdan Wenta unterstreicht auch klipp und klar: Das Prinzip der Politikkohärenz für Entwicklung muss weiterhin gelten, und zwar so, wie es im Lissabon-Vertrag steht. Und warum betonen wir das als Parlament, wenn es doch im Vertrag von Lissabon steht? Wir betonen es, weil die Institutionen, allen voran der EAD unter Führung der Hohen Vertreterin Federica Mogherini das Konzept der Politikkohärenz aushöhlt und umdrehen möchte. Aber dem werden wir nicht zustimmen. Wir als Grüne können nur zustimmen, wenn die Armutsreduktion …
               

(Der Präsident entzieht der Rednerin das Wort.)


Ignazio Corrao,
on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, first I would like to congratulate the rapporteurs on this file for the good and cooperative work they have done. This is a report on a crucial subject at a crucial moment. The old consensus is about to expire and the European Union is facing a redefinition of its policies on development. This is happening while the European Union is addressing all the challenges caused by migration flows and while the European Union is under pressure.
Development policy is about development. This might sound strange, but we have to repeat this concept, now more than ever. We have to repeat that development funds have to be used exclusively for development causes. We have to repeat that ODA cannot be used to finance security expenses, border control or military support. Of course terrorism must be fought in the most effective way, and of course borders have to be controlled, but not by diverting the funds devoted to development. Otherwise, poverty will never be eradicated, development will never be assured, and the root causes of migration and terrorism will never be tackled. It will be important to repeat this in the strongest and clearest manner during the structured dialogue involving Parliament, the Commission and the Council. This has already started and will bring us very soon to the approval of the new consensus on development.

Olaf Stuger,
namens de ENF-Fractie. – Voorzitter, vroeger op de lagere school, in de zesde klas van de lagere school in Driebergen waar ik zat, moesten we elke maandag één gulden meenemen voor ontwikkelingshulp, voor het Foster Parents Plan. Dat deed iedereen braaf totdat bekend werd dat de directeur van het Foster Parents Plan destijds ongeveer vier maal het salaris van de minister-president verdiende. Toen gingen de guldens van al die kinderen niet meer in het collectebakje, maar die werden uitgegeven in het lokale snoepwinkeltje.
               

                  En laat dat een voorbeeld zijn. Want je kunt beter de lokale middenstand steunen dan boeven aan de andere kant van de wereld. Ontwikkelingshulp is namelijk niet dat er geld gaat van rijke Europeanen naar arme Afrikanen. Het is precies andersom. Geld gaat van arme Europeanen naar rijke Afrikaanse dictators en natuurlijk dik betaalde directeurs van ngo's.
               

Frank Engel (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Wenn ich mir die aktuellen UNO-Zahlen im Bereich der Bevölkerungsentwicklung, die angedacht ist für Afrika, anschaue, der afrikanische Kontinent also seine Bevölkerung bis 2050 mindestens verdoppeln, wenn nicht mit zweieinhalb multiplizieren wird, dann kann ich mich angesichts dessen, was einige Kollegen der Linken uns hier erzählen, eigentlich nur wundern. Zweieinhalb Milliarden Afrikaner sollten doch eigentlich damit rechnen können, dass wir sie darin unterstützen, dass auch sie ein Recht bekommen, in Sicherheit und in verlässlicher Staatlichkeit zu leben. Das hat nicht nur etwas damit zu tun, dass wir uns vor Migrationsdruck schützen wollen, sondern es hat damit zu tun, dass wir die totale Explosion oder Implosion des afrikanischen Kontinents vermittels einer kohärenten Entwicklungspolitik zu verhindern versuchen. Und genau das liegt auch in unserem ureigenen Interesse.
               

                  Ich füge zum Schluss hinzu, weil Sie mir sicherlich nicht sehr viel mehr Zeit geben werden: Es könnte sogar vonnöten sein, dass wir uns in diesem Zusammenhang mit Akteuren wie China zusammenschließen, um uns Aufgaben aufzuteilen. Das wäre für Afrika besser und für uns gegebenenfalls auch.
               

Der Präsident. – Das haben Sie richtig erkannt, Herr Kollege: Hier kriegt niemand mehr Zeit, unabhängig von Sympathie oder politischer Übereinstimmung.
               

Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D). – Señor presidente, agradezco a Bogdan y a Norbert el magnífico trabajo que han realizado para, junto con la Comisión y con los Estados miembros, poner en marcha de nuevo, en el corazón de la estrategia global de la Unión Europea, la lucha contra la pobreza, la desigualdad y la vulneración de los derechos humanos. En muchas partes del mundo se ha reducido la pobreza, pero persiste en muchas otras. Sin embargo, la desigualdad crece en casi todas partes y las violaciones de derechos humanos se multiplican, incluso en nuestras fronteras o en países como los Estados Unidos. Por tanto, ese es nuestro objetivo; luchar por estos tres principios: contra la pobreza, contra la desigualdad y por los derechos humanos.
               

                  Pero, además, tenemos que poner la acción humanitaria al lado de la política de desarrollo. Cada vez más, las crisis humanitarias son persistentes y se necesita la lógica del desarrollo para atender a las crisis de acción humanitaria.
               

György Hölvényi (PPE). – Elnök Úr, először is hadd köszönjem meg ugye Neuser úrnak és Wenta képviselőtársaimnak a kiváló munkát. Engedjék meg, hogy kiemeljem a fejlesztési együttműködés megkerülhetetlen fontos szerepét napjaink legégetőbb problémájának – hangsúlyozom – a kényszermigrációnak a kezelésében. Olyan célzott fejlesztéspolitikára van szükség, amely a menekültek származási országának helyzetére és igényeire helyben tud nyújtani megoldást.
               

                  Ne legyenek illúzióink! Ahogy már elhangzott, az Európai Unió fejlesztési stratégiájában nagyobb szerepet kell kapni az erre irányuló programoknak, különös tekintettel arra, hogy a demográfiai előrejelzések szerint 2050-re a világ népességének fele afrikai születésű lesz. Ne tápláljunk hamis illúziókat! Csak akkor járhatunk sikerrel, ha az Európai Unió az eddigieknél sokkal nagyobb és sokkal átfogóbb programokat képes közvetlen kontroll alatt tartva keresztülvinni, erre van szükség, és enélkül nem tudjuk megállítani a következő migrációs hullámot.
               

Elly Schlein (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, volevo ringraziare anche io i correlatori. La revisione del consenso, che servirà da quadro per le politiche europee dello sviluppo negli anni a venire, non potrebbe arrivare in un momento più adatto, ora che dobbiamo finalmente dotarci di un piano di implementazione e monitoraggio a livello europeo della nuova agenda per lo sviluppo sostenibile.
               

                  La sfida vera è rappresentata dall'universalità dell'agenda. Servono quindi politiche coerenti per lo sviluppo, dalla lotta alle disuguaglianze al cambiamento climatico, dal ricorso a nuove risorse per lo sviluppo all'impegno a raggiungere lo 0,7%, ad una lotta senza quartiere contro l'evasione e l'elusione fiscale che tanto danno causano ai paesi più poveri. Se non riusciremo a farlo, continueremo a togliere con una mano quello che diamo con l'altra.
               

                  Sul fenomeno migratorio bisogna cambiare radicalmente approccio. Non è un problema da risolvere, ma un'opportunità per lo sviluppo, evitando l'esternalizzazione e la condizionalità degli aiuti. Questa è una logica miope che costerebbe molto caro alla credibilità europea.
               

Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, je veux tout d'abord féliciter mes collègues Bogdan Wenta et Norbert Neuser pour l'excellent travail accompli sur ce dossier.
               

                  Je vais me concentrer sur deux points. Ayant rédigé, il n'y a pas très longtemps, un rapport sur l'efficacité du développement, je me réjouis que les amendements que j'ai déposés sur cette question aient été inclus dans le rapport Wenta/Neuser. Il est très important que l'efficacité du développement soit l'une des forces motrices de notre nouvelle politique de développement. Nous avons besoin de références claires à cela dans le nouveau consensus, y compris, à mon sens, dans la partie consacrée aux principes.
               

                  Deuxième point, je me réjouis aussi que le rapport reconnaisse l'importance de la cohérence des politiques au service du développement, la CPD. La CPD est un élément central dans la mise en place de l'Agenda 2030 et des objectifs de développement durable. Il faut, je crois, que l'Union européenne définisse clairement le lien entre CPD et PSDC afin de promouvoir ce concept à l'échelon international. La CPD doit devenir la marque de fabrique de notre action extérieure.
               

Catch-the-eye-Verfahren


Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, souhlasím s tím, že naší prioritou v rozvojové pomoci je boj proti chudobě a boj za důstojnost lidského života. Samozřejmě se obracíme především k Africe, kde Evropská unie investuje nejvíce ze svých rozvojových prostředků. Je zde 19 z 21 zemí s největší plodností a zároveň v těchto zemích nejsou vždy stabilní vlády, některé z těchto vlád nerespektují lidská práva, a když se ohlédnu za usneseními také Evropského parlamentu, řada našich usnesení v urgentních otázkách se právě těmito africkými zeměmi zabývá.
               

                  Takže já říkám, abychom podporovali rozvoj hospodářství, zdravotní péče, vzdělávání, které je zásadní v těchto zemích, aby lidé nemuseli opouštět své domovy, ale připomínejme těmto vládám, že mají odpovědnost za občany ve své zemi. Bohužel, i do této zprávy se dostal požadavek na prosazování práv na sexuální a reprodukční zdraví, jako by jiná zdravotní péče byla méně důležitá.
               

Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, vreau și eu să mulțumesc colegilor raportori privind obiectivele și revizuirea agendei 2030.
               

                  Colegul nostru Norbert vorbea de niște priorități: combaterea sărăciei și respectarea demnității umane. Salut aceste prevederi privind un nou cadru global de dezvoltare privind securitatea alimentară.
               

                  Politicile de dezvoltare europene pot realiza multiple probleme ale omenirii: sărăcia, viața nesănătoasă, indicele demografic. Nu este însă suficient să avem politici, este important să fie coerente. Sunt încă decalaje mari între state și în multe dintre ele nu sunt bani pentru medicamente la bolnavii cronici, vaccin pentru copii, condiții în spitale. Există încă zone depărtate fără alimente, fără apă, fără electricitate, fără acces la educație.
               

                  Domnule comisar, Comisia ce își propune pentru a diminua din aceste decalaje?
               

                  Există o mare presiune a giganților economici asupra IMM-urilor. Puteți, domnule Comisar, să ne răspundeți: ce se poate face pentru o viață mai bună în lume și în Europa?
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ανάπτυξη στον κόσμο μπορεί να υπάρξει μόνο όταν υπάρξει δίκαιη κατανομή του παραγόμενου πλούτου. Μόνο έτσι θα περιοριστεί η φτώχεια στον πλανήτη και μόνο έτσι θα μειωθεί η ανεργία, αφού ο κόσμος έχει πλέον γεμίσει με εκατομμύρια ανέργους. Βέβαια, ανάπτυξη δεν μπορεί να υπάρξει όσο υπάρχει η υπερχρέωση των αναπτυσσόμενων χωρών. Επομένως, πρέπει να προχωρήσει η Δύση, οι G7 αλλά και η Κίνα στη διαγραφή του χρέους των αναπτυσσόμενων χωρών. Ταυτόχρονα, η εγκατάλειψη της πολιτικής της λιτότητας και της βίαιης δημοσιονομικής προσαρμογής, που πολλές φορές το ΔΝΤ επιβάλλει στις χώρες του αναπτυσσόμενου κόσμου, σε συνδυασμό με τη διαγραφή του χρέους, θα τονώσει πραγματικά την ανάπτυξη στις χώρες αυτές και έτσι θα έχουμε περιορισμό της παράνομης μετανάστευσης. Αυτή τη στιγμή έχουμε τεράστιες μεταναστευτικές ροές προς την Ευρώπη. Έχουμε τεράστιες μεταναστευτικές ροές προς την Ελλάδα και ιδίως προς τα νησιά του Αιγαίου. Ανάπτυξη λοιπόν, για να περιοριστεί η παράνομη μετανάστευση!
               

Franc Bogovič (PPE). – Evropska unija ni unija z močno vojsko, ki bi lahko posegala v konfliktih. Je pa kontinent, ki največ prispeva razvojne pomoči širom po svetu.
               

                  Zato je pomembno, da je politika usklajena, da se osredotoči na ključna vprašanja. In vprašanja naslednjih desetletij so zagotovo povezana z revščino. Z revščino v tistem delu sveta, kjer se napoveduje tudi največja rast prebivalstva, se pravi Afrika in pa tudi na splošno mesta. Zato bodo problemi vode, hrane, okolja tisti, ki bodo ključni in zato je prav, da je politika zelo usklajena s temi cilji.
               

                  Politika se mora usmeriti tudi k ustvarjanju novih delovnih mest, kajti z novim delovim mestom bomo vrnili dostojanstvo in pa odpravili revščino tam, kjer imamo danes največje izvore migracije. Sam zagovarjam to, da Evropska uija še naprej vlaga veliko denarja v razvojno pomoč, ne pa v odpravljanje posledic različnih konfliktov in težav v teh državah.
               

Ελευθέριος Συναδινός (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, έχουμε ασχοληθεί πολλές φορές με τα προβλήματα στη γειτονιά της Ευρώπης, προβλήματα που οδηγούν σε κρίσεις πολέμους, συστηματική παραγωγή προσφύγων και λαθρομεταναστών. Δεν έχουμε όμως ασχοληθεί με τη ρίζα των προβλημάτων αυτών γιατί, ως συνήθως, αποφεύγουμε να κοιτάμε τον εαυτό μας στον καθρέφτη και να κάνουμε αυτοκριτική. Η έκθεση για την ευρωπαϊκή αντίληψη για την ανάπτυξη έρχεται να συμπληρώσει πάγια κενά στην εξωτερική πολιτική της Ένωσης. Η χορήγηση κονδυλίων για την ανάπτυξη των τρίτων και αναπτυσσόμενων χωρών αποτελεί μορφή αναχαίτισης των μεταναστευτικών ροών. Αυτά τα κονδύλια είναι απαραίτητα για την ενδυνάμωση των κρατών, την οικοδόμηση της ευστάθειας, τη δημιουργία προοπτικών, την καταπολέμηση της φτώχειας και των κοινωνικών ανισοτήτων. Σε συνδυασμό με τον έλεγχο και τη λογοδοσία των κυβερνήσεων των χωρών αυτών, είναι μια καλή αρχή. Μην ξεχνάτε ότι τα χρήματα του Ευρωπαϊκού Καταπιστευματικού Ταμείου Έκτακτης Ανάγκης του Ευρωπαϊκού Εξωτερικού Επενδυτικού Σχεδίου και γενικά του προϋπολογισμού της Ένωσης προέρχονται από τους ευρωπαίους φορολογούμενους. Ειλικρινά πιστεύω ότι η ανάπτυξη είναι, μεταξύ άλλων, αναπαλλοτρίωτο ανθρώπινο δικαίωμα.
               

Anna Záborská (PPE). – Ďakujem pán predseda, ďakujem pán komisár!
               

                  Chcem sa poďakovať aj kolegom Wentovi a Neuserovi za množstvo práce pri príprave tejto správy. K výslednému textu mám však dve zásadné výhrady.
               

                  Po prvé, malthuziánska perspektíva nepatrí do európskeho dokumentu. Je nevedecká a má nádych kolonializmu. Rozvojová pomoc EÚ sa musí zamerať na boj proti skutočným príčinám chudoby – zlému vládnutiu, nedostatku vzdelania a násiliu, a nie na podporu populačnej politiky po vzore čínskej komunistickej strany.
               

                  Po druhé, nemôžeme ignorovať fakt, že v oblasti chápania sexuálnych a reprodukčných práv a služieb neexistuje medzi členskými štátmi EÚ konsenzus. Tieto témy preto nemôžu byť súčasťou európskeho konsenzu o rozvoji. Paragraf 23 nepatrí do textu tohto uznesenia a ak bude schválený, nebudem môcť uznesenie podporiť.
               

                  Ďakujem pekne.
               

Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, per raggiungere gli obiettivi fissati dall'Agenda ONU 2030, le istituzioni europee e gli Stati membri hanno il dovere di investire su progetti promotori di un cambiamento rapido e trasversale. Da questo punto di vista, all'agricoltura sostenibile va riconosciuto un ruolo di primo piano. Le imprese agricole contribuiscono a garantire la sicurezza alimentare, a fornire materie prime ai mercati locali e ad assicurare un reddito equo a condizioni di vita dignitose ai lavoratori. Costituiscono cioè un perfetto esempio di convergenza virtuosa tra sviluppo e sostenibilità e una corsia preferenziale per il raggiungimento degli obiettivi di sviluppo sostenibile.
               

                  È necessario che l'Unione europea faccia di questo settore, uno dei pilastri per le sue politiche di sviluppo, investendo nel conseguimento di sistemi agricoli resilienti ai cambiamenti climatici, favorendo pratiche ecologiche e migliorando la produttività delle imprese a conduzione familiare. Solo con una maggiore attenzione al settore agricolo e alimentare si può agevolare l'incontro tra progresso economico e qualità della vita.
               

(Ende des Catch-the-eye-Verfahrens)


Neven Mimica,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, the European Union was instrumental in shaping the global 2030 Agenda, which is fully consistent with Europe's vision and has now become the world's blueprint for global sustainable development. It is important that we fully take account of the Sustainable Development Goals in the European internal and external policy framework and current Commission priorities.
Development policy in the form of a new European consensus on development can make a central contribution in this direction. Therefore, the consensus is to be taken and defined together with our internal actions on a sustainable European future and our internal policies implementation, aimed at reaching sustainable development goals at home. This includes taxation policy where our actions against tax evasion, tax base erosion and illicit financial flows in the EU should guide and inspire our external actions on the collect-more-spend-better initiative within our partner countries.
The Commission proposal provides the basis for the discussions ahead. At the same time, this resolution sends an important political message – that the European Parliament is actively engaged in shaping the future of the European Union's development policy and is committed to eradicating poverty and achieving sustainable development by 2030 worldwide, ensuring that no one is left behind.
The Commission is committed to working closely together with Parliament and with the Member States to ensure that the final consensus is exactly that – a true consensus owned by all EU institutions and all our Member States, able to spur action that can change lives across the world for the better.

Bogdan Brunon Wenta,
sprawozdawca. – Panie Przewodniczący! Dziękuję wszystkim koleżankom i kolegom za komentarze i uwagi podczas tej debaty. Chciałbym dodać, że od czasu przyjęcia poprzedniego konsensusu sytuacja międzynarodowa znacznie się zmieniła. Mamy oczywiście nowe wyzwania, ale także nowe możliwości i instrumenty. Zmienione ramy współpracy zewnętrznej Unii w postaci strategii globalnej Agenda 2030 oraz innych porozumień, takich jak porozumienie paryskie w sprawie klimatu, plan z Addis Abeby w sprawie finansowania rozwoju, czy porozumienie z Busanu w sprawie skuteczności pomocy rozwojowej, są ważnym impulsem do tej zmiany.
               

                  Jestem przekonany, że przyjęcie rezolucji będzie jasną pozycją Parlamentu w kwestii nowego konsensusu na rzecz rozwoju, który ma wyznaczyć cele i kierunki polityki Unii Europejskiej i państw członkowskich do 2030 roku.
               

                  Rezolucja Parlamentu na temat konsensusu posłuży nam jako mandat podczas negocjacji i dialogu z prezydencją maltańską reprezentującą Radę, Komisją Europejską i Służbą Działań Zewnętrznych, którego efektem ma być finalny tekst. Ponieważ priorytetowym celem prezydencji maltańskiej jest zakończenie negocjacji przed Europejskimi Dniami Rozwoju, mam nadzieję, że uda się wypracować porozumienie, które obejmie wszystkie kluczowe elementy polityki rozwojowej i także wskazana zostanie konkretna strategia jej wdrażania przez Unię Europejską i państwa członkowskie. Jak kolega Norbert zaznaczył, czasu pozostało niewiele do Europejskich Dni Rozwoju w czerwcu, ale sądzę, że to nie czas będzie ważnym elementem podczas tych negocjacji, ale muszą być one skuteczne, ponieważ to ma być najważniejszym elementem, ponieważ przygotowany tekst ma być właśnie strategią na długie następne lata w działaniach polityki rozwojowej.
               

Norbert Neuser,
Berichterstatter. – Herr Präsident! Ich denke, die Debatte hat ergeben, dass wir hier auf einem guten Weg sind.
               

                  Der Konsens aus dem Jahr 2005 musste überarbeitet werden, weil viele Probleme in der Zwischenzeit aufgelaufen sind: Flüchtlinge und Klimawandel. Ich will nochmal deutlich machen, dass die Frage der Finanzierung von Entwicklungszusammenarbeit ganz wichtig ist. Das wurde in der Debatte auch nochmal klargestellt. Wir wollen hier auch die Evaluierung haben und eine Implementierung durch die Kommission und durch die Mitgliedstaaten, um zu wissen, zu welchem Zeitpunkt wieviel Geld für Entwicklungszusammenarbeit ausgegeben wird.
               

                  Wir haben den großen Vorteil, dass die Mehrheit der Europäerinnen und Europäer voll hinter einer verstärkten Entwicklungszusammenarbeit stehen. Eurostat sagt ganz deutlich, dass die Menschen in Europa wollen, dass wir mehr Geld in die Hand nehmen, um das Elend und die Probleme in den Ländern Afrikas – vor allen Dingen in der Subsahara – auch dort zu lösen. Ein weiterer Aspekt war noch gewesen, inwieweit wir Gelder aus dem Entwicklungsbereich vielleicht in andere Bereiche geben würden. Wir bleiben dabei: Priorität muss die Armutsbekämpfung haben. Wenn es zum Beispiel um die Grenzsicherung geht in Ländern wie Tschad, Mali, Kamerun, Niger, Nigeria gegenüber extremistischen Gruppen, gegenüber Boko Haram, glaube ich, hat keiner im Parlament etwas dagegen. Aber wir haben etwas dagegen, wenn Geld aus unserem Topf genommen wird. Da muss die Kommission weitere Gelder in die Hand nehmen.
               

                  Und ein Letztes noch zu dem, was der Vertreter der ENF gesagt hat. Ich denke, es ist unverschämt, auf dem Rücken von denjenigen, die unter Hunger, Krankheit und Elend leiden, hier Wahlkampf in den Niederlanden zu betreiben. Das ist eine Sache, die gehört sich nicht im Parlament, und das müssen wir ganz entschieden zurückweisen.
               

Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
               

                  Die Abstimmung findet am Dienstag, 14. Februar 2017, statt.
               
13.   Cost-effective emission reductions and low-carbon investments (debate)

Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über den Bericht von Ian Duncan im Namen des Ausschusses für Umweltfragen, öffentliche Gesundheit und Lebensmittelsicherheit über die Kosteneffizienz von Emissionsminderungsmaßnahmen und Investitionen in CO2-effiziente Technologien (A8-0003/2017).
               

Ian Duncan,
rapporteur. – Mr President, let me begin by thanking each of my shadows who have brought us to this particular point, to Mr Belet, to Ms Guteland, Mr Gerbrandy, Mr Eickhout, Ms Konečná and Ms Evi. I did not believe we would get here if I am being very frank. Just before Christmas, when we were contemplating this being a committee vote, I really did not think we had the vote at all. And yet, lo and behold, here we are. And coincidentally, it is my birthday. It is not for me to suggest that passing this would be a perfect birthday present. But I might just hint that that would be a useful thing for us to be doing tonight.
It is important to stress again that is 197 days since I was given this particular dossier to move forward. Many of you here will remember I resigned as well during that process but you did not accept my resignation. So here I stand and again I am very appreciative of all who helped that be achieved. I should also again give thanks to the former chair of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, Mr La Via, whose wise counsel at various points stopped me going slightly off the rails, which was very helpful. I should also of course, as I look toward the front of the room and I see in the form of Mr Cañete, a gentleman I once described as the Father Christmas of the College of Commissioners because again he brought back from Paris quite an extraordinary agreement. And let us keep to the fore of our minds during both this debate and the vote that follows that we have indeed got to stick with Paris. How do we ensure that we can stop the rise in the temperature of the globe? It is a simple as that. We often lose sight of it, and I have more than once lost sight of it, in various amendments, in various elements of this particular package. But what we are really focused upon, and I believe we must be focused upon, is making Paris a reality.
I know that the Council conclusions are not there yet. I know the Council is not yet ready to embrace this; but they will because they have to. And I hope that the agreement that we secure by passing this report will help move it in that direction, will help remind those Member States they have a commitment which they have signed up to, that we must deliver against the Paris ambitions.
It is also important for me to stress each of the elements of the package. I have been describing it to others a bit like a Jenga tower. I am not sure if Jenga exists in all the Member States of the EU but broadly, it is a tower of various blocks, and again the game is for you to pull out different blocks, hoping that the whole thing does not topple over. Well here we are folks. The question is which blocks are you going to try and pull out of the agreement right now and will the tower remain standing? I do not know the answer to that. That rests, I suspect, more in your hands than it does in mine. But what I do stress is as you pull out each block, just remember: if that tower topples, we have to rebuild it and we will rebuild it in a much less favourable climate, literally, and will also rebuild it in a much more challenging way. So please be under no illusion, when you are considering which amendments you wish to pull out or push in, that we need to deliver a package that works for everyone together. It is important, I suspect, for all of us here; each of us has particular constituencies and constituency issues, but nonetheless we must come together to deliver what is required for the climate and indeed for the European Union.
Let me also stress that we must make sure that the agreement is Brexit proof. But I will say no more about that but leave that for the negotiations themselves. This is bigger than Brexit, it is bigger that the EU. Let us get it right.
Final point again. I have been very blessed by an assistant system called Ross McKenzie, who helped me deliver this particular package. He is soon to be leaving my team, which I think is a bit of a shame. But nonetheless I am hoping through trilogue that we will continue to make progress.
So let me conclude by saying: this is the time to get it right. We have got to pass this and I hope with all your support we can do that very thing.

Der Präsident. – Vielen Dank, Kollege Duncan. Ich spreche für das ganze Haus, wenn ich Ihnen hier herzlich zum Geburtstag gratuliere. Versprechungen über Geschenke in Form von Entschließungsanträgen kann der Vorsitz aber nicht machen.
               

Fredrick Federley,
rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – Mr President, I can reassure the House that the rapporteur for the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, Mr Duncan, has been so focused on this report that when I texted him at about seven o'clock this morning and said ‘Congratulations’, he replied ‘The report is not through the house yet.’ Then I said ‘Isn't it your birthday?’ He had forgotten about that and was all focused on the Emissions Trading System (ETS).
As rapporteur for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy in respect of its opinion and shared competences on a few of the sections relating to the EU ETS, I must say that I am pleased by the team's devotion to delivering a broad majority in committee, where the report was supported by more than 80% percent of the members, as one of the main tasks for us was to make sure we did not trigger the cross-sectoral correction factor and that we did deliver a strong voice for the forthcoming negotiations in the Environment Committee. We can see that we have done that. The vast majority of the proposals we had in the Industry Committee's opinion were actually accepted and on board in the Environment Committee proposal, and we are grateful for that and also for the cooperation we had with the Environment Committee team.
It is good that we made sure to keep the carrot in front of the industry. They were pushing for more innovation but, at the same time, it is a fragile proposal, as Ian Duncan was saying. If we start taking bits and pieces out of this, it will not add up in the end. We will not create stable conditions for industry, and we will not meet the climate targets.
In my last few seconds I would like to call upon my colleagues to make sure that we deliver a broad majority for a strong proposal and do not take it apart during the vote on Wednesday.

Miguel Arias Cañete,
Member of the Commission. – Mr President, when Father Christmas scrutinises the behaviour of the children, you can be sure that Mr Duncan's conduct this year will be taken very seriously because, Mr Duncan, you have done excellent work, unbelievable work, and I congratulate you and all the co-rapporteurs who have worked on this exercise because you have delivered a very ambitious report.
Also, as you said, we live in crucial times for climate policies, and following the historic achievement of the Paris Agreement, the European Union now needs to lead from the front. We need to deliver and put our commitments into a clear and binding framework.
The Commission has put several legal proposals on the table of the co-legislator, but the revision of the emissions trading system (ETS) was the first and has been debated the longest. The heads of state and government agreed in 2014 that the ETS is the European Union's flagship climate policy and it is now time to show our citizens, our businesses, our society and the world that we are serious about making the ETS fit to meet our Paris commitments and our 2030 climate and energy targets.
We need to learn from experience and agree on a workable system that will do three things simultaneously: deliver the required emission reductions in a cost-efficient manner; protect vulnerable sectors in European Union industry; and support the clean energy transition where most needed.
This is the only way for the European Union to be credible when we are discussing with China, South Korea, Mexico and other G20 countries about carbon pricing and carbon markets. This is the only way to lead by example, showing how to drive emission reductions at the least cost to the economy, creating new opportunities for jobs and growth through innovation, and maintaining a competitive edge in Europe. Parliament has been working on this important file for more than a year and I am pleased to see the report is scheduled for a vote on Wednesday.
Forging agreement on the different aspects of the European Union ETS revision has been a very challenging task. I therefore again express my gratitude for the fine work undertaken by many of you present here this evening in Parliament. Multiple committees have been actively involved in the process. All views and angles have been discussed and weighed. The same topics are being discussed with Member States in Council. On some issues we can see signs of convergence between the co-legislators, which will be helpful in defining the final deal later on.
The Council is also busy working towards establishing its position, enabling it to enter into interinstitutional negotiations. I am convinced that the political momentum is there to take decisions that will enable both co-legislators to start discussions. We need to bear in mind three key aspects which the revised ETS Directive must deliver and I welcome the fact that Parliament intends to send strong signals on all of these.
Firstly, we need to ensure that the ETS is fit to deliver the emission reductions to honour our Paris commitments, and Parliament is sending a clear message on the need to strengthen the European Union ETS via the doubling of the feeding rate of the market stability reserve. I see the importance of considering measures to strengthen the EU ETS which can ensure the carbon market functions and delivers the necessary emission reduction and innovation incentives. This is to restore the role we all want the ETS to play.
Secondly, we want to continue to build on our success in preserving the competitiveness of our industry and avoid the carbon-leakage risk and Parliament is enhancing in many ways the aspects of the Commission proposal catering for our businesses. We see the merit of the overarching objective of these amendments.
A notable aspect of this is the update of the benchmarks for free allocation. The report by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety keeps the architecture of the Commission proposal with the flat rates and further enhances the role of verified data. It therefore rewards faster moving sectors by setting a maximum contribution and it ensures that the slower moving sectors also play their part by requiring a minimum contribution of 0.25%.
Last but definitely not least, we want to increase the innovative power of the European Union ETS as a driver for investment in low-carbon technologies, and Parliament is discussing to send a clear signal on the need to boost the Innovation Fund for the benefit of European companies and to ensure that the Modernisation Fund spurs decarbonisation in lower-income Member States. When looking at these funds we need to be mindful of their effects on Member States auction revenues and favour elements that would bring the Council and Parliament together.
Thus Parliament is on track to set a constructive agenda for the interinstitutional negotiations. I encourage Members of the European Parliament to be constructive and to take the final step on Wednesday. This will give Parliament a united and a strong voice in the negotiations with the Council.

Florent Marcellesi,
ponente de opinión de la Comisión de Desarrollo. – Señor presidente, la reforma del sistema de mercado del carbono nos deja una sensación agridulce. Agria, por un lado, porque desde un punto de vista de la Comisión de Desarrollo no ha incluido puntos muy importantes para nosotras y nosotros, como pueden ser, por ejemplo, la revisión completa del sistema en 2018 y, sobre todo, una asignación económica específica para el Fondo Climático Internacional, porque sabemos perfectamente que los países del sur son los que menos han contribuido al cambio climático y los que más lo están sufriendo.
               

                  Por otro lado, también algo más dulce –digo solamente ‘algo’ más dulce– porque la reforma que se propone, por lo menos propone suprimir las asignaciones gratuitas de derechos de emisiones para el cemento, y limpia la llamada lista ‘de fuga de carbono’ por la que las empresas pueden ir fuera de Europa para seguir contaminando.
               

                  Desde luego, no es el acuerdo soñado, pero, siempre y cuando no aceptemos las pretensiones del lobby cementero, es un primer paso en la dirección correcta para cumplir con el Acuerdo de París.
               

Ivo Belet,
on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, I would like to wish the rapporteur, Ian Duncan, a happy birthday and to congratulate him on accomplishing an extremely complicated effort with a combination of intelligence, flair and contagious Scottish humour. Thank you very much for that, Mr Duncan.
This reform is key in terms of our commitment to the implementation of the Paris Agreement. It gives incentives to stakeholders from industry and the power sector, and it supports the best performers – those performers that strive for innovative and sustainable production techniques. But, at the same time, the new Emissions Trading System (ETS) and, in particular, the additions made during the vote by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, give guarantees to those sectors that are confronted with fierce international competition.
Currently, a lot of attention is focused on the so-called carbon adjustment mechanism and, in particular, the fact that it will be targeted on particular sectors such as lime and cement. You will not be astonished if we say that we are not in favour of this particular proposal for several reasons. One reason is that it would be damaging for those cement and lime producers which export to countries outside the European Union. What is worse is that it would be implemented by means of a delegated act. For every true Member of this Parliament, I think that should be a no-go. Therefore we propose to support the proposal adopted by the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, which is moderate and could be acceptable to all. Let us not forget that the cement sector continues to fall under the general system, meaning that the allowances will be attributed only to the 10% of best performers.
So, as the Commissioner has said, the momentum is there to find a broad majority for a robust and balanced ETS. Let us choose the moderate option. Let us not jeopardise this proposal by focusing on one particular sector.

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


Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D),
blue-card question. – You have mentioned some issues on which you disagree, and I have said that I agree with what you had expressed previously. However, do you not think that the Commission ought to be more ambitious and more in line with the goal of 1.5 degrees, set in Paris? This would be good for all of humanity, for all of mankind. As we speak now, there are islands that are disappearing – sinking. The water is going to cover them largely because of inaction.

Ivo Belet (PPE),
blue-card answer. – As I made clear at the beginning of my speech, this is about implementing the Paris Agreement – and not just the building sector, the transportation sector and the agricultural sector but also, of course, industry and the power sector have to implement what we agreed in Paris. Therefore, I must mention again that there is a lot of ambition in this proposal: what the Commission has proposed, the linear reduction factor of 2.2%, is much more ambitious than what we have now.
And do not forget the Market Stability Reserve (MSR). I was a rapporteur on the MSR a few months ago, and the level of ambition now contained in this proposal is much higher than what we proposed a few months or a year ago, even if the MSR is not yet operational. Supporting that ambition is a very important aspect of this.

Jytte Guteland,
för S&D-gruppen. – Herr talman! Tack till föredraganden Duncan för både ditt vänliga sätt att leda arbetet och för all den humor du har visat och ett stort grattis på födelsedagen. Jag hoppas att övriga grupper också lyssnar till dina viktiga uppmaningar inför omröstningen om att hålla samman denna kompromiss.
               

                  På onsdag kommer Europa att bekänna färg. Vi har en historisk möjlighet att visa att vi menar allvar med vårt arbete mot klimatförändringarna och den globala uppvärmningen. Vi har chansen att visa nu att Europa menar allvar, att vi vill ta ledarskapet för ett hållbart klimatsmart samhälle, byggt med nya fossilfria och smarta tekniker i världsklass, att vi förstår att ett bra klimatarbete och ekonomisk tillväxt inte är motsatser, utan tvärtom hör samman och är beroende av varandra.
               

                  Utsläppshandeln ETS är EU:s enskilt viktigaste klimatpolitiska verktyg för att minska utsläppen av koldioxid. ETS är helt centralt för att vi ska lyckas. Det innebär att ETS nu spelar en nyckelroll, inte bara för Europa utan också för världen och för hur vi ska leva upp till Parisavtalets ambitioner att begränsa temperaturökningen till väl under två grader.
               

                  ETS är inget perfekt system. Det är ingen av oss som säger det. Vi har under årens lopp sett en rad fel och brister i det här systemet som måste åtgärdas, men det är det vi ger oss på nu, för ett starkt system som levererar.
               

                  För oss socialdemokrater har det varit tre principer som har varit vägledande: 1) att se till att ETS verkligen läggs i linje med Parisavtalet och levererar för klimatet, 2) att det är mer rättvist och precist för industrin, så vi får bort de obalanser vi har sett i det historiska ETS och 3) att vi också ser till att arbetare får chansen att vara med i omställningen till ett klimatsmartare samhälle, så att det blir rättvist.
               

                  För oss socialdemokrater är ETS den enskilt viktigaste delen för att leverera efter Paris. För att göra det måste vi spräcka utsläppsbubblan och då måste utsläppsrätterna minska med minst 2,4 procent varje år.
               






2)


samtidigt är det viktigt för oss att industrin ges rätt verktyg för att ställa om till en klimatsmart produktion utan att tappa konkurrenskraft, utan tvärtom stärkas. Därför ger vi mer pengar till innovation så att företag kan investera i grönare lösningar.










3)


Det är också viktigt att klimatomställningen är solidarisk och inte ökar klassklyftorna. Det får inte bli så att de som redan har minst är de som hamnar på efterkälken när samhället moderniseras och blir klimatsmartare. Därför kräver vi socialdemokrater en särskild social omställningsfond som ger ett stöd för att arbetare i alla sektorer och regioner som omfattas ska kunna följa med i den här viktiga omställningen i samhället.





                  Omröstningen på onsdag är ett elddop för EU:s klimatarbete. Det är nu EU måste visa att man är villig att agera inte bara med vackra ord, utan också med konkreta åtgärder så att Parismålen hålls.
               

                  För oss socialdemokrater är det här en självklarhet och inför omröstningen på onsdag finns det en överenskommelse som alla politiska grupper skrivit under. Det är en kompromiss där alla får ge och ta, men som förhandlare för den socialdemokratiska gruppen så vet jag hur känslig en sån här kompromiss är.
               

                  Vi tar ansvar nu och står upp för kompromissen och tycker det är viktigt på onsdag. Vi står upp för klimatet och ser till att ETS blir den klimatlagstiftning den ska vara och det här är så viktigt så nu fick jag mitt sista ord … (talmannen avbröt talaren)


Julie Girling,
on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, in the ECR we are firm proponents of market-based mechanisms and there are many positive elements in the agreement reached by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. I do not accept the analysis that you have to agree with them all at this stage in plenary, because there are a few things that are not so good. One in particular for us is the issue of Member States having final say over the use of their receipts from this scheme. In order to ensure their continued commitment, we would be rejecting the issues of fiscal sovereignty.
I firmly believe that any legislation should be based on robust evidence. Parliament should not simply add new components that have not been impact-assessed. If we are serious about reducing greenhouse gases, then the policy framework must be evidence-based and encourage industry to invest in low-carbon technology. Moving the goalposts or, at worst, scoring an own goal, will not do any good in lowering emissions in the long run.
We are particularly concerned about the late inclusion of a border-adjustment mechanism, added days before the vote in the Environment Committee, with no study on its impacts or costs. For the ECR, this is not the way to protect against carbon leakage. Indeed, the provision of free allocations for those sectors most at risk is the best way forward.

Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy,
on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, ‘it is not always enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what is required’. With these words attributed to Winston Churchill, Secretary of State John Kerry made a very impressive speech in Marrakesh during the COP 22 last year. He made absolutely clear that we have to do what is required instead of just doing our best.
Those words went through my head many times during our negotiations. Are we doing our best or are we doing what is required? I am afraid we have not done that. Yes, we did improve the original Commission proposal here and there. We increased the ambition with a higher linear reduction factor. We do intend to cancel 800 million allowances and we found a way to limit the amount of free allowances given to industrial sectors with low trade intensity without endangering their competitiveness internationally.
But we have to be honest; we also watered-down parts of the original proposal. We lowered the annual benchmark, we lowered the threshold for qualitative assessment and we opened a door to lower the auction share.
The package that came out of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, for me, is far from ideal, but it is the best that we could get out of it. Does it pass the Churchill test? Is it doing what is required? I doubt it.
Let us make clear what is in the Paris Agreement: two degrees and even if possible stay close to the one point five degrees. Two degrees means that we have only 20 years left of current global emissions. One point five degrees, we have less than five years left. That is close to nothing. To those who simply and only want to do their best, please vote Wednesday in favour of the total Environment Committee package without any amendments. Stick to it and you are not doing what is required; you are only doing your best.

Kateřina Konečná,
za skupinu GUE/NGL. – Pane předsedající, předně mi dovolte poděkovat nejenom zpravodaji, panu Duncanovi, ale především všem kolegům, protože byť ta jednání byla velmi dlouhá, někdy docela tichá, tak si myslím, že byla nakonec velmi konkrétní a věcná, a ukázali jsme, že umíme spolupracovat, když jde o dobrou věc.
               

                  Nicméně nyní se nacházíme v kritickém okamžiku. Nebudu tady sáhodlouze rozebírat veškerá pozitiva či negativa, která předložený dokument má. Všichni jsme po hlasování ve výboru ENVI věděli, že přijatý text asi plně neuspokojí žádný tábor. Na jedné straně tady máme řadu skvělých opatření, které povedou ke zvýšení ceny povolenky a k omezení emisí CO2, jako nové LRF, vyšší odtok do MSR, škrtnutí 800 milionů povolenek apod. Na stranu druhou opatření chránící případný nárůst průmyslové výroby v EU či výjimky z aplikace korekčního faktoru pro sektory nejvíce ohrožené únikem uhlíku. Při pohledu na předložené pozměňující návrhy mě napadá, že se lze bavit o drobnostech, nicméně ve zbytku bych volala po umírněnosti. Každá strana musela někam couvnout. Ale obávám se, že nejsme schopni teď a tady tuto vybalancovanou dohodu z výboru ENVI na plénu jakýmkoli způsobem přepracovat. Politika je prostě umění možného. A silný mandát na Radě nám dá jen silný mandát z pléna. Jako dárek k narozeninám bych svému kolegovi přála, aby dostal tu silnou a pevnou věž bez toho, aby z ní někdo vytáhl nějaké kostičky.
               

President. – We have noticed up here that you cannot see the time while you are speaking. The technical services are trying to change this. After two-and-a-half minutes, I will just hammer and you will hear that.

Bas Eickhout,
on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, first of all, I would like to refer back to December 2015 when everyone in this room was applauding the Paris Agreement. As a Green, I was happy to see how from the left to the right of Parliament they were embracing Paris. Well, we are now discussing the only climate tool we have for European industry. That is what we are discussing here, so this is now the moment when all those nice words on Paris should be translated into action.
Let us see what those words were worth, because we know that the current system is not functioning well enough and that is why, for example, one of the crucial elements is raising the linear reduction factor, which brings us a bit closer to Paris, just a bit. We are now at the low end of the two degree scenario. So that is what we are doing.
Anyhow, in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety they managed to strike a deal spanning the political groups, from GUE to ECR – a broad agreement in the Environment Committee – and they all said yes to this package, and yes, it has higher ambition, which makes it good for us, but it also has a lot of additional protection for industry. It protects, in addition, the fertiliser and the steel sector. It has a higher innovation fund. It gives new benchmarks. It provides a compensation fund for indirect costs; all kinds of things added. This has all been put together now, and yet this package is being attacked again. Why? Because of one sector which is complaining.
Maybe, first, everyone should realise that the rule is auctioning. When we single out sectors we do that by making them free allowances. That is singling out. We want to do that for those sectors which have international competition. Looking at the cement sector, they have increased their exports because of the free allowances. They halted their innovation because they are dependent on those free allowances and therefore keep to high carbon cement, and they earned windfall profits of EUR five billion in the last phase.
That is what cement did with innovation, and that is what we are now going to address. We will put them back where they belong, outside free allocation. But we are giving them an alternative and that is the border adjustment measure. We are giving an alternative. We do not leave them on their own. That is exactly what we are doing. It is a balanced package and this will help us not to trigger the cross-sectoral correction factor, because now the real sectors deserving free allowances will get them, and that is what we should do.

Eleonora Evi,
a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, in questi mesi di lavoro sul file ETS abbiamo dedicato moltissimo tempo ad approfondire le problematiche a cui vanno incontro le industrie: i codici commerciali, le complesse operazioni di calcolo per l'assegnazione delle quote gratuite, i vari fondi di compensazione e di innovazione. Ma è stato scarsissimo il dibattito sulla reale efficacia dell'ETS nel ridurre le emissioni.
               

                  Nessuno ci ha spiegato, ad esempio, in che modo possiamo essere sicuri che applicando una diminuzione percentuale, il cosiddetto fattore di riduzione lineare, ovvero la riduzione graduale delle quote di emissione assegnate agli impianti, si ottenga una reale riduzione delle emissioni. Ripeto una reale riduzione e non virtuale. Infatti, dato che le emissioni reali sono note solo l'anno successivo a quando avvengono, l'unica certezza che si può avere è che gli impianti che emettono più di quanto gli è concesso dovranno semplicemente acquistare permessi di emissioni supplementari a quelli ricevuti precedentemente. Ecco a voi l'applicazione più assurda, folle e distorta del principio ‘chi inquina paga’. Ma consoliamoci visto che almeno l'ETS produce dei soldi con la vendita delle quote. Ma chi spera che questi soldi vengano utilizzati per finanziare interventi di compensazione delle emissioni che sono già in atmosfera, si sbaglia, è solo un'illusione, non c'è nessun obbligo per gli Stati membri su questo.
               

                  Per non parlare della compravendita dei titoli sul mercato finanziario, che continuerà a rappresentare un mero profitto per gli speculatori. Ma c'è di più: abbiamo chiesto all'industria quale prezzo della CO2 fosse conveniente, secondo loro, investire in miglioramenti strutturali per applicare le migliori tecnologie, considerando un prezzo della CO2 soggetto a fluttuazioni. Tutti, nessuno escluso, hanno ammesso di non essere in grado di fare queste valutazioni e di non essere incentivati a fare investimenti importanti in mancanza di stabilità. Ma l'ETS non doveva incentivare l'innovazione a basso contenuto di carbonio? Insomma, il sistema non funziona. Dal nostro punto di vista dei target più ambiziosi e vincolanti su rinnovabili, efficienza e risparmi energetici potrebbero portare risultati molto più concreti e immediati.
               

Mireille D'Ornano,
au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, nous rejetons la réforme relative aux quotas d'émission de gaz à effet de serre, aussi bien pour des raisons juridiques que sur son principe.
               

                  Nous n'acceptons pas le renforcement des prérogatives de la Commission ni l'inclusion des secteurs maritimes et aériens internationaux au mépris des compétences de l'Organisation maritime internationale et de l'Organisation de l'aviation civile internationale. Sur le principe, ces nouvelles contraintes liées aux émissions doperont la concurrence effrénée d'États à bas coût, souvent peu scrupuleux en matière environnementale.
               

                  En surcapacité de 350 millions de tonnes, l'acier chinois inonde déjà le marché de l'Union européenne, qui est importatrice nette depuis 2015. La France ayant déjà perdu 900 000 emplois industriels en quinze ans, nous ne souhaitons pas nous associer à cette réforme qui risque de sonner le glas de notre industrie, ainsi que des 437 hauts-fourneaux du secteur de l'acier européen.
               

Diane James (NI). – Mr President, I would like to wish Mr Duncan a happy birthday. Mr Duncan, I am sorry that I cannot offer you a birthday present in terms of supporting what you have done, but I am grateful for the effort you have put in.
Let us just remind ourselves about the European Union's Emissions Trading System and what it has brought about. Recognised as being one of the most flawed policy initiatives in history, since 2005 it has been a shameful litany of mismanagement, hidden subsidies, lobby power, environmental degradation, job losses, theft and fraud. One of my colleagues made a very important point: where is the risk analysis in all of this? Just think about the impact that this is going to have if it goes through – and I do not doubt it will. Creating an impetus for unemployment and exporting pollution are hardly two aspects that this organisation, the European Union, ought to be proud of. Neither is the inclusion in the system of, for instance, aviation and shipping – two pivotal elements in making food imports possible.
I am sorry, everyone: I will not be able to support this.

Esther de Lange (PPE). – Thank you very much, Mr President. Thank you, congratulations also to the rapporteur, Ian Duncan, who is not listening but who chose a very unfortunate example of the Jenga tower. Mr Duncan, as it happens to be, I am my family's…

(Interruption from the floor: ‘Ian, Ian’)

First of all, I congratulated you to your birthday, despite your very unfortunate example of the Jenga tower because, as it happens, I am my family's Jenga champion, so I am available for a match at any time. I am confident, however, that on this issue I will not need too much of my Jenga skills because I do think that, with Frederick Federley's opinion in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, we had a very good opinion which then served as a basis of the report by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.
I have a whole list in front of me, of the elements of Frederick's opinion that were then carried over to the Environment Committee report. I will mention just one of them, which is the free allowances – the 5% additional free allowances that are really, and should be, a key point to the entire Parliament. Hopefully we get broad support for that tomorrow, knowing that it is not very popular in Council.
On the border adjustment mechanism, it was never a secret and therefore cannot have come as a surprise that the EPP Group would prefer the broader and the fairer wording of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy.
You are looking at me very sternly Mr President but I had to start over again because the rapporteur was not paying attention.
Let me just still say two more things.

(Interjection from the President: ‘No, no, the rapporteur not listening does not change the Rules of Procedure’)

I was being nice to a colleague. Since we started working on this issue, the world has changed. We now have someone in America who could easily walk the road of climate scepticism. That means that we in Europe should choose leadership but that we also should not be naive. The others are playing hardball and therefore we should be prepared.

Edouard Martin (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, au cours de ce débat, le groupe socialiste a été le seul à défendre l'alliance de trois ambitions: climatique, industrielle et sociale.
               

                  Une ambition climatique, d'abord. Contrairement à ce que fanfaronne la Commission, le système d'échange de quotas d'émission (SEQE) n'a pas permis jusqu'ici de décarboner notre économie à moindre coût. Les variations d'émissions de gaz à effet de serre sont venues principalement de la crise économique et de choix nationaux de transition énergétique indépendants du SEQE.
               

                  Tout le monde s'accorde à dire, d'ailleurs, que le prix actuel de la tonne de CO2 est très insuffisant pour encourager les investissements à faible intensité de carbone chez les industriels et les électriciens. Ce prix fortement déprimé répond aux gigantesques surplus de quotas dans le système – entre deux et trois milliards de tonnes. C'est pourquoi il est important, au nom de la cohérence avec les engagements que nous avons pris à Paris, de resserrer plus fortement le robinet en votant un facteur de réduction linéaire à 2,4 % et en supprimant un contingent de 800 millions de tonnes de quotas en surplus.
               

                  Une ambition industrielle, également. Je viens du monde ouvrier, je connais la qualité de nos industries et la compétence de nos travailleurs, mais il est faux de prétendre que c'est par la simple prolongation du statu quo, c'est-à-dire en distribuant largement des quotas gratuits, que l'on relancera les investissements. En effet, qu'ont fait les industriels des millions de quotas gratuits distribués souvent en excès? Bien souvent – trop souvent –, les produits de la vente de ces quotas reçus ont été directement dans la poche des actionnaires. Il faut donc mettre un terme à ces dérives. C'est tout l'objet des changements proposés, comme la distribution de quotas sur une base plus dynamique, la révision des critères de référence, un fonds d'investissement plus ambitieux ou encore, tout simplement, l'orientation obligatoire des surplus vers l'investissement.
               

                  Mais je pense qu'il est temps de passer à une méthode alternative de protection contre les flux de carbone. L'ajustement carbone aux frontières pour certains secteurs comme le ciment sera déterminant.
               

                  Notre ambition est aussi de soutenir la modernisation des producteurs d'électricité. Il est parfaitement légitime que l'Union européenne, dans une démarche de solidarité, finance un volet spécifique pour les pays économiquement moins avantagés, mais il est tout aussi légitime que ces sommes soient investies dans des projets énergétiques en accord avec notre feuille de route commune. Les nouveaux critères proposés permettront à tous les pays bénéficiaires de moderniser leur parc, même à la Pologne qui part effectivement de très loin pour sortir progressivement du charbon.
               

                  J'en finis, Madame la Présidente, en mentionnant aussi le fonds pour une transition juste en faveur des travailleurs.
               

PRÉSIDENCE: Sylvie GUILLAUME


Vice-présidente


La Présidente. – J'ai bien compris qu'il y avait un problème d'affichage des temps de parole. Je vais essayer de me caler sur ce qu'a fait mon collègue Lambsdorff, c'est-à-dire de vous signaler que vous êtes au bout de votre intervention.
                  

Mark Demesmaeker (ECR). – Voorzitter, om de CO2-uitstoot fors te verminderen, hebben we een emissiehandelssysteem nodig dat efficiënt, evenwichtig en innovatief is. Willen we het Akkoord van Parijs omzetten in de praktijk, dan moet de werking van de koolstofmarkt beter en efficiënter. Zo moeten we een robuustere prijs voor CO2-klimaatvriendelijke investeringen stimuleren en hierbij moeten we een belangrijk evenwicht creëren. De hervorming moet het klimaat en banen beschermen en dat is essentieel. We mogen van winnaars geen verliezers maken. Wanneer bedrijven uit Europa wegtrekken naar derde landen waar de klimaatregels minder strikt zijn, verliezen we twee keer: de banen zijn weg en we doen niets voor het klimaat.
                  

                     Ook de sterke focus op innovatie is cruciaal. Een koolstofarm Europa bereik je niet alleen door een werkbaar systeem van emissierechten, maar vergt ook innovatieve oplossingen. Onze beleidskeuzes moeten duurzaam, efficiënt en effectief zijn, zodat ze decennialang kunnen meegaan. Wij willen met Vlaanderen en met Europa vooraan in het peloton rijden zonder een lekke band te krijgen. Deze hervorming is een stap in de goede richting en krijgt mijn steun.
                  

Σοφία Σακοράφα (GUE/NGL). – Αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, επισημαίνω τρία κρίσιμα προβλήματα που προκαλούν οι προτάσεις εξαίρεσης από τη λίστα κινδύνου διαρροής άνθρακα και η καθιέρωση ενός μηχανισμού αντιστάθμισης αγωγών με αδιευκρίνιστες δυνατότητες πρακτικής εφαρμογής τους. Πρώτον, η εξαίρεση του κλάδου τσιμέντου από τη λίστα θα καταστήσει μη ανταγωνιστικές τις εξαγωγές πολλών κρατών μελών απέναντι σε χώρες εκτός συστήματος. Ειδικότερα, η ελληνική τσιμεντοβιομηχανία, με 13.000 εργαζόμενους και ένταση εμπορίου 45%, δηλ. υπερπολλαπλάσια του ορίου του 10%, θα οδηγηθεί σε μαρασμό και εξαφάνιση. Δεύτερον, η επιλεξιμότητα χρηματοδότησης νέων έργων από το νεοσύστατο Ταμείο Εκσυγχρονισμού επιβάλλεται να βασίζεται στο 2015 ή το πολύ στο 2014 ώστε να αντανακλά την τρέχουσα οικονομική πραγματικότητα στα κράτη μέλη. Τρίτον και όσον αφορά την ένταξη της ναυτιλίας στο σύστημα εμπορίας δικαιωμάτων εκπομπής, οποιαδήποτε ρύθμιση σε περιφερειακό επίπεδο ενδέχεται να έχει δυσμενείς επιπτώσεις στον κλάδο σε ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο. Στόχος μας θα πρέπει να είναι η έγκαιρη θεσμοθέτηση ανάλογου συστήματος σε επίπεδο Διεθνούς Ναυτιλιακού Οργανισμού. Για τα παραπάνω έχουμε καταθέσει τροπολογίες και θα παρακαλούσα για την ιδιαίτερη προσοχή των συναδέλφων και την υπερψήφιση τους.
                  

Barbara Kappel (ENF). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar! Der vorliegende Bericht sieht vor, dass die energieintensiven Branchen der Stein- und keramischen Industrie von der Carbon-leakage-Liste gestrichen und dafür Border-adjustment-Maßnahmen eingeführt werden sollen. Hier sind Änderungen notwendig, und ich würde Ihnen gerne ein Beispiel nennen, warum diese Änderungen notwendig sind.
                  

                     Der Erwerb von Emissionszertifikaten kostet allein die österreichische Zementindustrie 80 Mio. EUR im Jahr. Das ist eine Kostensteigerung von 20 % des Gesamtumsatzes der Branche, und das, obwohl die österreichische Zementindustrie laut World Business Council for Sustainable Development weltweit den niedrigsten CO2-Ausstoß und den mit Abstand höchsten Nutzungsgrad alternativer Brennstoffe ausweist und führend ist bei innovativen Technologien zur Emissionsreduktion. Dass unausgereifte und ungetestete Border-adjustment-Maßnahmen ausreichend Schutz und Kompensation vor Importen aus Drittstaaten bieten, darf bezweifelt werden. Es ist auch fraglich, ob diese Maßnahme überhaupt WTO-kompatibel ist.
                  

                     Und eines ist klar: Die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit von Zement-, Kalk-, Ziegel- und Glasprodukten gegenüber Bau- und Grundstoffen sinkt, und der Preis für die Produkte steigt. Carbon leakage ist also auch investment leakage. Und das kostet Arbeitsplätze und Wachstum und bedeutet eine Schwächung der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit der europäischen Unternehmen.
                  

Peter Liese (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen. Wenn das ETS richtig funktioniert, dann ist es ein starkes Instrument, um Investitionen in klimafreundliche Technologien auszulösen.
                  

                     Damit helfen wir Klima und Arbeitsplätzen. Deswegen müssen wir das ETS stärken, die Preise müssen anziehen. Aber wir müssen auch klarstellen, dass die besten 10 % der Unternehmen, die investiert haben, dann auch sicher sind und nicht durch das ETS belastet werden. Beides tut der Bericht im Prinzip. Aber wir haben eine große Ausnahme bei Zement und einigen anderen Produkten, und das macht uns doch Bauchschmerzen. Deswegen möchten wir an dieser Stelle dringend eine Änderung.
                  

                     Die Mechanismen, die vorgeschlagen wurden und die von einigen Kollegen jetzt unterstützt werden, stehen auf tönernen Füßen. Ob wir sie durchsetzen können, wissen wir nicht. Gleichzeitig wissen wir auch nicht, ob wir mit einem so eng zugeschnittenen Border Tax Adjustment nur für Zement, auf der Basis eines delegierten Rechtsakts, nicht zu kurz springen. Wenn wir das machen, dann sollten wir uns das vielleicht für den Fall vorbehalten, dass andere Nationen, wie die Vereinigten Staaten, komplett aus dem Klimaschutz aussteigen. Aber so ist es jedenfalls unausgereift, und deswegen bitte ich die Kolleginnen und Kollegen dringend, den Änderungsantrag 144 zu unterstützen. Dieser hat im Industrieausschuss auch die Unterstützung von Sozialdemokraten und von Liberalen gefunden. Also scheint er doch ganz vernünftig zu sein. Wenn wir da morgen eine Zustimmung haben, dann wird es eine breite Mehrheit für den Bericht geben und dann können wir alle zufrieden sein.
                  

Miriam Dalli (S&D). – L-ekonomija Ewropea s'issa wriet li kapaċi tirreġistra tkabbir ekonomiku filwaqt illi tinvesti fit-teknoloġija u l-innovazzjoni biex tnaqqas t-tniġġis; u ħafna mill-industriji Ewropej dan għarfuh, imma oħrajn għandhom bżonn l-inċentiv regolatorju biex jagħmlu dan il-pass b'mod effettiv.
                  

                     L-ekonomija Ewropea trid tkun ibbażata fuq industrija mħaddma b'teknoloġija nadifa fejn min iniġġes jagħmel tajjeb għat-tniġġis li jikkawża. Fejn ikun hemm stabilità u prevedibilità għal setturi differenti għaliex huwa biss b'dan il-mod li jista' jkollna setturi industrijali li jibqgħu kompetittivi u joħolqu aktar impjiegi.
                  

                     Il-qbil li lħaqna, b'maġġoranza kbira fil-Kumitat tal-Ambjent, jirrifletti l-ftehim fuq soluzzjoni progressiva u bilanċjata li tista' tibda tgħin l-ambjent u l-industrija. Ftehim delikat fejn ħaġa waħda torbot mal-oħra u fejn ċaqliq fuq kompromess jew ieħor se jkollu impatt dirett fuq il-pakkett finali. Irridu naċċertaw ruħna li ngħinu lill-industriji li jeħtieġu l-għajnuna imma ma nistgħux nibqgħu nippremjaw lil min qed jagħmel profitti kbar minn din is-sistema.
                  

                     Irridu nassiguraw sistema li tgħinna nindirizzaw il-klima. Għalhekk li ma nistgħux nappoġġaw tentattivi li qed isiru biex idgħajfu dak li qbilna dwaru diġà. Min sa ftit tax-xhur ilu insista fuq il-ħtieġa li nindirizzaw it-tibdil fil-klima u naċċertaw ruħna li l-ftehim ta' Pariġi jidħol fis-seħħ, illum għandu l-opportunità li jimplimenta l-għodda biex dan isir mingħajr ma jdgħajjef il-ftehim milħuq.
                  

                     Il-ftehim milħuq huwa bilanċ li jħares l-ambjent, il-kompetittività, il-ħolqien ta' impjiegi u rwol ewlieni fit-tranżizzjoni lejn soċjetà ‘low-carbon’ għal setturi importanti.
                  

                     Appell tal-aħħar biex naċċertaw ruħna li nivvutaw favur pożizzjoni b'saħħitha u progressiva. Jekk ser indgħajfu idejn in-negozjaturi tal-Parlament minn issa se nispiċċaw b'sistema li tfalli u li ma tilħaqx l-għanijiet li twaqqfet għaliha.
                  

Hans-Olaf Henkel (ECR). – Frau Präsidentin! Zunächst einmal möchte ich auch dem Berichterstatter Ian Duncan dafür danken, dass er sich so eingesetzt hat. Happy birthday, Ian.
                  

                     Ich möchte aber auch dem ITRE-Berichterstatter, Herrn Federley, für seinen Einsatz danken. Dass nun die Industrie gezwungen werden soll, jährlich statt 2,2 % – wie von der Kommission vorgeschlagen – 2,4 % pauschal einzusparen, muss der Rat unbedingt verhindern. Wir haben es ja gerade wieder gehört, es sind immer wieder die gleichen Abgeordneten, die hier über die Deindustrialisierung klagen und dann mit Umweltauflagen die Industrie in andere Regionen vertreiben. Es sind immer die gleichen Abgeordneten, die hier über die Arbeitslosigkeit in Europa jammern und dann über zu hohe Energiekosten ihren Beitrag dazu leisten, dass die Arbeitsplätze verschwinden.
                  

                     Aber nicht nur das, meine Damen und Herren. Es sind eben oft auch die gleichen Kollegen, die sich hier laut für einen geringeren CO2-Ausstoß in der EU einsetzen und dann leise den weltweiten CO2-Ausstoß erhöhen. Denn angesichts der Globalisierung der Wirtschaft auf der einen Seite können wir doch nicht die Globalität des Klimaproblems auf der anderen Seite ignorieren. Schon heute werden in Europa Zement, Aluminium, Keramik, Stahl und Chemieprodukte zu wesentlich umweltfreundlicheren Bedingungen hergestellt als überall woanders in der Welt. Wenn wir die Herstellung solcher Produkte durch ein kostenträchtiges Emissionshandelssystem ins Ausland treiben, dann schaden wir ja nicht nur der europäischen Industrie und nicht nur europäischen Arbeitsplätzen, sondern wir schaden auch dem weltweiten Klima.
                  

Giovanni La Via (PPE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio il relatore e tutti gli shadow rapporteur per l'impegno che hanno profuso in questo dossier. Un dossier complesso, un dossier nel quale tutti hanno collaborato per dare una visione di lungo periodo, migliorare la qualità dell'ambiente e contribuire con uno sforzo complessivo alla riduzione delle emissioni di carbonio.
                  

                     Nel complesso abbiamo raggiunto un buon compromesso. Forse c'è ancora qualcosa da correggere per far sì che qualche settore possa trovare ancora spazio in Europa di crescita ma, dall'altro lato, la linea è segnata e credo e voglio invitare tutti i gruppi politici a sostenere col voto finale, qualunque siano le piccole modifiche apportate, un grande pacchetto legislativo che ci porta sulla strada dell'accordo di Parigi per raggiungere degli obiettivi di lungo periodo, ambiziosi, che abbiamo difeso in Parlamento e che dovremo continuare a negoziare col Consiglio, indicando una strada di lungo periodo che è una strada importante, quella della progressiva decarbonizzazione della nostra economia e un ambiente migliore, nel quale vogliamo far vivere i nostri figli e i nostri discendenti.
                  

Dan Nica (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, Directiva 2003/87/CE a instituit o schemă de comercializare a certificatelor de emisii de gaze cu efect de seră în Uniune pentru a promova reducerile emisiilor de dioxid de carbon într-un mod rentabil și eficient din punct de vedere economic.
                  

                     În actuala revizuire trebuie să ținem cont și de consolidarea durabilă a industriei Uniunii în ceea ce privește riscul de relocare a emisiilor de dioxid de carbon, a investițiilor și a locurilor de muncă.
                  

                     Subliniez deci că, obiectivul directivei este acela de a realiza un nivel de reducere a emisiilor, astfel încât să nu existe relocări ale emisiilor de dioxid de carbon și ale investițiilor și a locurilor de muncă. Aș adăuga aici, care să nu crească artificial prețul energiei pentru consumatorii europeni, fie ei cetățeni, fie industria producătoare. Securitatea aprovizionării cu energie, alături de combaterea schimbărilor climatice, este un prim obiectiv politic atât european, cât și al statelor membre.
                  

                     Revizuirea ETS trebuie să asigure un echilibru între reducerea emisiilor, situația economică reală a statelor membre, nevoia de dezvoltare a industriei, inclusiv sectorul energetic și a specificităților din diferitele state membre.
                  

                     Avem nevoie de un cadru de reglementare predictibil, eficient și stabil pentru stimularea investițiilor în tehnologiile cu emisii scăzute de carbon, fără a afecta competitivitatea sectoarelor ETS și atingerea obiectivelor stabilite la Paris pentru reducerea emisiilor de dioxid de carbon.
                  

Jadwiga Wiśniewska (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! EU ETS ma znaczenie dla przyszłości. Niestety kształtuje negatywny klimat inwestycyjny w Europie, ponieważ przedsiębiorcy nie wiedzą, jaka będzie cena uprawnień i w jaki sposób będą chronieni przed konkurencją państw trzecich. A ponadto w proponowanym kształcie EU ETS pogłębi ucieczkę emisji, a tym samym utratę miejsc pracy w Unii, a także pogorszy warunki bytowe ludzi żyjących w biedniejszych państwach.
                  

                     Jednak są w tym sprawozdaniu również elementy pozytywne. Dziękuję za docenienie wagi ciepłownictwa sieciowego, o które zabiegałam.
                  

                     Niestety zdecydowanie więcej jest w sprawozdaniu elementów, z którymi zgodzić się nie mogę. Przede wszystkim z restrykcyjnym podnoszeniem wskaźników redukcji emisji, sztucznym windowaniem ceny uprawnień, majstrowaniem przy rezerwie stabilności rynku i niezrozumiałym atakiem na sektor cementu, czy też z próbą ograniczania działania mechanizmów kompensacyjnych, które Rada przewidziała dla sektora energetycznego w biedniejszych państwach członkowskich.
                  

Jerzy Buzek (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Przede wszystkim dziękuję bardzo sprawozdawcy i innym sprawozdawcom za ciężką pracę. To rzeczywiście bardzo ważne sprawozdanie. Zadecyduje nie tylko o spełnianiu naszych celów klimatycznych, ale także o tym, czy gospodarka europejska się obroni, zwłaszcza teraz, kiedy niektórzy najwięksi światowi emitenci chcą się wycofać ze zobowiązań paryskich.
                  

                     Warto wrócić do rozwiązań, które zaproponowała Komisja Przemysłu. Muszę tu bardzo mocno podkreślić niektóre z tych rozwiązań, jak na przykład niezwiększanie liniowego współczynnika redukcji emisji, czy też konieczność bezpłatnych uprawnień dla producentów cementu. Bardzo ważne jest, abyśmy ten fundusz modernizacyjny, który jest ważny dla wielu państw, pozostawili w rękach państw beneficjentów z doradztwem Europejskiego Banku Inwestycyjnego. Powtarzam raz jeszcze, jeśli chcemy naprawdę wygrać walkę ze zmianami klimatu, na ochronę klimatu potrzebujemy gospodarczej siły Europy, a więc dbajmy o gospodarczą siłę Europy.
                  

Christel Schaldemose (S&D). – Fru formand! Det er kun under et halvt år siden, at vi her i Parlamentet ratificerede Paris-aftalen. Her tog vi imod Ban Ki-moon, og vi forpligtede EU på at reducere vores emissioner med mindst 40 % fra mod 2030. Og det er så nu, at vi skal levere på de forpligtelser, vi sagde ja til. Det kan vi kun gøre, hvis vi reformerer EU's kvotehandelssystem. Vores målsætning bør være den, at det skal koste at forurene, det er den eneste måde at sikre, at virksomhederne har incitamenter til også at lave grønne investeringer. Lige nu er priserne så lave, at kvotehandelssystemet nærmest overhovedet ikke har nogen effekt. Det er ærgerligt, det er skidt for klimaet. Men det er vi ved at lave om på nu, og med det forslag, der ligger her fra Parlamentet, tager vi et rigtigt stort skridt i den rigtige retning. Der er ikke noget i dette system, der er perfekt, der er meget, der kunne være bedre, men ved at reformere kvotehandelssystemet går vi i den retning til fordel for klimaet. Vi reducerer antallet af kvoter med 2,4 %, og vi sikrer, at CO2-tilladelserne i 2021 rent faktisk kommer til at være tilpasset det faktiske emissioner, der kommer til at være i 2021. Samlet set vil det betyde, at vi får reduceret emissionerne, og at vi også sikrer, at vores industri bliver mere grøn. Det er nødvendigt, hvis vi skal levere på vores forpligtelser i henhold til Parisaftalen, det er nødvendigt, hvis vi skal sikre vort klima i fremtiden.
                  

Françoise Grossetête (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, l'accord de Paris sur le climat a eu le grand mérite d'ouvrir la voie à une prise de conscience internationale à l'égard du changement climatique, et j'espère que cela va durer.
                  

                     Nous devons donc réduire notre empreinte carbone, sans quoi les conséquences pourraient être très graves. Ce marché des quotas d'émission joue à ce titre un rôle fondamental, puisqu'il va inciter les industries les plus polluantes à innover sans cesse et à réfléchir aux moyens d'avoir une croissance ancrée dans nos territoires et respectueuse de notre environnement.
                  

                     L'industrie européenne est l'une des plus performantes au monde dans ce domaine et elle a déjà mis en œuvre des normes de plus en plus élevées. C'est pourquoi nous devons l'accompagner, parce qu'il ne faut pas la laisser s'étouffer face à la concurrence internationale et que des millions d'emplois en dépendent, et je ne peux pas consentir à laisser notre industrie en pâtir.
                  

                     Polluer plus ailleurs, ce n'est pas une option. C'est pourquoi nous devons conduire une vraie stratégie industrielle, tout en menant une diplomatie climatique active. En tout cas, moi, j'attends aussi que les États membres s'engagent dans cette voie ambitieuse.
                  

Pilar Ayuso (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario, en 2003 aprobamos la Directiva de comercio de emisiones para que las reducciones de emisiones se pudieran hacer de una forma flexible, eficiente y sin exponer nuestra industria a la competencia desleal de terceros países.
                  

                     Este tercer elemento es especialmente importante en la cuenca mediterránea, que está mucho más expuesta al tráfico marítimo y a la competencia de terceros países. Por poner ejemplos, podemos poner el cemento. Lo importante es no crear agravios comparativos entre sectores industriales por un fallo de diseño del sistema. Sé que la cuestión no es fácil, pero es necesario que existan las mismas condiciones, cargas y privilegios para sectores que tienen que competir en el mismo ámbito económico.
                  

                     La cuestión de la sobreasignación queda resuelta en el informe mediante un mecanismo más dinámico de adaptación a los niveles de producción.
                  

                     Creo que la colaboración de las comisiones ITRE y ENVI ha sido buena. Quiero felicitar al señor Duncan y, también, agradecer al señor Belet el gran esfuerzo que ha hecho dentro del Grupo PPE.
                  

Herbert Reul (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, meine Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ehrgeizig zu sein, reicht alleine manchmal nicht, man muss auch vernünftige Lösungen finden. Und ich finde, das ist mit dem Projekt durchaus ganz gut gelungen. Es ist schon eine Riesenleistung, dass wir vom Parlament die Kraft aufbringen, fünf Prozent in der freien Zuteilung zu verändern. Das wird im Rat nicht einfach werden. Aber das ist eine Auseinandersetzung, die sich lohnt und die vernünftig getragen ist.
                  

                     Weniger klug ist es, wenn man an einer Stelle ein neues Instrument einführt, das nicht geprüft ist und von dem man nicht weiß, ob es Wirkung hat, und damit einen Industriezweig trifft, der zumindest in Europa super Zahlen liefert. Es ist doch nicht klug, jemanden, der wirklich gute CO2-Zahlen liefert, wie der Zementbereich, jetzt noch zu sanktionieren, zu bestrafen. Insofern wäre meine Bitte, dass man an der Stelle wirklich nochmal korrigiert. Peter Liese hat das eben präzise beschrieben: Wir müssen versuchen, dieses Instrument, dieses marktwirtschaftliche Instrument so auszustatten, dass es funktioniert und auch der Industrie hilfreich ist.
                  

Bendt Bendtsen (PPE). – Hr. formand! (lyd mangler) … en vigtig beslutning, som kommer til afstemning på onsdag, og det er vigtigt, at Europa bevarer sin konkurrencekraft. Vi står med en bunden opgave med at reducere CO2-udledningen, og så må de bærende pragmatiske kræfter i Europa stå sammen med et klart signal om, at vi vil levere en mere bæredygtig industri og et bedre klima. Der bliver en reel pris på at forurene, og industrien får klare incitamenter til at forbedre og forny sig og får hjælp til det. Men ingen roser uden torne! At begynde at regulere shippingindustrien uden om IMO er direkte tåbeligt og skadeligt på lang sigt. Border ajustment mechanism, den er ikke forenelig med WTO, og det vil være meget skadeligt for cementindustrien – som også påpeget af andre kolleger – det håber vi, at ændringsforslaget kan rette op på.
                  

Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). – Priekšsēdētājas kundze, kolēģi! Mums ir milzu izaicinājums Eiropā. No vienas puses, mums ir svarīgi, ka attīstās Eiropas ekonomika. Tajā pašā laikā mums ir nepieciešams samazināt CO2 izmešus. Mēs labi zinām, ka ļoti bieži šie divi mērķi ir pretrunā viens otram, jo, protams, — jo lielāka mums ir ekonomiskā aktivitāte, jo kaut kur mēs kaut ko vairāk dedzinām, un tas nāk par ļaunu tieši klimatam ar CO2 izmešiem.
                  

                     Tas ir risinājums, kas ir izstrādāts emisijas tirdzniecības sistēmā. Mēs redzam, ka sistēma nav perfekta. Ja tā būtu perfekta, tad nebūtu atkal otrās reizes, kad mēs esam spiesti to mainīt. Un kas notiek, kad mēs mainām? Mēs zinām, ka ļoti daudz sanāk tādi politiski kompromisi, kuri varbūt ir, bet varbūt nav klimata interesēs un/vai ekonomikas interesēs.
                  

                     Tātad, tas mērķis ir — ko mēs vēl varētu darīt, lai gan industrija attīstītos, gan klimatam nebūtu slikti.
                  

                     Kolēģi, es saredzu tikai vienu ilgtermiņa risinājumu. Nākamreiz es aicinu Komisiju, ka tad, kad mēs atkal konstatēsim, ka ET sistēma nedara to, ko mēs gribētu, lai tā dara, nopietni izsvērt oglekļa nodokli kā iespējamu risinājumu. Vērsties prom nevis no procesa, bet uz gatavo produktu: caurspīdīgu, vienkārši pielietojamu sistēmu. Tas, kas ir vajadzīgs, ir mazāk politikas. Paldies!
                  

Interventions à la demande


Ivica Tolić (PPE). – Gospođo predsjednice, svjesni smo i suglasni o potrebi zaštite zdravog okoliša i nužnosti borbe protiv klimatskih promjena, no moramo biti svjesni nužnosti i pronalaska održivog balansa između zaštite okoliša i zaštite radnih mjesta u industriji u Europskoj uniji. Već učinjena dislokacija industrije izazvala je štetu za industrijski potencijal i zatvaranje brojnih radnih mjesta u Europskoj uniji.
                  

                     Neki amandmani u izvješću vrlo su štetni, posebno 12. i 84., za cementni sektor u Republici Hrvatskoj te bi prouzročili zatvaranje svih tvornica i gašenje 3000 radnih mjesta. I to u korist konkurentskih, trećih zemalja, na rubu Europske unije, koje jednako zagađuju europski zrak, a nemaju nikakvih ograničenja. Industrija cementa najviše je na udaru, ne samo u Hrvatskoj, nego i u drugim zemljama: Portugalu, Španjolskoj, Italiji, Grčkoj, Estoniji i Irskoj.
                  

                     Osim cementne industrije, ugrožena će biti industrija čelika jer su mjerila i standardi koje postavljamo u ovom trenutku pred industriju, tehnički nedohvativi, te bi njihovu profitabilnost doveli u pitanje.
                  

José Blanco López (S&D). – Señora presidenta, lo que hoy debatimos y esta semana votamos es la clave de bóveda del sistema de reducción de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero, de emisiones contaminantes. El RCDE debe ser un instrumento ambicioso para cumplir los objetivos de lucha contra el cambio climático; debe servir de acicate a las industrias para desarrollar tecnologías punta en reducción de emisiones; debe servir para reforzar el liderazgo europeo en la lucha contra el calentamiento global.
                  

                     Sí, todo ello es cierto. Pero nuestra obligación es promover normas que aseguren condiciones equilibradas para los sectores industriales afectados; nuestra obligación es promover la actividad económica, el empleo y la competitividad de nuestra industria, al tiempo que incentivamos su capacidad innovadora para reducir sus emisiones.
                  

                     Por lo tanto, ambición y equilibrio. Y ese, desde luego, fue el propósito de alguna de las enmiendas que yo presenté en la Comisión ITRE. Si alguna de ellas recuperamos, recuperaremos también la ambición y el equilibrio.
                  

Peter van Dalen (ECR). – Voorzitter, maar hoe moet het Europees emissiehandelssysteem er na 2020 uitzien? Wel, ik ben in ieder geval blij dat de Milieucommissie de voorstellen van de Europese Commissie heeft aangescherpt. Want het huidige voorschot aan rechten doet denken aan de melkplassen en de boterbergen van weleer en dat was eigenlijk een teken van falend Europees beleid. Die kant moet het dus niet op.
                  

                     Ook de scheepvaart kan niet langer buiten spel blijven. Ik verkies een mondiale regeling maar ik steun ook wel de stok achter de deur die nu is opgenomen in de tekst. De scheepvaartsector heeft tot 2021 de tijd om in het kader van de Internationale Maritieme Organisatie tot een wereldwijde afspraak te komen voor de reductie van CO2, maar gaat dat niet lukken, dan gaat de Europese Unie dat oppakken.
                  

                     De luchtvaart heeft in 2016 afspraken gemaakt over een wereldwijd emissiehandelssysteem dat in 2020 vrijwillig begint en in 2027 verplicht wordt. Ook hier moet Europa vooroplopen, rechten veilen en uitstoot verminderen.
                  

Νεοκλής Συλικιώτης (GUE/NGL). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, δυστυχώς, αντί να έχει πρωταρχικό στόχο την προστασία του περιβάλλοντος και την ενίσχυση της ποιότητας ζωής των ανθρώπων, το Σύστημα Εμπορίας Εκπομπών επιδιώκει, στην πραγματικότητα, την παροχή δωρεάν δικαιωμάτων στις μεγάλες βιομηχανίες, ως κίνητρο για να παραμείνουν στην Ένωση. Δεν θα στηρίξουμε λοιπόν την εμπορευματοποίηση των εκπομπών που, σε τελική ανάλυση, ευνοεί τις μεγάλες πολυεθνικές για να αυξάνουν τα κέρδη τους, παρόλο που αυτοί είναι και οι κύριοι υπαίτιοι των κλιματικών αλλαγών. Δεν θα στηρίξουμε ένα σύστημα που, όπως έχει αποδειχθεί, σε καμιά περίπτωση δεν συμβάλλει στη μείωση των εκπομπών. Ιδιαίτερα δε όταν σήμερα, εν μέσω οικονομικής κρίσης, θα έπρεπε να στηρίζονται οι μικρομεσαίες τοπικές βιομηχανίες, ιδιαίτερα στα κράτη της Νότιας Ευρώπης, που έχουν πληγεί περισσότερο από τα μνημόνια και τις πολιτικές λιτότητας. Για αυτό και καταθέσαμε συγκεκριμένη τροπολογία για προστασία της τσιμεντοβιομηχανίας που στον Νότο αποτελεί μια από τις κύριες εξαγωγικές βιομηχανίες, για να προστατεύσουμε χιλιάδες θέσεις εργασίας, προστατεύοντας ταυτόχρονα το περιβάλλον. Διότι, σε αντίθετη περίπτωση, δίνουμε πλεονέκτημα στις βιομηχανίες από τις τρίτες χώρες.
                  

Davor Škrlec (Verts/ALE). – Gospođo predsjednice, poštovane kolegice i kolege, prije četiri mjeseca smo u ovoj istoj dvorani usvojili Rezoluciju kojom smo potpisali, odnosno prihvatili, Pariški sporazum i omogućili da on stupi na snagu.
                  

                     Što nam zapravo ovaj sustav trgovanja emisijama pruža? Ako imamo jedan robustan i stabilan sustav, zapravo smo osigurali način financiranja da osiguramo tu tranziciju s prljave energije na čistu energiju. Međutim, ja bih se osvrnuo sada na posljedice, odnosno na modernizacijski fond, koji treba omogućiti da se ta tranzicija i dogodi.
                  

                     Tu bih skrenuo pažnju našem cijenjenom povjereniku Cañeteu na ono što se zapravo događa u Europskoj uniji. Dakle, svi moramo na jednaki način sudjelovati u smanjenju emisija CO2, bez obzira u kojoj državi članici živimo. Međutim, ako idemo gledati nerazvijene države članice u istočnoj i jugoistočnoj Europi, kapitalne investicije u čistu tehnologiju i obnovljive izvore energije su puno veće nego u drugim državama članicama. Dakle, jedan neravnopravni odnos kada govorimo o investicijama u čistu energiju.
                  

Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η πρόταση της Επιτροπής Περιβάλλοντος για μείωση των εκπομπών έως 40% μέχρι το 2030 για την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση περιλαμβάνει, μεταξύ άλλων, εξαίρεση του τσιμέντου από τον κατάλογο κινδύνου διαρροής άνθρακος, καθώς επίσης και την εγκατάσταση στο μέλλον ενός μηχανισμού αντισταθμίσεως για τους εισαγωγείς. Εάν γίνει δεκτή αυτή η πρόταση, θα υπάρξει μεγάλο πρόβλημα στον κλάδο παραγωγής και εμπορίας τσιμέντου, διότι, θεσπίζοντας αυστηρούς κανόνες μειώσεως των εκπομπών στις ανεπτυγμένες χώρες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ενώσεως, δημιουργούμε τη διαρροή άνθρακος, δηλαδή τη μετακίνηση παραγωγής σε άλλες χώρες για τις οποίες δεν ισχύουν αυτοί οι αυστηροί περιορισμοί και οι οποίες γίνονται άρα περισσότερο ανταγωνιστικές. Κάτι τέτοιο θα έχει καταστρεπτικές συνέπειες για την τσιμεντοβιομηχανία της Ευρώπης και κυρίως για εκείνη της Ελλάδος, διότι θα τεθεί σε κίνδυνο η λειτουργία τεσσάρων ή και πέντε από τα έξι εργοστάσια παραγωγής τσιμέντου στη χώρα, κάτι το οποίο δεν πρέπει να συμβεί διότι θα χαθούν πολλές χιλιάδες θέσεις εργασίας. Καταψηφίζουμε συνεπώς αυτή την πρόταση, έστω και αν αυτό στεναχωρήσει τον αγαπητό εισηγητή που έχει σήμερα τα γενέθλιά του.
                  

Angelika Niebler (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, verehrte Kolleginnen, verehrte Kollegen! Zunächst auch ein Happy Birthday an Ian Duncan und ein Dankeschön an ihn und alle Kolleginnen und Kollegen, die so intensiv an dem Dossier gearbeitet haben.
                  

                     Ich sage Ja zum Klimaschutz, ich sage aber auch Ja zum Erhalt unserer Arbeitsplätze in der Europäischen Union. Denn es nützt dem Klima gar nichts, wenn unsere Arbeitsplätze ins Ausland verlagert werden. Genau das aber würde drohen, wenn das Votum des Umweltausschusses zum sogenannten alternativen border adjustment im Plenum bestätigt werden wird. Diese Border-adjustment-Maßnahmen würden bestimmte Sektoren besonders hart treffen, unter anderem die Zementindustrie, die Ziegelindustrie und die Kalkindustrie. Diesen Werken droht die kostenfreie Zuteilung verlorenzugehen. Warum sollten wir gerade diese Industrien, diese Werke bestrafen und damit auch unsere Arbeitsplätze gefährden? Ich selbst habe ein Zementwerk oder mehrere Werke bei mir in der Wahlregion, wie viele andere Kollegen auch. Jedes Jahr besuche ich diese Werke und habe gesehen, was in Sachen Energieeffizienz, Prozessoptimierung und CO2-Minderung dort investiert wurde. Also: Bitte, lassen Sie uns dafür Sorge tragen, dass diese Industrien nicht abwandern!
                  

Νίκος Ανδρουλάκης (S&D). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η έκθεση αποτελεί το πρώτο βήμα για την εκπλήρωση των στόχων που συμφωνήσαμε στην COP21 στο Παρίσι, για την αντιμετώπιση της κλιματικής αλλαγής. Θέλω όμως να αναφερθώ σε ένα σημαντικό θέμα, το έτος βάσης που έχει τεθεί από την Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή για την εισαγωγή στο Ταμείο Εκσυγχρονισμού. Η προϋπόθεση συμμετοχής μιας χώρας στο εν λόγω Ταμείο είναι να βρίσκεται το ΑΕΠ της κάτω από το 60% του ευρωπαϊκού μέσου όρου το 2013. Η Ελλάδα ήταν λίγο πάνω από το 60%, ενώ από το 2014 και μετά βρίσκεται κάτω από το όριο. Η επιλογή του 2013 ως έτος υπολογισμού για ένα Ταμείο που θα αρχίσει να λειτουργεί το 2021 δεν έχει καμία λογική και είναι βαθιά άδικη. Με την τροπολογία 149 που κατέθεσα, σε συνεργασία με Έλληνες συναδέλφους ευρωβουλευτές, ζητούμε να οριστούν το 2014 και το 2015 έτη βάσης. Ένα Ταμείο, το οποίο έχει στόχο την αλληλεγγύη, δεν μπορεί να αποκλείει χώρες που βρίσκονται σε τέτοια κρίση, όπως η Ελλάδα. Για τον λόγο αυτό σας ζητώ να μας στηρίξετε. Είναι, βασικά, ζήτημα αλληλεγγύης απέναντι στην Ελλάδα.
                  

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, having had the honour of representing Parliament both in Paris and Marrakech, I am totally committed to the targets set out in Paris. I think the message has to go out loud and clear, to every single Member State and country and every sector, that there is no escape.
However, there is a difference between that and people saying we should increase ambition in Europe, especially in view of what is happening across the pond. We cannot be naive, and naivety is when we have carbon leakage leading to the loss of jobs in Europe and increased emissions worldwide. That makes no sense.
So for that reason I back my colleagues, particularly in the PPE Group and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, regarding cement. Having a different policy for one sector is not good policy making, so I hope we can adjust that.
Also I welcome the qualitative assessment being reduced to 1.2, and hopefully that can be done at Prodcom rather than NACE-4 level. We are not looking for a free pass for any sector, but every sector is entitled to sit the exam. I hope we get it right and that we then have a strong position for trilogues.

Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Elnök Asszony, ebben a mai vitában számos képviselő aggodalmát fejezte ki bizonyos iparágak, különösen a cementipar kapcsán. Jómagam azon a véleményen vagyok, hogy bár igazak azok az érvek, amelyek itt kollégák által felsoroltattak, azonban azt is látni kell, hogy ez az iparág tulajdonképpen még azért borzasztó nagy csökkentési, szén-dioxid-csökkentési potenciállal rendelkezik. Ennek értelmében én igazából azokat a törekvéseket szeretném támogatni, és a jelentésnek ezeket a részeit tekintem nagy értéknek, amelyek elsősorban a technológiai fejlesztésre hívják fel a figyelmet. Meggyőződésem, hogy a versenyképességünk, az nem a technológiai bezárkózásban, a meglévő technológiák konzerválásában, hanem az újdonságokban vannak, így nem lesz kiszolgáltatva Európa sem a világ többi részének.
                  

(Fin des interventions à la demande)


Miguel Arias Cañete,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would first like to thank all the MEPs who spoke in this debate, raising issues that are important not only for European climate policy broadly but also for our citizens and businesses.
Forging agreements on the different aspects of the European Union's Emissions Trading System (ETS) ambition has been a very challenging task. I therefore reiterate my gratitude to Ian Duncan and Fredrick Federley, as well as to the Chairs of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, Jerzy Buzek, and Adina-Ioana Vălean, for all the efforts they made to deliver this excellent and ambitious report.
But all the work done may become meaningless if, on Wednesday, Parliament is unable to give ample support to this report. We need a very strong position from Parliament in order to start inter-institutional negotiations with the Council. I am confident that, in view of all the challenges facing us in climate policy, there will be in this House the same degree of responsibility and spirit of compromise that we found in Paris in December 2015. That is what European citizens expect from all of us.

Ian Duncan,
rapporteur. – Madam President, thank you very much to everyone who has taken part in the debate today. I can think of nowhere I would rather be for my birthday than right here, right now.
I know that I have not made everyone happy but I think I have shared a little bit of unhappiness across the whole spectrum, and that will be the challenge for all of us – recognising that we have to take a little bit of unhappiness.
Let me make a few points which are worth making. The Emissions Trading System (ETS) is not working well right now: that is the first point. The second point: Paris changes everything. The third point: we need to offer to our industry sensible protection but we must expect from them sensible efforts as well. It is also important that this is a stepping stone to a serious trilogue.
I was trying to think of a way of combining all of these points with regard to their urgency. I too was in Marrakech for the climate change talks. By the middle of the week I had clearly eaten something which I found a little bit unsettling. Halfway between the conference centre and my hotel I was faced with a serious choice: I could try and go backwards and hope that I made it in time or I could try to go forwards to get to my hotel and try to make sure that I got there without soiling myself. In fact, that is what we have before us right now. The real challenge is to get to our hotel and get to that lavatory because we have got to avoid making a mess. The real danger we have tonight is if we are not able to find that compromise, then we will make a mess. It is time now to move forward. There is a compromise on the table and we have got to get there.
Thank you for your contributions. Thank you for joining me for my birthday, and let us get the deal done.

La Présidente. – Le débat est clos.
                  

                     Le vote aura lieu mercredi 15 février 2017.
                  


Déclarations écrites (article 162)



Λευτέρης Χριστοφόρου (PPE),
γραπτώς. – Αναμφίβολα στηρίζουμε τις πολιτικές για την κλιματική αλλαγή που υιοθετήθηκαν με τη Συμφωνία των Παρισίων και θεωρούμε ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση μπορεί να συμβάλει τα μέγιστα προς την κατεύθυνση αυτή. Ταυτόχρονα όμως, θεωρούμε ιδιαίτερα σημαντικό να υπάρξει μία ισόρροπη προσέγγιση του ζητήματος, ούτως ώστε η προσπάθεια για περιορισμό των αερίων του θερμοκηπίου και των επιβαρύνσεων στο περιβάλλον να συνοδεύεται και με τη προστασία του δευτερογενούς τομέα παραγωγής, της βιομηχανίας και των μικρομεσαίων Επιχειρήσεων. Υπήρξε λοιπόν η αναγκαιότητα να προστατευθεί τόσο η ανταγωνιστικότητα και βιωσιμότητα των ευρωπαϊκών επιχειρήσεων όσο και οι πολύτιμες θέσεις εργασίας. Προς το σκοπό αυτό, στηρίξαμε τις τροποποιήσεις που ήταν προς την ορθή κατεύθυνση και διασφάλιζαν την ανταγωνιστικότητα των τσιμεντοβιομηχανιών των μεσογειακών χωρών.
                  

Adam Gierek (S&D),
na piśmie. – Zanim zaczniemy mówić o jakiejś reformie tego unijnego pseudo-rynkowego systemu ETS, powinniśmy przeprowadzić szczegółową analizę tego, co dał dotychczasowy system. Takiej analizy brak. Ten bardzo krytykowany system jest niesprawiedliwy w stosunku do krajów ‘gorzej postawionych ekonomicznie’. Nierówno bowiem obciąża obywateli państw członkowskich. Rodzą się następujące pytania: 1. Czemu system ETS nie jest wewnętrznie spójny? Dlaczego nie dotyczy efektywności energetycznej i udziału OZE? 2. Czemu system ten jest tak jednostronnie restrykcyjny i nie uwzględnia możliwości zarabiania dzięki wyłapywaniu i absorpcji CO2? 3. Dlaczego nie uwzględnia strategii grzania i chłodzenia, jako najefektywniejszego sposobu ograniczania emisji CO2? 4. Czy nie powinniśmy ustalić poziomów odniesienia emisji, tzw. benchmarków, na poziomie krajowym? Potrzebujemy dyskusji o charakterze fundamentalnym. Jest to problem dla przemysłu wielu krajów członkowskich, dla których obecne propozycje Komisji mogą stanowić hamletowski dylemat ‘być albo nie być’. Nie spieszmy się ze stosowaniem systemu, który dotychczas się nie sprawdził.
                  

Maria Grapini (S&D),
în scris. – Rentabilizarea reducerii emisiilor prin sporirea investițiilor este obiectivul modificării directivei. Este important să creăm un echilibru între țintele propuse pentru emisii și posibilitățile de investiții pentru a nu periclita locurile de muncă. Statele membre au pe agendă securitatea aprovizionării cu energie electrică. Împiedicarea statelor membre să-și susțină mixul de generare pe care îl preferă ar fi împotriva spiritului UE. Consider că este necesară simplificarea guvernanței Fondului de Modernizare care ar trebui să fie, în primul rând, controlat de statele membre beneficiare conform avizului ITRE. Scăderea accelerată a certificatelor poate afecta securitatea energetică în UE. Scopul modificării Directivei este de a reduce emisiile, nu de a stabili un preț mai ridicat al emisiilor. Să nu uităm de produsele altor continente, care sunt mult mai poluatoare decât Europa, și de faptul că putem dezindustrializa și mai mult Europa.
                  

András Gyürk (PPE),
írásban. – Az európai klímapolitika sikere mindannyiunk közös érdeke. Ahogyan a légszennyezés sem áll meg a határokon, úgy mi sem vagyunk képesek egyénileg megbirkózni ezzel a problémával, összefogásra és közös megoldásra van szükség. Ebben a küzdelemben azonban mindvégig óvatosnak kell lennünk, annak érdekében, hogy egy valóban sikeres átalakítást hajtsunk végre, az európai gazdaság védelme és az európai munkahelyek megtartása mellett. Ennek szellemében fogalmazódott meg a Modernizációs Alap koncepciója, melynek értelmében azok a tagállamok, amelyek a legtöbb pluszköltségnek lesznek kitéve az új szabályozás miatt, jogosultakká válnak a kvótaértékesítésekből befolyó összeg egy részére, melyet elavult eszközeik fejlesztésére és modernizációjára fordíthatnak.
                  

                     Véleményem szerint az ENVI szakbizottságban megfogalmazott, a Modernizációs Alapra vonatkozó igazgatási struktúra átláthatatlan és veszélyes. Egy alaposan előkészített kritériumrendszer megfelelően képes érvényesíteni a közös elvárásokat, felesleges a túlbonyolított igazgatási struktúra. A szubszidiaritás elvét sérti, és további feszültségeket okoz továbbá, hogy a projektek elbírálásánál nem érintett feleket bízunk meg, ezáltal eltávolítva egymástól a döntést és a megvalósítást. Kérem tisztelt képviselőtársaimat, hogy mindezek szellemében támogassák a Modernizációs Alap átláthatóságát és hatékonyságát javító módosító indítványunkat.
                  

György Hölvényi (PPE),
írásban. – Az európai ipari létesítmények kibocsátási jogosultságait szabályozó ETS-irányelv másfél éve húzódó parlamenti tárgyalásait heves viták kísérték. Az európai emisszió-kereskedelmi rendszer reformjának egyik fontos eleme ugyanis a Párizsi Klímamegállapodásból fakadó uniós kötelezettségek megosztásának szabályozása, az ambíciószint fokozása, ami tovább növelheti az alacsony kibocsátású technológiák elterjedését és a szénmentes gazdaságra való átállást Európában. A környezetvédelmi célok elérésének biztosítása mellett a tárgyalások során azonban végig figyelemmel kell lenni a termelői szektor jogos érdekeire is, hiszen az energiaintenzív ágazatok elüldözésével Európa versenyhátrányba kerülhet. Fontos azt is elkerülni, hogy az európai ipari szektor egyes szereplőit aránytalan terhekkel sújtsák, míg másokat jogosulatlan előnyökhöz juttassanak.
                  

                     Remélem, hogy a plenáris szavazással sikerül a jelentést a megfelelő irányba terelni és a fenti szempontokat megfelelően tükröző, kiegyensúlyozott parlamenti mandátumot elfogadni a trialógusok előtt. Végül fontosnak tartom hangsúlyozni, hogy a környezetvédelmi bizottsági szöveg Modernizációs Alappal kapcsolatos része súlyosan korlátozza a kedvezményezett közép- és kelet-európai országok döntési szabadságát. A jelentéstervezet nem felel meg a 2014. októberi európai tanácsi következtetésekben elfogadott politikai megállapodásnak, ezért képviselőtársaimmal együtt egyéni módosító indítványt terjesztettünk elő, hogy a Modernizációs Alap irányítási struktúrája megfelelően tükrözze a kedvezményezett tagállamok érdekeit.
                  

Андрей Ковачев (PPE),
в писмена форма. – Политиките по климата трябва да вървят ръка за ръка със запазването на съществуващите и създаването на нови работни места. Затова е изключително важно да постигнем правилния баланс в изпълнението на целите за намаление на емисиите и да запазим конкурентоспособността на индустрията.
                  

                     Секторите, които са изложени на най-висок риск от ‘изтичане на въглерод’ и преместване на бизнеса в трети страни, трябва да получават достатъчно безплатни квоти, за да се предотврати закриването на работни места и негативния ефект върху икономиката. Смятам също така, че трябва правилата да бъдат опростени за малките предприятия, които емитират малки количества парникови газове, за да бъде намалена административната тежест спрямо тях.
                  

                     Смятам, че е важно страните с по-нисък брутен вътрешен продукт да бъдат подпомагани финансово, за да модернизират енергийните системи и да подобрят енергийната си ефективност. Трябва тези стимули да се предоставят чрез ясни и максимално опростени процедури, които да дават свобода на държавите членки да определят проектите, които да получат финансиране.
                  

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D). – The emissions trading system (ETS) is the principal instrument for lowering emissions in the sectors that it covers. The ETS has continuously been enhanced to tackle the changing environmental and economic realities. The current reform is vital for meeting the ambitious targets set in the Paris Agreement and enhancing the effectiveness of the ETS in long-term. Parliament must set a clear path towards successful negotiations with the Council whilst maintaining the balanced approach between industrial competitiveness and climate goals.

Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE),
în scris. – Noua propunere a Comisiei privind schema EU ETS este necesară, întrucât această reformă trebuie să ofere o anumită certitudine industriei și investitorilor din Europa de Est prin stabilirea regulilor în perioada de după 2021. Este și o oportunitate pentru a spori eficiența energetică și a sprijini acțiunile climatice.
                  

                     Nu vrem ca economia europeană să se confrunte cu o relocare a industriilor energo-intensive în țări terțe. Alocarea cu titlu gratuit a certificatelor verzi este esențială pentru industriile de pe lista de risc de relocare a emisiilor de carbon. Flexibilitatea în ceea ce privește numărul de cote gratuite, față de cotele licitate, este foarte importantă pentru durabilitatea EU ETS pe termen lung.
                  

                     Comisia trebuie să țină cont, în utilizarea fondului pentru inovare, de industriile care fac eforturi pentru a investi în tehnologii noi, în scopul de a găsi modalități inovatoare pentru viitor. Fondul de modernizare este binevenit și acesta trebuie să poată fi reglementat de statul membru beneficiar și luând în considerare circumstanțele naționale.
                  

                     Aviația, transportul rutier, deșeurile agricole și clădirile ar trebui să continue să fie sectoare non-ETS. Statele membre trebuie să aibă cadrul necesar pentru a-și stabili propriile obiective climatice naționale, ținând cont de condițiile producției energetice specifice fiecărui stat membru.
                  

Владимир Уручев (PPE),
в писмена форма. – Уважаеми колеги, ние всички сме убедени, че схемата за търговия на емисии трябва да бъде коригирана за следващия период след 2020 г., за да стане по-ефективна в постигането на целите от Парижкото споразумение. Но не трябва да забравяме, че въвеждането на твърде големи ограничения върху европейските енергоинтензивни индустрии ще доведе до тяхното изместване в страни с по-ниски изисквания, до загуба на работни места и приходи, но не и намаляване на емисиите в глобален мащаб.
                  

                     Нека отчитаме факта, че ЕС допринася само за 10% от глобалните емисии на CO2 и дали ще ги намалим на 7% или 6% до 2030 г. няма да реши глобалния проблем, но би могло да нанесем непоправими вреди на собствената си икономика. Поради това не е оправдано да приемаме фактори и коефициенти за намаляване на емисиите, които застрашават съществуването на определени сектори в европейската индустрия. Затова приветствам връщането на текстове от становището на комисията ITRЕ, които са значително по-балансирани и в много по-висока степен защитават изложените на риск сектори и подсектори на нашата промишленост. Безусловно поддържам облекченията за страните с по-нисък брутен вътрешен продукт да получават безплатни квоти за емисии, но нека не въвеждаме такива условия за ползване на тази помощ, които да я направят на практика неработеща.
                  
14.   Annual report on EU competition policy (debate)

La Présidente. – L'ordre du jour appelle le débat sur le rapport de Tibor Szanyi, au nom de la commission des affaires économiques et monétaires, sur la politique de concurrence de l'Union européenne (2016/2100(INI)) (A8-0001/2017).
               

Tibor Szanyi,
előadó. – Nagyon szépen köszönöm a szót, tisztelt Elnök Asszony, és egyben köszönöm az árnyék-jelentéstevők munkáját és együttműködését is. Megítélésem szerint ezúttal sikerült egy átfogó, igen tartalmas jelentést létrehoznunk, amely kiválóan egészíti ki az Európai Bizottság anyagát, számos javaslatot, észrevételt is megfogalmazva feléjük. A jelentés megerősíti az európai uniós versenypolitika szerepét mint nélkülözhetetlen eszközt az erős és hatékony belső piac létrehozásához, valamint a gazdasági növekedés, az innováció, az erőforrás-hatékonyság és az európai szociális piacgazdaság szempontjából is alapvető politikát. Európa jövője ezen elemeken alapul, ehhez pedig kritikus fontosságú az egyenlő versenyfeltételek garantálása.
               

                  A számos témát taglaló jelentésben kettő, éspedig fejezeteken átívelő pont is megjelenik. Az egyik a szociális dimenzió, mivel fontosnak tartottuk emlékeztetni a tagállamokat, hogy milyen mértékű pozitív hatást gyakorolhatnak a szigorúan betartott, de szociális szempontokat is figyelembe vevő versenypolitikai szabályok az európai polgárok, fogyasztók, munkavállalók, vállalkozások életére. A másik az adóigazságosság témája. Megerősítjük elkötelezettségünket az adóigazságosság mellett, amely elengedhetetlen az európai egységes belső piac integritásához, és nyomatékosítjuk, hogy minden piaci szereplőnek meg kell fizetnie az adóból rá eső részt, mégpedig ott, ahol az a nyereség keletkezett.
               

                  A jelentés elismeri, hogy véget kell vetni a tagállamok által folytatott tisztességtelen adóversenynek, továbbá az agresszív adótervezésnek, az illegális adóoptimalizációnak és szelektív adókedvezményeknek, amelyek ellehetetlenítik az innováció fő forrásait, a kis- és közepes vállalkozásokat. Örülök, hogy ilyen fontos része lett a jelentésnek az adóigazságosságra való törekvés, mivel ez alapvető feltétele a tisztességes versenykörnyezetnek. Ezen túl az adóügyi konvergenciát is szorgalmazza a szöveg, hiszen az is jelentősen erősítené az Unió gazdasági kohézióját és versenyképességét. Az adóügyi kérdéseken túlmenően kiemelten foglalkozunk a digitális egységes piaccal is. Aláhúzzuk a kis- és középvállalkozások szerepét is a digitális egységes piacon, a jelentés éppen ezért méltányolja a Bizottság vizsgálatait az internetes és távközlési óriások által alkalmazott versenykorlátozó gyakorlatokkal kapcsolatban.
               

                  A digitális egységes piac kapcsán fontosnak tartottam kiemelni a megosztáson alapuló gazdasági vállalkozások kérdését. Már jó pár éve létezik ez a gazdasági modell és számos innovatív terméket és szolgáltatást kínál az uniós fogyasztók számára. Nem egyszerű a Bizottság helyzete, amikor nem azonos szolgáltatásokat sokan azonossá kívánnak összemosni. És bár mind tudjuk, de a példa kedvéért megemlítem, hogy az Uber nem taxi, az Airbnb pedig nem hotel. Ezek ugyanis platformok, amelyeknek azonban ugyanúgy kellene adót fizetniük, mint az őket igénybe vevő szolgáltatóknak.
               

                  A jelentés emellett felszólal a hálózatsemlegesség kiemelkedő fontossága mellett, valamint megerősíti, hogy bár nagyon fontos lépés, de a barangolási díjak EU-n belüli felszámolása nem elegendő: az EU-n belüli hívásokat ugyanazon a szinten kell szabályozni, mint a helyi hívásokat. Éppen ezért jelentésünk felhívja a Bizottságot, hogy terjesszen elő jogalkotási javaslatot az EU-n belüli hívások szabályozására. Az állami támogatásokat illetően a jelentés hangsúlyozza a tagállamok fokozott felelősségét a Bizottság felé az előzetes értesítés nélkül nyújtott támogatásokért. Ezen túl nyomatékosítjuk, hogy a pénzügyi ágazatban nyújtott ideiglenes állami támogatásokra a globális pénzügyi rendszer stabilizálásához volt szükség, ám azt mielőbb csökkenteni kell, vagy teljes mértékig fel kell számolni és ellenőrizni kell, amint a bankunió teljesül.
               

                  Lényegesnek tartok továbbá aláhúzni néhány további pontot is a jelentésben. A közbeszerzési eljárásoknál tapasztalható korrupció súlyos piactorzító hatással bír az európai versenyképességre nézve. Az energetikai és környezetvédelmi beruházások kapcsán ezek kifejezetten károsak lehetnek és negatívan hathatnak az energiaunió megfelelő működésére, valamint az Unió környezetvédelmi célkitűzésinek elérésére. Ennek megfelelően szorgalmazzuk a jelentésben, hogy az energetikai és környezetvédelmi beruházásokhoz kapcsolódó valamennyi állami támogatást és a közbeszerezési eljárásokkal kapcsolatos minden szabálytalanságot – például a magyar Paksi Atomerőmű vitatott bővítési projektjét – szigorúan nyomon kell követni és mélyrehatóan kell vizsgálni.
               

                  A jelentés ezenkívül tárgyalja a közlekedési infrastruktúra fontosságát, és foglalkozik a fogyasztók, a termelők érdekeivel, így hangsúlyosan tekintetbe veszi az agri-food ágazat speciális helyzetét is, valamint komoly figyelmet fordít a nemzeti versenyhatóságok közötti fokozottabb együttműködésre. Úgy gondolom tehát, hogy a szöveg a lehetőségek szerint a lehető legszélesebb körben mutat rá a versenypolitika kapcsán felmerülő hiányosságokra, még felmerülő hiányosságokra a tagállamokban és az Unióban egyaránt. Meg vagyok győződve arról, hogy az ajánlások és felhívások mentén a tagállamok jelentősen előmozdíthatják a gazdasági növekedést, a minőségi munkahelyek létrehozását, az innovációt, a kis- és középvállalkozások fejlesztését és az adóigazságosságot.
               

Margrethe Vestager,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank the House very much for inviting me here today and I would especially like to thank Mr Szanyi for his draft report. I think it sums up very well why competition matters.
As it says, competition policy is the cornerstone of the single market. It should make it work. State-aid rules give every company a fair chance to compete, and anti-trust and merger rules make sure that the markets serve the public, not just big companies. Last year we found that four truck companies, well actually five truck makers, which together sold nine out of every ten medium and heavy trucks in Europe, had colluded for 14 years to raise gross list prices and delay the launch of green technology.
This sort of cartel can make a lot of money for the companies involved. It is their customers who pay the price. So it takes firm action to make sure that companies have nothing to gain by breaking the rules. That is why we fined those five companies, five businesses, nearly EUR 3 billion, the largest cartel fine in the Commission's history. Meanwhile, our case is continuing against a sixth company that would not settle.
But enforcing these rules throughout Europe has to be a team effort, involve national competition authorities as well as the Commission and that can only be effective if everyone has the powers that they need. So I fully agree with your recommendation that we should propose EU legislation to make sure that they have the right powers. We have had the same message from our consultations and our impact assessment. So we are now working on a proposal that I hope to be able to present before summer and I firmly expect that we can fully involve Parliament.
As well as anti-trust cases we deal with mergers that are reshaping global industries, like the one that will now reduce the six biggest producers of seeds and pesticides to just three. These transactions can affect each and every one of us because seeds and pesticides, crop protection, they are the beginning of the food chain. It is important that this sector continues to develop new products that correspond to the regulatory requirements in Europe and that they will sell these products at competitive prices. It is important for farmers, for the consumer and obviously for the environment. That is why my services are looking into these mergers in great detail. Each of them will be assessed on their own merits and will only be allowed to proceed if they do not impose any impediment to effective competition.
When it comes to state aids our cases on tax rulings show that no company, however big and powerful, can avoid paying its fair share of taxes. I fully share the approach in your draft report. We have taken four final decisions, so far, that deal with illegal state aid through tax rulings. Of course, these decisions are based on the evidence and the rule of law. And we have taken forward more cases involving Amazon, McDonald's and Engie in exactly the same spirit.
At the same time we will continue our investigation into tax rulings in every Member State. And we are always ready to work with Member States to make sure that state aid does not come up in the future. It is good to see that Luxembourg has brought in much stricter rules on the taxation of financing companies. We were happy to discuss that with the national authorities and we are happy to do that with anyone that wants to.
When it comes to banks our state-aid rules are there to support troubled banks when it comes to the same terms throughout Europe. We apply the same rules, in the same way, to every bank, in every Member State. Now European banks are far more stable than they were a decade ago. But in spite of the improvements some banks in Europe are still struggling to deal with non-performing loans from defaulting borrowers and the Commission is working with those Member States and banks where non-performing loans remain to help banks gradually reduce them. European banks need to put the legacy of the crisis firmly behind them.
Last but not least, renewable energy is important – just thinking about the debate you have just had. Competition can help us bring down the cost of our transition. Since the start of this year all new support for large renewable plants has had to be given through a tender. Pilot tenders have already shown how much we could save. In Germany tenders have brought down the price of supporting solar energy by 25% in the last year and a half.
Meanwhile the sector inquiry report on capacity mechanism, which we published in November, will help Member States to keep down costs on making sure that there is electricity when demand needs it.
If the costs of funding renewable energy would make an energy intensive sector like the steel sector uncompetitive, well, state-aid rules do not stop a Member State compensating that part of the cost, because the competition rules are here to support European competitiveness, not to undermine it. An open single market with fair competition, well, that helped to cut the cost of input and it helped businesses to grow big enough to compete throughout the world and this is what we want to see and to do. And through our free trade agreements, including the agreement with Canada, we are encouraging countries around the world to reduce subsidies and to use subsidies more responsibly because competition works.
This is the message of our enforcement work and I think it is also the message of your report. I welcome it and I am very happy for the support. Because the Commission will keep working to enforce the competition rules, taking forward the three Google cases and continuing to work on the case against Gazprom so consumers and businesses do not pay inflated prices for gas. We will use all our powers to make sure that the single market remains open and fair and in that, of course, we need to work together. Thank you very much for your draft report.

Adam Szejnfeld,
autor projektu opinii Komisji Handlu Zagranicznego. Pani Przewodnicząca! Mówimy o przeszłości, ale musimy odnosić się do przyszłości. I tu trzeba pamiętać, że nie ma wolnego rynku, nie ma dobrego rozwoju bez uczciwej konkurencji. Ta jednak jest zakłócana przez bardzo wiele niekorzystnych czynników. Można tutaj wskazać na partykularyzmy, lokalne, regionalne, lecz również krajowe – one godzą także w nasz wspólny jednolity rynek.
               

                  Kolejnym zagadnieniem jest pomoc publiczna. Nierówne traktowanie firm prywatnych i firm państwowych czy tych z udziałem skarbu państwa, funkcjonowanie monopoli naturalnych, na przykład w zakresie usług komunalnych, sektory wrażliwe – przede wszystkim energetyka, transport, telekomunikacja, zamówienia publiczne, usługi finansowe – i w końcu handel międzynarodowy. Jest to odrębne zagadnienie, ale bardzo istotne, ponieważ nasze zasady dotyczące uczciwej konkurencji powinniśmy i musimy przenosić także na naszych partnerów handlowych i inwestycyjnych na świecie.
               

Andreas Schwab,
Verfasser der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Ausschusses für Binnenmarkt und Verbraucherschutz. – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Frau Kommissarin! Zunächst einmal möchte ich – wie es hier guter Brauch ist – dem Berichterstatter und unserem Schattenberichterstatter, Fulvio Martusciello, danken.
               

                  In einer Minute werde ich jetzt auch nicht alle Themen, die im Bericht sehr gut und konsensorientiert untergebracht wurden, neu erwähnen können. Ich glaube, dass bei all der guten Arbeit, die die Kommission leistet, einfach ein ganz großer Unterschied darin besteht, dass wir zum einen die Fälle in ganz klassischen analogen Binnenmarkt haben, bei denen die Arbeit ganz klassisch wie immer erfolgreich vorangeführt werden kann, dass wir uns aber einfach, und dass Sie sich, Frau Kommissarin, mit der Frage beschäftigen müssen, was wir in Märkten tun können, die sich einfach so schnell entwickeln, dass die Entscheidungen, wenn sie Jahre später getroffen werden, nicht mehr das zurückholen können, was an Wettbewerbsverzerrung, an zu Unrecht vollzogener Wettbewerbsverzerrung entstanden ist. Das ist eine schwierige Frage, bei der wir, wenn es um die Haushaltsaufstellung im Europäischen Parlament geht, auch immer wieder darüber nachdenken, ob wir nicht mehr Mitarbeiter bei der GD Wettbewerb brauchen. Ich finde, diese Frage stellt sich heute wieder.
               

                  Zum Zweiten, Frau Kommissarin, möchte ich erneut Ihre Aufmerksamkeit auf ein Problem aus dem Wettbewerbsbericht lenken, das den Tourismus betrifft, wo wir einfach staatliche Autoritäten haben, die mit öffentlichen Mitteln finanziert werden, wo es aber Schwierigkeiten mit dem beihilferechtlichen Regime gibt. Hier wäre ich Ihnen dankbar für eine Prüfung.
               

Michel Dantin,
rapporteur pour avis de la commission de l'agriculture et du développement rural. – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, le rapport sur l'application du droit de la concurrence, élaboré par notre collègue Tibor Szanyi, est un rapport important et je veux le remercier de sa collaboration à nos travaux.
               

                  Ce rapport constitue un précédent car c'est la première fois que la commission de l'agriculture et du développement rural s'exprime sur ce sujet. Il crée d'autant plus un précédent que l'avis de la commission de l'agriculture et du développement rural a été très largement repris par la commission des affaires économiques et monétaires.
               

                  Madame la Commissaire, la situation actuelle de crise sur les marchés agricoles et de volatilité accrue des prix nous oblige aujourd'hui à faire des propositions ambitieuses pour adapter le droit de la concurrence au marché agricole.
               

                  Encore sur le terrain la semaine dernière, je veux témoigner que le monde agricole attend des réponses concrètes et rapides de notre part sur le rééquilibrage des rapports au sein de la chaîne alimentaire. Nous devons donc avoir le courage de mener ce débat sur le droit de la concurrence dans le secteur agricole sans populisme mais également sans idéologie.
               

                  Votre venue, le 28 février prochain, devant la commission de l'agriculture et du développement rural, avec le commissaire Hogan, sera l'occasion d'approfondir ce sujet et je suis à votre disposition dans cette perspective.
               

Fulvio Martusciello,
a nome del gruppo PPE. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, lei deve comprendere che esistono troppi strumenti che falsano la concorrenza in Europa e basta leggere questo dossier per comprenderlo. Questo dossier, che è partito dalla Commissione con poche pagine, arriva in quest'Aula con oltre 30 pagine. In ogni articolo, in ogni punto di questo dossier c'è un elemento che deve far riflettere la Commissione, perché la concorrenza in Europa è falsata da tantissimi fattori. Allora noi ci auguriamo che tutte le indicazioni che vengono date alla Commissione vengano rispettate.
               

                  Mi piace ricordare che, per la prima volta, in questo dossier noi stabiliamo che il boicottaggio è uno strumento di falsificazione e di alterazione della concorrenza ed è un elemento che va sanzionato e che va ripreso. Signor Commissario, abbiamo individuato un elemento di grandissima falsificazione della concorrenza nell'individuazione e nel pagamento di pedaggi che vengono posti a carico dei contribuenti e dei cittadini per uscire dalle cinte urbane. Questo fenomeno è frequente in Italia – ad esempio sulla tangenziale di Napoli si deve pagare un euro per uscire dalla città – e lo si vuole replicare in altre tangenziali del nostro paese. Signor Commissario, consegniamo questo dossier con tutte le indicazioni e siamo certi che lei lo farà rispettare.
               

Anneliese Dodds,
on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for everything she is doing, particularly around tax justice. I would also like to thank Mr Szanyi for his excellent report and my colleagues in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs who decided to support me in calling on the Commission to investigate competition in Formula One.
Colleagues, you may think Formula One is just for petrol-headed adrenaline junkies but actually it is important for our economy as well. In ‘Motorsport Valley’, which stretches from the southeast of England into the Midlands, motorsports provide around 40 000 jobs. These are at risk. A few weeks ago, one team, Manor Racing, became the latest to collapse after administrators could not find a buyer. Smaller teams in Formula One are punished by rules that guarantee bigger teams prize money, even if they finish last. Recently the regulator of Formula One, the FIA, made a USD 79.5 million profit by selling its stake in the sport – a stake it had promised the Commission it would not take on.
We must stop the haemorrhage of jobs from this sector and keep a sport loved by 500 million fans as it should be – truly competitive.

Sander Loones,
namens de ECR-Fractie. – Voorzitter, ik wil het vanavond graag specifiek hebben over de banken. In 2008-2009 zijn er speciale staatssteunregels goedgekeurd door de Europese Commissie, die de lidstaten moeten toelaten om hun banken te redden. Dit Europees Parlement vraagt eigenlijk al zes jaar dat we die tijdelijke staatssteun volledig beëindigen. Dat is ook de logica van de nieuwe regels van de bankenunie, dat we in de toekomst kiezen voor bail-ins in plaats van bail-outs. Want wat zien we vandaag in Italië? Dat de regels eerst werden omzeild en dat ze nu zelfs gewoon worden genegeerd. En dat creëert zeer veel ergernis bij de bevolking, zeer veel kwaadheid over die bail-outs van de banken.
               

                  Maar wat zien we? Dat er in het verleden enorme winsten zijn opgebouwd en dat die terechtgekomen zijn bij de rijke bankiers, terwijl de verliezen gedragen moeten worden door de gewone mensen, door de belastingbetalers, en dat kan niet langer. Kijk, ik heb er geen probleem mee als mensen met hard werken een goede boterham verdienen, maar dan moeten zij ook de risico's en de verliezen dragen. Meer verantwoordelijkheid, dat hebben we nodig. En ik roep ook de commissaris op om daar sterk werk van te blijven maken.
               

Ramon Tremosa i Balcells,
on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, I would like to thank the Commissioner, colleagues and the rapporteur for their cooperation. This report talks about many things – airports, state aid – and asks us, as in other years, for more financial and human resources for DG Competition because there is a lot more work to be done.
But I want to focus here on the Google case because, seven years after the Commission announced allegations of antitrust violations by Google, we have a spent a lot of time on this. Certainly, EU regulatory time does not correspond to the necessity and urgency of the companies in the real economy.
I am aware, Commissioner, that a lot of time was lost by your predecessor, Mr Almunia. These years of unproductive settlements, discussions and delays in the still-ongoing investigations have left competitiveness in the online search market severely damaged. But, at a certain point, a decision has to be made one way or another. That is why, in this report, we call on the Commission to finish all Google antitrust investigations. Let me recall two recent facts. Last December, Foundem, the first complainant in the shopping case, had to close its shopping comparison website, and Yelp also closed its European businesses. This is how the behaviour of Google impacts on companies.
Ms Vestager, may I suggest to you that your provisional decision, which I hope will come in the next weeks or months, should impose a record-breaking fine on Google. You need to show companies that they cannot be rewarded for losing time because, in the last two years, Google's attitude and behaviour has caused more damage to complainant companies. When it comes to remedies, may I suggest that all companies sit down with their technological experts, together with the Commission, to try to find non-discriminating future-proofed remedies.
Thank you very much. Let me remind you that time helps monopolies and damages SMEs.

Paloma López Bermejo,
en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señora presidenta, celebro que los temas agrícolas vayan adquiriendo una relevancia central en la concepción que tiene este Parlamento de la política de competencia. Esta ha sido una prioridad de nuestro Grupo desde el principio de la legislatura: la lucha contra los oligopolios de la distribución y las comercializadoras, que obtienen jugosos beneficios a costa de la especulación alimentaria y la explotación de pequeños campesinos.
               

                  Como se señala en el informe, una supervisión más ajustada de los mercados agrícolas, con la participación de las organizaciones representativas, es necesaria para frenar el expolio del campo europeo. Valoramos positivamente las referencias a la lucha contra el dumping fiscal, la denuncia —una vez más, por iniciativa nuestra— del expolio de los preferentistas españoles, o la necesidad de luchar contra el oligopolio farmacéutico. Pero, sin embargo, creo que el informe es demasiado complaciente.
               

                  Me preocupa que, deslumbrados por la lucha contra los acuerdos fiscales —que se limitan, por el momento, a un puñado de compañías y que no han exigido responsabilidades políticas a los señores Juncker o Dijsselbloem—, estemos blanqueando la realidad de una política que, hoy como ayer, se diseñó para desregular y privatizar mercados, dejando que sean las grandes empresas, y no el sector público, las que definan el futuro de los sectores estratégicos.
               

                  El mercado único se ha convertido en una apisonadora de los derechos sociales, privatizando y desregulando ferrocarriles y puertos, abriendo el paso a operadores digitales como Airbnb o Hoover, o amparando la especulación de los grandes operadores eléctricos.
               

Michel Reimon,
im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Danke, Frau Kommissarin, für Ihren Bericht und dafür, dass Sie sich mit dem Parlament hier immer so offen auseinandersetzen. Danke auch an den Berichterstatter für diesen sehr guten Bericht und auch für die beiden Schwerpunkte, die ich nur unterstützen kann, sowohl den Steuerwettbewerb als auch die digitalen Themen. Das sind tatsächlich wichtige Bereiche, mit denen wir uns auseinandersetzen müssen.
               

                  Ich möchte noch auf drei andere Themen hinweisen. Das erste ist eine Frage, die auf uns zukommen wird, die auf Sie zukommen wird, Frau Kommissarin: der Bayer-Monsanto-Deal, der ansteht. Wenn das so passiert, entsteht der größte Saatgut- und Pflanzenschutzmittelkonzern der Welt. Dann müssen wir schnell prüfen, ob hier eine Monopolsituation entsteht, die für die Landwirtschaft, für die Bauern, für Saatgut, für die Vielfalt und nicht nur für den Wettbewerb ein großes Problem bedeutet. Ich bitte Sie, 2017 hier sehr schnell zur Prüfung zu kommen.
               

                  Der zweite Fall ist Paks, das Atomkraftwerk, bei dem immer noch nicht feststeht, ob mit den Beihilfen, mit dem Kredit, den Putin gewährt und der zurückgezahlt werden soll, das Wettbewerbsrecht verletzt wird oder nicht. Da sollten wir im gesamteuropäischen politischen Interesse möglichst schnell zu einer Entscheidung kommen.
               

                  Das dritte Thema, das mir am Herzen liegt, ist booking.com, die Buchungsplattform, die den Wettbewerb im Hotelbereich in Europa verzerrt. Da haben einzelne Nationalstaaten schon Prüfungen unternommen. Wir sollten zu einer europäischen Lösung kommen. Wie wichtig dieser digitale Bereich ist, wurde schon mehrfach angesprochen. Da sollten wir wirklich viele Ressourcen investieren.
               

Marco Zanni,
a nome del gruppo ENF. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ho letto con attenzione la relazione del relatore e ho ascoltato quello che hanno detto i colleghi oggi in Aula, che si sono concentrati su alcuni singoli problemi di singoli settori e alcuni casi riferiti alle loro nazioni. Però io credo che, ancora una volta, si sia persa l'occasione per andare al problema generale, al problema strutturale della concorrenza all'interno dell'Unione europea. All'interno di questo sistema, il termine concorrenza si traduce nella concorrenza spietata del più forte che fa le regole e le plasma secondo il proprio sistema sul più debole.
               

                  La concorrenza all'interno di questo mercato unico è fortemente distorta dalle regole e produce effetti distruttivi sulle economie dei paesi più deboli. Alcuni esempi: il primo, il più lampante è la moneta unica che crea una concorrenza distorta tra paesi che godono di un tasso di cambio effettivo svalutato e quindi, in aiuto al proprio sistema industriale, possono esportare i propri prodotti più facilmente e in maniera più conveniente, e i paesi che devono operare con un tasso di cambio reale troppo alto per la forza della propria economia.
               

                  Un altro tema dove la concorrenza è distorta è quello delle banche, sugli aiuti di Stato. Un paese come l'Italia viene criticato per la debolezza del suo sistema bancario e deve bussare e trattare con la Commissione per pochi miliardi di euro, per salvare i risparmi dei cittadini e invece, prima e dopo il 2008, paesi più grandi hanno dato centinaia di miliardi di euro per salvare i propri sistemi bancari: quattrocento miliardi la Germania tra garanzie dirette e indirette, circa 200 miliardi la Francia e il Regno Unito. Questa non è concorrenza leale.
               

                  Anche sul tema dell'unione bancaria, la concorrenza non c'è. Un sistema di regole distorsivo che premia un modello di business più rischioso, come quello dei derivati e degli asset di livello 3, che non vengono adeguatamente considerati dalla Commissione e quello dei crediti che invece vengono puniti. Se l'Unione europea andrà avanti così, la distruzione è inevitabile.
               

Ελευθέριος Συναδινός (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η πολιτική ανταγωνισμού της Ένωσης έχει πετύχει αντιπροσωπευτικά αποτελέσματα, όπως το Brexit, την υπόθεση των σκανδάλων Volkswagen, Ferrostaal, Deutsche Τelekom, Siemens και τον φορολογικό παράδεισο του Λουξεμβούργου. Πλημμύρισε την Ευρώπη με λαθρομετανάστες, με σκοπό την εξεύρεση φτηνών εργατικών χεριών, δίχως ασφαλιστικά και εργασιακά δικαιώματα. Αυτό δεν είναι Ένωση, αλλά ερασιτεχνική φάμπρικα. Κυριαρχεί ο αθέμιτος ανταγωνισμός μεταξύ των επιχειρήσεων και επιβάλλονται πολιτικές προς το συμφέρον συγκεκριμένων κρατών. Ωθεί τις μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις να μεταφέρουν την έδρα τους σε άλλα κράτη, όπως συμβαίνει με πολλές ελληνικές. Πρέπει να δημιουργηθεί ένα πλαίσιο αναπτυξιακής στήριξης των επιχειρήσεων, δίχως καταχρηστικούς όρους. Αυτό οδηγεί σε ισορροπία, ευημερία και ειρήνη. Ένα απλό παράδειγμα είναι η εφαρμογή πολιτικής χαμηλής φορολογίας των επιχειρήσεων, με ποσοστά φορολόγησης επί των κερδών και απονομή περιόδου χάριτος σε νέες ή καινοτόμες επιχειρήσεις. Όμως αυτό δεν επιτυγχάνεται από εξουσιομανείς και ιδιοτελείς πολιτικούς. Απλά, παραιτηθείτε! Υπάρχουν καλύτεροι και εντιμότεροι, ικανότεροι να αναλάβουν αυτό τον ρόλο.
               

Eva Maydell (PPE). – Madam President, I very much hope that in a few years we will be talking simply about the single market, and not about an analogue or digital single market. Since that time has not yet arrived, I would like to base my remarks on competition policy with regard to the digital single market.
Without fair competition policy there is no digital single market. Competition not only gives consumers more choice but should also provide the level playing field that is needed so that start-ups will scale up in Europe and not elsewhere. The online world is expected to create more competition in Europe. Therefore, it is crucial to improve access to goods and services, to eliminate unlawful obstacles to online competition and to ensure that online shopping is barrier free. Only then will we be able to stop the building of monopolies and prevent illegal access to content.
Ending unjustified geo-blocking practices is one concrete step in the right direction but I believe it should be done in a way that does not hamper SMEs and start-ups, and does not raise prices for consumers, especially in newer Member States. This is one of the many reasons why I believe national competition authorities should work together with the Commission. I also believe that, in order fully to guarantee competition, the principle of neutrality should be strictly followed.
Finally, in a particularly dynamic sector such as the digital economy, we need swift enforcement and competition policy rules that create a friendly business ecosystem, nourishing new business models and supporting innovation at all levels.

Alfred Sant (S&D). – Madam President, we always needed to make a crucial point regarding the Commission's annual competition report. Competition rules, especially for state aid, should not be applied on a one-size-fits-all basis – that still holds. But during this mandate the need is arising to highlight new precautionary signals.
Firstly, European competition policy should avoid the appearance of a frontal contest with other administrations via the application of huge two-way fines on a tit-for-tat basis. Secondly, applying state-aid rules to the tax policies of Member States may help to combat tax avoidance, but it overrides the tax sovereignty that Member States still have under the Treaties. The flexibility of Member States in setting their tax policies has to be confirmed. Thirdly, there should be concern about a competition policy that is administered through an agency which defines such policy, investigates alleged breaches and itself decides on them with the power to set fines. Fourthly, given the ongoing current political and economic changes in Europe and beyond, competition policy needs to be kept under constant review. If Europe is going to be more Catholic than the Pope it risks losing competitive edge on a global scale.

Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospođo predsjednice, tržišno je natjecanje jedino pravo jamstvo snage europske ekonomije i zato podržavam svaku incijativu koja želi eliminirati suvišnu regulativu i osigurati svim gospodarskim subjektima, i malima i velikima, ravnopravan položaj na tržištu. Slažem se s izvješćem u onom dijelu u kojem poziva na jednostavnu i transparentnu poreznu politiku te ističe javnu nabavu kao posebno podložnu korupciji.
               

                  No, ne mogu se složiti s pozivima na harmonizaciju poreznih stopa u cijelom EU-u jer smatram kako natjecanje ne treba postojati samo među tvrtkama, nego i među državama.
               

                  Harmonizacija poreznih stopa betonira postojeće stanje i onemogućit će slabije razvijene članice u dostizanju onih razvijenijih. Kako će npr. jedna Hrvatska, s lošijim pravosuđem i infrastrukturom te manjim brojem kvalificiranih radnika, ikad konkurirati Njemačkoj ako će imati iste porezne stope? Tko će ulagati u Hrvatsku kraj jedne Njemačke ako od toga nema financijsku korist?
               

Christel Schaldemose (S&D). – Fru formand! God aften, fru kommissær! Som du kan se i denne betænkning, så er der en bred opbakning til, at konkurrencepolitikken i EU er et meget, meget vigtigt redskab. Vi ser faktisk gerne, at der bliver tilføjet endnu flere ting. Jeg vil gerne fremhæve to ting. Jeg mener, der er behov for, at Kommissionen får flere kompetencer og flere ressourcer til at sikre, at vores konkurrencepolitik bliver gennemført på en ordentlig måde, for eksempel ved at I kan nedsætte flere faste rejsehold, taskforcer, som kan tage rundt og undersøge mistanke om unfair konkurrence, ikke kun i de store sektorer, ikke kun hvor der er stort på spil, men også hvor der er mindre sager på spil i de mindre sektorer. Konkurrencepolitikken er vigtig. Så så jeg også gerne, at vi fik set nærmere på, om vi kunne bruge forbrugerkompensationsreglerne også i konkurrencepolitikken. Der er områder, hvor der ikke kan gives kartelbøder, men hvor vi måske kan give mulighed for bedre forbrugerkompensation. For eksempel har vi set det i dieselgate, hvor forbrugerne har tabt, og der er ikke sket noget. Her kunne man måske også gøre noget for at sikre en fair konkurrence. Men under alle omstændigheder tak for en stor indsats.
               

Interventions à la demande


Angélique Delahaye (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, l'article 42 du traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne précise que les règles de concurrence s'appliquent à la production et au commerce des produits agricoles uniquement dans la mesure où le Parlement européen et le Conseil le déterminent.
               

                  En matière de concurrence, les outils de la PAC doivent primer sur les autres réglementations. Par ailleurs, je rappelle la demande formulée à plusieurs reprises par le Parlement pour la mise en place d'un cadre législatif pour lutter contre les pratiques commerciales déloyales.
               

                  Il est urgent que le droit de la concurrence ne représente plus une menace pour les agriculteurs et leurs organisations de producteurs. Cela est de la responsabilité de la Commission européenne. Quand on connaît le déséquilibre du rapport de force entre production et distribution dans la chaîne de distribution alimentaire, taxer les agriculteurs comme les endiviers de cartel est proprement inadmissible.
               

                  Il est important que le Parlement soit entendu sur cette question dans le respect de la préparation de la future politique agricole commune.
               

Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, una politica di concorrenza equa è fondamentale per il corretto funzionamento del mercato unico che, come è noto, presenta ancora criticità. Di recente la Commissione ha individuato diversi casi di multinazionali che hanno sottratto ai bilanci nazionali miliardi di euro di gettito fiscale, talvolta con la complicità degli stessi Stati membri. Questi incidenti destano allarme ed esigono un esame dettagliato dei presunti casi di aiuto di Stato e la cessazione immediata di stratagemmi fiscali pensati ad hoc.
               

                  La Commissione deve proseguire le indagini sulle prassi anticoncorrenziali nel settore digitale online e accelerare speditamente le procedure riguardanti l'azione antitrust e le questioni fiscali, in modo da garantire che le PMI e le startup digitali possano operare in una sfera di concorrenza più equilibrata e leale, all'interno di un mercato spesso condizionato dai colossi multinazionali delle tecnologie digitali. La Commissione deve porre in essere azioni incisive per la salvaguardia della concorrenza nel settore delle telecomunicazioni e delle energie per incoraggiare prezzi accessibili e scelte dei servizi.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, για να λειτουργήσει ορθά ο ανταγωνισμός στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρέπει να μην επιβάλλονται δυσμενείς όροι στην ευρωπαϊκή βιομηχανία σε σχέση με την παγκόσμια πραγματικότητα, ιδίως αναφορικά με το κόστος ενέργειας. Σε μια περίοδο που η κυβέρνηση Trump απειλεί να ακυρώσει τη συμφωνία του Παρισιού για το κλίμα και η Κίνα συνεχίζει ακατάπαυστα τη μόλυνση του περιβάλλοντος, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, όπως είδαμε στην προηγούμενη συζήτηση, αποφάσισε τη δραστική μείωση των ανθρακούχων εκπομπών. Με την απόφαση αυτή πλήττεται η ανταγωνιστικότητα της ευρωπαϊκής οικονομίας. Οδηγείται σε οικονομική αδυναμία λειτουργίας η ΔΕΗ. Κινδυνεύει με κλείσιμο ολόκληρη η ελληνική τσιμεντοβιομηχανία που απασχολεί 13.000 εργαζόμενους και πλήττεται η ελληνική ναυτιλία. Κατέθεσα λοιπόν την τροπολογία 162 στην προηγούμενη συζήτηση και ζήτησα να εξαιρεθεί και η Ελλάδα, με βάση το άρθρο 10γ της οδηγίας 2003/87/ΕΚ, από τις υποχρεώσεις του ευρωπαϊκού συστήματος εμπορίας δικαιωμάτων εκπομπών αερίων, διότι, ως έτος βάσης πρέπει να ληφθεί το 2014, όταν η Ελλάδα είχε ΑΕΠ κατώτερο του 60% της Ένωσης. Δεν μπορεί να υπάρξει ουσιαστικά πολιτική ανταγωνισμού όταν διαλύεται η ελληνική βιομηχανία και η ευρωπαϊκή βιομηχανία με όλες αυτές τις αντιλήψεις περί δήθεν προστασίας του περιβάλλοντος.
               

Igor Šoltes (Verts/ALE). – Torej konkurenčnost je eden od bistvenih elementov enotnega trga, vendar pri tej enotnosti seveda ne smemo zanemariti tudi pomembne elemente, zlasti na področju tudi delovnih razmer in delovnega prava. Ker očitno konkurenčnost postaja tudi eden od glavnih generatorjev tudi tako imenovanega prekrernega dela, ki spravlja mnoge mlade v obup in brezizhodno stanje.
               

                  Potem je tukaj še vprašanje v imenu konkurenčnosti direktive, ki jo tudi pripravlja Evropska komisija, o tako imenovanih napotitvenih delavcih, ki zopet prostavlja pod vprašaj po eni strani pravila konkurence, na drugi strani pa zaščito delovnih odnosov in pa seveda tudi socialne varnosti.
               

                  In pričakujemo seveda od Komisije, da bo ostro posegala na tiste elemente, kjer prihaja do nedovoljenih kartelov, monopolov, to, kar je kolega že posebej izpostavil. Predvsem pričakujemo, da bo tudi jasen odgovor glede Montsanta in pa Bayerja in glede drugih vprašanj s semeni, ker če to postane… (predsedujoča je prekinila govornika) potem je Evropa v težavah.
               

Olga Sehnalová (S&D). – Paní předsedající, účelem pravidel hospodářské soutěže je zajistit podnikům stejné podmínky bez ohledu na jejich velikost či marketinkové kapacity, kterými oslovují voliče. Dlouhodobě se různými aktivitami ptám, zda jsou v případě dvojí kvality výrobků naplněna očekávání spotřebitelů, a také, jak jejich rozhodování určuje značka, pod kterou je však odlišný výrobek. Věřím proto, že se Evropský parlament přihlásí k ustanovení, které opakovaně vyzývá Komisi, aby určila, zda má tato praktika negativní dopady na místní výrobce, zejména na malé a střední podniky, a zda vede k diskriminaci mezi spotřebiteli v důsledku dodávání výrobků nižší kvality.
               

                  Poprvé jsme k řádnému šetření Komisi vyzvali již před čtyřmi lety. I sama Komise po letech začíná nesměle přiznávat, že dvojí kvalita může být nekalá praktika, a tudíž v rozporu s unijní legislativou. Za naprosto neakceptovatelný proto považuji pozměňovací návrh číslo 5 skupiny PPE, který zpochybňuje dopady dvojí kvality na koncové spotřebitele, a vyzývám k jeho odmítnutí.
               

IN THE CHAIR: MAIREAD McGUINNESS


Vice-President


(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Margrethe Vestager,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to thank the honourable Members for their very substantial comments. Unfortunately I will not be able to give each and every one an individual answer.
One of the important things for me is for our rules to be an enabler. For instance, when Mr Schwab calls for tourism in state aid we will be more than happy to give guidance on where state aid is absolutely allowed, where it is no economic activity but allowing people to be acquainted with the region, to know what to do to find the businesses who do have the economic activity. That, I think, is the important thing.
I also very much look forward to the debate with the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development because I think that we can meet one other to ensure jointly that we have a very competitive sector in which we use the means of competition and, at the same time, allow for a more balanced approach in sectors where many, many small suppliers are facing very heavy-duty negotiators on the other side of the table. I look forward to addressing these issues.
Some of you have mentioned the tax issue. It is, of course, obvious that every Member State is sovereign in setting the level of their corporate taxation. If we want European tax legislation it will be through the front door, via the Council, with unanimity. In the same treaty that gives Member States the serenity to set their own tax level, we have very strong rules that say you cannot give a company, or group of companies, selective advantages. Selective advantages, paid for by taxpayers, ruin fair competition and, in particular, do not give small and medium-sized businesses a fair chance of making it in the market. Therefore, obviously, the Commission will also continue its work in relation to fiscal aid – a.k.a. tax and state aid.
Some of you have been asking about the ongoing merger control procedures in two of three mergers in seeds and pesticides, or ‘crop protection’ as they call it. We will, of course, be as firm and as insistent as always to make sure that we have competition in this sector both for seeds and for pesticides. This is the very basis of our food chain and obviously we need competition there as well, and we will thoroughly investigate these mergers, including that of Bayer and Monsanto if we are finally notified of this.
On the Google case, I very much appreciate the insistence, because these are important cases. We are dealing with fast-moving markets and, as was mentioned, we have companies which suffered while the investigation was ongoing. Therefore, we are doing our utmost to deal with the responses that we now have had to the statement of objection, and to examine them in detail to make sure that we give this company, like others, the right to defend itself, because that is important.
As was mentioned, there is, of course, also a need for checks and balances when it comes to the Commission competences in enforcing competition law, and for the Court to be able to overrule our decisions. Therefore, our work should be thorough and expert, while, of course, speed is a very important challenge for us, precisely because, as was mentioned, these are fast-moving markets.
Last but not least, we hope that the digital single market will not keep being mentioned as a separate part of the single market, but will come to be seen as a fully integrated part of the single market, because it offers a lot of choice for consumers. As you may know, we have opened three new cases in the field of digital business in order to make sure that every business has a fair chance of making it. These are in video games – part of the holiday business – and our aim is to make sure that consumers get the choice they should have.
I will leave the detailed comments for now, but I assure you that we are using our best efforts to enforce competition law, and I very much take on board the things mentioned today – in particular by the rapporteur and in terms of the draft report's recommendations for our future work.

Tibor Szanyi,
rapporteur. – Madam President, here again I must thank wholeheartedly the Commission and Commissioner Vestager, the shadow rapporteurs and of course those colleagues representing opinions in the various committees, for their contributions. Honestly, when we prepared this report it was not a fight, rather it was a spirit of cooperation which prevailed during the negotiations which means, for me at least, that common European policies do indeed have value.
But, looking at the practical nature of mankind, I think that competition is never fair. People do compete like this – look at the Olympics, or even just a simple football match where the referee needs to intervene hundreds of times during the same match – but the real question is, from the institutional point of view, what we do.
This is why I want to congratulate the Commissioner once again. She was not discouraged but stepped on such giants as Google, Uber, Bayer, Monsanto, Apple – I can give you a whole list. This courage is very much needed. On the other hand, I think that what we see now in Europe is really a bit frustrating: the big companies, or the bigger ones among them, are practically not paying tax due to various arrangements, but the small ones – sometimes they may die. So this is what we still have to consider.
I also very much welcome those comments related to agriculture because here price volatility simply kills. It is not just competition; it kills, it is lethal.
So once again, thank you very much for this opportunity, and again my wholehearted thanks to all the colleagues, and let us continue like this.

President. – The debate is closed.
The vote will be take place on Tuesday, 14 February 2017.
15.   Promoting gender equality in mental health and clinical research (short presentation)

President. – The next item is the report by Beatriz Becerra Basterrechea on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, on promoting gender equality in mental health and clinical research [2016/2096(INI)] (A8-0380/2016).

Beatriz Becerra Basterrechea,
ponente. – Señora presidenta, querida comisaria Vestager, quiero expresar mi más sincero agradecimiento a los ponentes alternativos, a sus asistentes y asesores de los grupos políticos, porque han contribuido a llevar este informe mucho más allá de lo que en un primer momento planteaba. Ha sido un gran trabajo conjunto en favor de la igualdad de derechos.
               

                  Cuando hablamos de desigualdad de género, tendemos a pensar en la sonrojante brecha salarial, en la ridícula presencia de mujeres en puestos de decisión o en la gran lacra que nos avergüenza: la violencia de género, ya sea física o psicológica. Pero pocas veces pensamos en cómo esta desigualdad afecta a nuestra vida diaria, a nuestro bienestar, a nuestra salud y en especial a la salud mental.
               

                  ¿Sabían ustedes que la investigación biomédica y los ensayos clínicos sobre medicamentos y tratamientos no tienen en cuenta que la mitad de la población somos mujeres? ¿Que no tienen en consideración las diferencias biológicas, fisiológicas y psicológicas entre hombres y mujeres, más allá de sus aparatos reproductores?
               

                  Tomé conciencia de este problema hace un tiempo cuando, en una visita a un hospital, una enfermera me contó su experiencia. El personal del hospital estaba preocupado porque no entendía por qué muchos pacientes que habían superado un ataque al corazón regresaban al hospital al cabo de un año y fallecían poco después. Las mismas condiciones higiénicas, los mismos mecanismos de seguimiento… Se habían tenido en cuenta historiales médicos, precedentes familiares y otros factores de riesgo.
               

                  Pero les llevó tiempo percatarse de que la mayoría de los enfermos que recaían y fallecían eran mujeres, porque las enfermedades cardiovasculares son más frecuentes en mujeres que en hombres y la investigación previa adolecía de ese enfoque.
               

                  En la salud mental se observa muy bien el problema. Existen diferencias de género considerables en los patrones de las enfermedades mentales, en especial las más comunes: la depresión y la ansiedad, por ejemplo, trastornos del ánimo que cualquiera de nosotros conoce de primera mano, tienen una prevalencia casi tres veces superior en mujeres que en hombres. Uno de cada diez trabajadores, por ejemplo, en la Unión Europea ha pedido una baja por depresión: eso cuesta unos 92 millones de euros al año.
               

                  La salud mental también está ligada al empleo y a la inversión.
               

                  El informe que hoy debatimos aborda sin temor estas cuestiones y otras igualmente relevantes, como los efectos devastadores y de por vida que la violencia de género tiene en la salud mental de las víctimas, como los prejuicios que aún existen sobre las personas LGBTI y que las condenan a una salud mental deteriorada o como la necesidad imperiosa de aplicar las directrices sobre protección y apoyo de la salud mental y bienestar psicosocial de los refugiados, solicitantes de asilo y migrantes en Europa.
               

                  Pero cuando hablamos de igualdad de género y salud, es imprescindible que hablemos sin ambages del aborto. La objeción de conciencia de los médicos no puede poner en riesgo la salud y la libertad de una mujer que solicita una interrupción voluntaria del embarazo. Es sencillamente inaceptable que en Italia, por ejemplo, más de un 70 % de los médicos se nieguen a practicarla hoy, a pesar de estar amparada por la ley.
               

                  Queremos asegurar que haya un número mínimo de profesionales de la salud disponibles para realizar estas intervenciones médicas, que garanticen el acceso a los servicios de salud sexual y reproductiva en todos los países de la Unión de acuerdo a los estándares legales en vigor.
               

                  La Unión Europea está obligada por sus Tratados a garantizar la protección de la salud humana como parte de todas sus políticas y a colaborar con los Estados miembros para mejorar la salud pública, prevenir las enfermedades y eliminar las fuentes de peligro para la salud física y mental.
               

                  En definitiva: es una responsabilidad jurídica y social de todos los responsables políticos integrar plenamente las necesidades específicas de las mujeres, la mitad de la población, a la hora de definir las políticas públicas de salud y de servicios del sector sanitario a escala europea y nacional.
               

Catch-the-eye procedure


Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já bych se chtěla především paní kolegyni Basterrecheaové omluvit, protože bohužel tentokrát nemohu její zprávu podpořit. Mám za to, že je v ní více ideologie než odbornosti. My bychom měli k péči o duševní zdraví a klinický výzkum přistupovat z hlediska ryze lékařského a odborného a ne z hlediska genderové ideologie.
               

                  Navíc tato zpráva rozšiřuje to pojetí o další nerelevantní skupiny a především vyzývá k dostupnosti potratů a doporučuje členským státům, aby prosadily provádění potratů bez ohledu na právo lékařů a zdravotníků rozhodovat se podle svého svědomí. Bohužel tato zpráva je velmi nešťastná a doufám, že nebude přijata.
               

Julie Ward (S&D). – Madam President, mental health and well-being are poorly understood in our societies and it is time for that to change. We actively need to break down the stigma and prejudice around mental well-being. Almost a third of Europeans will experience a mental health condition during their lifetime and we need to educate ourselves accordingly. It is clear that we need to take gender into account in mental health. Women are twice as likely to experience depression and anxiety as men as they face constant media objectification, as well as sexual violence and harassment. On the other hand, men and boys are also affected by gender stereotypes that often lead to repression of emotions. Men are three times more likely to commit suicide or develop alcohol and drug addictions.
This report is a strong call to the Commission and Member States to pursue an ambitious mental health and well-being strategy, which includes a psychosocial approach, taking into account the social, cultural and environmental factors that determine and affect mental health. It includes the impact of austerity policies, public service cuts, social inequalities, age and background. We need tailored policies to address the needs of the most vulnerable such as LGBTI women and women refugees.

Branislav Škripek (ECR). – Madam President, mental health in Europe is a vital topic and worthy of clinical research. But the rapporteur has produced a very bad report on this topic here. A large part of this report is based on fake gender ideological claims. It certainly is not scientific research; for example, recital O, which says that ‘whereas transgender identities are not pathological, but are deplorably still considered mental health disorders’, and that this is a diagnosis that causes distress to those receiving it. True scientific research should be carried out which is examined by specialists and not used for political ends. Politics should not dictate what changes are made in medical text books.
Recital R refers to ‘gender-variant prepubescent children’. What are we doing confusing our children by encouraging them to choose their sex? This is a recipe for mental health problems. It is true that suicide is a huge problem among young men especially, but the cause is not the stereotyping of the two sexes. It is in fact the culture which confuses their God-given and natural capacities and nature.

Florent Marcellesi (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, el sábado pasado las acciones en torno al Día Internacional de la Mujer y la Niña en la Ciencia pusieron en evidencia una cosa real: la desigualdad de género en la investigación. Es decir, que el patrón universal para investigar es el varón blanco y joven. Por eso, los verdes consideramos este informe imprescindible para reducir la desigualdad de género.
               

                  Pero, como miembro, también, de la Comisión de Desarrollo, me gustaría recalcar que tenemos que ir más allá, desde una perspectiva norte-sur. Primero, hace falta invertir en investigación y desarrollo a escala mundial para alcanzar una cobertura sanitaria universal. Segundo, tenemos que exigir a las empresas farmacéuticas transnacionales que respeten los derechos humanos cuando realicen ensayos clínicos. Y, tercero, tenemos que reducir la pobreza, garantizar el acceso a la educación y la protección social para terminar de una vez con la brecha de género en la salud mental.
               

Marijana Petir (PPE). – Gospođo predsjednice, žene kojima je narušeno mentalno zdravlje suočene su sa stigmatizacijom i potreban je holistički pristup kako bi im se pomoglo. Ovo izvješće daleko je izvan okvira kako same tematike tako i nadležnosti Europske unije, a pretjerano zadire i u samu struku. Zdravstvena skrb i zdravstvena politika u nadležnosti su država članica i to moramo poštivati.
               

                  To ne smijemo koristiti. I ovaj parlament također se ne bi smio koristiti za promicanje pojedine ideologije suprotne vrijednostima Europske unije. Izvješće koje promiče pobačaj kao društveno prihvatljiv i rodnu ideologiju kao ultimatum, za mene je apsolutno neprihvatljivo i neću ga podržati.
               

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Margrethe Vestager,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, I have listened very carefully to the honourable Members' views on this interesting report, promoting gender equality in mental health and clinical research. I hope that we share the very fundamental principle of equality between men and women, which was established in the treaties as one of our most important goals.
The Strategic Engagement for Gender Equality 2016-2019 is the Commission's commitment to specific measures to promote gender equality. We are particularly grateful to this House for raising awareness of the differences between men and women in the prevalence and treatment of mental disorders and health in general. As you know, the health programme explicitly provides for the mainstreaming of gender equality in all actions promoted by the programme. Thus the Commission supported Member States' cooperation on mental health with a Joint Action on Mental Health and Well-being under this programme. It resulted in a European Framework for Action on Mental Health and Well-being.
This framework addresses gender differences, highlighting for example the different prevalence of depression between men and women. A recent call under the health programme invited proposals for projects on improving access to mental health care and mental health literacy. The Commission is also organising, on behalf of the Parliament, a pilot project to improve the understanding of sex and gender differences in chronic diseases, using coronary heart disease as one example.
We fully agree with the resolution that mental health needs to be enshrined in a holistic patient-centred approach, for example addressing the impact of cancer and other major chronic diseases on patients' mental health. In relation to research and innovation, we need to do more to address the gender dimension as reflected in Horizon 2020, the EU Research and Innovation Programme and, in particular, the work programme and the health-related calls for proposals.
Over several EU research programmes the Commission has founded many research projects, specifically addressing diseases affecting women, such as breast cancer, osteoporosis and endometriosis. The Commission also founded several research projects under the Seventh Framework Programme with over EUR 5 million devoted to supporting endometriosis research, to which the report specifically refers.
We must also continue our work to eradicate all forms of gender-based violence, including female genital mutilation.
In addition, the new Clinical Trial Regulation, which will become applicable in 2018, provides that subjects participating in a clinical trial should represent a population group likely to be treated with the medical product under investigation in the trial. This includes gender, age, and, where relevant, subjects with specific needs.
A further initiative that I would like to mention here is the Horizon 2020 Birth Day Prize that was launched in 2016. The Horizon Birth Day Prize will be awarded to a solution that best demonstrates a reduction in maternal or newborn morbidity and mortality or stillbirth during facility-based deliveries. Such a solution needs to be novel, safe and replicable because we need innovation here, as elsewhere.
Finally, a word on the under-representation of women in health research. I readily acknowledge the significance of this issue. I understand, however, that the situation is now rapidly improving and I sincerely hope that this upward trend will continue.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to present the Commission's approach to promoting gender equality, including regarding mental health and health issues in general.

(Applause)


President. – The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 14 February 2017.


Written statements (Rule 162)



Miriam Dalli (S&D),
in writing. – When we talk about gender equality, much of our focus is often directed at emancipating women in civil, political and economic society. And while much of the focus on the detrimental effects of patriarchal societies is targeted towards women, one serious issue targets men – the issue of suicide and mental health. If we raise our young men in societies where they are told that ‘boys don't cry’, that they should be strong as opposed to weak, and stoic as opposed to emotive, then we will continue to perpetuate the stigmatisation of mental health. But while such ideals may be well intentioned, the phenomena has led to a major difference in suicide rates between men and women. In general, the rate for males is five times higher, and in some EU countries alone the differentiation between genders can lead to a figure of 52 males per 100 000 persons to 8 females per 100 000. This is a highly worrying phenomenon, and if even we as European leaders shy away from the topic, then we will continue to perpetuate the stigma within our own societies.
16.   Priorities for the 61th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (short presentation)

President. – The next item is the report by Constance Le Grip and Maria Arena on behalf of the Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality, with a proposal for a European Parliament recommendation to the Council on the EU priorities for the 61st session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women [2017/2001(INI)] (A8 008/2017).

Anna Maria Corazza Bildt,
rapporteur. – Madam President, I am proud to be here today to give our priorities to the Council for the upcoming session of the United Nations Commission on the status of women. We cannot miss this opportunity to join forces and stand up together for women's dignity worldwide, to combat stereotypes and any form of discrimination, going beyond rhetoric with concrete actions. Much more needs to be done everywhere to empower women and girls and achieve gender equality. We want to give a voice, especially to the millions of women that are excluded, marginalised, vulnerable women, women with disabilities, migrant and refugee women.
First of all we have to prevent and combat violence against women with a zero-tolerance policy to domestic violence, honour killings, trafficking, sexual abuse and exploitation, female genital mutilation, forced marriage. Let us face it, many women and girls are the new slaves of our times. Behind every victim there is a heartbreaking story of a broken life. We therefore call on the Member States to ratify and enforce the Council of Europe's Istanbul Convention on violence against women.
Second: education. We need to ensure access to school for all girls and keep them safe and empower them, then promote women in the labour market, in particular women's entrepreneurship; recognise that women are an asset for our economy and growth; eliminate the gender-pay gap and ensure equal pay for equal work and more representation of women in decision-making everywhere.
We need to work towards shared responsibility, a life and work balance between men and women in the care of children, and ensure that women and girls have universal access to health care, including sexual and reproductive health and rights. The UN Commission in March is an important opportunity for Europe to show the world that we are responsible and credible in women and girls' rights.
We are at the crossroads. As the US seems to be retreating from global responsibility, Europe should step in. As the US seems to withdraw support for multilateralism, Europe should renew its support for the United Nations and international cooperation. As the US seems to be turning its back on women and girls' health, Europe should show leadership in gender equality and women's health.
We firmly condemn the recently reinstated global gag rule in its most extreme form yet, expanded to withdraw funding not only from reproductive health services but from an organisation's entire health budget if they provide information about interruption of pregnancy. This will encompass all the United States' global health funding from Africa through Asia to Latin America. There is an outcry, a chorus of concern turning to Europe for help, notably from the United Nations, other aid agencies, children's rights NGOs, research institutes, foundations, charities. We Europeans are not going to abandon the thousands of women and girls depending on those donations.
I welcome the initiative of the Dutch Government to mobilise funds in order to compensate for the US funding and the Belgian initiative to hold a donors' conference on 2 March. More countries and organisations should join the initiative to save the life of hundreds of thousands of women and girls in developing countries. The gag rule's consequences are serious. They will affect many programmes: Zika virus, lifesaving services, pre-natal and post-natal assistance to babies and young mothers, women that are raped. It will increase mortality. More women and girls are going to die in birth and complications.
I call on the UN and the Member States to give a clear, united response against this setback, sexism and Trumpism, and let us also support the women's march and movement in the US.

Maria Arena,
rapporteure. – Madame la Présidente, la quatrième Conférence mondiale sur les femmes, organisée à Beijing, en 1995, a marqué un tournant réel et important dans le programme mondial pour l'égalité entre les femmes et les hommes.
               

                  La déclaration et le programme qui avaient été adoptés à l'époque – programme d'action pour l'autonomisation des femmes – ont été considérés comme étant le principal document politique mondial en matière d'égalité entre les hommes et les femmes, il y a plus de 20 ans. La session de Beijing +20, en 2015, a salué les progrès accomplis en la matière grâce à cet instrument mondial, mais on a néanmoins appelé les États membres de l'ONU à réaliser des évaluations et à prendre de nouvelles mesures pour accélérer la mise en œuvre de ces actions pour l'égalité. Et pourtant, aujourd'hui, en 2017, nous voyons que l'égalité hommes-femmes ainsi que les droits des femmes sont à nouveau remis en cause. Dans le monde, des politiques visent à porter atteinte aux objectifs que devraient soutenir non seulement l'Europe mais également les Nations unies en matière d'égalité entre les hommes et les femmes. En réponse à ces régressions, des mouvements citoyens de résistance s'organisent à travers le monde. Lors de la 61e session de la commission de la condition de la femme aux Nations unies, nous, Parlement européen, demandons par conséquent que le Conseil puisse prendre la mesure de son rôle au sein de la communauté internationale pour agir en faveur de l'égalité entre les hommes et les femmes, comme il l'a toujours fait au niveau européen.
               

                  Cet engagement, nous demandons qu'il aille de la promotion de l'éducation à la lutte contre les violences faites aux femmes, et particulièrement à l'adoption de la Convention d'Istanbul, en passant par la garantie d'accès universel aux soins de santé sexuelle et génésique et aux droits génésiques, ainsi que par l'accès à l'éducation sexuelle et reproductive.
               

                  La participation des femmes au marché de l'emploi, sans discrimination, ainsi que leur participation à la vie politique et citoyenne sont également essentielles à leur autonomisation.
               

                  Chers collègues, à l'heure de cette 61e session, on ne peut que condamner l'attitude de l'administration Trump, qui a décidé de supprimer le financement des ONG, comme l'a dit ma collègue Corazza Bildt, qui pratiquent ou recommandent des services de planning familial ou d'accès à l'avortement, même dans les pays où celui-ci est accepté. Il s'agit d'une véritable atteinte aux droits des femmes, qui aura des retombées désastreuses sur des programmes de lutte contre le VIH, sur la santé mentale dont on vient de parler, sur la santé des enfants. Tout cela aura des répercussions sur l'ensemble du monde.
               

                  Chers collègues, nous avons eu l'occasion de nous exprimer et de condamner l'administration Trump quand celle-ci fait la promotion du protectionnisme économique. Quand il s'agit d'économie, tout le monde se dresse pour dire: ‘Mais que se passe-t-il aux États-Unis?’ Par contre, quand il s'agit des droits humains et des droits des femmes, on devrait se taire. Non, Mesdames et Messieurs! Là aussi, quand il s'agit des droits humains, nous devons dire que ce que fait aujourd'hui cette administration n'est pas acceptable. Nous devons le dire aux Nations unies et l'Europe doit être à la pointe de ce combat, tout simplement parce que l'Europe doit montrer qu'elle est un pilier garant des droits fondamentaux et que ces droits fondamentaux – qui sont les droits de l'homme –, ne doivent pas oublier la moitié de l'humanité que sont les femmes.
               

                  Par conséquent, je vous engage à soutenir cette proposition de recommandation au Conseil pour que cette image de l'Europe garante des droits fondamentaux puisse être portée au niveau mondial.
               

Catch-the-eye procedure


Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Elnök Asszony, a jelentés is világosan rámutat, a nők számára egyetlen országban sem biztosított teljes mértékben a gazdasági függetlenedéshez való eszközök elérhetősége, az egyenlő társadalmi képviselet, illetve az életüket befolyásoló valamennyi döntés felett való ellenőrzés. Hozzátenném, hogy az eddig elért eredmények sok esetben akár vissza is fordíthatók. Éppen ezért, a jelen világpolitikai helyzetben, amikor az úgynevezett demokratikus világ első embere is ennyire gyakorian, nyilvánosan és vokálisan lekezelően beszél társadalmunk szebbik feléről, különös fontossággal bír ezeknek az akadályoknak a tudatosítása. A nők, akárcsak más kisebbség vagy alulreprezentált csoport, egyenlőséget, igazságos bánásmódot érdemelnek. Az igazságos bánásmód biztosítása pedig konkrét cselekvést igényel. Az Uniónak szorgalmaznia kell a nőkkel szembeni diszkriminatív törvények visszavonását az ENSZ tagállamaiban. Határozott kiállással nem csak az Európai Unión belüli, hanem az azon kívüli országok jogállami fejlődéséhez is hozzájárulhatnánk.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, το 2017 κανένα κράτος μέλος δεν έχει επιτύχει την ισότητα μεταξύ ανδρών και γυναικών. Η ισότητα των φύλων αποτελεί θεμελιώδες δικαίωμα και βασικό θεμέλιο για ένα ειρηνικό, ευημερούντα και βιώσιμο κόσμο. Η πρόοδος είναι αργή και άνιση. Εξακολουθούν να υπάρχουν σημαντικά κενά και μορφές διακρίσεων, παρά τις βάσιμες ενδείξεις ότι η χειραφέτηση των γυναικών έχει σημειώσει σημαντική πρόοδο και έχει οδηγήσει στη μείωση της φτώχειας, στην προώθηση της ανάπτυξης και στην αντιμετώπιση των προκλήσεων. Επιπλέον, η γυναικεία επιχειρηματικότητα αποτελεί σημαντικό οικονομικό παράγοντα σε παγκόσμια κλίμακα και η συμμετοχή των γυναικών σε οικονομικό επίπεδο συνεισφέρει στην ανάπτυξη της οικονομίας και στη δημιουργία νέων θέσεων εργασίας. Όμως, όταν μια οικονομία πλήττεται, οι πρώτες που μπαίνουν στο στόχαστρο είναι οι γυναίκες. Στην Ελλάδα το ποσοστό ανεργίας των γυναικών φτάνει στο 27,7%. Οι γυναίκες αποτελούν την ομάδα του πληθυσμού που έχει πληγεί περισσότερο από την πολιτική λιτότητας στην Ελλάδα. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση οφείλει να λάβει μέτρα για να πάψουν οι γυναίκες να είναι θύματα των στερεοτύπων.
               

Terry Reintke (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, there are people, amongst other places in the Oval Office, who want us to get tired, who want us to shut up and who want us to stop repeating the claim ‘Our bodies – our rights’. Well, here is to these people: we will not shut up, we will not get tired and we will not stop defending women's rights because they are fundamental rights. And the more that these people put pressure on us, the more we will unite not only here in this Parliament, but in the streets all over the world. And we will not only unite. We will demand concrete actions from our governments. They have to take responsibility. And that is why I demand that European governments join the initiative by the Dutch, the Danish, the Belgian and the Swedish governments in order to counter the impact of the global gag rule, because we will not get tired, we have only just begun.

Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Paní předsedající, tato zpráva obsahuje řadu dobrých doporučení z hlediska zlepšování postavení žen, jejich práv, ekonomické samostatnosti a v neposlední řadě také boje proti násilí páchanému na ženách. Bohužel ženy jsou stále ještě obětmi možná nejrozšířenější formy porušování lidských práv na světě a tento fakt bychom měli také zohledňovat u žadatelů o azyl. Zkušenosti z mnoha částí světa ukazují, že ženy mohou hrát výraznou roli při urovnávání konfliktů a válek a že jejich zapojení do rozhodovacích procesů i v těch nejchudších zemích bývá ku prospěchu.
               

                  S čím naopak nemohu ve zprávě souhlasit, je obligátní apel, aby byl zaručen univerzální přístup k sexuálnímu a reprodukčnímu zdraví. Je smutné, že zpráva využívá faktický omyl, pokud jde o pekingskou platformu. Ta vyzvala pouze k boji proti pohlavně přenosným chorobám a větší informovanosti žen a zodpovědnému přístupu k sexuálním otázkám.
               

Marijana Petir (PPE). – Gospođo predsjednice, kao ženi koja radi u okruženju u kojem uglavnom prevladavaju muškarci, ova tema mi je izuzetno bliska i stava sam kako je pred nama jako puno posla u promicanju jednake pravne zaštite za žene i muškarce. Smatram da trebamo uložiti veće napore kako bi se položaj žena unaprijedio i kako bi sve djevojčice i žene imale jednake mogućnosti.
               

                  Jednak rad mora biti jednako plaćen, a prepreke ženama pri ulasku na tržište rada treba ukloniti. Smatram važnim poticanje žena na poduzetničke aktivnosti, ali pozivam i na potporu ženama poljoprivrednicama što je često zanemareno. Žena je bitna karika i temelj društva u svakom njegovom segmentu što je potrebno podržavati i pravno štititi kao standard, a ne kao iznimku.
               

                  Pozivam također na odbijanje amandmana kojima se poziva Europsku uniju na financiranje pobačaja novcem naših poreznih obveznika diljem svijeta. To nije zadaća Europske unije i to je apsolutno neprihvatljivo. Položaj žena nećemo unaprijediti tim mjerama već tako da im osiguramo jednak tretman kao i muškarcima.
               

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


President. – The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 14 February 2017.


Written statements (Rule 162)



Viorica Dăncilă (S&D),
în scris. – Obiectivul Uniunii Europene de reducere a sărăciei la nivel european este strâns legat de o mai mare implicare a femeilor pe piața forței de muncă. Impulsionarea dezvoltării la nivelul Uniunii nu poate avea loc fără o participare mai activă a femeilor, care sunt importanți agenți economici la nivel global. Țările care valorifică și capacitează femeile pentru a participa pe deplin la piața forței de muncă și la procesele decizionale sunt mai stabile, mai prospere și mai sigure. Consider că, sunt necesare eforturi comune ale Uniunii și statelor membre pentru încurajarea și sprijinirea organizațiilor de femei la toate nivelurile în cadrul activităților lor profesionale, implicarea lor ca parteneri în procesul de elaborare de politici, cu asigurarea finanțării adecvate. Este necesară eliminarea diferențelor de remunerare dintre femei și bărbați care apoi se regăsesc în decalajele la pensii, eliminarea tuturor formelor de discriminare împotriva femeilor și a stereotipurilor de gen, care perpetuează inegalitatea, violența și discriminarea, în toate sferele societății.
               
17.   Control of the Register and composition of the Commission's expert groups (short presentation)

President. – The next item is the report by Dennis de Jong on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on control of the Register and composition of the Commission's expert groups [2015/2319(INI)] (A8-0002/2017).

Dennis de Jong,
Rapporteur. – Voorzitter, hoe belangrijk een evenwichtige samenstelling van expertgroepen van de Europese Commissie is, hebben we kunnen zien bij ons onderzoek naar de dieselgate-affaire. De high-level group Cars 21 bestond voor het grootste deel uit vertegenwoordigers van de auto-industrie. Naar hen luisterde de Commissie, maar de waarschuwingen van milieuorganisaties tegen mogelijke sjoemelsoftware drongen daarentegen nauwelijks door tot de burelen van diezelfde Commissie.
               

                  Al jaren ageert het Europees Parlement tegen de dominantie van de lobbyisten van grote bedrijven in expertgroepen, maar pas nadat het Parlement een deel van de gelden die bestemd waren voor de expertgroepen had bevroren, wilde de Commissie praten. Samen met een groep gelijkgezinde Europarlementariërs heb ik daarna een informele dialoog gevoerd met de Commissie. Dat was allemaal nog tijdens het vorige mandaat. Na de Europese verkiezingen in 2014 ontstond er een impasse. De Commissie vond dat wij maar moesten aantonen welke expertgroepen onevenwichtig waren samengesteld en dan zouden de Commissiediensten daarna in actie komen. Dat is natuurlijk de omgekeerde wereld. Begrijpelijk als je bedenkt dat er bij het secretariaat van de Commissie maar één ambtenaar beschikbaar was voor de toezicht op naleving van de toen al bestaande regels voor expertgroepen. Maar het moet natuurlijk toch juist de Commissie zijn die eventuele misstanden opspoort.
               

                  In de Commissie begrotingscontrole hebben we vervolgens besloten om zelf onderzoek te verrichten, te laten verrichten. De resultaten vielen niet mee. Nog steeds domineren de grote bedrijven in expertgroepen en erg transparant waren die sowieso niet. Minderheidsstandpunten werden niet weergegeven, evenmin als het verloop van de discussies. Bij de bespreking van dit onderzoek bleek dat de Commissie al druk bezig was de regels aan te scherpen. Op zich goed nieuws natuurlijk, maar het was wel erg jammer dat hier op geen enkele manier informeel of formeel overleg over was geweest. De Commissie was immers volledig op de hoogte van ons voornemen om over de expertgroepen een formeel verslag met resolutie op te stellen. Uiteindelijk hebben we hier weten een mouw aan te passen. Ik stelde een werkdocument op en de Commissiediensten reageerden schriftelijk. Er bleven enkele punten van verschil over die we vervolgens met vicepresident Timmermans informeel hebben besproken. Dat gesprek verliep goed, maar helaas werden toch veel punten niet opgenomen in de nieuwe regels en vandaar dit verslag. De belangrijkste eisen die we hebben zijn:
               

                  Eén: duidelijke criteria voor de expertise die de Commissie zoekt. Twee: definitie van welke belangen volgens de Commissie in de specifieke expertgroep vertegenwoordigd moeten zijn en wat een evenwichtige balans is tussen die belangen. Drie: een goed systeem om klachten te behandelen over de criteria en de definitie van ‘evenwichtige balans’ bij individuele expertgroepen. Vier: niet alleen vergoeding van reis- en verblijfskosten, maar ook voor alternatieve kosten. Denk aan een mkb'er die kosten moet maken om haar zaak open te houden als ze zelf deelneemt aan een expertgroep. Vijf: openstelling van expertgroepen van nationale ngo's, zodat die ook het mandaat van een Europese koepelorganisatie krijgen. Zes: tenzij een gekwalificeerde meerderheid van de leden van de expertgroep hier bezwaar tegen maakt, openbaarmaking van agenda's, achtergronddocumenten en notulen met duidelijke richtsnoeren over hoe gedetailleerd we moeten zijn. Zeven: vermijding van belangenconflicten bij deelnemers namens de academische instelling, een advocatenkantoor of denktank. En ten slotte: voldoende personeel om toezicht te houden op de naleving van de regels.
               

                  Ik hoop van harte dat de Commissie na de unanieme aanvaarding van dit rapport in de Commissie Begrotingscontrole wat proactiever zal worden. Daarom ook verzoeken we de Commissie vóór 1 juli te rapporteren over de werking van de nieuwe regels. Een Commissie die zegt transparantie een warm hart toe te dragen, moet het niet laten aankomen op duwen en trekken.
               

Catch-the-eye procedure


Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η έλλειψη διαφάνειας και η μη ισορροπημένη σύνθεση πολλών ομάδων εμπειρογνωμόνων στην Επιτροπή καθιστά αναγκαίο τον έλεγχο του Μητρώου και της σύνθεσης αυτών των ομάδων. Δεδομένου ότι η έλλειψη διαφάνειας έχει αρνητικές επιπτώσεις στην εμπιστοσύνη των πολιτών των κρατών μελών της Ένωσης προς τα θεσμικά όργανα αυτής, η αποτελεσματική μεταρρύθμιση του συστήματος των ομάδων εμπειρογνωμόνων της Επιτροπής θα πρέπει να γίνει με βάση τις αρχές της διαφάνειας και της ισορροπημένης σύνθεσης. Ήδη από τις 30 Μαΐου του 2016 η Επιτροπή είχε θεσπίσει οριζόντιους κανόνες σχετικά με τη δημιουργία και τη λειτουργία των ομάδων εμπειρογνωμόνων, προκειμένου να γίνονται δημόσιες προσκλήσεις υποβολής αιτήσεων για την επιλογή μελών των ομάδων αυτών και να αυξάνεται κατά συνέπεια και η διαφάνεια. Τέλος, το Μητρώο των ομάδων εμπειρογνωμόνων θα πρέπει να έχει σαν στόχο να αυξηθεί επιπλέον η διαφάνεια στις ομάδες αυτές και να αποσαφηνιστούν οι τρόποι για το πώς πραγματικά θα ενθαρρυνθούν οι υποεκπροσωπούμενες οργανώσεις των κοινωνικών ομάδων για να συμμετάσχουν στις ομάδες εμπειρογνωμόνων.
               

Kateřina Konečná (GUE/NGL). – Paní předsedající, zítra na tomto místě se budeme věnovat budoucnosti Evropské unie. Když jsem si četla ony návrhy hledající cestu ze současné strukturální krize, přišlo mi, že opět zcela zapomínáme na ty, kterým má evropský projekt sloužit, na naše občany. Až příliš často EU řeší problémy přes sílu a uzavírá se do sebe a my jako přímí volení zástupci musíme u zrovna projednávaného dokumentu Komisi vyzývat, aby se vůči občanům EU chovala transparentně a odpovědně. Jak to, že tohle není v samém základu fungování Komise? Vyčítáme Komisi, že neuspořádala řádnou veřejnou konzultaci, a musíme znovu poukázat na to, že je důležité oživit nejrůznější formy zapojení zástupců občanské společnosti a sociálních partnerů. Pokud by Komise byla schopna dělat tyto malé kroky, nemuseli bychom zítra debatovat o těch velkých. I tak děkuji svému kolegovi za připravenou zprávu.
               

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Margrethe Vestager,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mr de Jong, for his report and work on this very important topic. I think it is a thing that we share, that these rules are of the essence for the legitimacy of the advisory and expert groups. This Commission has paid very close attention to the role which expert groups play in our policy making. And we have laid down tougher internal rules in order to make sure that these groups carry out their function in full transparency and accountability exactly as asked. Let me stress just one thing, because this is very basic. Expert groups provide very useful contributions to the work of the Commission in many different policy fields, of which many are highly technical and of a specialised nature. But I think it is very important to recall that no matter what advice is given by expert groups, they have a purely advisory role. Whatever their advice may be, the responsibility for any decision or measure adopted remains the Commission's and the Commission's alone.
But when this Commission took office we decided that the rules for expert groups needed to be reviewed so as to better reflect the Commission's commitment to be more transparent and accountable. Before adopting a new set of rules, we listened to this Parliament, the European Ombudsman and civil society organisations. After a full year of consultation and intensive preparation the Commission adopted new rules in May last year. We consider these new rules, which are binding for all of the Commission services, to improve significantly the management, the balance and the transparency of expert groups and we also consider that they provide a positive response to many suggestions made by this House and by the European Ombudsman. Just let me give you a few concrete examples.
The new rules confirm – reconfirm – the Commission's commitment to strive for a balanced composition of expert groups. The Commission's departments must do their utmost to guarantee a balanced representation. This does not mean balanced in a mathematical sense, which would be difficult to define and achieve in all cases; it means maximum balance in terms of expertise, interests, gender, and geographical origin. The new rules also bring significant changes to boost transparency. We have set up a new register for expert groups. This register is accessible for the public and provides more accurate information and more documents drafted and discussed by expert groups. In particular, the Commission will henceforth publish the register calls for applications when it selects stakeholders' representatives as well as expert group members appointed in their personal capacity. This is a major step forward and has been a long-standing request from this Parliament. In other words, we have made the selection procedures fully transparent and inclusive, which ultimately benefits the balance of the composition of expert groups.
Second, registration in the Transparency Register has now become a precondition for stakeholders' organisations to be appointed to an expert group. This means that where particular interests are represented in an expert group there will be full transparency as regards the nature of these interests.
Third, every document that an expert group produces must now be put on the register of expert groups. Minutes will have to be provided, which makes complete and meaningful sense. Moreover, expert groups can also decide to open up their meetings to the general public.
Last but not least, we have taken tough measures to avoid conflict of interest in expert groups. Under the new rules, independent experts can only be appointed on the basis of standardised and detailed conflict-of-interest assessment based on the declaration submitted by these experts. Only if the Commission services conclude that there is no conflict of interest may those experts be appointed in their personal capacity. In addition, all declarations of interest of independent experts are published in the register of expert groups. These tougher rules we have put in place to ensure – and I do hope that you find that we, the Commission and this House, share the objective – a high degree of transparency and accountability for the functioning of expert groups. The Commission is committed to rigorously applying our new rules and we know of course that you will scrutinise us closely and we remain of course open to continuing the dialogue with this Parliament as to how to improve and how to make sure that we follow closely this important matter.

President. – The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 14 February 2017.
18.   The role of whistleblowers in the protection of EU's financial interests (short presentation)

President. – The next item is the report by Dennis de Jong on behalf of the Committee on Budgetary Control, on the role of whistle-blowers in the protection of EU's financial interests [2016/2055(INI)] (A8-0004/2017).

Dennis de Jong,
Rapporteur. – Voorzitter, in de media zien we nog wel eens beelden van leegstaande haventerreinen of vliegvelden zonder vliegverkeer, gefinancierd door de Europese Unie, of rotsachtige terreinen waarvoor subsidies worden verstrekt in het kader van plattelandsontwikkeling. Onderzoeksjournalisten doen goed werk bij het ontdekken en melden van dergelijke misstanden. Het gebeurt daarnaast regelmatig dat verontruste leden van de Commissie begrotingscontrole brieven ontvangen van burgers over gevallen van vermeende fraude en corruptie waarbij Europese gelden in het geding zijn. En vaak zetten zij een naam onder de brief met alle gegevens erbij zodat er contact met hen kan worden opgenomen. Onderzoeksjournalisten en verontruste burgers nemen daarbij risico's.
               

                  In de Europese Unie hebben we namelijk wel de bescherming van bedrijfsgeheimen geregeld, maar niet de bescherming van klokkenluiders. De antifraudedienst van de Europese Commissie heeft een protocol over hoe om te gaan met klokkenluiders en ook voor het interne personeel hebben de meeste Europese instellingen inmiddels uitvoeringsregels om hen te beschermen als ze misstanden melden. Maar daarbuiten ben je afhankelijk van de goede wil van de ambtenaren of politici die je informatie ontvangen. Zo was de reactie van iemand onlangs: ‘De burger die ons heeft geschreven vraagt toch helemaal niet om vertrouwelijke behandeling? Waarom zouden we dan diens naam niet kunnen vermelden?’ Hoe het in de lidstaten geregeld is, weten we al helemaal niet. Zelfs als we bij de Europese instellingen goede regels hebben, dan nog kunnen klokkenluiders een proces aan hun broek krijgen op nationaal niveau. Denk maar aan het lot van de klokkenluiders die in verband met Luxleaks in Luxemburg voor de rechter moeten staan, terwijl hun enige doel was om de belastingontwijking door multinationals en de rol van Luxemburg daarbij aan de kaak te stellen.
               

                  Mijn verslag bevat een grote hoeveelheid voorstellen om de bescherming van klokkenluiders eindelijk eens goed te organiseren. Betere procedures binnen de Europese instellingen zelf, loketten waar mensen zitten die weten hoe je met informatie van klokkenluiders omgaat en die de vertrouwelijkheid van de persoonsgegevens bewaken. Klokkenluiders hebben ook recht op advies. In Nederland hebben we hiervoor een huis voor de klokkenluiders opgericht, en daar wordt een eerste onderzoek gedaan naar de informatie die klokkenluiders aandragen. Vervolgens krijgen klokkenluiders advies over hoe nu verder.
               

                  Zo'n huis is op Europees niveau minstens zo hard nodig. Je raakt al gauw verstrikt in het woud van de Europese instellingen en voor je het weet, worden niet de misstanden, maar jij zelf aangepakt. Natuurlijk kan het Europees Parlement zelf stappen zetten. In theorie zouden we zo'n huis voor de klokkenluiders zelf kunnen oprichten. Maar het is veel beter om voor alle Europese instellingen één huis te hebben. Het is prima en zelfs nodig dat informatie over misstanden het Parlement bereikt, maar ook de Europese Commissie en de agentschappen kunnen baat hebben bij die informatie. En laten we de belangrijke rol van de Europese Rekenkamer en de Europese Ombudsman niet vergeten.
               

                  Voor de regeling van de bescherming op nationaal niveau biedt artikel 325 van het EU-verdrag een goede rechtsbasis. Juist door onze eerst te concentreren op klokkenluiders die misstanden melden waarbij de financiële belangen van de Europese Unie in het geding zijn, voldoen we volgens mij aan alle subsidiariteitseisen. Niemand kan er toch tegen zijn mensen te beschermen die hun nek uitsteken om misstanden met ons belastinggeld te melden? Dan is het wel belangrijk dat we daarbij wetgeving maken die weliswaar misbruik voorkomt, maar iedereen die een redelijk vermoeden heeft over de juistheid van zijn of haar informatie echt beschermt. Er ligt hier veel werk voor de Commissie. Ik wijs er nog maar eens op dat mijn verslag zonder één enkele tegenstem of onthouding werd aangenomen. Zo'n duidelijk signaal, daar kan de Commissie niet omheen. En ik reken dan ook op snelle en goede initiatieven. Geen woorden maar daden.
               

Catch-the-eye procedure


Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Paní předsedající, ochrana oznamovatelů, kteří riskují svojí kariéru, je v celospolečenském zájmu, a to jak na úrovni Evropské unie, tak členských států. Proto souhlasím s výzvou této zprávy, která navrhuje a doporučuje členským státům, aby se zabývaly legislativou na národní úrovni, která by chránila oznamovatele.
               

                  Otázkou je to, co také zpráva uvádí, zda by měl vzniknout nový nezávislý evropský orgán, který by oznamovatele chránil.
               

                  Já se domnívám, že to je předčasné, že je třeba využít institucí, které již na evropské úrovni máme, jako je například OLAF. V každém případě se jedná o velmi složitou oblast legislativní, kde je potřeba nalézt rovnováhu mezi ochranou pracovníků, kteří se nebojí postavit svým nadřízeným, ale zároveň vzít v potaz, že zde mohou být i oznámení, která budou nepravdivá. V každém případě je to dobrá iniciativa a budu pro tuto zprávu hlasovat.
               

Caterina Chinnici (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la lotta alla corruzione e alle frodi è e deve essere sempre di più un tema centrale dell'azione politica dell'UE, che deve dotarsi di misure e strumenti adeguati per consentire indagini particolarmente complesse quali normalmente sono quelle relative a casi di corruzione e frodi finanziarie in danno dell'Unione.
               

                  Una risorsa importante in tal senso sono gli informatori, il cui contributo – lo abbiamo sentito dal collega de Jong – ha fatto emergere casi di conflitti di interessi, evasione ed elusione fiscale, riciclaggio di denaro e altresì infiltrazioni della criminalità organizzata a danno degli interessi finanziari dell'Unione. È auspicabile quindi che la Commissione presenti al più presto una proposta legislativa volta a garantire la protezione degli informatori secondo standard comuni in tutti gli Stati membri e a creare canali sicuri per la segnalazione delle irregolarità, che consentano riservatezza e condivisione delle informazioni, garantendo al contempo adeguata assistenza all'informatore.
               

Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, οι καταγγέλλοντες διαδραματίζουν σημαντικό ρόλο στην πρόληψη, τον εντοπισμό και την αναφορά παρατυπιών και παρανομιών σε σχέση με δαπάνες που συνδέονται με τον προϋπολογισμό της Ένωσης, καθώς και στην διαπίστωση και δημοσιοποίηση κρουσμάτων διαφθοράς. Για τον λόγο αυτό, θα πρέπει να προστατεύονται από την Ένωση, όπως καθορίζει και η τελευταία έκθεση για τον Ευρωπαίο Διαμεσολαβητή, στην οποία υπήρξα εισηγητής, και όπου αναφέρεται ρητά η αναγκαιότητα προστασίας των καταγγελλόντων. Ωστόσο, μέχρι στιγμής τα περισσότερα κράτη μέλη της Ένωσης αδυνατούν να προσφέρουν επαρκή νομική προστασία στους καταγγέλλοντες, αποδυναμώνοντας έτσι ένα σημαντικό εργαλείο για την καταπολέμηση της διαφθοράς. Επομένως, θα πρέπει η προστασία των καταγγελλόντων και των δημοσιογράφων να διασφαλιστεί νομικά και να ενισχυθεί σε ολόκληρη την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, εφόσον η δράση τους αποσκοπεί στην προστασία του δημοσίου συμφέροντος. Τέλος, θα πρέπει να εδραιωθεί και μια άλλη νοοτροπία ως προς τα ζητήματα ηθικής και δεοντολογίας, προκειμένου να διασφαλίζεται ότι οι καταγγέλλοντες δεν θα υπόκεινται σε αντίποινα.
               

Benedek Jávor (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I would like to thank Dennis de Jong for the outstanding work with the report. I would like to welcome the European Parliament's calls for a horizontal instrument for the protection of whistle-blowers yet again and unanimously in the Committee on Budgetary Control and I hope the same for the plenary.
I hope the report fits into also the Commission's ongoing work on assessing the possibility for action, as this is clearly a common European interest to have an overall protection for whistle-blowers. Horizontal protection is the only way to ensure that all those who report wrongdoings in the interest of the public do not suffer from any sort of retaliation. I believe that it is not only a moral obligation for the EU to act in a context where citizens' trust in the institutions is low and the perception of corruption is high. It is also indispensable to ensure that EU law is properly implemented in wide areas from the protection of the financial interests of the European Union to the environmental acquis. I hope the plenary will vote for this report and the Commission is going to act.

Inés Ayala Sender (S&D). – Señora presidenta, yo quería también felicitar al ponente, el señor de Jong, y plantearle a la señora comisaria —que sé que además es especialmente sensible a estos temas— que, así como tenemos registros de lobistas y también el Código de Conducta de los comisarios —que se podrían mejorar, pero que han servido de ejemplo y guía para los Estados miembros que van más retrasados—, también necesitamos un código que proteja y que dé marco legal a los denunciantes a nivel europeo, que sería la marca y la guía para que, en los ámbitos nacionales —por ejemplo en mi país, donde existen y donde están pasando verdaderas penurias y situaciones muy, muy conflictivas—, pudiésemos al menos servir de guía para darles esa protección.
               

                  Por tanto: marco legal, por supuesto, para estos denunciantes, con sus derechos y con las obligaciones también. Pero, sobre todo, un marco legal que les diera protección en el momento en el que entran en una especie de limbo en el que pierden sus empleos, están en una situación psicológica verdaderamente terrible…
               

                  Y, desde luego, toda la ayuda al bien común y al interés común que están llevando adelante no hay manera de agradecérsela, y hay que protegerlos.
               

                  Por favor, señora comisaria, ayúdenos en ello.
               

Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Elnök Asszony, a visszaéléseket bejelentő személyek valóban alapvető szerepet játszhatnának a tagállamok és az uniós intézmények segítésében. Sajnos ez alighanem csak egy elméleti lehetőség, legalábbis Magyarországon mindenképpen, ahol az állami intézmények fő funkciója a közpénzek magánpénzekké való alakítása. Az állami korrupció olyan mértékben határozza meg az emberek mindennapjait, hogy már azért is elveszítheti valaki a munkáját, ha közösségi médiafelületen egy, a kormánnyal szembeni kritikus bejegyzésre pozitívan reagál. Hasonlóképpen, a civil szervezetek is állandó nyomás alatt dolgoznak, hiszen egy bírálat az Orbán-kormánnyal kapcsolatban, és máris a külföldi ügynökök bélyegét sütik rájuk. Ilyen környezetben igen nehéz meggyőzni az embereket, hogy a visszaélések bejelentése alapvető fontosságú a közjó, valamint az Európai Unió pénzügyi érdekének védelme szempontjából. Amire ma Magyarországon számíthat egy közérdekű bejelentő, az az egzisztenciájának az elvesztése és a közszolgálati médiában történő meghurcolás.
               

Luke Ming Flanagan (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, first off I just want to congratulate Dennis de Jong on this report. A legal framework for whistle-blowers is essential. At the moment, if you are going to become a whistle-blower in a financial sense it is a toss-up between whether you are crazy or whether you actually really want to change things, and it should be the latter. You should not have to be crazy to do it but at the moment, if you look at the evidence, that is the case. You look at people like Jonathan Sugarman who tried to blow the whistle on UniCredit in Ireland for breaches in liquidity. What happened to him? He never worked again. He has not worked to this day. So unless things change the message is very, very clear. If you blow the whistle and if you blow the whistle strong, it will most likely be rammed down your throat and the total and utter goal is to stop you ever talking again. So we need this to change because unless we do we will have anarchy and we will have even more scepticism and I do not think you want that.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


Margrethe Vestager,
Member of the Commission. – Madam President, as is quite obvious and as you all have underlined, whistle-blowers help to uncover threats or harm to our public interest. They play an extremely important role in fighting fraud and corruption. According to a study from 2016 analysing more than 2400 cases of fraud in 114 countries, about 40% of all detected fraud cases are uncovered by whistle-blowers.
The Commission therefore strongly supports the objective of protecting whistle-blowers and this is why specific guidelines were developed back in 2012. This is also why it has been included in protective measures in the European legislation on anti-money laundering, market abuse, collective investment in transferable securities and trade secrets.
Recent leaks, such as the Panama papers, have once again highlighted the importance of whistle-blowers for journalistic investigations and, in this particular case, for exposing tax avoidance and tax evasion. Strengthening the fight against tax evasion, avoidance and illicit financial activity, promoting good tax governance, is one of the Commission's top priorities, as you all know. The Commission is currently assessing the need for horizontal or further sectoral action at EU level, with full respect for the principle of subsidiarity. We are carrying out an impact assessment study and a public consultation will be launched at the end of February. Both will inform our assessment of the next possible steps. I count on your support to encourage a wide range of citizens and stakeholders to support and participate in this consultation.
We all agree that the protection of whistle-blowers is vital. The question is how best to achieve this objective and how we can contribute at the European level and in the European part of our democracy. A lot has already been done in fields where the European Union has competence. We now need carefully to assess the needs and the possible scope for horizontal or further sectoral action here in the European democracy to see what we can do at a European level while fully respecting the principle of subsidiarity.
I look forward to continuing and deepening the discussion with you on this subject.

President. – The debate is closed.
The vote will take place on Tuesday, 14 February 2017.


Written statements (Rule 162)



Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD),
per iscritto. – Il ruolo degli informatori per la difesa della legalità e quindi anche per la tutela degli interessi finanziari dell'Unione è assolutamente centrale. La garanzia di tutela per coloro che forniscono informazioni in questo senso deve essere perciò assoluta; la tutela in questo senso deve estendersi anche agli aspetti economici, perché è facile che gli informatori perdano, a seguito delle loro delazioni, il posto di lavoro.
               

                  Il livello di protezione di queste persone varia moltissimo da Stato a Stato ed è quindi necessario introdurre standard minimi europei in tal senso. Siamo quindi impegnati a richiedere un tempestivo da parte della Commissione, a produrre una proposta legislativa in tal senso.
               

Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D),
písomne. – Ochrana oznamovateľov podvodov je dôležitá pre Európsku úniu. Je nevyhnutným krokom v boji proti korupcii, odhaľovaniu konfliktu záujmov či akémukoľvek zatajovaniu podobných skutočností. Takýmto ľuďom musí byť poskytnutá pomoc a ochrana pred akýmikoľvek odvetnými opatreniami. Znamená to aj vyvarovať sa nátlaku, spochybňovania, či dokonca ich kriminalizácie. Platí to aj v prípade, ak by sa mýlili. Svojím konaním totiž upozorňujú na zneužívanie právomocí a v konečnom dôsledku pomáhajú zachovaniu dôveryhodnosti inštitúcií tak na národnej, ako aj európskej úrovni. Zákonnosť používania európskych finančných prostriedkov majú pritom v prvom rade zaisťovať členské štáty ako ich prijímatelia. Potrebná je samozrejme napríklad aj úzka spolupráca s Európskym úradom pre boj proti podvodom. Okrem toho majú k dispozícii celý rad rôznych nástrojov. Výsledky v rámci jednotlivých krajín však často nie sú uspokojivé
               

Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D),
în scris. – Susțin inițierea unei propuneri legislative de instituire a unui program european de protecție legală a denunțătorilor, pentru a se impune o serie de măsuri în vederea simplificării procesului de expunere a utilizării abuzive a banilor Uniunii Europene. Acest demers implică crearea unui organism consultativ cu birouri în statele membre, precum și crearea unui site web, în cazul în care pot fi depuse plângeri. Până la stabilirea unui organ independent european, Oficiul European de Luptă Antifraudă (OLAF) va trebui să publice un raport anual privind evaluarea protecției denunțătorilor în Uniunea Europeană.
               

Julia Pitera (PPE),
na piśmie. – Wzmocnienie ochrony interesów finansowych Unii Europejskiej oraz zwalczanie nadużyć, stanowiące jedne z najważniejszych elementów unijnego programu politycznego, odgrywają ogromną rolę w zwiększeniu zaufania obywateli do instytucji unijnych. Zarówno Komisja, jak i państwa członkowskie powinny absolutnie priorytetowo traktować zwalczanie nadużyć i chronić osoby przyczyniające się do skutecznej walki z nieprawidłowościami.
               

                  W wielu państwach członkowskich istnieje tylko częściowa ochrona sygnalistów poprzez zapisy w różnych ustawach, co oznacza brak odrębnego prawa, a tym samym brak praktyki ochrony sygnalistów. W konsekwencji znacząco ogranicza to możliwość skutecznego zwalczania nadużyć i korupcji. Dlatego też tak ważne jest utworzenie mechanizmów pozwalających na ochronę demaskatorów w Unii Europejskiej, między innymi poprzez powołanie niezależnej instytucji mającej za zadanie doradztwo, przekaz informacji oraz pomoc takim osobom. Aby mechanizm ochrony sygnalistów okazał się w pełni skuteczny, powinien on również objąć przedsiębiorstwa, organy publiczne oraz organizacje niekomercyjne. Powinien też chronić sygnalistów narażonych na odwet ze strony instytucji, w której dochodzi do nieprawidłowości.
               

                  Każde z państw członkowskich powinno zadbać o poprawne wdrażanie unijnych i międzynarodowych norm i wytycznych w sprawie ochrony demaskatorów w swoich przepisach krajowych. Tylko taka forma walki pozwoli na pełnowymiarową ochronę sygnalistów, którzy w coraz większym stopniu wpływają na skuteczniejszą walkę z nieprawidłowościami.
               

Pirkko Ruohonen-Lerner (ECR),
kirjallinen. – Järjestelmälliset, erilaisissa organisaatioissa tapahtuvat väärinkäytökset voivat tulla ilmi vain, jos joku puuttuu niihin sisältä päin. Väärinkäytösten ilmoittaja ottaa usein suuren henkilökohtaisen riskin. Tällä hetkellä tilanne on nurinkurinen, sillä väärin tai jopa rikollisesti toiminut yritys saa usein enemmän suojelua kuin väärinkäytöksen ilmoittanut henkilö. On tärkeää, että ilmoittajalle pystytään tarjoamaan laillinen suoja, joka mahdollistaa ilmoittajalle lankeavan riskin ottamisen. Usein väärinkäytösten ilmoittaja kohtaa paljon painostusta ja kärsii taloudellisesta epävarmuudesta, psykofyysisistä oireista ja monista muista normaalia elämää haittaavista tekijöistä. Meidän tulisi luoda lainsäädännöllä turvaverkko, joka mahdollistaa riskien ottamisen. Tällä tavoin väärinkäytökset saataisiin paremmin julkisuuteen, mikä on koko yhteiskunnan etu. Se, että useat ilmoittajat haluavat tätä nykyä pysyä nimettöminä, osoittaa, ettei heidän suojelunsa ole vielä läheskään tyydyttävällä tasolla.
               
19.   One-minute speeches on matters of political importance

President. – The next item is the one-minute speeches on matters of political importance (Rule 163).

Andrea Bocskor (PPE). – Elnök Asszony, komoly aggodalomra adnak okot a közelmúlt ukrajnai eseményei. Míg az ország keleti részében a kiújuló harcok miatt nőtt az áldozatok száma és ártatlan civilek váltak földönfutóvá, eközben a politikai elit egy része a valós problémák orvoslása helyett újabb konfliktusokat szít, az országban élő nemzetiségek jogainak diszkriminatív szűkítésén dolgozik. Az oktatási törvénytervezet hátrányba hozza a nemzeti kisebbségek nyelveit, a legfőbb bíróságon megtámadták a hatályos nyelvtörvényt, és a benyújtott nyelvtörvény-tervezetek megtiltanák a nemzetiségi nyelvek szabad használatát az állami, magán- és civil szférában is. Az említett intézkedések súlyosan sértik az ukrajnai őshonos nemzeti és nyelvi kisebbségek alkotmányos jogait és az ország nemzetközi kötelezettségeivel is ellentétesek.
               

                  Az Európai Uniónak egy stabil és erős Ukrajnára van szüksége, de ehhez valódi változások kellenek. Az EU-nak ennek érdekében fokozott figyelemmel kellene kísérnie az ukrajnai eseményeket és az emberi alapjogok betartását is. Az európai integrációra törekvő országban elfogadhatatlan a demokratikus jogok szűkítése, mivel ez megrekeszti az ország békés konszolidációját.
               

Момчил Неков (S&D). – Г-жо Председател, остро осъждам призива на премиера на белгийския регион Валония Пол Маниет за излизане на България от Европейския съюз. Смятам за недопустими подобен род шовинистични изказвания, още повече че с г-н Маниет принадлежим към едно и също политическо семейство. На свой ред го съветвам да престане с евтиния флирт с белгийския електорат и да помисли как може да изградим солидарна Европа и да се противопоставим на популистката риторика на крайно десните политически формации.
               

                  Адмирирам позицията на г-н Маниет относно търговското споразумение с Канада (СЕТА), но остро се противопоставям на опитите му да третира българите като втора ръка граждани в Европейския съюз. Още повече че ние имаме история над 1300 години. Нямаме нужда от нов Найджъл Фараж в Европа, още повече сред редиците на социалистите.
               

Urszula Krupa (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Nagłośniony ostatnio w prasie brytyjskiej zgon młodej kobiety z powodu choroby zakrzepowo-zatorowej po stosowaniu antykoncepcji hormonalnej trzeciej generacji powinien stanowić także tutaj ostrzeżenie – podobnie do tysięcy powikłań po stosowaniu pigułek antykoncepcyjnych – nie tylko dla kobiet stosujących je, ale dla wszystkich, które bronią praw do ubezpładniania. Kobiety uzależnia się teraz od hormonów od wczesnej młodości, począwszy od leczenia trądziku, z następczą antykoncepcją hormonalną, która skutkuje ciężkimi zaburzeniami cyklu, następczymi poronieniami, różnego rodzaju nowotworami, również w młodym wieku, chorobami układu krążenia, aż po niewydolność jajników po trzydziestym piątym roku życia, wymagającą stosowania równie niebezpiecznej hormonalnej terapii zastępczej. Jedyne wymierne korzyści z takich hormonalnych terapii mają bogacące się koncerny farmaceutyczne i oczywiście propagatorzy in vitro.
               

Jasenko Selimovic (ALDE). – Gospođo predsjednice,
               

                  Bosna i Hercegovina pati od nacionalizma koji u posljednje vrijeme eskalira. Ali ta zemlja ne dobiva nikakvu adekvatnu pomoć da se bori s tim nacionalizmom. Evo pogledajte samo kako u ovim separatističkim i nacionalističkim vremenima neki parlamentarci ovdje govore o federalizaciji zemlje.
               

                  Dakle, u zemlji s četrnaest parlamenta, tri predsjednika, 130 ministara, predlaže se daljnja fragmentacija. Kao ‘to je rješenje’. Zemlja ne funkcionira s 14 parlamenata pa hajmo probati s 30, možda profunkcionira. Oprostite, ali to su gluposti. Problem Bosne je da nacionalistička politika djeluje nekažnjeno zadnjih 20 godina. Iako postoje i sredstva i mogućnost da se to zaustavi. A nakon 20 godina, naravno da neki počnu razmišljati ‘zašto ne bismo i mi vodili istu politiku, očito se isplati’.
               

                  Ako Europa stvarno želi smanjiti nacionalizam, treba promovirati stvaranje funkcionalne države. Zaboravite federalizaciju, dijeljenja, entitete, gluposti. Pomozimo zemlji da postane funkcionalna i pravna država, onda će se sve to samo od sebe srediti.
               

Lynn Boylan (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, last week (First) Vice-President Timmermans quietly shelved his anti-corruption reports, saying that there is no need for any more reports on Member States. However, in Ireland this week we have learned that there has been a vile, sinister and concerted campaign to destroy the character and private life of a Garda police whistle-blower. The whistle-blower, Maurice McCabe, raised concerns about Garda malpractice, but his complaints were not processed: instead he was vilified by his own police force and on Thursday it was disclosed that he was the victim of a false accusation of child abuse. A full public inquiry needs to ascertain whether there was collusion between government and the police force to destroy the character of Maurice McCabe.
What the McCabes and the Irish public need to know now is who and what knew of this allegation. Was the Garda Commissioner involved in the smear campaign and were there present or former members of the Irish Government who were aware of the heinous false allegations? The time for cover-ups and black propaganda is over, but the fight against corruption is far from over, Vice-President Timmermans.

Petr Mach (EFDD). – Paní předsedající, Parlament před několika lety schválil zřízení agentury Frontex a jejím účelem je, mělo být, pomáhat členským státům v ochraně hranic, koordinovat ochranu hranic a koordinovat navracení, repatriaci ilegálních migrantů.
               

                  Když jsem z médií zjistil, že tato agentura dělá pravý opak, že místo, aby pomáhala chránit hranice Evropské unie před ilegální migrací, tak naopak jezdí ke břehům Afriky, loví tam migranty a vozí je do Evropy, podal jsem v této věci písemný dotaz Komisi, interpeloval jsem Komisi, jak je toto možné. Není to snad překročení úřední pravomoci? Není to snad zneužívání peněz daňových poplatníků? Neohrožuje to snad bezpečnost Evropské unie, všech Evropanů? Já se domnívám, že ano, a nechápu, že Evropská komise neodpověděla půl roku na moji interpelaci. Na jiné odpovídá velmi rychle.
               

Laurențiu Rebega (ENF). – Doamnă președinte, după cum știți, în România situația socială și politică este tensionată din cauza unor acte normative controversate pe care guvernul a vrut să le adopte cu o grabă suspectă și a unor demonstrații de stradă generate de această situație.
               

                  Din păcate, nemulțumirea legitimă a cetățenilor a fost deturnată politic. După abrogarea respectivei ordonanțe, demonstrațiile de stradă continuă exact în sensul indicat explicit de Președintele României.
               

                  Subliniez că, în conformitate cu Constituția României, președintele trebuie să fie un mediator. La numai două luni de la alegerile parlamentare libere și corecte, prelungirea demonstrațiilor, dincolo de atingerea scopului inițial, este un risc la adresa democrației. Practic, s-a creat precedentul ca orice minoritate activă și vocală în stradă să poată să blocheze nu doar o măsură a unei instituții ci întreaga instituție. S-a trecut de la incriminarea unei fapte la incriminarea unei alegeri politice.
               

                  Este îngrijorător faptul că demonstrațiile de la București sunt prezentate pe larg pe multe canale media europene ca fiind un exemplu pe care România îl dă țărilor europene. Ceea ce nu se reține în media occidentală este discursul urii în stradă, dincolo de conținutul corect politic al bannerelor scrise în engleză, scandările democraților incită la violență fizică asupra unor persoane sau asupra simpatizantului unei platforme politice.
               

László Tőkés (PPE). – Elnök Asszony, az erdélyi magyarok együtt éreznek és együtt tartanak a korrupció, illetve a korrupciót legalizálni akaró román kormány ellen tüntető polgártársaikkal. Éppen ezért megdöbbenéssel vettük tudomásul, hogy vezető kormánypolitikusok – Vlagyimir Putyin és Orbán Viktor legutóbbi találkozása kapcsán – ‘külső beavatkozást’ és ‘magyar revizionizmust’ emlegetnek a több százezres demonstrációk hátterében. A Román Tudományos Akadémia közel száz tagjának felhívása egyenesen a székely-magyar területi autonómiától akarja megvédeni az ország identitását, szuverenitását és nemzeti egységét. A románok és az erdélyi magyarok 1989-ben is együtt harcoltak a kommunista diktatúra ellen. Huszonhét év után szintén együtt lépünk fel a korrupt posztkommunista rezsimmel szemben. Tiltakozunk a hazug nacionalista propaganda ellen, mely a nem létező magyarveszéllyel próbálja megtéveszteni a többségi románságot. Nem a magyaroktól és nem az autonómiától, hanem a korrupciótól kell megvédeni Romániát!
               

Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Madam President, I have already raised a couple of times here the issue of the clients of IronFX – a Cyprus based foreign-exchange company that continuously swallows small investors' deposits by simply denying their withdrawal requests. The crime has been going on for two years already and still there is no sign of any intervention, either by the Cypriot authorities or by those of the European Union. It is a shame, but the EU is merely deaf and silent.
However, it is not only certain financial companies that swallow people's money in Europe – the Hungarian Government also behaves as a kind of black hole in terms of European development aid to Hungary. Practically all these amounts are diverted into the pockets of proxies or family members, leaving little space, if any, for transparency. No wonder then that media are asserting more frequently that Orbán and his team may also be subject to Russian bribery. Indeed, the Hungarian Prime Minister shamelessly acts in the interests of Mr Putin and against European achievements.
The EU, and especially the Commission, cannot be blind or silent any longer.

Marek Jurek (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Komisarz ds. sprawiedliwości Vera Jourová opowiedziała się za zastosowaniem wobec Polski sankcji budżetowych, jeżeli nasz kraj nie zaakceptuje prokuratury europejskiej. Apeluję do przewodniczącego Komisji Europejskiej o jednoznaczne zdystansowanie się do tych słów i o zwrócenie się do pani Very Jourovej – na podstawie art. 17 Traktatu o Unii Europejskiej – o rezygnację z miejsca w Komisji Europejskiej. Deklaracja pani komisarz to bardzo manifestacyjny przejaw tendencji do forsowania imperialnej władzy instytucji Unii Europejskiej w stosunku do państw Europy, wbrew ich prawu, wbrew naszemu wspólnemu traktatowemu prawu i wbrew woli narodów.
               

                  Wysoka Izbo! Ta tendencja zresztą w swych konsekwencjach godzi nie tylko w mój kraj i w poszczególne kraje Unii Europejskiej, ale godzi w samą współpracę europejską i w samą Unię, dlatego że takie działania pogłębiają jedynie chaos i kryzys na naszym kontynencie.
               

Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Madam President, last week the Irish Prime Minister met the Polish Prime Minister and on the agenda was the push by Ireland for special status in the Brexit negotiations. The Polish Prime Minister was non-committal and said it was one of many questions that needed to be addressed, and yes, it is – but it is a very crucial question.
Ireland does not look for special status because we are Ireland, but because there are special circumstances, very special circumstances. Our exports to the UK are about 17% of our total exports, much higher than any other Member State, and 41% of those exports are in the agri-food sector, leaving it open to catastrophic impacts in the event of a hard Brexit. Our land border stretches 499 kilometres from west to east. We have strong cultural, social, economic ties with Northern Ireland, and our peace process is underpinned by cross-border cooperation in all sectors. A hard border would bring about huge dislocation in all these areas. Our job as MEPs is to ensure this reality is heard and taken on board by our partners.

João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, a última emissão de dívida portuguesa a dez anos foi feita a taxas de juro superiores a 4 %. Voltaram as ameaças do Eurogrupo. Está demonstrada a impossibilidade de defender os interesses de Portugal sem enfrentar a questão da dívida e do euro.
               

                  É ilusório esperar que o cumprimento do défice ou a subordinação ao fardo da dívida resulte nalgum tipo de misericórdia por parte dos mercados e dos seus representantes políticos. Se excluirmos os juros da dívida, Portugal dispõe de um saldo orçamental primário superior a 4 mil milhões de euros.
               

                  Desprovida de soberania monetária, a periferia do euro está totalmente dependente das opções do BCE, que não controla, ou da chantagem das agências de notação. Por outras palavras, o euro entalou a periferia entre a chantagem da troica e a chantagem dos mercados financeiros.
               

                  E a solução não passa por ceder a nenhuma delas, passa pela recuperação da soberania monetária e pela saída do euro dos Estados-Membros que considerem a sua permanência insustentável, assim como pela renegociação da dívida, dos prazos, juros e montantes, de preferência no quadro negociado no plano europeu.
               

Gilles Lebreton (ENF). – Madame la Présidente, l'Union européenne n'a pas de politique commerciale cohérente face à la Chine.
               

                  Le 27 janvier, la Commission a décidé, sous la pression du Front national, de soumettre l'importation de l'acier chinois à une surtaxe de plus de 30 %. Cette mesure de rétorsion vise à sauver ce qui reste de la sidérurgie européenne. C'est, hélas, trop tard pour Florange, dont les hauts-fourneaux ont été arrêtés à cause du dumping chinois que le dogme ultralibéral de Bruxelles a laissé prospérer. Ce dogme, la Commission n'y a d'ailleurs nullement renoncé, car elle vient d'annoncer la fin des surtaxes à l'importation des panneaux solaires chinois. Cela correspond à la volonté de Mme Merkel de développer le libre-échange avec la Chine.
               

                  L'Union ne cherche, en définitive, qu'à tromper les peuples européens. Elle ne taxe l'acier chinois que pour mieux détourner leur attention de la capitulation qu'elle s'apprête à signer dans tous les autres domaines.
               

Romana Tomc (PPE). – Bolj kot kdaj koli prej po šestdesetih letih evropske integracije potrebujemo odločitev o trdni Evropi. Sprva se moramo zediniti o tem, kaj sploh želimo, ali bomo zagovarjali močno Evropo, Evropo, ki je zgrajena na evropskih vrednotah.
               

                  Ker se zavedamo, da je zdravo gospodarstvo ključnega pomena za vzdrževanje evropskega socialnega modela in kjer velja, da gredo pravice z roko v roki tudi z odgovornostjo.
               

                  Jutri bomo razpravljali o prihodnosti Evropske unije. Naj ob tem povem, da so eminentni slovenski pravniki podali nov osnutek evropske ustave, ki temelji na prepričanju, da je Evropska unija lahko zgolj uravnotežena unija nacionalnih držav, njihovih civilnih družb in tržnih gospodarstev ob medsebojnem spoštovanju. Veseli me, da je pobuda prišla iz moje države Slovenije, ki je ena izmed najmanjših članic. Morda vse predlagane rešitve ne bodo sprejemljive za vse, vendar, kolegi in kolegice, vabim vas k branju.
               

Julie Ward (S&D). – Madam President, last week's vote on the Article 50 bill in the UK paved the way for a dangerous hard Tory Brexit. At this point in history, we have a responsibility to speak truth to power and take a moral stand. Contrary to Mrs May's dangerous and dogmatic spin, Brexit will not be a success for ordinary people and its consequences will be profound and far-reaching, affecting our global geopolitical position, as well as local communities. I recently visited Calderwood House hostel for the homeless in Cumbria and met men and women, including ex-military personnel, whose lives are being transformed thanks in part to European funding which kick-started this social enterprise. An ERDF business development grant of GBP 1 000 has resulted in entrepreneur Rachel Holliday raising more than half a million pounds to renovate a disused building and establish a coffee retail service run by the hostel residents. This is not charity but the homeless helping themselves, and in doing so, lessening the burden on the state. Without EU funding will we have this kind of enterprise in the future?

Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – Señora presidenta, comisaria, el Consejo de Seguridad Nuclear de España ha aprobado un informe favorable a la reapertura de la central nuclear más antigua y pequeña de dicho Estado, la de Santa María de Garoña. El informe reconoce que la central no ha implementado las mejoras de seguridad obligatorias tras la catástrofe de Fukushima. Tampoco se han cumplido las obligaciones que sobre transparencia establece la Directiva sobre seguridad nuclear, como denunció aquí el presidente de la Diputación de Álava, lo que compromete gravemente la seguridad de la ciudadanía que vive en el área de influencia ante un posible accidente.
               

                  La Comisión no ha recibido tampoco los planes de inversión que afectan a la planta, lo que incumple de pleno el Tratado de Euratom. No se pueden acumular más incumplimientos ni más razones para la desconfianza frente a una planta que, por su capacidad y condiciones, no es necesaria para garantizar el abastecimiento eléctrico. La Unión Europea tiene obligaciones y argumentos para unirse a las instituciones y a la ciudadanía en su ‘no’ rotundo frente a esta incomprensible decisión.
               

Luke Ming Flanagan (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, conventional wisdom has it that when there is a breakdown of law and order it is due to external forces. In Ireland, at the moment, law and order is in crisis but it is a crisis that comes from within. The country is convulsed and repulsed at the treatment of a police officer, a whistle-blower, Sergeant Maurice McCabe, an incredibly courageous individual who for his courage has been demonised in the most vile terms by some of the most senior echelons of the force, with a former press officer stating that he was instructed to spread lies and innuendo about Sergeant McCabe.
Then there is the Jobstown scandal. Deliberately and provocatively a government minister visited an area her government policies had helped to devastate. Her car was blocked by a sit-down protest but only her car. When she decided to leave, she did so unmolested and unharmed. As a result of this 19 people were arrested, a 15-year-old boy already found guilty and a former MEP up in court shortly, Paul Murphy. I stand with Paul Murphy and the other Jobstown protesters. So should every person in this House who believes in fairness.

José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Caros Colegas, confrontei várias vezes esta Casa, a Comissão Europeia e o Governo de Portugal com os riscos diários que representa para Portugal a central nuclear de Almaraz, a poucos quilómetros de Portugal e do rio Tejo. Almaraz é uma central obsoleta, uma autêntica bomba-relógio que deveria ter fechado em 2010, mas que viu a sua vida prolongada até 2020. Os portugueses, há 40 anos, em Ferrel, opuseram-se maciçamente à construção de uma central nuclear no seu território, bem como aos projetos nucleares que Espanha tem vindo a executar em cima do nosso território, em violação das obrigações internacionais a que está vinculada.
               

                  O licenciamento do armazém temporário em Almaraz, pela sua enorme capacidade de armazenamento, demonstra bem a intenção camuflada de Espanha de recolher não só os resíduos de Almaraz, depois de 2018, como os das outras seis centrais nucleares espanholas. Demonstra ainda a vontade de prolongar o funcionamento de Almaraz até aos sessenta anos de vida, tal como aconteceu na semana passada com a decisão de reabrir a central nuclear de Garoña, que cumpre os sessenta anos de existência.
               

                  Caros Colegas, não podemos permitir que os portugueses continuem a viver em permanente sobressalto. Portugal não pode tornar-se a lixeira nuclear de Espanha.
               

Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D). – Doamnă președinte, stimați colegi, biodiversitatea, rezultat al miliarde de ani de evoluție modelată din ce în ce mai mult nu prin procese naturale, ci prin acțiuni antropice, este subiectul multor dezbateri și conferințe, legiferări, discursuri și opere scrise.
               

                  Despre efectele antropicului asupra sistemelor naturale, respectiv despre degradarea lentă a sistemelor ecologice amenințate chiar cu dispariția, se cunosc destul de multe argumente, motivații economice, etice, științifice, estetice, abordări și posibile soluții, combaterea secetelor și a inundațiilor, protejarea speciilor, reciclarea, stabilizarea climei etc.
               

                  Însă unul dintre conceptele biodiversității se referă la diversitatea etnoculturală a sistemelor socioeconomice, diversitate confruntată în prezent cu o presiune tot mai mare sub impactul acțiunii antropice, ceea ce le face să funcționeze din ce în ce mai ineficient, cauzele principale fiind incapacitatea populației de a aprecia consecințele pe termen lung ale activităților antropice, incapacitatea piețelor de a recunoaște valoarea capitalului uman, a factorilor de decizie de a utiliza competențele capitalului uman și altele, efectele fiind vizibile în plan fizic și virtual însă cu consecințe profunde pentru existența lumii materiale și bunăstarea oamenilor.
               

Maria Lidia Senra Rodríguez (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, quero trazer hoje aqui a situação das mariscadoras e dos mariscadores das rias galegas que veem como os acontecimentos frequentes das áreas onde trabalham – a mortandade dos mariscos, a causa da contaminação das águas e das lamas acumuladas – ameaçam os seus empregos. As fontes de poluição são diversas: a empresa de celulose de Pontevedra, a mina de San Finx em Lousame, mas também o mau funcionamento das depuradoras das águas residuais ou que não se realizem os projetos de limpeza e saneamento necessários. As rias dos burgos de Ferrol, Noya ou Pontevedra são só alguns exemplos.
               

                  Chamamos a atenção da Comissão Europeia para que obriguem as autoridades galegas e as do Estado espanhol a porem em marcha todas as medidas que forem precisas para atalhar esta situação e a efetuarem, de uma vez por todas, o saneamento e a racionalização da rias galegas e para que as águas residuais urbanas sejam devidamente recolhidas e tratadas.
               

                  A penalização económica não serve, é o povo que paga. Obriguem a fazer o saneamento.
               

Franc Bogovič (PPE). – Laži in polresnice so tiste fake news, ki se jih vedno bolj prodaja kot trdne argumente. Postajamo družba, ki ne želi slišati podatkov, številk. Na enak način delujejo tudi nasprotniki prostotrgovinskega sporazuma med Evropsko unijo in Kanado. Zato naj ponovim nekaj resnic o CETI.
               

                  CETA ohranja visoke evropske standarde na področju varne hrane. CETA ne dovoljuje uporabe rasnih hormonov in antibiotikov v živinoreji. Uvoz govejega in svinjskega mesa je količinsko omejen s kvotami. CETA ne vpliva na setev gensko spremenjenih organizmov. CETA bo pomagala predvsem evropskim malim in srednje velikim podjetjem. Velika večina carinskih dajatev bo ukinjena. Mala in srednje velika podjetja bodo bistveno bolj zaščitena v mednarodnih investicijskih sporih.
               

                  Tudi v Sloveniji, od koder prihajam: na Brniku ima kanadski Bombardier letalski servisni center. Kanadska Magna načrtuje veliko investicijo v Sloveniji. CETA bo tudi v Sloveniji zagotovila nova delovna mesta.
               

Iuliu Winkler (PPE). – Elnök Asszony, az emberi méltóság tisztelete a demokratikus jogállamok egyik alapelve, amelytől nem szabad eltekinteni. Annál fontosabb ez a parancsolat, amikor az idősekre gondolunk, különösen azokra, akik ápolásra, gondozásra szorulnak. Az idősek otthoni ápolásában Európa-szerte erre szakosodott civil szervezetek segítenek. Tevékenységük kiszámítható, tervezhető állami támogatásban részesül. Érthetetlen és önkényes döntés tanúi lehettünk a napokban Romániában, ahol a Munkaügyi Minisztérium rajtaütésszerűen, magyarázat és előzetes bejelentés nélkül felére csökkentette a szociális szolgáltatásokat nyújtó civil szervezetek támogatását. Több mint hatezer személy veszítheti el a szociális ellátását, mivel az őket gondozó szervezetek támogatását megszüntették. Mintha megfordult volna az idő kereke, 27 évvel veti vissza a múltba országunkat ez a döntés. A kormánynak azonnal ki kell javítania ezt a súlyos tévedést.
               

Krisztina Morvai (NI). – Elnök Asszony, kedves képviselőtársaim, arra kérem Önöket, hogy képzeljék el a következő helyzetet: Önök megszületnek valahol a szülőföldjükön, valahol Európában, egy országban. Az édesanyjuk és az édesapjuk, a nagyszüleik megtanítják Önöket egy anyanyelvre. Ott élnek azon a földön, ahol a szüleik, a nagyszüleik, a dédszüleik, a felmenőik mindig is éltek. És egyik napról a másikra ez egy másik ország lesz, egy másik nyelvvel. Ez történt például a kárpátaljai magyarokkal, akik jelenleg kb. kétszázezren vannak, és mit ad Isten, ahogy közeledik Ukrajna az Európai Unióhoz, úgy távolodik a normális emberi jogi értékrendtől, már ami az őshonos nemzeti közösségeket illeti. Most akarnak bevezetni egy olyan nyelvtörvényt, amivel gyakorlatilag megtiltják az anyanyelvhasználatot az őshonos nemzeti közösségeknek, az Önök nyelvén nemzeti kisebbségeknek. Arra kérem, hogy nagyon határozottan lépjenek fel ez ellen a nyelvtörvény ellen, mert ez nem egyeztethető össze az európai uniós normákkal.
               

Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Paní předsedající, měli bychom si uvědomit, že Evropská unie čelí velmi vážné situaci. Ukazuje se, že prezident Trump je novým fenoménem, který neposkytuje jistého, předvídatelného partnera.
               

                  Odchod Velké Británie je jasným oslabením Evropské unie. Nepodceňujme příklad Velké Británie, který posílil hlas populistů ve všech zemích Evropské unie. Občané se mě ptají, jaká je naše reakce, jak odpovíme na tyto výzvy. Pro nás by to měla být výzva k tomu, abychom si uvědomili smysl Evropské unie, to, že chceme-li být silní, musíme řešit skutečné, zásadní problémy, které jednotlivé země na své úrovni řešit nemohou. Problémy, které pálí naše občany, jako je bezpečnost, ekonomický růst a kvalita životního prostředí. V tomto týdnu budeme o nich hlasovat. Je to směrnice o boji proti terorismu, obchodní dohoda s Kanadou, nařízení o posílení kontroly vnějších hranic, reforma obchodu s povolenkami. Podle mého názoru je to velmi jasná odpověď na obavy našich občanů a my bychom jim to měli sdělovat.
               

Deirdre Clune (PPE). – Madam President, 2016 has been a destructive year and there are more challenges ahead for us in 2017. For those of us who are committed to the European project, these disruptions or challenges should and can provide the opportunity to engage more with other nations and with other economies and to pursue with ambition the completion of EU-negotiated trade agreements. Free trade does not mean a diminution of the EU standards that have been built up over so many years, protecting welfare, health and safety, social rights and entitlements, consumer rights, the right to do business, the right to trade and the need to protect and enhance our environment. Rather, they can be an enhancer, an enabler and a bridge builder. If the EU is to meet the expectations of its citizens it must make full use of the enormous market potential that is there outside its borders and, in so doing, help to shape and influence global standards, standards that we take so much for granted here and yet that have needed such hard work to develop over so many years, standards that will benefit consumers and businesses who will benefit from trade deals, but also encourage dialogue between people and citizens. Bridge building, not building walls, is where we should be now and it is time for Europe to step up to the plate in this area.

President. – With apologies and thanking you for your understanding, Mr Negrescu, you have the floor.

Victor Negrescu (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, la jumătatea mandatului de europarlamentar mă bucur să transmit un nou mesaj tuturor celor din Transilvania și Banat care au avut încredere în mine.
               

                  Sper că am demonstrat cât de mândru sunt să fie unul dintre românii care reprezintă această frumoasă zonă. Am luat cuvântul de nenumărate ori în Parlamentul European pentru a vorbi despre România și zona noastră, am sprijinit dezvoltarea unei forme de reprezentare a intereselor locale în capitala europeană, am contribuit la numeroase acțiuni de promovare, printre care cel mai mare festival al românilor din Belgia.
               

                  Toate aceste inițiative s-au axat pe importanța zonei noastre și, în mod special, a județului meu de suflet, a județului Alba. Dar cel mai important pentru mine a fost să aduc din spiritul nostru combativ aici în Parlamentul European, să lupt pentru apărarea intereselor noastre și să cer un tratament egal pentru toți cetățenii europeni.
               

                  Pe viitor voi organiza la Parlament European o serie de conferințe și expoziții pentru promovarea României, voi căuta ca centenarul Unirii să devină un prilej de creștere a profilului țării noastre și a municipiul Alba Iulia la nivel european și, mai ales, mă voi asigura că banii europeni, fondurile din proiectele pilot să ajungă la beneficiari din Transilvania și Banat.
               

President. – That concludes the item.
20.   Agenda of the next sitting

President. – The sitting tomorrow, Tuesday, 14 February — a very special day, which you will all note – begins at 9.00 in the morning. The agenda has been published and is available on the European Parliament website.
21.   Closure of the sitting

(The sitting closed at 22.45)



ELI: 
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)